We are going to stand there.

This article applies one standard to both parties. The standard is international law — the Geneva Conventions, the laws of war, the prohibitions that every state on earth has signed up to and that some have decided do not apply to them. Where Hamas violated that law, we will say so. Where Israel violated that law, we will say so. We will not pretend the two are equivalent in scale, because they are not. We will not pretend that recognising the difference in scale absolves either party of the violations they have actually committed, because it does not. Both can be true.

We will name what happened on 7 October 2023, plainly. We will name what has happened in Gaza since, plainly. We will draw the conclusions the evidence supports, and we will refuse to draw conclusions the evidence does not. The case against Hamas is in this article. The case against Israel is in this article. They are not in separate parts. They are not in separate paragraphs. They sit alongside each other because that is how the truth sits.

This is the first of three articles. Part I covers the conduct — what happened on 7 October, what has happened since, and what the law says about both. Part II covers the long causes — why 7 October happened at all, and what each side has said about why. Part III covers the verdict and the settlement — what international law has now concluded, and what an honest resolution would actually require.

We begin with the preparation, because 7 October did not come from nowhere.

The Preparation

Hamas planned the attack of 7 October for years. The tunnel network under Gaza had been expanded continuously since the 2014 war, with the militant wing — the al-Qassam Brigades — using the closure of the Strip as both grievance and cover. Fighters trained openly. Mock raids on replica Israeli settlements were filmed and posted online. The Israeli military watched these videos. The Egyptian intelligence services watched them. The Israeli intelligence services watched them. None of this was hidden.¹

The 2018 Great March of Return is part of this story. For more than a year, beginning in March 2018, Palestinians in Gaza walked to the perimeter fence each Friday in protests the organisers framed as non-violent. They asked for the right of return for refugees and the lifting of the blockade. Some of the protesters threw stones. A small number threw incendiary kites and balloons that started fires in Israeli fields. The Israeli military response was to deploy snipers along the fence with orders to fire on demonstrators who came too close. Over the course of the marches, Israeli forces killed more than 220 Palestinians, including more than 40 children, and wounded over 36,000, many of them through deliberate shots to the lower limbs. A UN Commission of Inquiry found that the snipers had targeted clearly identifiable journalists, medics, and children, and that the killings may have constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity.²

That was the Israeli answer to non-violent protest. It is part of the context in which 7 October happened. It does not justify what came on 7 October. It does explain why the political space for non-violent resistance had collapsed inside Gaza by the time Hamas began the final stages of its planning.

The regional dimension is real. Iran has funded Hamas, trained its operatives, and supplied weapons and components for the rockets the group has fired into Israel for two decades. Hezbollah has provided training and coordination. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hamas’s external leadership have maintained an operational relationship that Israeli, American, and even some Iranian sources have acknowledged. What is contested is the question of operational command. Iran has claimed credit for inspiring 7 October. It has not credibly claimed to have ordered it. The US intelligence community concluded in the months after the attack that Iran was surprised by the timing, even if it had supported the capacity that made the attack possible. Hamas planned it. Hamas executed it. Hamas owns it. The regional backing is real, but it does not transfer the moral weight of what happened from the people who pulled the triggers to the people who funded the training.³

The other backer of Hamas’s capacity, less often named, was the Israeli government itself. For more than a decade, the Netanyahu governments allowed Qatari cash — eventually running to roughly thirty million dollars a month — to flow into Gaza in suitcases, crossing into the Strip through Israeli checkpoints with Israeli approval. The money paid Hamas salaries, propped up the Hamas administration, and kept the movement solvent through the years it was preparing for 7 October. Netanyahu’s reasoning was not hidden. In a Likud faction meeting in March 2019, he told colleagues that anyone who wanted to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state should support strengthening Hamas and transferring money to it, because keeping Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah would split Palestinian politics and prevent a unified push for statehood. Israeli journalists reported the meeting at the time. The strategy worked, in its own terms, for years. It is the same strategy that built the capacity that crossed the fence on 7 October. We will return to this in Part II, where it belongs in a deeper treatment. It belongs here too, because no honest accounting of how Hamas got the strength to do what it did on 7 October can name Iran as a backer and stay silent about Israel.⁴

The years from 2007 to 2023 inside Gaza are the floor on which 7 October was built. Israel and Egypt have closed the Strip’s borders since Hamas took power in 2007. The closure was justified as a response to Hamas rocket fire and to Hamas’s refusal to recognise Israel. The effect on the population — more than two million people, the majority of them refugees or their descendants from the villages destroyed in 1948 — was a 16-year siege. Unemployment ran above 45 percent. The water supply collapsed; the UN warned by 2017 that Gaza would be uninhabitable by 2020, and it was overtaken by events. The Israeli military fought four declared wars in Gaza in those years — 2008–09, 2012, 2014, and 2021 — each one killing hundreds or thousands of Palestinians, destroying infrastructure that took years to rebuild, and producing what the Israeli political and military establishment publicly called “mowing the grass.”

The phrase is theirs, not ours. We will return to it in Part II. It is what Israeli generals and ministers used to describe the periodic destruction of Hamas’s military capacity, on the explicit understanding that the underlying conditions would regrow it. It was a doctrine that accepted permanent war with a captive population as the normal operating state. It is not a moral framework. It was treated, inside the Israeli security establishment, as a practical one.

By 2023, the men and women of the Qassam Brigades who would lead the 7 October assault had grown up entirely inside that system. The fighters who breached the fence had never lived a year outside the closure. They were not born when the second intifada began. The grievances they carried were not abstractions taught from textbooks — they were the conditions they had been raised inside. None of that licenses what they did to civilians on 7 October. All of it is part of the record.

The Attack

At 6:29 on the morning of Saturday 7 October 2023, the al-Qassam Brigades fired a barrage of several thousand rockets into southern and central Israel. The rocket fire was a cover. Within minutes, around 6,000 attackers — including roughly 3,800 fighters from the elite Nukhba units of the al-Qassam Brigades, alongside Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives and other militants — breached the Gaza perimeter fence at 114 separate locations. They came through on foot, on motorcycles, in pickup trucks, and in some places on paragliders. The fence had been built to stop them and it did not. The Israeli forces stationed along it had been reduced over the previous year as units were redeployed to the West Bank to protect settlers, and many of the soldiers who remained were caught asleep in their barracks.⁵

What followed lasted, in its most intense phase, about ten hours. By the time the Israeli military regained control of the breached communities, around 1,200 people in Israel were dead and 251 had been taken into Gaza as hostages. Those are the figures Israel has held to consistently and the figures the UN has accepted; the earlier figure of 1,400 was revised downward after Israeli officials confirmed that a number of the dead initially counted as victims were in fact attackers.⁶

A second figure runs underneath the 1,200, and any honest accounting has to name it. The Israeli military activated the Hannibal Directive on 7 October — an Israeli military protocol designed to prevent the capture of soldiers, by killing them if necessary along with their captors. Haaretz documented over the course of 2023 and 2024, through soldier and officer testimony and through official documents, that the directive was applied at multiple locations on the day, including at the Nova festival, at the Re’im base, at the Nahal Oz base, at the Erez crossing, and inside the kibbutzim themselves. Israeli helicopter and tank fire killed an unknown number of Israelis — soldiers and civilians, including hostages — in the course of trying to stop Hamas fighters from returning to Gaza. The Israeli officer who ordered a tank to fire on a house in Be’eri where 14 Israeli hostages were held, 13 of whom would die, told the New York Times he gave the order “even at the cost of civilian casualties.” The Hannibal Directive as applied to one’s own civilians has no defensible basis under international humanitarian law — the deliberate killing of one’s own protected persons, or the failure to take feasible precautions to protect them, is itself a serious violation. We will return to the Hannibal question in detail later in this article. We name it here because the 1,200 figure cannot be cleanly assigned to Hamas, and pretending it can be is the kind of distortion this article exists to refuse.⁷

The dead included Israelis, foreign workers from Thailand and Nepal and the Philippines, Bedouin Israelis, and Palestinian citizens of Israel. They were killed in three main locations.

At the Nova music festival near Re’im, where roughly 3,500 young people had been dancing through the night, the attackers arrived around 6:30 a.m. and spent the next several hours hunting people through the open fields. Some of the festivalgoers were shot as they tried to run. Some were burned alive in the cars they had hidden in. Some were captured and taken back across the fence. At least 364 people were killed at the Nova site. It is the single largest civilian death toll of the day. The killing at Nova is not contested. There is video. There is testimony. There are the bodies.⁸

In the kibbutzim and small towns of the Gaza envelope — Be’eri, Kfar Aza, Nir Oz, Holit, Sderot, Ofakim, and others — the attackers went house to house. They killed elderly people in their kitchens. They killed children in their bedrooms. They killed parents in front of their children and children in front of their parents. They took families hostage and walked them back across the fence on foot. In Be’eri, roughly one in ten of the kibbutz’s residents was killed. In Kfar Aza, the figure was higher. In Nir Oz, around a quarter of the population was killed or taken. These killings are documented in Israeli police investigations, in the testimony of survivors, in the bodycam footage Hamas fighters themselves recorded and uploaded, and in the forensic work that continues to this day. They happened. They were war crimes under any reading of the laws of war, because the people killed were civilians and the people who killed them knew they were civilians.⁹

What the attackers did beyond killing them is also part of the record. At the Nova festival, fighters set fire to vehicles in which festivalgoers had hidden, burning some of them alive. At the kibbutzim, fighters set fire to homes whose residents had taken shelter in safe rooms and bathrooms; in Be’eri and Kfar Aza in particular, the fires were used to drive families out of hiding or to kill them where they hid. Survivors who escaped have testified to having heard family members in adjacent rooms calling out as the fires reached them. Israeli forensic teams, ZAKA volunteers, and Israeli police investigators have documented the pattern of burning across multiple sites. The deliberate burning of civilians is a war crime under any reading of the law.

Some of those captured at the scene were treated with cruelty before being killed or before being taken into Gaza. There are documented cases of summary executions of captured civilians and of physical abuse of those taken alive. The form and extent of sexual violence on 7 October itself has not been independently established, because the Israeli government refused the full UN investigation that could have established it; but the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Pramila Patten, concluded after her fact-finding visit that there are reasonable grounds to believe sexual violence including rape and gang rape occurred at multiple locations on the day. The Patten finding is the most reliable statement that has been allowed to be made. The Israeli government’s manufactured framing of the violence — discussed in the next section — has obscured rather than illuminated the actual record, which is bad enough on the established facts.

Indiscriminate rocket fire on Israeli civilian areas accompanied the breach and continued through the day. The fire was directed at Israeli civilian population centres, not at military targets, and it would have killed many more Israelis than it did had the Iron Dome system not intercepted most of it. Indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas are a violation of the principle of distinction regardless of how many of the projectiles strike their targets. The legal status of Hamas’s rocket fire on Israeli cities is not contested by any serious authority.

At the military bases — Re’im, Nahal Oz, Zikim, and others — the attackers engaged Israeli soldiers. Some of those soldiers were captured. Some were killed in fighting. Combatants fighting other combatants is not, in itself, a war crime; what each side did to the prisoners they took, and to the wounded they encountered, is a separate question that the law answers separately, and we will return to it.

The hostages taken into Gaza included soldiers and civilians. They included an infant — Kfir Bibas, nine months old — his four-year-old brother Ariel, their mother Shiri, children of every age, young adults, parents, and elderly people, including 85-year-old Yocheved Lifshitz and 83-year-old Oded Lifshitz. They included foreign nationals.¹⁰ The taking of any civilian hostage in armed conflict is a war crime under Article 34 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and under the customary international law that has applied to every armed group on earth since 1949. The plain text of the Convention does not require a complicated reading. Civilians cannot be taken. Hamas took them anyway. That is the violation, and the article will name it as a violation whenever it arises.¹¹

The numbers matter, and so does the precision. The killing of 1,200 people in a single day in a country of nine million was the worst single-day loss of Israeli life since the founding of the state. The killing of roughly 815 of those people who were civilians was the worst single-day loss of Jewish civilian life since the Holocaust. The taking of 251 hostages was the largest hostage-taking in modern history. None of these statements is propaganda. They are the figures, and they are what the law calls a serious matter under the Geneva Conventions, regardless of any cause the perpetrators believed they were serving.

The cause does not absolve the conduct. That is the first half of the standard this article applies, and we apply it without softening. A people under occupation has the right under international law to resist that occupation, including by armed force directed at the occupying military. A people under occupation does not have the right under any law on earth to massacre civilians at a music festival or to murder children in their bedrooms. The first proposition does not require the second. The second is not a method of resistance; it is a method of terror, and the law names it as such.

We will say the same thing about the response, when we come to it. The standard does not change.

Share

The Propaganda War That Followed

The first casualty in any war is truth. The second is anyone who tries to tell the truth before either side has finished assembling its story. We are going to do that work here, because the version of 7 October that has dominated Western media for two years is not the version that survives contact with the evidence. It also is not the version of 7 October that those who deny anything terrible happened on 7 October are pushing. Both versions are wrong. The truth sits between them, and the truth is bad enough on its own.

Within forty-eight hours of the attack, a claim began to circulate on Israeli social media and in the Israeli press that Hamas fighters had beheaded forty babies at Kibbutz Kfar Aza. The claim originated with an i24 News reporter, Nicole Zedeck, broadcasting from inside the kibbutz on 10 October, citing unnamed Israeli soldiers. A volunteer from the Israeli search-and-rescue organisation ZAKA, Yossi Landau, separately told CBS News that he had seen beheaded babies and children. The claim was repeated within hours by an Israeli army colonel on camera. It was picked up by the international press. It was repeated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a statement that day. It was repeated by President Joe Biden during a meeting with Jewish American leaders, who falsely claimed he had seen the photographs. The White House later clarified that the President had not seen any photographs, and had been referring to news reports. The forty figure had no source any reporter could trace back to a verified incident. The Israeli military, asked directly, could not confirm it. By December 2023, Haaretz had published a full investigation by Nir Hasson and Liza Rozovsky tracing how the story had spread, naming the people who had repeated it without checking, and concluding plainly: “this story is false.”¹²

That does not mean nothing terrible happened to children at Kfar Aza or anywhere else. It means the specific claim — forty beheaded babies, lined up, as a deliberate act — was untrue. There were children among the dead at the kibbutzim. A small number of bodies showed severe injuries consistent with what ZAKA volunteers described, though the exact circumstances were not established. The independent UN Commission of Inquiry investigated the beheaded-children claim and could not verify it. The distinction matters, and it matters specifically because the false version was used to justify what came next. It was repeated by an American president to a national audience. It was repeated by the Israeli prime minister to justify the scale of the response. It was the emotional lever that opened the door to the bombing of Gaza, and it was not true.

The mass rape claim followed a similar arc. From mid-October 2023 onward, Israeli officials and Israeli-aligned advocacy groups described 7 October as a coordinated, systematic campaign of sexual violence — rape as a deliberate weapon of war, executed under command, planned in advance. In December 2023 the New York Times published a long investigation under the headline “Screams Without Words” that became the foundational piece of Western media reporting on the question. The piece was later subjected to internal New York Times dispute, an Intercept investigation, criticism from journalism faculty, and the public withdrawal of one of its central reported cases by the family of the named victim after they said the reporters had misrepresented what happened to her. The Times stood by the erroneous piece. The doubts did not go away.¹³

In March 2024 the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Pramila Patten, published the findings of a fact-finding mission to Israel. Her report is the most careful document on the question and it has been claimed by both sides as vindication. Both sides are wrong. Patten found "reasonable grounds to believe" that sexual violence, including rape and gang rape, occurred at multiple locations on 7 October, including in at least three places in southern Israel. She found "clear and convincing information" that hostages held in Gaza were subjected to sexual violence in captivity. She also said no survivors of sexual violence had come forward to her team; that her team had not investigated attribution to specific perpetrators, noting that Islamic Jihad and other armed groups, as well as Gazan civilians, participated in the attack alongside Hamas; and that the Israeli government's framing of a systematic, coordinated, command-directed rape campaign was not supported by the evidence she had been able to gather. Sexual violence happened on 7 October. It happened to hostages in captivity. Patten's report stands as the most reliable statement of that fact. The Israeli framing of what kind of sexual violence happened — coordinated, systematic, ordered from above — is not what the UN found, and the difference matters because the framing was used to support the same broader claim that justified everything that followed.¹⁴

What Patten did not do, the world has not been allowed to do either. The Patten mission was a fact-finding visit, not a full investigation, and her report explicitly recommended that the Israeli government grant access to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory to conduct the full investigation she could not. The Israeli government refused. In January 2024 the Israeli Foreign Ministry called the Commission of Inquiry “an anti-Israeli and antisemitic body” and instructed Israeli doctors and hospital staff who had treated October 7 victims and released hostages not to cooperate with it. When Patten herself asked, in 2025, to return for a comprehensive investigation, the Israeli government refused that too. The reason it refused, reported by Haaretz, is that any genuine investigation would have required access to Israeli detention facilities to examine allegations of sexual violence committed against Palestinians by Israeli forces — and the Israeli government would not allow that. The same government that demanded the world accept the most lurid version of what happened on 7 October has spent two years preventing the independent investigation that could have established what actually happened. That is not the conduct of a government with nothing to hide. It is the conduct of a government weaponising the genuine sexual violence that did occur on 7 October to immunise itself from accountability for the sexual violence its own forces have committed since. Both are war crimes. Only one is being investigated.¹⁵

A second document arrived this week. The “Silenced No More” report, published on 12 May 2026 by what calls itself the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes by Hamas against Women and Children, is being treated by Western media as the comprehensive evidentiary basis the earlier claims lacked. It is not. The “commission” is the work of one woman, Cochav Elkayam-Levy, who was exposed in March 2024 by Yedioth Ahronoth and Ynet — the largest newspaper in Israel — as having spread debunked atrocity stories that damaged Israel’s own credibility. The story she pushed into the international press of a Hamas fighter cutting a fetus from a pregnant woman before raping her was proven untrue. She circulated a photograph of a dead Kurdish woman fighter from another country and let it be reported as a 7 October victim. Israeli government sources told Ynet that her research was inaccurate and her methodology unreliable, and that professionals had distanced themselves from her. Channel 13’s Raviv Drucker reported in 2024 that the prior “horror report” she had been credited with — the basis on which she received the Israel Prize that year — did not actually exist beyond a four-page document of which two pages were newspaper headlines. The new 290-page report has not been independently audited. None of this means nothing terrible happened to women on 7 October. It does mean that the report now being laundered through CNN, the BBC, the Daily Mail, and other outlets as definitive proof of “systematic” rape was written by the same person who has already been exposed by Israeli mainstream media as having spread proven lies. The Israeli government refuses an independent UN investigation. In its place we are offered a propaganda document by a discredited author, and Western newsrooms are running it without checking the Hebrew-language record of who wrote it.¹⁶

This is not a small problem. The original claims — forty beheaded babies, mass coordinated rape, things even more lurid that circulated and collapsed in between — were used to manufacture consent for what came next. They were repeated by heads of state. They were used to justify the cutting off of food and water and fuel to two million people, and the bombing campaign that followed. By the time the careful investigations caught up, the consent had already been manufactured and the bombs had already fallen. The truth arrived too late. That is what the propaganda war did, and we name it here because the same machinery is still operating.

The story of how Hamas treated the hostages does not fit the framing either. The hostages came home, when they came home, with different accounts. Some described abuse. Some described sexual violence. Some described sustained physical mistreatment. Some described starvation in captivity, particularly as the war ground on and conditions in Gaza collapsed. None of that should be minimised, and the article will not minimise it.

But some hostages also described being treated as the law requires prisoners to be treated. They described medical care. They described being told by their captors, on arrival, that the men holding them believed in the Qur’an and would not harm them. They described being given the same food their captors ate, and being kept in clean conditions. The clearest of these accounts came from 85-year-old Yocheved Lifshitz, a peace activist from Kibbutz Nir Oz, who was released two weeks into her captivity and who held a press conference outside Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv on 24 October 2023, with her daughter translating, in front of the assembled international press. She described being beaten on the way into Gaza. She described going through “hell.” She also described, in detail, being treated with care once she arrived; being seen by a doctor; being given her medications; being kept clean; being told by her captors that they would not hurt her. Asked why she had reached back to shake the hand of one of her captors as she was transferred to the Red Cross, and said “shalom” — the Hebrew word for “peace” — she answered simply: “because they treated us very nicely.”¹⁷

The mixed record includes worse than the worst of the released hostages’ testimony has so far described. On 31 August 2024, Israeli forces searching a tunnel under Rafah found the bodies of six hostages: Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Eden Yerushalmi, Ori Danino, Almog Sarusi, Alexander Lobanov, and Carmel Gat. Israeli pathologists established that all six had been shot at close range within the previous forty-eight hours — that is, after the Israeli search of the area had begun. The Israeli military’s conclusion, supported by US and Israeli intelligence assessment and accepted by the families, is that the six were executed by their captors as Israeli forces closed in on the tunnel. The murder of captives by their captors is a war crime under any reading of the Geneva Conventions. The UN Special Representative also found, separately, “clear and convincing information” that hostages held in Gaza had been subjected to sexual violence in captivity. The released hostage Amit Soussana described in detail, on the record to the New York Times, the sexual assault she experienced during her captivity. Other released hostages have given similar accounts. The sexual violence against captives during captivity is a war crime. It is on the documentary record at a different evidentiary standard than the 7 October sexual violence claims, because the captives themselves have been able to give first-hand testimony after release.

She also turned, in the same press conference, to the Israeli state. The Hamas attackers, she said, had walked through a fence that cost the country two billion shekels. The intelligence services had been warned. The army had not come. She and her neighbours had been, in her word, the scapegoats.

The Israeli press treated the press conference as a disaster. Channel 12’s Daphna Liel called the descriptions “shocking.” Israel Hayom called it a “propaganda win for Hamas.” Kan, the public broadcaster, reported that Israeli PR experts called the decision to put her in front of the cameras a mistake. Lifshitz was not a Hamas propagandist. She was an eighty-five-year-old kibbutznik who had spent her life working to bring injured Palestinians to Israeli hospitals for treatment. Her husband Oded, a journalist of the same age, who had spent decades writing about Israeli expulsions of Bedouin from Sinai, remained in captivity. She would later die without seeing him again; he was murdered in Gaza and his body returned in February 2025. She had no political reason to praise her captors. She told what she had seen, and what she had seen did not match the version the Israeli government was building.¹⁸

The point of this section is not to render Hamas innocent. Hamas committed war crimes on 7 October. Hamas took civilian hostages, including a nine-month-old infant, including children, including people too old or too sick to be moved. The hostage-taking is a war crime full stop. Some of what was done to some of the hostages during their captivity is a war crime. The killing of civilians at the Nova festival and in the kibbutzim is a war crime. We have said all of this and the article continues to stand by it.

The point of this section is that the further claims — the manufactured atrocities, the lurid additions, the framing of the day as something even worse than the war crimes that actually occurred — were political weapons. They were used to justify what came next. They survived in the public consciousness long after they were debunked. They are part of why the response was as unrestrained as it became. The propaganda war is part of the war, and any honest article about 7 October has to say what happened in it.

The Hannibal Directive

The Hannibal Directive is an Israeli military protocol that has existed in some form since 1986. It was created after a series of soldier abductions by Hezbollah and other groups in southern Lebanon, and its premise was that the capture of an Israeli soldier was a strategic catastrophe — both because of what captured soldiers tended to suffer at the hands of those who took them, and because of the political cost Israel paid in the prisoner exchanges that followed. The directive instructed Israeli forces to take any action necessary to prevent the completion of an abduction, even at the risk of the soldier’s life. The intent, never written down in those words but well understood inside the army, was that a dead soldier was preferable to a captured one.¹⁹

The directive was officially rescinded in 2016 after years of criticism, including from Israeli military lawyers and from the families of soldiers who had been killed by their own forces under its application. Israel’s state comptroller had recommended its abolition. The army formally announced that the directive was no longer in effect.

It was applied on 7 October regardless.

Haaretz, in a major investigation by Yaniv Kubovich published in July 2024, documented the application of the directive through testimony from soldiers, mid-level officers, and senior commanders, and through internal documents the paper had obtained. The directive was applied, Kubovich reported, at three Israeli army facilities that had been breached — Re’im, Nahal Oz, and the Erez border crossing — and inside the kibbutzim of the Gaza envelope. The order, in multiple forms and from multiple commanders, was that no vehicle was to be allowed to return to Gaza. The soldiers carrying out that order knew Israeli civilians and Israeli soldiers were inside many of those vehicles. They fired anyway.⁷

The specific incidents that have been documented are these.

At the Nova festival, an Israeli combat helicopter from the Ramat David air base arrived over the site during the killings and, according to an internal Israeli police investigation reported by Haaretz in November 2023, fired on the attackers and “apparently also hit some of the revellers who were there.” How many of the 364 dead at Nova were killed by Israeli helicopter fire has never been established. The Israeli police initially denied the Haaretz report. The reporting stood.⁷

At Kibbutz Be’eri, an Israeli tank commanded by Brigadier General Barak Hiram fired two shells into a house where Israeli civilians were being held hostage by Hamas fighters. Thirteen of the fourteen Israeli civilians inside that house died. One of them, Yasmin Porat, survived; she gave a public interview to the Israeli state broadcaster Kan in which she described the heavy crossfire she had been caught in and said it had been “insane.” Hiram later told the New York Times that he had given the order to fire on the house “even at the cost of civilian casualties.” The families of the dead have demanded an army investigation that has not produced its findings.⁷

At Re’im base, Israeli helicopter fire and tank fire on positions overrun by Hamas killed an unknown number of the IDF soldiers who had been overrun and had not yet been able to surrender or escape. Seven Israeli surveillance soldiers were nevertheless captured from the adjacent Nahal Oz outpost, suggesting that the directive’s application failed even on its own terms. Fifty-three soldiers were killed at Nahal Oz.⁷

The most chilling assessment came from an Israeli reserve pilot, Colonel Nof Erez, who gave an interview to Haaretz in November 2023 in which he characterised what had happened on 7 October as “a mass Hannibal.” His point was that any situation in which Israelis were being taken across the fence would have automatically activated the directive in the minds of commanders who had grown up with it, even after its formal rescindment. The directive had not gone away. It had become reflex.⁷

How many Israelis the Israeli military killed on 7 October has never been authoritatively answered. Haaretz concluded that “the cumulative data indicates that many of the kidnapped people were at risk, exposed to Israeli gunfire, even if they were not the target.” The Israeli government has not produced a number. It has not opened a comprehensive public investigation. The military police investigations that have happened have been quiet and partial. The families of the dead at Be’eri have been told, in effect, that they will receive answers when the army is ready to give them, which is to say, never.

The legal question is simpler than the political one. The deliberate killing of one’s own civilians is unlawful under international humanitarian law in any framing. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 58, requires every party to a conflict to “take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.” Firing on a house known to contain Israeli civilians, in order to prevent the escape of the fighters holding them, fails that test on every available reading. The Rome Statute, in Article 8, defines the intentional direction of attacks against the civilian population as a war crime, and contains no exception for cases where the attacker is targeting his own civilians in order to prevent their capture. There is no defensible legal theory under which the Hannibal Directive, as applied on 7 October, can be reconciled with the laws of war. It is what those laws were written to prohibit.

What it leaves us with, on the question of 7 October itself, is this. The 1,200 dead were not all killed by Hamas. Some unknown but significant number were killed by Israeli forces under an Israeli military order, applied to Israeli civilians and Israeli soldiers, with the knowledge of the commanders who gave the order that civilians were present. The Israeli government has not told its own public how many. The international press, with the exception of the Israeli press, has largely allowed the question to fade. We name it here because the question of who killed whom on 7 October is the foundation of every claim that has been made about what should be done in response. If a significant share of the dead were killed by their own state, the moral arithmetic shifts. Not all the way. Hamas crossed the fence. Hamas killed civilians at Nova and in the kibbutzim. Hamas took hostages. Those crimes remain. But the part of the figure that has been used to justify what came after is not what the figure represents, and the article exists, in part, to say so.

The intelligence that should have prevented any of this was not lacking. It was ignored.

The Intelligence That Was Ignored

The story of 7 October as an intelligence failure has been told as if it were a story of mystery. It was not. Israel had the warnings. Israel had the documents. Israel had the people on the fence telling their commanders what they were watching being prepared on the other side. The failure was not that the warnings did not arrive. The failure was that the people who had the warnings did not believe them, and the people who could have acted on them did not.

Egypt warned Israel directly. According to public statements by US House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Michael McCaul in October 2023, Egyptian intelligence officials had told their Israeli counterparts in the days before 7 October that “an event like this” was imminent. The Egyptians had been monitoring Hamas activity in Sinai and along the Rafah crossing for years. Their warning was specific enough that McCaul, with access to American intelligence briefings, called it on the record: Israel had been warned and Israel had not listened. The Israeli government denied the framing. The Egyptian intelligence services have not retracted what they passed.²⁰

The internal Israeli warnings were earlier and more detailed. In April 2022, more than eighteen months before the attack, Israeli military intelligence obtained a document the IDF gave the codename “Jericho Wall.” The document was a forty-page Hamas operational plan. It described, in detail, the kind of operation that would unfold on 7 October: a coordinated breach of the perimeter fence at multiple points, the seizure of Israeli communities and military bases, the taking of hostages, the use of rockets as cover. The document was circulated through Israeli intelligence in 2022 and again in mid-2023. A veteran female analyst in Unit 8200 — Israel’s signals intelligence arm — wrote a detailed assessment in July 2023, three months before the attack, warning that Hamas was actively rehearsing the operation described in Jericho Wall. Her assessment included surveillance photographs and intercepted communications showing Hamas fighters practising what looked like a fence breach, hostage-taking, and the storming of replica Israeli kibbutzim. Her warning was dismissed by a colonel in the Gaza Division as “totally imaginative.” The New York Times obtained the document and published the story in November 2023. The Israeli military did not deny its authenticity.²¹

The women on the fence saw the same thing in real time. The Israeli army’s Field Observation Unit — the tatzpitaniyot, mostly young women conscripts assigned to monitor the perimeter via cameras and observation posts — had been reporting unusual Hamas activity along the Gaza fence for months before the attack. In the weeks immediately before 7 October, they reported drills involving the construction of mock observation posts, drills involving the breaching of a replica fence, drills involving the storming of replica residential buildings, and unusual movements of equipment toward the fence line. Their reports were filed up the chain. Their warnings were dismissed. On 6 October, the night before the attack, the observers reported additional unusual activity. One was told by her commander that what she was seeing was a routine training exercise. The next morning, those same observers were among the first to die. The observers’ surviving colleagues have given on-the-record testimony to the Israeli press and to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee about what they had reported and what they had been told. The army has acknowledged that the warnings were filed and dismissed. It has not explained why.²²

The political context for the dismissals is the part that gets left out of the standard Western telling. The Netanyahu government had spent 2023 in a constitutional crisis of its own making. Its judicial overhaul programme had brought hundreds of thousands of Israelis into the streets every week, including significant numbers of reservists who had publicly refused to serve under the proposed changes. The army’s senior leadership was warning the cabinet that the country’s deterrent posture was being damaged. The Netanyahu government’s response had been to escalate, not de-escalate. Internal security resources had been redirected to the West Bank to protect the settler population during a year of accelerating settler violence and Palestinian counter-attacks; the perimeter forces around Gaza had been thinned. The Israeli political establishment had spent the year telling itself, and being told by Netanyahu directly, that Hamas was deterred, that Hamas was contained, that Hamas was preoccupied with running Gaza and would not risk what it had built. This was the working assumption that ran through the security cabinet in the months before the attack. It was the assumption inside which the Jericho Wall document, the female analyst’s report, the tatzpitaniyot warnings, and the Egyptian message were each individually evaluated and individually dismissed.²³

The role of Netanyahu’s Hamas policy in that dismissal cannot be separated from the dismissal itself. If the strategic logic of the government had been that Hamas was a contained problem to be managed, then warnings that Hamas was preparing an unprecedented attack were warnings the strategic framework could not accommodate. They were politically inconvenient. The same prime minister who had told his own party in 2019 that strengthening Hamas was a way of preventing Palestinian statehood was now leading the government that received and dismissed the warnings that Hamas had been allowed to become strong enough to do what it did on 7 October. The intelligence failure and the strategic failure were the same failure. They cannot be separated. The Israeli press has reported them as a single story. The international press, with rare exceptions, has reported them as two.

What happened on the morning of 7 October itself, once the breach was under way, was a further failure of response. The army’s quick reaction units took hours to reach the Gaza envelope. Soldiers stationed at nearby bases were not deployed in time. The decision-making chain in the first hours was paralysed. The Israeli families and communities under attack called and called and were told that help was coming. In many cases it did not. In some cases the help that arrived produced the killings under the Hannibal Directive we have already named. The full accounting of who knew what, when, and what they did about it, will not come from this article. It will come, when it comes, from the Israeli state commission of inquiry that the families of the dead have been demanding for two years and that the Netanyahu government has refused to convene. The refusal is its own answer.

This is the standard the next section measures against. Israel had the warnings. Israel had the right to defend itself when the attack came. What Israel did in response went far beyond defence, and the law has names for what it became. We turn now to Gaza.

Share

The Response — Gaza, Day One Onward

On 9 October 2023, two days after the Hamas attack, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant announced the policy that would govern what came next. “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip,” he told the world. “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” The statement was not a slip of the tongue. It was repeated. It was elaborated. It was the explicit policy of the Israeli government for the population of the Gaza Strip — two million civilians, of whom roughly half were children — at the moment the response began.²⁴

What followed unfolded under that announced framework. Within the first week, the Israeli Air Force dropped more high-explosive ordnance on Gaza than the United States had dropped on Afghanistan in any single year of its twenty-year war there. Within the first month, the tonnage exceeded the bombing of Dresden. Within the first six months, Gaza had been hit with more explosive force, per square mile, than any populated area since the Second World War. The Israeli military’s preferred munition for densely populated targets was the American-supplied Mk 84 — a two-thousand-pound bomb with a casualty radius of more than 360 metres in any direction. The decision to use a Mk 84 in a residential neighbourhood is a decision that civilians will die. The Israeli military made that decision repeatedly. CNN, drawing on satellite analysis and US official sources, reported in December 2023 that nearly half of the bombs Israel had dropped on Gaza in the first weeks of the war were unguided “dumb” bombs, including the Mk 84.²⁵

The death toll climbed accordingly. The Gaza Health Ministry’s figures, which have been validated repeatedly by independent statistical reviews and by The Lancet, were initially dismissed by the Israeli government and the Biden White House. They have not been seriously challenged since. By the spring of 2024 the documented Palestinian death toll had passed 30,000. By the autumn it had passed 40,000. By late 2025 the direct death toll had passed 60,000, with credible peer-reviewed estimates of total excess mortality — including deaths from starvation, untreated illness, and disease — running between 100,000 and 200,000. The majority of the dead are women and children. The Israeli military has produced no comparable figure of its own, and has not contested the underlying methodology.²⁶

The targeting tells the story. Hospitals first.

Al-Shifa, the largest medical complex in Gaza, was besieged, evacuated under fire, raided, evacuated again, and finally reduced to rubble in a two-week operation in March and April 2024 that the World Health Organisation called the destruction of a hospital and that the Israeli military called a counter-terrorism operation. Medical staff were killed and detained. Patients were killed in their beds. Premature babies in the neonatal unit died after Israeli operations cut the power and the staff was forced to flee. The Israeli claim that Al-Shifa was a Hamas command centre — the central justification for the entire operation — was investigated by the Washington Post in December 2023 and found unsupported by the publicly available evidence. The hospital was destroyed regardless.²⁷

Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, the Anglican-run hospital in Gaza City, was hit on 17 October 2023, with hundreds of casualties; the question of who fired the round became one of the first contested incidents of the war and is treated separately in the propaganda section above. What is not contested is that the same hospital was struck again repeatedly through 2024 and 2025, by Israeli munitions, in attacks the Israeli military has not denied. Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza was raided, its director Hussam Abu Safiya detained without charge in December 2024 and held without trial; the hospital itself was rendered non-functional. The Indonesian Hospital was bombed in November 2023. The European Gaza Hospital. The Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital. The Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis. By the end of 2024, the World Health Organisation had documented over 600 attacks on health facilities in Gaza. Not one of Gaza’s hospitals remained fully functional.²⁸

The Israeli campaign has also burned identifiable Palestinian civilians alive, and has done so on video that has been seen worldwide. On 14 October 2024, an Israeli airstrike hit the courtyard of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, where displaced families had pitched tents because there was nowhere else for them to go. The strike ignited the tents. Footage taken at the scene by Palestinian journalists shows displaced civilians, including patients still connected to intravenous drips, burning alive while bystanders are unable to extinguish the flames. One of the dead was Shaban al-Dalu, a nineteen-year-old engineering student. The image of his death — visible in the moment, on film, attached to his IV — was carried by the Washington Post, by Reuters, by Al Jazeera, by Middle East Eye. It was the seventh Israeli attack on the grounds of the same hospital that year. In April 2025 the journalist Ahmed Mansour was burned alive in his tent near Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, in a strike that the IDF acknowledged. The pattern across 2024 and 2025 included repeated strikes on tent camps housing the displaced — populations who had been ordered south by Israeli evacuation directives and who had complied, and who were then burned in the camps to which they had been directed. The deliberate burning of civilians is a war crime, and the war crime is the same war crime regardless of which armed force commits it.

The destruction of religious and educational sites followed the same pattern. By figures from the Palestinian Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs, validated in part by BBC and AFP investigations, more than 800 mosques have been destroyed or damaged. Three churches have been struck — the Church of Saint Porphyrius, the third-oldest standing church in the world, hit on 19 October 2023, killing eighteen people who had taken shelter inside; the Holy Family Catholic Church, struck repeatedly through 2024; and the Ahli Baptist Church at Al-Ahli Hospital, struck repeatedly. The destruction of mosques and churches in Gaza has no military rationale that any party to the conflict has been able to articulate. Universities have been destroyed systematically — al-Azhar University, the Islamic University of Gaza, al-Aqsa University. Schools have been used as shelters and then bombed as shelters; the UNRWA schools that housed displaced Palestinian families were among the most regularly targeted structures in the strip. Archives, libraries, the central public library of Gaza City: gone. This pattern — the systematic destruction of the institutions through which a people transmits its identity across generations — is what international law has, since the 1990s, treated as a marker of intent in the context of the Genocide Convention.²⁹

The killing of journalists became its own indictment. As of the end of 2025, the Committee to Protect Journalists had documented more than 230 Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza by Israeli forces — more than the journalists killed in the entire Second World War, more than were killed in Vietnam, more than were killed in any single conflict in modern history. Many were killed while wearing press identification, in marked press vehicles, in well-known journalist gathering points. Some were killed alongside their entire families in the buildings where they lived. Reporters Without Borders has filed multiple ICC submissions documenting what it describes as the deliberate targeting of journalists. The Israeli military has, in several documented cases, openly named journalists it killed and accused them of being Hamas operatives after the fact, without producing the evidence that would substantiate the accusation. The pattern has been to kill first and justify second. Killing journalists is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions whether or not the killer issues a justification afterward.³⁰

The killing of medical workers and aid workers and UN staff was on the same scale. More than 1,000 health workers have been killed in Gaza. The Palestine Red Crescent Society lost ambulance crews repeatedly; in March 2025, fifteen medics and rescue workers were killed in a single Israeli attack on their convoy and buried in a mass grave, their hands tied. The World Central Kitchen lost seven workers in a sequence of three separate Israeli drone strikes on the night of 1 April 2024. The aid workers — citizens of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, Poland, and Palestine — had coordinated their route in advance with the Israeli military. They were in three marked vehicles. After the first strike, survivors transferred to the second vehicle; the IDF struck it. Survivors transferred to the third; the IDF struck it too. Bellingcat’s open-source analysis concluded the strikes bore the hallmarks of a precision attack of the kind only the IDF could conduct in Gaza. Human Rights Watch documented this case alongside at least seven other incidents in which Israeli forces struck aid workers and premises whose coordinates had been shared in advance to ensure their protection. The pattern is not error, it is policy executed under cover of error. UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, has lost more staff in this war than the UN has lost in any conflict in its history — more than 350 by the end of 2025. The UN has named those killed and continued to name them. The Israeli government’s position has been that UNRWA is a Hamas-infiltrated organisation that should be dismantled. The Israeli Knesset has passed legislation to that effect. The agency that has fed, schooled, and provided medical care to Palestinian refugees for seventy-five years is being shut down by the same government that has spent two years destroying the population it served.³¹

The hostages were killed too — by the same Israeli forces who were supposed to be rescuing them. Beyond the Hannibal Directive applications on 7 October itself, Israeli air strikes have killed an unknown but significant number of hostages held in Gaza throughout the war. The Bibas children — Kfir, the nine-month-old, and his four-year-old brother Ariel — died in captivity. Hamas claimed they had been killed in an Israeli air strike in late 2023. The Israeli forensic findings, presented publicly by the IDF in February 2025, concluded the children had been murdered by their captors in November 2023, with the bodies subsequently mutilated to simulate airstrike injuries. The Bibas family accepted the Israeli forensic findings. The bodies were returned in February 2025. In December 2023, Israeli soldiers shot dead three Israeli hostages — Yotam Haim, Samer Talalka, and Alon Shamriz — who had escaped their captors, were shirtless to signal they were unarmed, were waving a white flag, and were calling for help in Hebrew. The Israeli military acknowledged the killings, called them a tragic error, and did not prosecute the soldiers responsible. The Israeli military has not produced an accounting of how many hostages it has killed by its own fire. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, the organisation representing the families of the hostages, has called repeatedly for that accounting. It has not been forthcoming.³²

The displacement is the framework underneath all of it. By the end of 2024, more than 1.9 million Palestinians — roughly 90 percent of the Gaza Strip’s population — had been displaced from their homes, many of them multiple times. The Israeli military issued evacuation orders that pushed Palestinians south, then bombed them in the south, then issued new orders that pushed them west, then bombed them in the west, then north, then back south again. The al-Mawasi “safe zone” on the coast was bombed repeatedly. The Israeli military demolished entire neighbourhoods after their populations had fled — not bombed in combat, but levelled in controlled demolitions, with rigged buildings filmed by Israeli soldiers and uploaded to social media. The buffer zone that Israel established along the Gaza perimeter — taking, by the end of 2024, roughly 16 percent of Gaza’s total territory — was created by the systematic destruction of every standing structure inside it. Amnesty International’s Crisis Evidence Lab and Forensic Architecture, working independently, have documented the pattern. The pattern is forced displacement, executed through destruction of the homes to which return would otherwise be possible. The Rome Statute calls this a war crime. The cumulative pattern, when combined with the targeting of cultural and religious sites and the explicit statements of intent from Israeli officials, is also the conduct that international law has recognised as ethnic cleansing.³³

The explicit statements of intent matter, because they distinguish the legal questions that this war presents from the legal questions presented by other recent conflicts. The Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, said on 13 October 2023 that “it is an entire nation out there that is responsible” — a statement directly contradicting the legal principle of distinction between combatants and civilians. The Defence Minister called Palestinians “human animals.” The Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu, said in November 2023 that dropping a nuclear weapon on Gaza was “an option.” The Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said the population of Gaza had to be made to “leave to the desert.” The Agriculture Minister, Avi Dichter, called the operation “the Gaza Nakba.” A senior Major General, Ghassan Alian, told the population of Gaza in October 2023: “human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water, there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell.” These statements are not edge cases. They are not the speech of fringe figures. They are statements from the senior officials of the government conducting the war. They were collected and submitted by South Africa to the International Court of Justice in its January 2024 application under the Genocide Convention. The Court found, in its January 2024 provisional measures order, that South Africa had standing and that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide. It is on the record, because the officials of the Israeli government put it there themselves.³⁴

What this section is describing is not a controversial reading of events. The figures are from the UN, from the World Health Organisation, from Amnesty International, from Human Rights Watch, from the Committee to Protect Journalists, from Israeli human rights organisations including B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, from the Israeli press where it has been allowed to report. The explicit statements are from the Israeli officials who made them, on the record, in many cases on camera. The legal framework is the same framework that every party to the conflict has formally accepted by signing the Geneva Conventions. What we are describing is not contested. It has been contested only in the sense that the Israeli government has refused to allow the investigations that would document it more fully, and the Western governments that have armed and supplied this campaign have refused to draw the conclusions that the evidence supports.

This is the body of conduct against which the law’s verdict will be set out, when we come to it. We turn to Lavender.

The Killing Machines — Lavender, Gospel, Where’s Daddy

In April 2024, the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and its Hebrew sister site Local Call published an investigation by Yuval Abraham based on the testimony of six Israeli intelligence officers who had served in the targeting units of the IDF’s elite Unit 8200. The officers described, in their own words, three artificial intelligence systems that had been used to generate the targeting decisions of the Gaza war. The systems are called Lavender, The Gospel, and Where’s Daddy. The investigation has not been seriously challenged. The Israeli military has not denied that the systems exist. It has disputed only the framing of how they were used, while confirming the basic operational facts. The investigation is the closest thing the public has to a description of how the killing in Gaza was actually decided. It deserves to be understood in plain terms.³⁵

The Gospel is the older of the systems. It generates targets in the form of buildings — structures associated, by the model’s calculations, with Hamas activity. The decision to strike the building, and to strike it knowing civilians will die in it, is made by a human officer on the basis of the Gospel’s recommendation. The Gospel does not make moral decisions. It does not weigh proportionality. It produces target packages. The pace at which it produces them — hundreds per day at peak operations — is what changed the character of the war’s targeting operations. The Israeli military had previously been constrained, on its own statements, by the number of targets its human intelligence analysts could produce. The Gospel removed that constraint.³⁵

Lavender is the system that drew international attention. Lavender generates targets in the form of people. The system was trained, by the IDF’s own description, to identify suspected operatives of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — not senior commanders, but the rank and file. The training data was drawn from the IDF’s existing intelligence database. The output was a list of names, each name marked with a probability score that the person was a militant. At the height of operations in the first weeks of the war, Lavender’s list contained approximately 37,000 names. Each of those 37,000 people became, by the system’s output, a candidate for assassination.

The officers who described the system to +972 said the human review of each name was, in practice, perfunctory. One officer described his role as “rubber-stamping” the system’s output, with an average of twenty seconds of human verification before the kill order was approved. The verification consisted, the officer said, of confirming that the target was male — because Lavender’s known false positive rate of approximately ten percent included women, who were assumed not to be Hamas fighters. Beyond that, the human in the loop was not in any meaningful sense reviewing the system’s judgement. The officer said: “I would invest twenty seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time.”³⁵

The third system, Where’s Daddy, was the one that converted the kill list into actual deaths. Where’s Daddy tracked the targets identified by Lavender and notified Israeli forces when those targets had entered their family homes. The system’s name is, in this context, descriptive. The intention was to strike the targets at home. Striking the targets at home meant striking them with their families present. The Israeli officers told +972 that the decision to strike at home rather than at a military site was a deliberate operational preference, because military sites were harder to locate and to strike accurately. Family homes were easier. Striking at home meant the families died too.³⁵

The collateral damage tolerances are documented. The officers told +972 that the IDF’s authorised collateral damage limits for Lavender-generated strikes were as follows. For a low-ranking Hamas operative, the system was permitted to kill up to fifteen or twenty uninvolved civilians. For a senior commander, the figure rose to one hundred. These are not numbers from human rights critics. They are the operational parameters described by the officers running the system. The officers said the parameters were applied. In one operation, an officer told +972 that the army authorised the killing of approximately three hundred civilians in the assassination of a single Hamas brigade commander, the strike approved in advance under the existing collateral damage parameters.³⁵

The munitions used in these strikes were, by the officers’ account, deliberately mismatched to the target. Junior operatives were struck with the same unguided “dumb bombs” that we have already discussed — bombs that level entire buildings. The officers said the choice of unguided munitions for low-value targets was a matter of stockpile management: precision munitions are expensive and limited, and the IDF chose not to expend them on targets the system identified as low-priority. The consequence of using a Mk 84 to kill one person identified by an AI system as a Hamas foot soldier, in a residential apartment building, in the middle of the night, with the building’s other residents present, is that the building falls down and everyone in it dies. The officers knew this. The system was designed around this knowledge.³⁵

The Israeli military’s response to the +972 investigation was, in part, to dispute the framing — to deny that the system had been used “as described” and to insist that human officers remained “in the loop” on every strike. The military denied that Lavender functioned as a kill list, while acknowledging the existence of database tools used to cross-reference intelligence. It did not contest the collateral damage figures with any specificity. It did not produce evidence that the human review of Lavender targets was substantively more rigorous than the officers had described. The substance of the investigation has stood. It has been corroborated by subsequent reporting in The Guardian, Le Monde, The Washington Post, and Haaretz, drawing on additional Israeli intelligence sources.³⁶

The legal question is not whether the use of AI targeting in armed conflict is, in principle, unlawful. It is not. The question is whether the systems as deployed in Gaza were used in a manner consistent with the laws of war. The relevant legal standards are the same as for any targeting decision: distinction, proportionality, precaution. A system that produces a kill list of 37,000 people with a known ten percent false positive rate, that is approved at an average rate of twenty seconds per name, that strikes those targets in their family homes with munitions chosen for their indiscriminate effect, under collateral damage parameters that authorise the killing of up to one hundred uninvolved civilians per senior target, cannot satisfy distinction. It cannot satisfy proportionality. It is not, in any meaningful sense, taking precautions to minimise civilian harm. It is the systematisation of the failure to do so.

There is one more dimension worth naming. The officers who spoke to +972 described the psychological and political function of the systems alongside their operational function. The systems removed the human officer from the responsibility for each individual decision. The human officer was not deciding to kill a person. The human officer was confirming a system’s output. The same decision, made the same way, with the same outcome, was now somebody else’s responsibility — or no one’s. The diffusion of moral responsibility through the machine was a feature, not a side effect. It is what made it possible for the Israeli intelligence corps to participate in an operation of this scale without the kind of mass refusals, mass resignations, and mass psychiatric breakdowns that have historically accompanied military operations against civilians on this scale. The officers, in their own words, were able to do this. The system permitted them to do this. The system was designed to permit them to do this.

The civilians who died were not, however, killed by a machine. They were killed by the same human beings who continue to insist that they did not kill them. The law does not treat the introduction of an AI system as a defence. It treats it as evidence. The evidence is on the record.

Starvation as Policy

A bombing campaign kills the people it hits, indiscriminate of combatants or civilians. A starvation campaign kills everyone else. The Israeli government chose both. The siege Yoav Gallant announced on 9 October 2023 — no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed — was not a rhetorical flourish. It was implemented. The crossings into Gaza were closed. The water pipelines were cut. The electricity was switched off. The fuel that powered Gaza’s bakeries, its hospitals’ generators, its water pumps, its sewage treatment plants was shut off at the Israeli switch. For weeks, then months, what entered Gaza entered only at the discretion of the government that had announced it would let no food in.

The international protest was enough to produce a partial reopening of Rafah, on the Egyptian border, and the establishment of a coordination mechanism through which aid trucks could attempt to enter. The mechanism was administered by the Israeli authority COGAT, which retained the right to inspect, refuse, and delay each shipment. The volume that entered was a fraction of what was needed. In the months before 7 October, Gaza had typically received roughly 500 truckloads per day of food and supplies. In the months after, the figure ran at one hundred per day, then sixty, then twenty, with weeks at a time during which no trucks crossed at all. UN officials publicly described the bottleneck as deliberate. Cindy McCain, the head of the World Food Programme and the widow of a US Republican senator — not a figure who could be dismissed as anti-Israeli — told NBC’s Meet the Press in May 2024 that there was “full-blown famine” in northern Gaza and that the famine was “moving its way south.” The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, the international system that declares famines, declared Phase 5 — famine — in parts of Gaza in March 2024 and again, more comprehensively, in August 2025. Phase 5 is the highest level. There is no level above it. It is the term the international community uses when people are starving to death and there is no longer any plausible argument that the situation can be reversed by ordinary humanitarian response.³⁷

The Israeli officials who designed the policy did not pretend otherwise. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said in 2024 there was “no reason for a gram of food or aid to enter Gaza” and publicly called for the bombing of aid stocks. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who controlled the budgets for the West Bank and Gaza administration, said in August 2024 that it might be “just and moral” to starve two million Gazans, “but the world will not let us.” The Israeli press reported these statements at the time. They were not corrected. They were not retracted. They were not punished. The ministers who made them remained in office. The policy they described was, on the available evidence, the policy that was carried out.³⁸

The starvation was not only state policy. It was state-tolerated mob violence as well. Through 2024 and into 2025, organised groups of Israeli settlers and their supporters — most prominently the group calling itself Tzav 9, “Order 9” — repeatedly blockaded aid convoys at the crossings into Gaza, stopped them on the roads, climbed onto the trucks, and looted or destroyed the flour, rice, and medical supplies inside. In one widely circulated incident in May 2024, settlers stopped a convoy on a road in the West Bank, dragged the food onto the tarmac, and set it on fire. Drivers were beaten. Israeli police and IDF soldiers, where they were present, frequently stood by and watched. Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronoth, and the Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din documented the pattern across dozens of incidents. The Israeli government took no meaningful action against the groups responsible. The US Treasury Department, in June 2024, imposed sanctions on Tzav 9 under the executive order on settler violence — a sanctioning of a civilian Israeli organisation by the country that was simultaneously arming the war. The Israeli government denounced the sanctions. The destruction of aid continued. None of this happens in a country whose government is making a good-faith effort to feed the population under its control.³⁹

The Flour Massacre of 29 February 2024 was the first incident at which the world saw what starvation policy looked like at the point of contact. A convoy of aid trucks carrying flour reached the Nabulsi roundabout in northern Gaza City before dawn. The scene that followed has no good description. Thousands of starving Palestinians, many of whom had walked through the night, many of whom had not eaten in days, swarmed the trucks in the dark — climbing onto them, reaching for the bags of flour, fighting each other for the food. Israeli tanks and snipers were positioned in the buffer zone overlooking the road. They fired on the crowd. The death toll was at least 118 Palestinians killed, with more than 760 wounded. The Israeli military’s initial claim was that most of the dead had been crushed or run over in the chaos. Forensic analysis of the wounds, including by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor and by the Al-Awda Hospital that received the casualties, established that the majority of the dead and wounded had gunshot wounds. The Israeli military adjusted its claim to say that the gunfire had been limited and that its troops had felt threatened. Video and satellite imagery analysed by The Washington Post and by Forensic Architecture established that the gunfire had been sustained, that it had been directed into the crowd, and that the crowd had posed no threat. The massacre at the Nabulsi roundabout was not a single incident. It was the first widely documented instance of a pattern that would, by mid-2025, become routine.⁴⁰

That pattern was institutionalised in the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The GHF was launched in May 2025 as a replacement for the UN-led aid distribution system, which the Israeli government and the second Trump administration had spent the previous twelve months working to dismantle. UNRWA had been banned from operating in Israel. The UN agencies that had distributed aid throughout the war had been accused, without evidence, of being Hamas-infiltrated. The GHF was the alternative. It was registered as a private American nonprofit, funded largely by anonymous donors with a substantial first tranche from the US government. Its operational arm was Safe Reach Solutions, a private security firm staffed by former US special forces personnel, working alongside subcontractors that included an outfit calling itself UG Solutions. The aid distribution sites were established in southern Gaza, in locations that required Palestinians to walk for hours through Israeli-controlled corridors to reach them. The sites were guarded by armed contractors. They were monitored by Israeli forces. They were not coordinated with the UN.⁴¹

What happened at the GHF sites between May and October 2025 was a slow-motion massacre. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs documented that between the GHF’s launch and the end of October 2025, more than 2,600 Palestinians had been killed at or near the foundation’s distribution sites, with more than 19,000 wounded. The pattern was consistent: crowds of desperate, starving Palestinians, often having walked through the night to reach the sites, would be fired on as they approached. The fire came sometimes from the Israeli forces surrounding the sites, sometimes from the contractors themselves. The contractors, as it turned out, were not bashful about what they were doing. Photographs and videos that emerged through 2025, some uploaded by the contractors to their own social media, showed members of UG Solutions wearing patches identifying themselves as members of the “Infidels Motorcycle Club,” displaying banners that read “Make Gaza Great Again,” and bearing tattoos of the number 1095 — a reference, the contractors themselves explained, to the date of the launch of the First Crusade. Doctors Without Borders, after months of treating the wounded at GHF sites, issued a public statement: “This is not humanitarian aid. This is orchestrated killing.” The Norwegian Refugee Council called the GHF a “death trap.” The UN Secretary-General called for an immediate end to the operation. The Israeli government and the Trump administration declared it a success.⁴²

The mechanism the GHF replaced — the UN-coordinated distribution system through UNRWA, the World Food Programme, UNICEF, and the international NGOs — was the mechanism that had, for decades, fed populations in war zones around the world without resulting in the routine killing of the people being fed. There is no precedent in modern humanitarian practice for the kind of figures the GHF produced. There is no comparable operation in which civilians seeking food were routinely shot by the armed personnel administering the distribution. The system did not produce these outcomes by accident. The system was designed in such a way that these outcomes were the predictable result of its operating procedures. The Israeli government and the US government built it that way and continued to defend it as people died at it.

The law on starvation as a method of warfare is unambiguous. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 54, prohibits “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.” The prohibition is absolute. The Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv), defines the deliberate starvation of civilians, “including by wilfully impeding relief supplies,” as a war crime in international armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law require parties to a conflict to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief to civilians in need. The Israeli government has done the opposite of each of these things. It has impeded relief. It has destroyed relief infrastructure. It has killed relief workers. It has constructed a parallel distribution system at which relief seekers are killed. The IPC has declared famine. The ICJ has, in its provisional measures orders of January, March, and May 2024, ordered Israel to allow the unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid. The orders have been ignored.⁴³

The cumulative pattern is what international law has, since the drafters of the Genocide Convention sat down in 1948 and wrote it, regarded as a marker of intent. Article II of the Convention defines genocide to include the “deliberate inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The drafters had in mind, specifically, the conditions imposed on Jewish populations under Nazi occupation: the ghettoisation, the starvation rations, the prevention of escape, the systematic deprivation of medical care. They wrote the Convention in such a way that the same conditions, imposed on any group, by any state, would be recognised as the same crime. The conditions imposed on Gaza meet that definition. Saying so does not diminish the Holocaust. It honours the lesson the survivors of the Holocaust insisted the world take from it.

Share

The West Bank, Where No Hamas Exists

The defence of everything described above is, in the Israeli government’s framing, the existence of Hamas. The bombing, the starvation, the destruction of hospitals, the killing of journalists — all of it is, on the official Israeli account, the regrettable but necessary cost of fighting a terrorist organisation that controls Gaza and that committed the atrocities of 7 October. Whatever one makes of that defence as applied to Gaza, it has nothing to say about the West Bank. There is no Hamas government in the West Bank. There is no Hamas military force in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority, which governs the parts of the West Bank that Israel allows it to govern, is the same authority Israel itself has spent thirty years dealing with as its negotiating partner. The conduct of the Israeli state and the Israeli settler movement in the West Bank since 7 October is therefore, in a way, the clearer case. It is the conduct that cannot be explained by Hamas. It is what the Israeli state does when there is no Hamas to point at.

By the end of 2025, Israeli forces and Israeli settlers had killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank since 7 October, according to the UN Human Rights Office. The figure is itself the lower bound; B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation, has tracked higher numbers. Among the dead are more than 200 children. The killings are not concentrated in single incidents but distributed across thousands of operations — military raids on the refugee camps of Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nablus; settler attacks on villages; checkpoint shootings; targeted killings carried out by drone in the West Bank for the first time in the conflict’s recent history. Whole neighbourhoods of Jenin’s refugee camp have been bulldozed in operations the IDF has described as counter-terrorism and that have produced the displacement of tens of thousands of West Bank Palestinians inside their own territory.⁴⁴

The settler violence is the part that cannot be assimilated to any defensible narrative. Through 2024 and 2025, organised settler militias attacked Palestinian villages across the West Bank — burning homes, destroying olive groves, killing residents, and forcing the depopulation of dozens of villages. The villages of Khirbet Zanuta, Wadi al-Siq, Khirbet al-Ratheem, and dozens of others have been documented by Israeli human rights organisations including B’Tselem, Yesh Din, and Breaking the Silence as having been emptied by sustained settler violence under IDF protection. The settlers operate, in many cases, alongside or in coordination with IDF reservists who have been called up since 7 October and who have used their military equipment and their military authority to facilitate the attacks. The US government, under both the Biden and Trump administrations, briefly sanctioned individual settlers and settler organisations under the executive order on settler violence; the Trump administration rescinded most of those sanctions in early 2025. The pattern continues.⁴⁵

The Israeli government has, in the same period, accelerated the formal annexation of West Bank territory. Smotrich, in his dual role as Finance Minister and minister within the Defence Ministry with authority over civilian administration in the West Bank, has used administrative powers to transfer responsibility for settlement expansion from the military to civilian Israeli ministries — a transfer the ICJ in its July 2024 advisory opinion identified as itself a marker of de facto annexation contrary to international law. New settlements have been approved at the highest rate in the history of the occupation. Outposts previously illegal under Israeli law have been retroactively legalised. The settler population in the West Bank has passed 750,000.

The administrative detention regime has expanded in parallel. By the end of 2025, more than 9,000 Palestinians were being held in Israeli custody, of whom roughly 3,400 were West Bank administrative detainees held without charge under Military Order 1651, and another 3,400 were Gazans held under the Unlawful Combatants Law that was substantially amended in December 2023 to permit longer detention without judicial review and that has produced repeated, credible allegations of torture in the detention facilities. The conditions of their detention are the subject of the next section.

The point of this section is not to inventory every act of West Bank violence since 7 October. It is to establish, for the reader, that the conduct described in the previous sections is not specific to the war against Hamas. It is the conduct of a state that has, in the past two years, deepened a system of dispossession and violence that long predated 7 October and that has nothing to do with Hamas in any part of the territory where Hamas does not exist. That is not a side effect of the Gaza war. It is the same project, executed in a different terrain.

Sde Teiman and the Detention System

The sexual violence committed by Israeli forces against Palestinians did not begin at Sde Teiman, and it did not begin in response to 7 October. It is older than the state. The documented record runs from before the founding.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, drawing on Israeli military archives, documents rape as a feature of the 1948 expulsions of Palestinians from villages including Deir Yassin, Tantura, Ramleh, and Lydda. Aharon Zisling, Israel’s first agriculture minister, told a cabinet meeting in July 1948, in words later recovered from the Israeli state archives by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in January 2022, that he “could forgive instances of rape [in Ramleh]” but not other acts. The remark was made by a senior minister of the new state, on the record, in cabinet, and it was a remark about acts already committed by Israeli forces, casually disposed of. In 1949 a young Bedouin girl in the Negev was abducted by an Israeli platoon, gang-raped over several days, then murdered. The case is documented in Israeli military court testimony — the only such court martial recorded — and was uncovered fifty-four years later by Haaretz. The Red Cross documented the rape of an eighteen-year-old Palestinian girl after the takeover of Jaffa in December 1948.⁴⁶

Haaretz, in 2019, reported that the Israeli Defence Ministry has been systematically removing references to Nakba-era atrocities — including expulsions, massacres, and rape — from declassified military archives. The Israeli state, in other words, has known about this conduct for seventy-eight years and has taken active measures to conceal it from its own public. The Palestinian historian and law professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, in three decades of academic work on the subject, has documented sexual violence against Palestinian women and men as a continuous feature of the Israeli military’s encounter with Palestinians — during the Nakba, during the occupation, during the intifadas, during the long period in which it has held Palestinians in custody. The pattern is older than 7 October. It is older than Hamas. It is older than the modern occupation. It is part of the founding.

What is described in the rest of this section is the most recent and most heavily documented chapter of that record. It is not the beginning. The article would be doing the work of Israeli archive-suppression itself if it allowed the reader to think otherwise.

In the early weeks of the war, the Israeli military established a holding facility at Sde Teiman, an air force base in the Negev desert near Beersheba. Palestinians taken into custody in Gaza — combatants, suspected combatants, men and women rounded up from buildings the IDF had taken, doctors and journalists arrested at hospitals and crossings — were transported to Sde Teiman before being moved on to longer-term Israeli prisons. The facility was not built as a detention centre. It had no infrastructure for holding human beings. What was set up there, in the months that followed, became the place that has done more than any other single thing to expose the character of the system the Israeli state built in response to 7 October.⁴⁷

Detainees at Sde Teiman, in their testimony given after release and corroborated by the testimony of Israeli soldiers, doctors, and human rights investigators, were held in conditions that violated every relevant standard of international and Israeli law. They were blindfolded for days and weeks at a time. They were shackled in stress positions. They were denied medical care. Their wounds were untreated; the most documented detail of the facility is the number of detainees who arrived with combat injuries and lost limbs because the necrotic tissue went untreated until amputation was the only option. The Israeli human rights organisation Physicians for Human Rights — Israel sent representatives to the facility and documented routine amputations performed without anaesthesia. Haaretz obtained testimony from Israeli reservist doctors who had served at the facility and who described what they had seen and what they had been ordered to participate in. One of those doctors went on the record. The descriptions are consistent across sources. They describe a torture camp run by the state of Israel.⁴⁸

The sexual violence was on a different order. The single Sde Teiman case that produced the indictment in July 2024 — five reservists captured on video raping a Palestinian detainee with a sharp object, an act that required the man to be hospitalised with injuries that, according to Kan public radio, left him unable to walk — was not an isolated event. It was the visible piece of what released detainees, Israeli soldiers, and the UN Commission of Inquiry have since described as a routine practice. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, in November 2025, published the consolidated testimonies of released detainees describing systematic rape and sexual torture across the Israeli detention system, including penetration with batons, metal rods, sharp objects, and other implements. Euro-Med Monitor published a parallel report describing the same pattern across multiple facilities. The UN Commission of Inquiry, in March 2025, found that sexual violence had been used by Israeli forces as a tool to “dominate, oppress and destroy the Palestinian people in whole or in part,” and that the use of dogs to intimidate and to assault Palestinian detainees was documented across detention sites.⁴⁹

The use of military dogs trained to rape Palestinian detainees is the detail that most readers will find hardest to accept, and it is the detail that is most consistently corroborated. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights collected the testimony of A.A., a 35-year-old father arrested at Al-Shifa Hospital in March 2024, who described being taken with a group of detainees to a corridor between sections of Sde Teiman, stripped, and raped by a trained military dog while soldiers beat and pepper-sprayed the prisoners. Euro-Med Monitor’s report Another Genocide Behind Walls contains the testimony of a second detainee describing the same act. Fadi Bakr, in an Al Jazeera documentary, described being forced to watch a young Palestinian man raped by a dog at Sde Teiman. Mohammed Arab, the Gaza correspondent for Al Araby television, told his lawyer in July 2024 that he had personally witnessed soldiers use dogs to sexually abuse detainees at the same facility and had been told by the soldiers that the dogs were trained for it. Drop Site News, in November 2025, published the corroborating testimony of two Israeli prison guards who had served at Sde Teiman, one of whom said he had personally witnessed the use of dogs in sexual assault and that what he had seen was “too awful to describe.” The New York Times, in May 2026, published a long investigation by Nicholas Kristof drawing on the testimony of fourteen released Palestinian men and women, in which the practice is described and in which the UN’s characterisation of it as Israeli “standard operating procedure” is endorsed.⁵⁰

In July 2024, Israeli military police entered Sde Teiman to investigate a specific allegation against a group of reservist soldiers: the rape of a Palestinian detainee with a sharp object. The allegation was supported by video footage filmed inside the facility. The military police arrested nine reservists for questioning. The response of the Israeli right was immediate and unmistakable. Hundreds of Israeli protesters, including members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition — Knesset members Tally Gotliv, Nissim Vaturi, and Zvi Sukkot were photographed at the scene — stormed the Sde Teiman base in physical attempts to free the soldiers from custody. A second mob attacked the Beit Lid military court where the soldiers were being questioned. Senior coalition figures — Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, and Justice Minister Yariv Levin — called the investigation itself a “blood libel” against the IDF; Israel Katz, then Foreign Minister, would later, after his promotion to Defence Minister in November 2024, repeat the same framing throughout the case. The Israeli state’s response to the discovery of the rape of a Palestinian prisoner by its soldiers was, in significant part, the public defence of the soldiers by ministers of the Israeli government and the storming of the military’s own facilities by Knesset members to obstruct the investigation.⁵¹

In August 2024, video footage from the incident was leaked to the Israeli press. The public saw what was on the recording. Five of the reservists were formally indicted, including on charges of aggravated abuse and the specific act named in the indictment: penetration of the detainee with a sharp object, causing the wounds for which he had required surgery. The case proceeded through 2024 and into 2025 under sustained political pressure from the governing coalition and the broader Israeli right. The Military Advocate General — Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, the most senior legal officer in the Israeli military — was identified by the political right as the figure responsible for the investigation, and she became the target of a sustained campaign of vilification by ministers, by coalition Knesset members, and by mainstream Israeli media on the right. Ben-Gvir was prominent among her attackers. The Defence Minister publicly questioned whether the case should proceed at all. The pressure was relentless.⁵²

In October 2025, Tomer-Yerushalmi resigned. In her resignation letter, she acknowledged that she had personally authorised the release of the video footage to the Israeli press — the action that had broken the case open the previous year. She wrote that she had done so to counter what she called the incitement campaign against the military’s law enforcement system and to make clear that “even the worst terrorists cannot be abused.” On the day of her resignation, she disappeared for several hours. There was public speculation that she had attempted suicide. She was located, alive. Two days later, Israeli police arrested her. She was held in custody on suspicion of fraud, breach of trust, abuse of official power, obstruction of justice, and the unauthorised disclosure of information by a public official. The soldiers she had ordered investigated remained free.⁵³

On 12 March 2026 — two months before this article was written — the charges against the five Sde Teiman soldiers were dismissed in their entirety. The decision was made by the new Military Advocate General, Major General Itay Ofir, who had been appointed to replace Tomer-Yerushalmi on the express recommendation of Defence Minister Katz. Katz called the dismissal a vindication of soldiers who had been subjected to a “blood libel.” The Palestinian detainee whose rape the original investigation had been concerned with — the man whose wounds had required surgery, whose treatment had been documented on video, whose case had set the entire scandal in motion — has not received any form of justice from the Israeli system. The woman who tried to investigate the crime is in custody. The men who committed it are free. That is the verdict the Israeli military justice system rendered on its own conduct, and it is the verdict the Israeli state has accepted.⁵⁴

The detention regime at Sde Teiman is one node in a larger system. By the end of 2025, more than 11,000 Palestinians were being held in Israeli custody — the largest detained population in any war Israel has fought. Many of them are held without charge under administrative detention. Many of them are held under the Unlawful Combatants Law, an Israeli statute originally designed for Lebanese fighters in the 1990s and now applied broadly to Palestinians from both Gaza and the West Bank, that suspends the normal protections of the Israeli criminal justice system. The B’Tselem report Welcome to Hell, published in August 2024, documented the conditions across the network of Israeli detention facilities holding Palestinians from Gaza. Its conclusion was that Israel had created, in the words of the report, “an entire network of torture camps.” The report drew on the testimony of fifty-five released detainees and on the testimony of Israeli soldiers and medical personnel. The Israeli government did not contest its findings substantively. It dismissed them politically.⁵⁵

Hundreds of detainees have died in Israeli custody since 7 October. The exact figure is contested because the Israeli government has not produced a comprehensive accounting. The Israeli prison authority and the Israeli military have repeatedly returned the bodies of dead Palestinians to Gaza for burial, sometimes after years of refusal. In one tranche of returns documented in early 2025, 135 bodies were returned, including bodies that had been held at Sde Teiman. Forensic examination by Palestinian medical authorities, where it was possible, found bodies that had been mutilated, bodies still blindfolded, bodies still bound, bodies showing the signs of the conditions the released detainees had described. The Israeli government has not provided cause-of-death information for the majority of these detainees. The detainees who have come home alive have come home, in many cases, broken — psychologically, physically, in many cases both.⁵⁶

What the Sde Teiman case has established, and what the detention regime around it confirms, is that the Israeli state has institutionalised the abuse of Palestinians taken into its custody and that the Israeli state’s own mechanisms of accountability cannot or will not stop it. The crimes are documented. The investigators have been driven out. The crimes are not punished. This is not a system in which abuse occurs as a violation of the rules. It is a system in which abuse is the operating procedure and in which the rules have been bent, and where necessary broken, to protect it.

The Law, in Plain English

We said at the start of this article that we would apply one standard to both parties, and that the standard would be the law every state on earth has signed. We are now at the point in the argument where we say what the law concludes.

Start with Hamas. The killing of civilians at the Nova festival and in the kibbutzim of the Gaza envelope is a war crime under any reading of the Geneva Conventions. Common Article 3, which applies to all armed conflicts and to all armed groups whether or not they are states, prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” committed against persons taking no active part in hostilities. The young people at Nova were taking no active part in hostilities. The elderly residents of Be’eri and Kfar Aza and Nir Oz were taking no active part in hostilities. The children killed in their bedrooms were taking no active part in hostilities. The deliberate killing of all of them was a war crime. The burning of civilians alive at Nova and in the kibbutzim, established by Israeli forensic investigators and survivor testimony, is a war crime — the same war crime in form that Israel later committed against Palestinian civilians at the Al-Aqsa Hospital tent camp and elsewhere, named in the same Geneva Conventions and prohibited by the same Common Article 3.

The taking of civilian hostages — including a nine-month-old infant, including elderly people, including foreign nationals — is a war crime under Article 34 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The murder of those hostages during their captivity, established in the case of Hersh Goldberg-Polin and the five others executed in the Rafah tunnel in August 2024, is a war crime — the same war crime as a summary execution of any prisoner under any law of war. The sexual violence committed against hostages in captivity, found by the UN Special Representative to be supported by clear and convincing information, is a war crime. The form and extent of sexual violence committed on 7 October itself has not been independently established because Israel refused the investigation that could have established it; the Patten finding of reasonable grounds to believe rape and gang rape occurred at multiple locations on the day stands as the highest authority. Indiscriminate rocket fire on Israeli civilian population centres, which Hamas conducted on 7 October and has conducted before and since, violates the principle of distinction set out in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I.

The cause Hamas claims to be serving does not, under any reading of the law, license the methods it used on 7 October or during the captivity that followed. The legal verdict on Hamas’s conduct is plain. The conduct was unlawful. The conduct was a war crime, in multiple separate categories established to multiple separate evidentiary standards by multiple separate authorities. The cause itself, however, is not the same as the conduct. Armed resistance to belligerent occupation, to a siege, and to the denial of self-determination is a right recognised under international law. UN General Assembly resolutions over decades have affirmed it. The crimes Hamas committed in pursuit of that right are crimes. The right itself remains.

Now turn to Israel. The legal framework that Israel has signed up to is the same one. The standards Hamas violated on 7 October are the standards Israel has been violating, on a different scale, since the response began.

Take the conduct one element at a time.

The bombing campaign violates the principle of distinction. Distinction is the rule that combatants must be distinguished from civilians, and that civilians must not be the object of attack. It is set out in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, and it is customary international law that applies to every party to every armed conflict. The dropping of 2,000-pound bombs on densely populated residential neighbourhoods, in the deliberate knowledge that civilians will die in them, is not a failure of distinction. It is the abandonment of it. The use of an AI targeting system that produces a kill list of 37,000 people, approved at an average rate of twenty seconds per name, with a known false-positive rate of ten percent and an authorised collateral damage tolerance of up to one hundred civilians per senior target, is not a failure of distinction. It is its systematisation.

The bombing campaign violates the principle of proportionality. Proportionality is the rule that the expected civilian harm of an attack must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. It is set out in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I, and in customary international law. The destruction of an entire residential building to kill one mid-level operative is disproportionate by any reading. The flattening of entire neighbourhoods is disproportionate. The killing of more than 60,000 people, the majority of them women and children, in the course of a campaign whose stated military objective was the destruction of an armed group estimated at the start of the war at between 30,000 and 40,000 fighters, is disproportionate by any reading any state has ever offered.

The bombing campaign violates the duty of precautions. Precaution is the rule that all feasible measures must be taken to minimise civilian harm. It is set out in Article 57 of Additional Protocol I, and in customary international law. Striking targets in their family homes, with their families present, by deliberate operational choice, is the opposite of precaution. The use of unguided “dumb” munitions in densely populated residential neighbourhoods, by deliberate operational choice, is the opposite of precaution. The deliberate destruction of hospitals, of medical infrastructure, of water and sanitation systems — each of which is a protected object under the law — cannot be reconciled with the duty of precaution.

The targeting of journalists is a war crime. Journalists are civilians under international humanitarian law, and the deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute. The killing of more than 230 Palestinian journalists by Israeli forces, including the killing of clearly identified journalists in marked press vehicles, is not the cost of war. It is the prosecution of war against a protected class.

The targeting of medical workers and aid workers is a war crime. Medical personnel and humanitarian aid workers are protected persons under Article 12 of the First Geneva Convention and under Articles 15 and 71 of Additional Protocol I. The killing of more than 1,000 health workers in Gaza, including the killing of fifteen medics in a single attack on a clearly marked ambulance convoy in March 2025, is a war crime. The killing of the seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in three sequential drone strikes on three vehicles whose route had been pre-coordinated with the Israeli military is a war crime. The pattern of strikes on aid worker premises whose coordinates had been shared with Israeli authorities is a war crime committed not once but as a matter of policy.

The destruction of cultural and religious property is a war crime. The deliberate destruction of religious buildings is prohibited under Article 53 of Additional Protocol I and under Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Rome Statute. The destruction of more than 800 mosques, of three Christian churches including one of the oldest standing churches in the world, of every university in Gaza, of the central archives of the territory, has no military rationale that the Israeli government has been able to articulate. The law treats it as a war crime.

Starvation as a method of warfare is a war crime. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I prohibits “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare” without exception. Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute makes the deliberate starvation of civilians, “including by wilfully impeding relief supplies,” a war crime. The IPC has declared famine in Gaza. The ICJ has, in successive provisional measures orders, instructed Israel to allow the unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid. The orders have been ignored. The starvation has continued. The Israeli ministers responsible for the policy have described it openly as a policy. There is no ambiguity in this part of the law and there is no ambiguity in this part of the conduct.

The conduct of the Israeli detention regime is the systematic violation of every relevant law. The Convention Against Torture, to which Israel is a state party, prohibits torture absolutely. The Geneva Conventions prohibit the abuse, sexual violence against, and degrading treatment of detained persons under any circumstances. The use of rape, including the use of trained dogs in rape, as a tool of detention is a war crime, a crime against humanity, and an act that meets the threshold of torture under the Convention. The Israeli government’s response to the discovery of these crimes — the dismissal of the charges against the soldiers who committed them, the prosecution of the official who exposed them — does not change the legal status of the underlying conduct. It establishes only that Israeli domestic accountability mechanisms have failed.

The cumulative pattern is what international law has, since 1948, treated separately. The drafters of the Genocide Convention did not write Article II as a prohibition on the desire to commit genocide. They wrote it as a prohibition on certain acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group in whole or in part. The relevant acts are listed: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The conduct in Gaza meets the first three of these definitions on the face of the record. The intent, which is the legal element that distinguishes genocide from mass atrocity, is established not by inference but by the explicit statements of senior Israeli officials, on the record, on camera, collected in the South African application to the International Court of Justice.

The legal bodies whose job it is to apply these standards have, where they have been asked, applied them.

The International Court of Justice, in January 2024, found that South Africa had standing to bring a genocide case against Israel and that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide. The Court ordered Israel to take provisional measures to prevent further harm. The Court has not yet ruled on the merits. The Court repeated and expanded those orders in March and May 2024. The Court ruled in July 2024 that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is itself unlawful and must end. The case on the merits is ongoing. The conclusion the Court will reach is, at this stage, foreshadowed by what the Court has already said.

The International Criminal Court, in November 2024, issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, alongside a warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif for the crimes of 7 October. The warrants are the formal conclusion of the Court’s prosecutor that there are reasonable grounds to believe these specific individuals bear criminal responsibility for the conduct on each side. The United States government has, under the second Trump administration, sanctioned the ICC and its prosecutor in response. The sanctioning of an international court for issuing warrants that the United States does not like is itself a measure of where the legal record stands.

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in September 2025, formally concluded that Israel has committed and is committing the crime of genocide in Gaza. The finding is a finding of a UN-mandated body of investigators, not a court ruling, and it does not have the binding legal force of an ICJ judgement. It is, however, the highest-level investigative finding by an international body that the conduct in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide. It is on the public record. It is what the body charged with investigating these things found.

The verdict, on the basis of what the law says and what the relevant bodies have applied it to find, is not difficult to state in plain language.

Hamas committed war crimes on 7 October. The cause it claims to be serving does not license the methods. Hamas is responsible for those crimes, and the rule of law requires that the responsible individuals be held to account.

Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza on a scale and over a duration that meets the definitional threshold of the Genocide Convention. The ICJ has ordered provisional measures and has not yet ruled on the merits. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for the prime minister and the defence minister. The UN Commission of Inquiry has formally concluded that genocide has been committed. The Israeli state has, in addition, conducted parallel campaigns of unlawful conduct in the West Bank, where Hamas does not exist, and in a detention regime that has been documented as a network of torture camps. These conclusions are not contested by the international institutions that exist to find them. They are contested only by the governments that have armed and supplied the campaign and that have refused to draw the conclusions the evidence supports.

That is the verdict on the conduct. The question of why — why Hamas built what it built, why Iran funded what it funded, why Palestinian leadership failed where it failed, why Netanyahu propped up the very organisation that attacked his country, why the occupation persisted across half a century until 7 October became thinkable — is the question Part II takes up. The conduct is what the law judges. The causes are what the politics has to face.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

Photo: Ashraf Amra / UNRWA, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Cropped and text overlay added for header.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Ronen Bergman and Adam Goldman, “Israel Knew Hamas’s Attack Plan More Than a Year Ago,” New York Times, 30 November 2023.

² UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, A/HRC/40/74, 28 February 2019.

³ Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman, “Iran Was Surprised by Timing of Hamas Attack, US Intelligence Says,” New York Times, 11 October 2023.

⁴ Tal Schneider, “For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces,” Times of Israel, 8 October 2023; David M. Halbfinger and Isabel Kershner, “Israel’s Premier Pursued Strategy to Keep Hamas in Power,” New York Times, 11 October 2023.

⁵ “How Hamas Built a Force to Attack Israel on 7 October,” Reuters, 12 October 2023; Amos Harel, “How Israel Was Caught Unprepared on October 7,” Haaretz, 12 October 2023.

⁶ AFP, “Israel revises October 7 death toll to about 1,200,” 11 November 2023.

⁷ Yaniv Kubovich, “Hamas Took Israeli Hostages on Oct. 7. The Israeli Army Ordered Their Killers Killed With Them,” Haaretz, 7 July 2024; Adam Sella, Patrick Kingsley and Ronen Bergman, “The Battle for Be’eri,” New York Times, December 2023; on Colonel Nof Erez’s “mass Hannibal” characterisation, see the audio interview published by Haaretz, 9 November 2023.

⁸ Times of Israel, “364 confirmed dead at Nova festival,” 18 October 2023.

⁹ UN OHCHR, “Detailed findings on the attacks carried out on and after 7 October 2023 in Israel,” March 2025; Israel Police preliminary findings released 30 November 2023.

¹⁰ Times of Israel, “IDF finds video of Bibas family in Gaza, ‘very concerned’ for mother, youngest hostages,” 19 February 2024.

¹¹ Geneva Convention IV, Article 34: “The taking of hostages is prohibited.”

¹² Nir Hasson and Liza Rozovsky, “How an Unverified Story About Beheaded Babies Spread Around the World,” Haaretz, 4 December 2023; Reuters, “White House walks back Biden remark on beheaded children in Israel,” 12 October 2023.

¹³ Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim and Daniel Boguslaw, “Between the Hammer and the Anvil,” The Intercept, 28 February 2024.

¹⁴ UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Mission report — official visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank, 29 January to 14 February 2024, published 4 March 2024.

¹⁵ Times of Israel, “Israel forbids doctors from speaking to UN group investigating Oct. 7 atrocities,” 16 January 2024; Haaretz, “Israel Blocks UN Probe Into Hamas Sexual Crimes From October 7 to Avoid Inquiry Into Abuse of Palestinians,” 8 January 2025.

¹⁶ On the prior Israeli mainstream exposure of Cochav Elkayam-Levy, see the Yedioth Ahronoth/Ynet investigation, March 2024; reported in English by Middle East Monitor, “Israel media questions awarding prize to fraudulent lawyer behind Hamas ‘mass rape’ allegations,” 28 March 2024.

¹⁷ Times of Israel, “Freed Hamas hostage recounts ordeal, slams Israeli failures, speaks well of captors,” 24 October 2023.

¹⁸ Times of Israel, “Lifshitz press conference panned as disastrous for Israel, PR win for Hamas,” 24 October 2023.

¹⁹ Anshel Pfeffer, “The Hannibal Directive: Why Israel Risks the Lives of Its Captured Soldiers,” Haaretz, October 2014; Gili Cohen, “IDF Cancels ‘Hannibal Directive,’ Replacing It With New Orders for Soldier Abductions,” Haaretz, 28 June 2016.

²⁰ Reuters, “Egypt warned Israel days before Hamas struck, US committee chairman says,” 11 October 2023.

²¹ Ronen Bergman and Adam Goldman, “Israel Knew Hamas’s Attack Plan More Than a Year Ago,” New York Times, 30 November 2023.

²² Times of Israel, “Gaza border observers raised alarms about Hamas drills for months before October 7,” 17 October 2023.

²³ Amos Harel, “How Israel Was Caught Unprepared on October 7,” Haaretz, 12 October 2023.

²⁴ Reuters, “Israel orders ‘complete siege’ of Gaza,” 9 October 2023.

²⁵ Natasha Bertrand et al., “Nearly half of the Israeli munitions dropped on Gaza are imprecise ‘dumb bombs,’ US intelligence assessment finds,” CNN, 13 December 2023.

²⁶ Zeina Jamaluddine et al., “Excess mortality in the Gaza Strip during the conflict, 7 October 2023 to 30 June 2024,” The Lancet, January 2025.

²⁷ Susannah George, Sarah Cahlan and Hajar Harb, “Israel’s evidence for Al-Shifa hospital as Hamas base is hard to find,” Washington Post, 21 December 2023.

²⁸ World Health Organisation, Health Cluster Bulletin — Gaza, monthly editions through 2024–2025.

²⁹ BBC, “Verified: How Israeli forces struck the Greek Orthodox church in Gaza,” 21 October 2023; Forensic Architecture, “Living Archaeology in Gaza,” 2024.

³⁰ Committee to Protect Journalists, Journalist Casualties in the Israel-Gaza War, ongoing tracker.

³¹ Nick Waters, “Strike That Killed World Central Kitchen Workers Bears Hallmarks of Israeli Precision Strike,” Bellingcat, 2 April 2024; Human Rights Watch, Gaza: Israelis Attacking Known Aid Worker Locations, 14 May 2024.

³² Patrick Kingsley and Aaron Boxerman, “Israeli Military Says Troops Mistakenly Killed Three Hostages,” New York Times, 15 December 2023.

³³ Amnesty International Crisis Evidence Lab, Hidden in Plain Sight, 2024; Forensic Architecture investigations into the buffer zone demolitions.

³⁴ Republic of South Africa, Application instituting proceedings in South Africa v. Israel, filed at the ICJ on 29 December 2023; ICJ, Order of 26 January 2024.

³⁵ Yuval Abraham, “’Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza,” +972 Magazine and Local Call, 3 April 2024.

³⁶ Bethan McKernan and Harry Davies, “’The machine did it coldly’: Israel used AI to identify 37,000 Hamas suspects,” The Guardian, 3 April 2024.

³⁷ Margaret Brennan, “Transcript: Cindy McCain on ‘Face the Nation,’” CBS News, 5 May 2024; Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, Gaza Strip: Acute Food Insecurity Situation, reports of March 2024 and August 2025.

³⁸ Times of Israel, “Ben Gvir: ‘Nothing more just’ than blocking aid to Gaza,” 4 February 2024; Times of Israel, “Smotrich: It might be ‘just and moral’ to starve 2 million Gazans, but ‘world won’t let us,’” 5 August 2024.

³⁹ Haaretz, “Settlers Attack Aid Trucks Heading to Gaza, Burn Their Cargo,” 13 May 2024; US Department of the Treasury press release, “Treasury Sanctions Tzav 9 for Blocking Humanitarian Aid to Gaza,” 14 June 2024.

⁴⁰ The Washington Post, “How Israeli forces opened fire on Gazans waiting for flour aid,” visual investigation, 5 March 2024; Forensic Architecture, The Flour Massacre, March 2024.

⁴¹ The New York Times, “How a Murky US-Backed Aid Effort in Gaza Became a Killing Field,” May–October 2025 series.

⁴² UN OCHA, Casualties at Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Sites — Monthly Updates, June–November 2025; The Intercept, “The Christian Nationalist Mercenaries Killing Palestinians for Food,” September 2025.

⁴³ Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 54; Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv); ICJ provisional measures orders of 26 January, 28 March, and 24 May 2024 in South Africa v. Israel.

⁴⁴ UN OCHA, Reported impact since 7 October 2023 — West Bank, ongoing data tracker.

⁴⁵ B’Tselem, State Business: Israeli Authorities and Settler Violence in the Occupied West Bank, November 2023 and subsequent updates; ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 19 July 2024.

⁴⁶ Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld, 2006); Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Sarah Ihmoud and Suhad Daher-Nashif, “Sexual violence, women’s bodies, and Israeli settler colonialism,” Jadaliyya, November 2014; Hagar Shezaf, “Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs,” Haaretz, 5 July 2019.

⁴⁷ The New York Times, “Inside the Base Where Israel Has Held Thousands of Gazans,” 6 June 2024; CNN, “Israeli whistleblowers detail abuse of Palestinians in shadowy detention center,” 10 May 2024.

⁴⁸ Haaretz, “Israeli Doctors Tell Sde Teiman Detainees: ‘I Lost My Faith in Humanity Here,’” June 2024; Physicians for Human Rights — Israel reports, May–August 2024.

⁴⁹ Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Testimonies of Systematic Rape and Sexual Torture in Israeli Detention against Released Palestinian Detainees, November 2025; UN Human Rights Council, Detailed findings on the use of sexual violence against Palestinians by Israeli forces, A/HRC/58/CRP, March 2025.

⁵⁰ Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Testimonies of Systematic Rape, November 2025; Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, Another Genocide Behind Walls, 2025; Nicholas Kristof, “The Hidden Rape Epidemic Inside Israeli Prisons,” New York Times, May 2026.

⁵¹ Times of Israel, “Mobs storm Sde Teiman base and Beit Lid court as soldiers held over alleged abuse of detainee,” 29 July 2024.

⁵² Times of Israel, “Five Sde Teiman reservists charged with aggravated abuse, sodomy of Palestinian detainee,” 11 September 2024.

⁵³ CNN, “Top Israeli military prosecutor resigns over leaked detainee abuse video,” 31 October 2025.

⁵⁴ CNN, “Assault charges against Israeli soldiers dropped in controversial end to a yearlong scandal,” 12 March 2026.

⁵⁵ B’Tselem, Welcome to Hell: The Israeli Prison System as a Network of Torture Camps for Palestinians, August 2024.

⁵⁶ Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association, ongoing tracker; Middle East Eye, “Mutilated bodies returned to Gaza include detainees held at Sde Teiman,” February 2025.

Every fight in Western politics — the mayor of London, the mayor of New York, a Black US president, immigration, criminal gangs, violence in the streets — summons the same stream of pundits, politicians, preachers, influencers and YouTubers to defame one thing: Islam. In a political climate this charged, moving at the speed of a meme, thick with people claiming to be in the know — some styling themselves ‘scholars’ — this series talks about what no one else will: the sleight of hand, the propagandist’s hand in your pocket while the other points at a horizon that isn’t there. It is not apologetics. You do not have to believe a word of Islam to see you are being lied to about it. That is where Fireline Press lives and works: between what is true and what is scorching the political landscape of the West.

FOR THIRTEEN CENTURIES, the people who most wanted Muhammad destroyed said nothing about the age of his wife Aisha.

They said everything else. They called him a fraud and a forger, a false prophet who invented his revelation and passed it off as God’s. They called him possessed, epileptic, out of his mind.¹ They called him a man ruled by lust — too many wives, and the marriage to Zaynab, which they cast as adultery with a revelation stapled on to excuse it. They had scholars who spoke Arabic, who lived under Muslim rule, who read the sources in the original and hunted them for a weapon. They reached for every charge a man can throw at another man’s name. They did not reach for this one.

The charge handed to you now — that the Prophet of Islam married a child, six years old when the contract was signed and nine when the marriage was consummated, and that a faith which honours him honours that — is not fourteen hundred years old. As a weapon, it is closer to fifty. It has a birthday, and by the end of this you will nearly be able to name the decade.

Get to that later. Start with the thing they hold up now, the thing they say closes the case: one report, in the most trusted collections, that gives the two numbers. Start there, because the tradition that produced that report has a grade for it — and the grade is not the one they are counting on you to assume.

Sahih Is Not the Same as True

Here is the claim, stated as they state it. Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim — the two collections Sunni Islam holds highest — record Aisha saying she was six when she was married and nine when the marriage began.² Sahih means sound, authenticated, graded reliable by the scholars who sifted the record. And there, they will tell you, the case rests: the most trusted books carry it, so what more is there to say?

Plenty — because they are counting on you not knowing what sahih actually certifies. It is a grade awarded to the chain, not to the content.

Every hadith — a hadith being a reported saying or act of the Prophet, transmitted by memory for generations before it was written down — carries two parts. There is the text, and there is the isnad, the chain of names that vouches for it: he heard it from her, who heard it from him, back to the source. The science of authentication grades the chain. It asks whether each narrator was honest, whether their memories were reliable, whether two people who claim to have met plausibly could have. When it calls a report sahih, it is certifying the men in the chain. It is not certifying that the thing they remembered happened the way they remembered it.

Honest is not the same as accurate. A saying carried by word of mouth, person to person, for a hundred years and more does not arrive unchanged. Memory fades. People repeat in their own words, and the words shift. Each narrator hears the saying through their own understanding, and passes on what they understood. Anyone who has whispered a sentence around a room and heard what came back knows the shape of the problem. None of it needs a liar. An unbroken line of honest, careful people can take one thing in at the start and hand something quietly different out at the end — and the grade would vouch for every one of them.

So the grade tells you the report was transmitted carefully. It does not tell you it is true. And the tradition knows the difference, because it has a second scale for exactly this — one the people wielding these numbers never mention.

A report can be mutawatir — mass-transmitted, carried by so many independent chains at every stage that collective error becomes impossible. Or it can be ahad — a single-strand report, running through one or a few narrators at some link in the chain. The distinction is not decorative. Classical scholarship holds that a mutawatir report yields qat’ — certainty — while an ahad report yields only zann — probable knowledge, strong perhaps, but short of proof.³ The age report is ahad. By the tradition’s own rules, it was never rated to deliver certainty. It was rated to deliver a probability.

And it is a particular kind of thin. Much of the report’s transmission runs back through one man: Hisham ibn Urwa, Aisha’s great-nephew — and, more precisely, through his narrations from the last part of his life, after he left Madina for Iraq. Classical critics noticed. His reputation was high, but his Iraqi reports drew specific reservations from the scholars who catalogued such things; a man’s memory at the end of a long life, in a new city, retelling old family stories, is not the man at his peak.⁴

The report is also missing where it should be loudest. Ibn Ishaq, the earliest biographer of the Prophet, whose work is the spine of everything written after, records nothing about Aisha’s age at marriage — the detail was inserted into his book generations later by a subsequent hand.⁵ And it is absent from the Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas, the earliest surviving book of Madinan law, compiled in the city where Aisha lived and taught, by a scholar who cites her nephew Urwa dozens of times. A claim with this much legal weight — the kind of thing a book of law exists to record — and the first book of Madinan law does not have it. The most exhaustive study of the report’s transmission, Joshua Little’s 2023 Oxford doctoral thesis, traces it the same way the record does: not to Madina in Aisha’s lifetime but to Iraq, generations after her death.⁶ The lowest figure was never standing on the ground its defenders think it stands on.

Set the scales side by side. The one source Islam holds as qat’, as certain — the Qur’an, which the Prophet is recorded as authorising, which Muslims hold as revelation preserved word for word — says nothing about Aisha’s age. Not a number, not a hint. The certainty in this argument is borrowed entirely against a single-strand report that the tradition's own grading never rates as proof, that concentrates in one man's late narrations, and that the earliest sources do not carry. The accusers claim proof. The scholars who graded the report never granted it.

That is what the certainty is made of. Now weigh it against what the rest of the record actually says.

The Record Cuts the Other Way

The accusers rest their certainty on one report. The record does not. It holds a spread of accounts of Aisha’s age, and they cut against the low figure and against one another — each carrying a number, and not one of the numbers is nine. To seize the report that says six and nine and set the rest aside is not scholarship. It is rigging the record. So count what they set aside.

Start with the family’s own ages. Asma bint Abi Bakr, Aisha’s elder sister, died in the year 73 after the Hijra — the migration to Madina — at a hundred years old, which fixes her at twenty-seven when the migration came. The sources make her about ten years older than Aisha. That sets Aisha at seventeen at the migration, and eighteen to twenty when the marriage began.⁷ Fatima, the Prophet’s own daughter, was five years older than Aisha and was reportedly born when the Prophet was thirty-five — which places Aisha’s birth when he was forty, and makes her about twelve at her marriage.⁸ And al-Tabari, the earliest of the great historians, records that Abu Bakr’s children were all born in the Jahiliyya, the age before Islam, which closed for him with the Prophet’s mission around 610. A child born before 610 is at least twelve by the migration — and thirteen or fourteen by the time the marriage began.⁹ Three reckonings from the household’s own ages, and not one of them returns nine.

Then the betrothal. The Prophet did not seek Aisha out — after Khadija died, it was Khawla bint Hakim who proposed the match, and he sent her to put it to the family.¹⁰ And she was already spoken for. Aisha had been promised to Jubayr, son of Mut’im ibn Adi, and al-Tabari records that Abu Bakr, moving around 615 to spare her the hard road to Abyssinia, sought to complete that match sooner than planned. It fell through over his conversion — Mut’im’s people were pagan and wanted no marriage tie to a Muslim house.¹¹

Then the record turns on itself. In the same Sahih al-Bukhari that carries the two numbers, Aisha places herself at the revelation of a verse — Surah al-Qamar, the fifty-fourth, sent down at Makkah years before the migration. She was, she says, a jariya — a young girl, old enough to run and to keep the memory of it.¹² Set that against the low timeline. If she was nine when the marriage began, she was born around the very year the verse she recalls was already revealed — which leaves her a small child on that day, or not yet born at all. Reckon it forward and it puts her, at marriage, somewhere between fourteen and twenty-one. The defenders answer that a small child can be a jariya too. Grant it entirely. A small child is still not an unborn one, and an unborn one does not carry the memory of a verse and recite it decades on. And the earliest biographers agree neither with the low figure nor with one another: read across Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat and al-Baladhuri’s Ansab al-Ashraf and the marriage falls two to five years after the migration, putting Aisha at seventeen to twenty.¹³

Then her own faith. The earliest surviving life of the Prophet, Ibn Hisham’s, lists Aisha among the believers before Umar ibn al-Khattab, in the years around 610. To accept a faith is to be old enough to understand it; a child who had reached that age by 610 was at least fifteen by the migration.¹⁴

And there is one more, heavier than any of the sums, because it does not count ages at all — it goes at the report itself. A traditionalist scholar of hadith of our own century, Salah al-Din al-Idlibi, took the six-and-nine narration and, by the discipline’s own tools of narrator- and text-criticism, judged it defective — anomalous in wording, weak at the root — and reconstructed the chronology with the marriage contracted near fourteen and consummated near eighteen.¹⁵ That is not an outsider second-guessing the tradition. It is the tradition’s own science, turned on the one report the accusers call untouchable.

Now stand them together. The family’s arithmetic. A betrothal struck before the Prophet asked. Her own memory of a verse. The biographers’ own timeline. Her early faith. And the tradition’s own hadith science. Line after line, every one drawn from the very sources the accusers claim to honour, and every one pointing past nine — most in the teens, some past twenty. To keep the low number you must throw them all out at once and keep only the one. That is not reading the record. That is the rigging they accuse everyone else of.

So the honest answer is not a rival number. It is a floor no reading falls below. Not single digits. Past puberty, of marriageable age by the reckoning of that place and that century, with the weight of the strongest evidence in the late teens and, by the fullest reckoning, past twenty. She was not a child.

The Woman They Speak For

The charge does more than fix a number. It builds a victim — a small girl, frightened, silenced, used. Hold that picture, because the accusers are certain of it, and then set it against the one person who could have confirmed it and never did.

Aisha is not a silent figure in the record. She is one of the most documented people of the entire first century of Islam. After the Prophet died she became one of the foremost transmitters of his life — thousands of reports carry her name, and on the private hours of his household she is very often the only source there is.¹⁶ Jurists came to her with their questions. Companions who had walked with the Prophet for twenty years deferred to her memory. She corrected the men who got it wrong. Twenty-four years after his death she rode out at the head of an army and gave battle in the field.¹⁷ Whatever word fits that life, “voiceless” is not it.

So put the accusers’ certainty beside her own. Here is a woman who spoke about the Prophet more, and more intimately, than almost anyone alive — his habits, his moods, his prayers, his last illness, the way he died with his head against her. She had the standing to say anything. She had every reason, across a long life, to name a wound if there had been one. And in all of it, in the thousands of words she left about the man she had married, she never once told the story her accusers force onto you in her name. Not victimhood. Not grievance. Not a marriage she wished undone. They speak for a woman who spoke, at length, for herself — and they put in her mouth the one thing she never said.

No serious historian of Islam, across fourteen centuries of scholars who scrutinised every hour of the Prophet’s life, has recorded a sign of a forced or abusive marriage. That is not an argument from a friendly silence. It is a silence from the very record that preserves her complaints about everything else — her jealousy, her sharp words with him, the times she was angry — and preserves them in her own voice. The record that keeps her smallest grievance keeps no trace of the great one the accusers assert. The likeliest reason a thing goes unrecorded by everyone, including the person it was done to, is that it was never done.

Then there is the charge underneath the charge — that this was a man ruled by appetite, who reached for a child because he could. Set that against his life. He married once, at twenty-five, a widow some fifteen years his senior, and he stayed married to her, and to her alone, for twenty-four years. He took no second wife while she lived. He was near fifty, and a widower, before he married again.¹⁸ Whatever drove the man who did that, a hunger for young girls is not a theory the record will carry. You do not spend the whole of your youth faithful to an older woman if you are what they need you to be.

None of this is offered to make a seventh-century marriage sit easily in a twenty-first-century chair. That is not the argument, and Muslims do not make it. The reason the age is worth an honest accounting is narrower and older: the Prophet’s life is held in Islam as uswa hasana — the beautiful example, the pattern against which a believer measures a life — and a pattern has to be read as it was, not as a slander redraws it. The tradition that reveres him is the same tradition that requires a marriage be willingly entered, forbids that it be forced, and records this one as accepted. Getting the history straight is not a defence. It is the refusal to let a lie stand in for the man.

And here is what the accusers cannot explain — the first crack in the whole edifice. Muhammad did not want for enemies in his own lifetime. The tribes of Makkah called him possessed. They called him a sorcerer, a poet, a soothsayer, a liar. They said the Qur’an was fables he had stitched together, that a foreigner was feeding him his lines.¹⁹ They mocked his losses and his claims and spared him nothing. They had every motive to shame him and no scruple about how. And not one of them — not a single enemy, in the one place and the one lifetime where the marriage actually happened, in front of everyone — ever thought to accuse him of taking a bride too young. The charge that is meant to be the scandal of his life did not occur to the people who most wanted a scandal.

Keep hold of that silence. It is the first of three.

The Attack With a Birthday

That was the first silence — the men who lived alongside him, who wanted him ruined and said so. Here is the second, and it runs a great deal longer.

For a thousand years the Christian world produced a library of attacks on Muhammad, and the men who wrote it were neither amateurs nor squeamish. Begin with the first of them. John of Damascus wrote the earliest sustained Christian refutation of Islam around the year 743, a chapter he titled the heresy of the Ishmaelites.²⁰ He was no distant observer working from rumour. He carried an Arabic name, Yuhanna ibn Mansur; he lived his whole life under Muslim rule; his family had served at the caliph’s court in Damascus. If any Christian on earth was placed to know the Prophet’s life and turn it into a weapon, it was this one. And he swung hard. He named Muhammad a false prophet and a forerunner of the Antichrist. He called the Qur’an a hodgepodge stitched from the Bible and passed off as revelation. He went at the marriages directly — assailing what he called the Prophet’s immoral practices, and the verses he said were sent down to license them, the marriage to Zaynab above all. He reached for every charge he could carry. He did not reach for Aisha’s age. It is not in the text.

Nor is it in the man who came after. Riccoldo da Montecroce, a Dominican who spent the better part of a decade in Baghdad late in the thirteenth century — who learned Arabic and read the Qur’an with Muslim scholars so that he could refute it line by line — wrote one of the most widely read anti-Islamic works of the Middle Ages.²¹ He called the Prophet false and his book evil. Aisha’s age is not his charge either. The Byzantine refutations and the medieval Latin biographies charged him with epilepsy, lust, and fraud — and passed over the age in silence. For the better part of a thousand years, the people whose whole purpose was to find the worst in this man, who read the sources in Arabic to do it, passed clean over the thing you have been told is the worst of all.

Then the third silence, and it is the one that should settle the matter, because it comes from the men who studied him hardest. In the nineteenth century the orientalists took the Prophet’s life apart page by page to discredit it — William Muir, David Margoliouth, scholars who read every source and meant him no kindness. They noticed the age. And they did almost nothing with it. Their fire went to the polygamy, the political marriages, the prophethood itself. Where they touched the age of Aisha at all, it was in passing.²² Not paedophilia. Not the scandal of a religion. A footnote. Men who wanted the whole edifice to fall, holding the supposed keystone in their hands, and setting it down as barely worth the ink.

So when does the charge arrive? Late. The reference works that map the history of criticism of the Prophet put it plainly: the pointed, abundant attack on Aisha’s age — the one that names him a paedophile — becomes common only from the middle of the twentieth century, in the years when Islam came under a new and hostile scrutiny.²³ Not the seventh century. Not the twelfth. Not the nineteenth. The last stretch of the twentieth, and after. As a weapon, the accusation is younger than colour television — and it does its real work somewhere newer still.

And that silence is not offered here as proof of her age. Her age was settled already, on the evidence, and the evidence put her past childhood. The silence proves something the numbers cannot: that the certainty is manufactured. The men best placed to make this charge, and the most eager to, looked straight at the marriage and found nothing in it worth an accusation. They were not being kind. They missed nothing else.

Hold the two marriages side by side, the way the record does. They attacked the marriage to Zaynab for centuries, and it is still the first marriage Western critics reach for. They left the marriage to Aisha alone. The one they ignored is the one you have been handed as the great crime of his life. The objection has a birthday, and it is modern — younger than colour television, and we can very nearly name the decade.

The Ruler They Use on No One Else

Grant them the number, then. Grant them, for a moment, the very figure the evidence will not give them. Suppose she had been young. The charge still does not land, because the standard they are swinging is one they hold to no one else — not to the past, not to their own law, not even to their own present.

Start with the standard they are using. To fault a seventh-century people for failing to keep the customs of the twenty-first is not an argument; it is a fallacy with a name. Historians call it presentism — the error of holding the past to standards the present invented — and it is a fallacy for a plain reason: cultures are not fixed, and every age sets its own terms for when a person becomes an adult. The modern West draws a hard line at eighteen and builds a protected span of adolescence in front of it; that arrangement is barely a century old, and for almost the whole of human history no culture on earth had it. The world that produced this marriage did not measure adulthood by a birthday. It measured it by bulugh — puberty, the point at which a person answered for their own prayers, their own fasts, their own choices. Nor was it strange in this. Roman law fixed a girl’s marriageable age at twelve and allowed her betrothal at seven; Jewish law set it at twelve; the English common law that England carried to America set it at twelve for a girl and fourteen for a boy.²⁴ To fault the seventh century for breaking a rule the nineteenth had not yet written is not history. It is anachronism, plain and named.

They mistake the event, too. When they say “married at nine” they picture a modern Western wedding night — the marriage and its consummation falling on the same evening. The record describes something else: a contract, and then, separately and often years later, the bringing-in of the bride and the start of a shared life — two acts the tradition kept apart, divided by the paying of the dower, by distance, by the wedding feast, and above all by the rule that the union waited on the bride’s physical maturity.²⁵ A marriage in that world was a bond entered on paper and completed in its own time. The accusers collapse the two into a single lurid image because their own culture collapses them — marry and consummate in one night — and they cannot picture it done any other way. That failure of imagination is not the seventh century’s problem. It is theirs.

But grant them the standard anyway. Suppose a wrong is a wrong in every century, that what offends us now must have offended then. Very well — then a standard is a standard, it has to cut evenly, and turned evenly it falls first on the people swinging it. The people loudest about a marriage in seventh-century Arabia are, very often, citizens of a country where child marriage was legal in every single state until the year 2018. It remains legal, today, in thirty-three of them. In three — California, Mississippi, New Mexico — the statute books set no minimum age at all; a child, in principle of any age, may be married with the right signatures. Somewhere near three hundred thousand American minors were married in the two decades after 2000, the overwhelming majority of them girls, many of them to grown men.²⁶ This is not the distant past. This is the law of the accusers’ own homes, in their own lifetimes, unrepealed. Nor is it only America: their own royal history hands them King John of England, thirty-three years old, taking a bride — Isabella of Angoulême, about twelve — and no one proposes to strike his name from the roll of kings.²⁷

So set the two things side by side, and the shape of it is plain. A person who genuinely cared about the marriage of children as a matter of principle has a legislature to write to, in thirty-three states, right now. That is where the children actually are. The people running this accusation are not writing to their legislatures. They are not marching on their statehouses. They have reached instead for a single marriage, fourteen centuries gone, in a language they cannot read, and made it the whole of their concern — while the thing they say they abhor sits legal on the books at home, and does not trouble them at all. That tells you what the accusation was never about. It was never the practice. It was the man.

What the Slander Is For

So what does it cost the man who makes this charge, if he is wrong? Nothing. Muhammad has been dead fourteen hundred years; Aisha very nearly as long. Whatever the truth of a marriage in seventh-century Arabia, it changes not one hour of the accuser’s life. He does not raise it because he lies awake over a girl in Madina. He raises it because of someone much closer to home.

Follow the charge to its end and it is not an argument about history at all. It is a small machine, and it runs like this. Their prophet was a monster; a faith that reveres a monster is a monstrous faith; and a people who hold to a monstrous faith cannot be trusted to live among us. The age is only the first turn of the handle. What drops out the other end is a conclusion about your neighbour.

That is why the charge never travels alone. It arrives bundled with the rest — that Islam is incompatible with Western values, that the Muslim will not integrate, cannot be one of us, does not belong. And “does not belong” is not, in the end, a debating position. It is a direction of travel. It ends at the closed border, the revoked visa, the deportation order — and at the word the movement now says aloud: remigration, the sending back not only of immigrants but of their children, citizens included, until the country is made “European again.”²⁸ The child bride is not the argument. It is the ticket into the argument, the thing that makes what follows sound like conscience instead of what it is.

So read the accusation once more, and see who it was aimed at all along. Not the Prophet; he is beyond their reach. Not Aisha; she is only the instrument, a woman fourteen centuries dead, taken up as a stick to beat the living. The target was never in the seventh century. It is the man at the next desk, the family three doors down, the girl in the headscarf on the morning train. Aisha is the pretext. Your neighbour is the point.

Here, then, is the honest answer to the question they pretend to ask. The evidence does not give a child. It gives a woman — past childhood, of age by the reckoning of her world, in all likelihood her late teens, an adult by any measure that century or this one would know. That is what the record holds, and it is the most that can honestly be said of it.

But that was never the real question, and it is worth saying plainly what the real one was: whether the people who love this man can be trusted to live beside you. The slander was built to answer it for you, before you thought to ask. So set the charge back down where it belongs — with the people who reached for an accusation younger than colour television, who hold one century to a standard they hold to no other, who speak for a woman who spoke, at length, for herself, and never once said what they put in her mouth. They are the ones with something to account for. Not the marriage. The lie, and the use they built it for.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

Image: fragmentary Qur’an leaf in Hijazi script on vellum, Arabian Peninsula, second half of the 7th century AD (Surah Ya-Sin 36:68–Surah al-Saffat 37:42). Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ The epilepsy charge runs through the Byzantine chronicle tradition — Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia (early 9th c.) — and recurs in later polemic; Humphrey Prideaux (1697) called it “the falling-sickness.”

² The six-and-nine report: Sahih al-Bukhari 5133--5134 (Kitab al-Nikah); Sahih Muslim 1422 (Kitab al-Nikah).

³ On the mutawatir/ahad distinction and the epistemic grades of qat’ (certainty) and zann (probability) — standard Sunni hadith epistemology: Ibn al-Salah, Muqaddima fi Ulum al-Hadith (the chapter on the categories of khabar); al-Nawawi, al-Taqrib.

⁴ On classical reservations regarding Hisham ibn Urwa’s Iraqi-period narrations: al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-I’tidal, and Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, in their entries on Hisham; the reservation over his later Iraqi transmissions, including Ya’qub ibn Shayba’s remark, is widely noted in the rijal literature.

⁵ On the absence of the marital-age report from the early Ibn Ishaq layer and from Malik’s Muwatta, and its concentration in Iraqi transmission: Joshua J. Little, The Hadith of ʿĀʾishah’s Marital Age: A Study in the Evolution of Early Islamic Historical Memory (DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, 2023), available in full via the Oxford University Research Archive.

⁶ Joshua J. Little, The Hadith of ʿĀʾishah’s Marital Age (DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, 2023), Oxford University Research Archive.

⁷ On Asma’s death in 73 AH aged one hundred: Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, 8/371; al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala; Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. 8. The report making Asma about ten years older than Aisha comes from ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad and is the most-cited figure; al-Dhahabi records a wider gap. The age of one hundred is a round longevity figure and is treated accordingly.

⁸ On Fatima as about five years older than Aisha, and born when the Prophet was around thirty-five: Ibn Hajar al-ʿAsqalani, al-Isaba. Her birth year is variously reported in the sources, which makes this the least firm of the three family reckonings.

⁹ Al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk, on Abu Bakr’s children born in the Jahiliyya (the obituary notice on Abu Bakr). The Arabic admits two readings — the births, or only the marriages, falling before Islam; on the reading that it is the births, the report sits against the age of nine.

¹⁰ On Khawla bint Hakim proposing the match after Khadija’s death and the Prophet sending her to the family with it: Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad (in the Musnad of Aisha), graded hasan by Shuaib al-Arna’ut; the report is Aisha’s own, Khawla appearing as the speaker within it, and is also carried by al-Tabari, Tarikh, and other collections.

¹¹ On Aisha’s prior engagement to Jubayr ibn Mut’im, Abu Bakr’s move to complete it around the time of the Abyssinia migration, and its ending over his conversion: al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk; Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra.

¹² Sahih al-Bukhari 4876 (Kitab al-Tafsir, on Surah al-Qamar) — Aisha recalling herself as a jariya, a girl at play, at the verse’s revelation at Makkah. The revelation is dated in the sources to roughly five to nine years before the Hijra; the contradiction with a birth around 614 holds across that range.

¹³ On the marriage placed two to five years after the Hijra: Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra; al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf.

¹⁴ On Aisha listed among the early believers, before Umar ibn al-Khattab, around 610: Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq, al-Sira al-Nabawiyya.

¹⁵ On the hadith-critical case for an older age — the six-and-nine report judged anomalous (shadhdh) and defective (maʿlul), the consummation reconstructed near eighteen: Salah al-Din al-Idlibi, surveyed in Arnold Yasin Mol, “Aisha (ra): The Case for an Older Age in Sunni Hadith Scholarship,” Yaqeen Institute (2024).

¹⁶ Aisha is credited with 2,210 hadith, the fourth most prolific of the Companions (after Abu Hurayra, Ibn Umar, and Anas ibn Malik), and is a principal — often the sole — source for the Prophet’s domestic life.

¹⁷ On Aisha’s leadership at the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal), near Basra, 36 AH / 656 CE — twenty-four years after the Prophet’s death: al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk.

¹⁸ On the Prophet’s marriage to Khadija (c. 595, when he was about twenty-five and she some fifteen years his senior), his monogamy through their roughly twenty-four years together, and his taking no other wife until after her death in 619: Ibn Hisham, al-Sira al-Nabawiyya; Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra.

¹⁹ On the Makkan accusations against the Prophet — possession, sorcery, poetry, soothsaying, and the charge that the Qur’an was fabricated or taught to him by a foreigner: Qur’an 15:6 (possession); 25:4--5 (forgery and “tales of the ancients”); 16:103 (taught by a foreigner); 52:29--30 (soothsayer and poet); 21:5 (poet).

²⁰ John of Damascus, On Heresies, ch. 101 (”the Heresy of the Ishmaelites”), in the Fount of Knowledge (c. 743): he assails the Prophet’s “immoral practices” and the Qur’anic verses said to license them — the marriage to Zaynab above all — but does not raise Aisha’s age.

²¹ Riccoldo da Montecroce, Contra legem Sarracenorum (c. 1300); the Dominican spent roughly a decade in Baghdad and learned Arabic to refute the Qur’an point by point. His charges centre on the Qur’an’s authenticity and Muhammad’s prophethood; the age of Aisha is not among them.

²² William Muir, The Life of Mahomet (1861); D. S. Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam (1905). Both note the marriage, but direct their sustained criticism at the polygamy, the political marriages, the revelation, and prophethood itself; neither treats Aisha’s age as the defining moral charge, and the modern paedophilia framing is absent.

²³ The focus on Aisha’s age is a modern development. Kecia Ali, The Lives of Muhammad (Harvard University Press, 2014), traces the shift: medieval and early-modern critics attacked Muhammad’s supposed lustfulness and debauchery, nineteenth-century Christian writers his polygamy and treatment of women, and only in the late twentieth century did Aisha’s age become the centre of criticism. Denise Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past (Columbia University Press, 1994), likewise finds the early Muslim mention of her age atypical.

²⁴ On adulthood reckoned from physical maturity (bulugh) rather than a fixed number: Roman law set a girl’s marriageable age at twelve, with betrothal permitted from seven (Frier and McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law); Jewish law likewise fixed it at twelve (the ketannah, a girl from three to twelve-and-a-day); and the English common law inherited by the United States set twelve for girls and fourteen for boys. The category of the “minor under eighteen,” and the concept of adolescence itself, belong to the modern period.

²⁵ On the two-stage structure — the marriage contract distinct from, and often years before, the bringing-in of the bride and consummation, with consummation deferred to physical maturity: Kecia Ali, Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam (Harvard University Press, 2010); Carolyn Baugh, Minor Marriage in Early Islamic Law (Brill, 2017).

²⁶ Child marriage was legal in all fifty US states until 2018. As of mid-2026, seventeen states have banned marriage under eighteen with no exceptions, while thirty-three still permit it under exceptions such as parental or judicial consent; three — California, Mississippi, and New Mexico — set no statutory minimum age at all. Oklahoma, until 2026 the fourth such state, enacted a ban that takes effect 1 November 2026. An estimated three hundred thousand US minors were legally married between 2000 and 2021, the great majority girls married to adult men. Sources: tracking data from Unchained At Last and Equality Now, current to mid-2026.

²⁷ King John of England (b. 1166) married Isabella of Angoulême (b. c. 1186--1188), then about twelve, in 1200.

²⁸ On “remigration” as the term adopted across European and American far-right and identitarian movements for the forced removal of immigrants and their descendants — including legal residents and citizens — as the proposed “solution” to the “Great Replacement” conspiracy: popularised by the Austrian identitarian Martin Sellner, normalised by Germany’s AfD (the secret Potsdam meeting of November 2023), and by 2025 entering official rhetoric and policy planning in the United States. See Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, “What Is ‘Remigration’?” (2026).

The man in Edinburgh, held face-down on the ground, shouted at the officers arresting him: “I’m protecting the country from these fucking Muslim bastards raping our young daughters.”¹ The post said:

“Muslims don’t feel safe in the UK.” Well, neither do more than a quarter of a million girls who were raped in the UK, by Muslims. In other words, we don’t care — go home.²

That post — Exhibit A in what follows — went up at 08:41 on 22 June 2026, the morning Lewis Hawkes appeared in the dock. A blue tick beside the name. Monetised. Reported to the platform, and still live. Strip away the timestamp and you could not tell which sentence came from the man now charged with terrorism-aggravated attempted murder and which from an account that will face nothing at all.

The facts of the attack, before any argument arrives. On Friday 19 June, five men were injured across the west and north of Edinburgh; several were taken to hospital. Two were set upon after leaving prayers at their local mosque.³ Counter-terrorism officers took over the investigation. On Monday 22 June, Hawkes, 36, appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court charged with five counts of attempted murder, one of assault and robbery, two of breach of the peace and two of culpable and reckless conduct — every charge aggravated by a terrorist connection. He entered no plea and was remanded.⁴

The condemnation was immediate and it came from the top. The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, wrote on X that the suspect appeared motivated by anti-Muslim hatred and would face “the full force of the law.”⁵ The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, said she was “horrified,” and that there is no place for hatred and violence against Muslims.⁶ Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney, said there was no place for violence, racism or intolerance.⁷ Two days after that post, Starmer announced his resignation; but on 20 June he was the serving Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and he called it what it was: anti-Muslim hatred.

So did the community, in real time. The Muslim Council of Britain criticised “political rhetoric that demonises entire communities.” A Muslim civil-society body urged police to treat the attack as Islamophobic, far-right terror. The Scottish Association of Mosques noted the aggressive rhetoric that had been circulating online in the preceding days.⁸ Nobody had to reach for the connection. They had watched it being built.

Here is the asymmetry the rest of this piece is about, visible in a single morning. The state denounced the physical act in the strongest terms available to it and charged the man who committed it as a terrorist. The post came after the attack, not before — and there it still sat, the morning Hawkes stood in the dock: one more in a stream that has never paused. The countless previous sentences that armed him — the same claim, the same demand that Muslims be got rid of — sit on verified influencer accounts devoted to this purpose, monetised accounts a few scrolls away from every other topic and pushed by an algorithm designed to stoke outrage, many reported and left untouched, gathering thousands or millions of views.

Hawkes didn’t invent his sentence. He absorbed it.

Hatred, not criticism

Start with the line itself, because everything that follows depends on knowing exactly where it runs.

You may say almost anything about Islam. You may call it false, archaic, dangerous. You may ridicule its Prophet, reject its scripture, and hold the entire religion in contempt, in print and at volume. British law protects every word of that. The statute that criminalises the stirring up of religious hatred says as much in its own text: nothing in it is to restrict discussion, criticism, ridicule, insult or abuse of a religion, or of the beliefs and practices of its followers.⁹ The offence it creates is narrow by design — it reaches only threatening words used with the intention of stirring up hatred. Scotland’s law draws the same line, with the same protection for criticism built into it.¹⁰

So the line does not fall between polite speech and rude speech, or between approval and disapproval. It falls between attacking a set of ideas and inciting hatred against a group of people. “Islam is a violent creed” is an argument; you may make it, and others may answer it. “Muslims rape our daughters — get rid of them” is not an argument about a creed. It is an incitement against people, and it is the thing the law was written to catch.

This is the same line the law draws around Jews, and nobody finds it confusing there. You may criticise Judaism, dispute its teachings, reject it outright. What you may not do is incite hatred against Jews as people — and when someone does, the machinery moves with lightning speed. The argument of this piece is not that Islam should be placed beyond criticism. It is the opposite: the line already exists, is already understood, and is already enforced for one community, and the question worth asking is why it is not enforced for another.

Hold that distinction in view, because every attempt to dismiss what follows will depend on blurring it.

Substitute the word

There is a test for all of this, and it costs one word. Take the post, or the sentence Hawkes shouted with a machete in his hand, and put “Jewish” where “Muslim” stands. You do not need me to finish it; you already flinched. Now ask the practical questions. How long does that version last on a verified account — weeks, gathering views, or minutes? Is it reported and left up, or gone within the hour with someone under investigation? You know the answer, and so does everyone. That gap — between the sentence that stays and the sentence that vanishes — is the whole subject of this article.

This is not a complaint that the protection around Jews is excessive. It is the opposite. That protection exists because Britain decided, correctly, that incitement against Jews is never idle — that it is the first stage of something, and that the something has to be stopped before it arrives. The Community Security Trust records it, shares it with police, and the state moves.¹¹ That judgement is right. This article asks only that the same judgement be made a second time, for a second community, on the same reasoning.

And the reasoning carries, because the words do. “You do not belong here. Go back where you came from.” That sentence was aimed at Jews for the better part of a thousand years — expelled from England in 1290, from Spain in 1492, from town after town in the centuries between, always cast as the alien presence a nation could not absorb.¹² The blood libel — the lie that Jews murdered Christian children — invents the event itself: no crime took place, so there was nothing to misread.¹³ The “Muslim rape gang” libel works the other way: it takes a real event, committed by specific men, and inflates it — stretching the perpetrators into a whole faith, a whole ethnicity. One manufactures the crime; the other seizes a real one and swells it past its perpetrators. They meet at the end: a whole people charged for what a few did, or for what no one did at all. This is not history that flatters Europe. The slander did not retire; it changed target. What was said of the Jew is now said of the Muslim, very nearly word for word.

We know where it leads, because for Muslims it has already led there. Quebec City, 2017: six men shot dead at evening prayers. Finsbury Park, the same year: a van driven into worshippers leaving Ramadan prayers, one man killed. Christchurch, 2019: fifty-one murdered across two mosques by a man whose ammunition was inscribed “For Rotherham” — the grooming-gang scandal, named on the bullets.¹⁴ Now Edinburgh. The incitement is not theoretical, and neither is the thing it builds toward. The precursor has a body count.

So when this article asks why the same words are prosecuted for one community and monetised for another, it is not a rhetorical flourish. It is the practical question, put to a state that already knows how to answer it — because it answers it, correctly, every time the target is Jewish.

The law already exists

The claim that there is no law for this is simply untrue. There is law, and a great deal of it.

Stirring up hatred against people because of their religion is a criminal offence across the United Kingdom. In England and Wales it lives in Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, inserted by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006: threatening words or behaviour, used with intent to stir up religious hatred, punishable by up to seven years.¹⁵ In Scotland — where Edinburgh sits — the same conduct is caught by the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, in force since April 2024.¹⁶ The offence exists in both jurisdictions. It is not aspirational. It carries a prison sentence.

Above it sits a layer that ignores borders entirely. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a grossly offensive or menacing message over a public electronic network — the provision under which people have been jailed for a single post.¹⁷ And above that sits the Online Safety Act 2023, fully in force since 2025, which moves the question from the poster to the platform. Stirring up religious hatred is named in the Act’s Schedule 7 as priority illegal content. Platforms carry a legal duty to build systems that limit its spread and to take it down once notified. The penalty for failure is a fine of up to ten per cent of global revenue or eighteen million pounds, whichever is larger — and Ofcom can seek court orders to block a defiant service in the UK altogether.¹⁸

Put the layers together and the picture is plain. The content this article opened with — the verified post, the influencer accounts that fed Hawkes — is not lawful-but-distasteful. It is illegal: under the religious-hatred law of whichever jurisdiction you read it in, under section 127, and under the platform duties of the Online Safety Act. It is unlawful in every part of the United Kingdom, and removed in none of them. The problem was never a missing law. It is a law without teeth, and a law without bite has the same outcome as no law.

And beneath the failure to enforce lies a second asymmetry, written into the statute before any officer or prosecutor lifts a finger. British law has always punished the stirring up of racial hatred on a wider threshold than religious hatred. The racial offence reaches words that are threatening, abusive or insulting, whether the speaker intended to stir up hatred or simply made it likely. The religious offence, added two decades later, was drawn deliberately narrow: only threatening words, only proven intent, and an express protection for criticism of the religion itself.¹⁹

Which door a community may use is not left to chance — and the line that assigns it does not bear much weight. Since Mandla v Dowell-Lee in 1983, the courts have treated Jews and Sikhs as racial groups, distinct peoples bound by a shared history, so incitement against Jews can be pursued through the broader racial-hatred provisions.²⁰

But Jews are no more a single ethnicity than Muslims are. A faith that has absorbed converts for millennia runs from Ashkenazi to Sephardi to Mizrahi to Ethiopian and far beyond; “Jewish” names a people one can join, not a race one is born into — and the same is true of Islam, drawn from every nation on earth. The law’s distinction is not biological; it cannot be. It is a classification: the courts recognised one community as a people and declined to recognise the other. Muslims are not a racial group in law, so incitement against them falls to the narrower religious provisions, and reaches the wider ones only where a prosecutor can tie it to ethnicity — which is neither automatic nor certain.²¹

The result is precise, and it is uncomfortable. The same words — the same threat, the same libel — are easier to prosecute when the target is Jewish than when the target is Muslim, not because the two peoples differ in kind, but because the law partitioned them. Before anyone decides whom to protect, the statute has already decided whom it protects more readily. The selective enforcement this article describes is built on a selectivity already written into the law.

By design

X does not fail to remove this content now and then. It fails to remove it as a matter of system. When the Center for Countering Digital Hate reported samples of hateful posts using X’s own tools, the platform took no action on ninety-seven per cent of the anti-Muslim hate speech, and eighty-nine per cent of the anti-Jewish.²² That is not a moderation backlog; it is the absence of moderation. Exhibit A — reported, and still live the morning Hawkes stood in the dock — is one entry in that ninety-seven per cent.

The platform does not merely tolerate the content. It earns from it. Since Musk bought the company in October 2022, X has rebuilt itself around paid verification and a payments scheme that rewards engagement — and nothing engages like outrage. CCDH tracked ten of the most prominent anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim accounts on the platform: in the four months after 7 October 2023 they gained four million followers, against one million in the four months before. Most were paying X Premium subscribers, lifted up the algorithm by the platform itself; several earn directly through X’s subscription feature, on which X takes a share.²³ The hatred is not a cost the platform absorbs. It is a product line.

The direction is set from the top, and it needs no written policy. Musk’s own account — the most followed on earth, past 240 million — has repeatedly amplified anti-migrant and anti-Muslim narratives from figures such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (”Tommy Robinson”), carrying them to audiences they could never reach alone. When CCDH read the replies beneath a sample of those posts, it counted 3,930 calling for violence, 2,690 of them under Yaxley-Lennon.²⁴ Yaxley-Lennon is on the platform because Musk put him there: deactivated in 2018 for hateful conduct, he was reinstated in November 2023 — the same day as Katie Hopkins, banned in 2020, two of Britain’s best-known anti-Muslim agitators restored within hours of each other.²⁵ Weeks after the takeover, the body that had advised Twitter on exactly this kind of harm, its Trust and Safety Council, was dissolved.²⁶

So this is not a platform straining to meet its legal duties and falling short. It is one whose design — the verification model, the payment scheme, the algorithm, the owner’s own feed — runs in the opposite direction from everything the Online Safety Act requires of it. The Act demands systems that reduce illegal content and remove it on notice. X has built systems that surface it, spread it, and bank on it.

Foreign provocation

On 13 September 2025, the largest far-right rally Britain had seen in a generation filled central London — well over a hundred thousand people, gathered under the banner “Unite the Kingdom.” Onto a screen above them came Elon Musk, the American owner of X, by video link. He told the crowd that “violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die,” and called for the dissolution of Parliament.²⁷

Read that against the law already set out. A grossly offensive or menacing message sent over a public electronic network is an offence under section 127. Threatening words intended to stir up hatred are an offence under the Public Order Act. The government’s own response conceded the character of what it had heard: it called Musk’s words dangerous and inflammatory.²⁸ And then it did nothing. No investigation, no sanction, no consequence — for a call to violence delivered to a hundred thousand people in the nation’s capital by the owner of the platform on which, as the last section showed, the same incitement runs every day. People have been jailed in this country for a single post. Musk addressed a crowd and walked away clean.

It is worth being clear about what that rally was, because the language from the stage is built to obscure it. This was not a debate about visa numbers. It was the largest gathering yet of Britain’s counter-jihad movement, in which “immigration” is the sayable surface and the Muslim is the meaning beneath. You do not have to take that on trust: it is there in their own platforms and their own speeches, where the boats, the grooming gangs and the “invasion” all resolve, every time, to the same target. The slogans — “remigration,” “protect our daughters” — stay on the lawful side of the line, naming a policy where they mean a people. That is what the euphemism is for: it lets a speaker incite against Muslims before a hundred thousand people without ever seeming to. Musk gave them the surface; the crowd heard the rest.

The rally was Stephen Yaxley-Lennon’s, and that matters, because he is not a grassroots eruption of native grievance. His counter-jihad movement has been underwritten for years by foreign think-tanks and donors; the dogma he sells — civilisation under siege, the Muslim as invader — is manufactured abroad and retailed by him, at scale, on X.²⁹ Follow the provocation back to its sources and almost nothing about it is domestic. Foreign money. A figurehead sponsored from abroad. A foreign billionaire on the screen. All of it producing incitement on British soil, against British Muslims, in breach of British law.

And the state is not powerless against any of it. At the second Unite the Kingdom rally, in May 2026, the Home Secretary barred eleven foreign speakers from entering the country — a clean demonstration that when the government decides a foreign provocateur is unwelcome, it has the tools to act.³⁰ It simply declines to use them where the provocation is profitable, popular, or merely convenient to ignore. The incitement this article describes is not confined to the dark corners of a platform. It runs in daylight, in the capital, broadcast from a screen — foreign in origin, illegal in substance, and met by the British state with a statement of concern and nothing more.

The childminder and the billionaire

The machinery for prosecuting online incitement is not rusted shut. It can move with real speed and real severity — as two people from Northampton can attest.

On 29 July 2024, hours after three little girls were murdered in Southport — and hours after a lie tore across X that their killer was a Muslim asylum seeker, which he was not — Lucy Connolly, a childminder with around ten thousand followers, posted that the hotels housing asylum seekers should be set alight, and called for mass deportation. She deleted it within hours. It did not matter. She was interviewed within days, charged within a fortnight, and jailed for thirty-one months for stirring up racial hatred; the judge told her she had intended to incite serious violence.³¹ Tyler Kay, who reshared her words, was jailed for thirty-eight.³² The immigration panic that jailed them began as a lie about a Muslim.

Hold those sentences in mind — thirty-one months, thirty-eight months, for single posts — and go back to the screen above the Unite the Kingdom crowd. Musk told a hundred thousand people that violence was coming and they should fight back or die. He has more than two hundred million followers. The leader of a national party wrote to the Prime Minister calling it incitement; the government itself called the words dangerous and inflammatory; the Metropolitan Police opened an investigation — into the protesters who threw punches, not into the man who broadcast the call.³³ No charge. No sanction. Nothing.

It is the same statute book, and in substance the same conduct the law exists to catch — words thrown at a crowd to stir up hatred and violence, named as incitement by the government itself. What differs is the defendant. A childminder with ten thousand followers is prosecuted and jailed; a billionaire with two hundred million, who said as much to a crowd a hundred thousand strong, faces not even the regulatory sanction the Online Safety Act holds over his own platform. And the verified influencers who industrialise the same incitement for profit, day after day, are troubled least of all.

The lesson the state has taught is exact, and everyone learning from it has understood it. Incitement is prosecuted at the bottom and tolerated at the top. The law reaches the childminder and stops at the billionaire — not because their words differ, and not because nothing could be done to him, but because one is powerless and the other is rich, foreign, and useful to leave alone. Enforcement, where it happens, runs downward.

The crime and the libel

The grooming-gang scandal was real. Groups of men, over years, targeted vulnerable girls — some as young as ten, many of them in care — and raped, trafficked and degraded them. The state and the institutions that should have protected those girls looked away, at times for fear of being called racist, and that dereliction was its own crime against the children it failed — a failure of the most basic duty a government owes, to protect its people from harm. Baroness Casey’s 2025 national audit confirmed what the bravest reporting had long maintained: in the areas it examined — Greater Manchester, South and West Yorkshire — men of Pakistani heritage were genuinely over-represented among the suspects, and the system had spent years refusing to look. In one case file, she found the word “Pakistani” tippexed out.³⁴ None of that is in dispute here, and none of it should be.

What follows is about what is done with that truth.

Between the crime and the slogan on Exhibit A — a quarter of a million girls raped by Muslims, go home — sits a laundering process, and it runs in identifiable stages.

The first is the swap of ethnicity for religion. Every official finding of over-representation — Casey’s, the Jay report’s — concerns ethnicity and national origin: Pakistani heritage, “Asian” suspects. None of it measures religion, because religion is not what the data records. “Pakistani-heritage men in three police-force areas” becomes “Muslims,” and in that single substitution a specific, evidenced finding about an ethnic group in parts of northern England is stretched over two billion people of every nationality on earth, the overwhelming majority of whom have never set foot in the country. The data never said “Muslim.” The libel cannot work without it.

The second is the swap of local for national. Casey was emphatic on exactly the point the slogan depends on: nationally, ethnicity goes unrecorded in two-thirds of cases, and the data is, by her own assessment, “not good enough” to support any claim about offenders’ ethnicity at the national level.³⁵ The over-representation is a real finding about particular places. That it describes the whole country is the one claim the official audit says cannot be made.

The third is the number. “A quarter of a million” is not a government figure, a police figure, or a Casey figure. It traces to a single extrapolation aired in the House of Lords in 2018, in which a peer took Rotherham’s estimate of roughly 1,400 victims of all forms of exploitation and multiplied it across the entire country to reach 250,000 — a method fact-checkers across the spectrum, and even unsympathetic commentators, have called unsupported. It was revived by a privately funded inquiry with no statutory standing, amplified by Musk to millions, and landed on the street as established fact.³⁶ No one counted a quarter of a million girls. Someone multiplied.

The fourth stage is the one the first three exist to enable: the move from perpetrators to a people. From “these men did this” to “Muslims do this” to “so they must go.” The individuals convicted in court become an entire faith; the faith becomes an enemy population; the enemy population is told to leave. That is the journey from a crime to a libel, and Exhibit A is the finished product.

One test exposes the whole construction. In April 2023, West Midlands Police closed their largest-ever child sexual abuse investigation: twenty-one people convicted, the roster overwhelmingly white, several of them women — the Evanses, the Bakers, the Wellingtons, the Webbs. It came the day after the Home Secretary told the country that grooming gangs were “almost all British-Pakistani.”³⁷ No one called the twenty-one a Christian grooming gang. No one demanded the white British be deported — there being, of course, nowhere to deport them to. No one went looking through their baptism records for a motive. The crime was treated as the crime of the people who committed it — which is exactly how it should be treated, and exactly how it ceases to be treated the moment the men are Muslim.

That asymmetry is the tell. When the same offence yields “jail the men who did it” for one group and “send the whole community home” for another, the second response was never really about the children or immigration. The crime is the occasion; the Muslim is the target. And a society that can prosecute the offence — that does prosecute it, courtroom after courtroom — does not need the libel to protect a single child. The libel is doing other work.

The regulator with teeth

It would be easier to excuse all of this if the law were unenforceable — if the Online Safety Act were a paper tiger no regulator could make bite. It is not, and Ofcom has spent the months since the Act’s duties came into force proving the opposite.

Since those duties landed in 2025, Ofcom has opened investigations into more than ninety platforms and issued six fines for non-compliance. It fined one pornography operator a million pounds — the first seven-figure penalty under the Act — for failing to keep children away from adult content; it fined others hundreds of thousands more; it fined a file-sharing site for ignoring its demands for information; it has put services on notice that it will go to court to have them blocked in the UK altogether.³⁸ The machinery works. When Ofcom decides a harm matters, the fines are real and the deadlines are short.

It has even reached X. In January 2026, Ofcom opened a formal investigation into the company — over Grok, its AI tool, which was being used to generate sexual deepfakes and child sexual abuse imagery.³⁹ That investigation is right, and the harm is grave.

Now set what Ofcom enforces against what it does not. The Act names stirring up religious hatred as priority illegal content — the same tier of harm Ofcom has fined and pursued elsewhere. That is the duty that reaches the ecosystem set out earlier: the ninety-seven per cent of reported anti-Muslim hate left standing, the monetised accounts, the amplified influencers. And against that duty, on that content, there has been no fine, no blocking order, no investigation at all.

Removing incitement is harder to weigh than checking an age, and the hate-content duties are newer than the rest. But difficulty does not explain a year of silence on this harm beside a year of seven-figure fines for others. The strongest thing Ofcom has produced on illegal hate is an announcement, in May 2026, that X had “committed” to introducing better protections.⁴⁰ A promise, where pornography sites got penalties.

So the pattern set by the police and the government repeats at the regulator. Ofcom has the power, and it has proven it will use it — it fines foreign companies, it threatens to block them, it moves in months. It has simply not turned any of that on the incitement this article is about. Age checks for pornography are enforced with seven-figure fines. The duty to remove anti-Muslim incitement is not enforced at all — it is answered with a press release. The harm left unaddressed is, once again, the same one.

And that duty is not abstract: it exists because incitement kills. Its proof is the Edinburgh street this article opened on, where a man with a machete wounded five men while shouting the very libel traced through these pages. Of every harm in this account, anti-Muslim incitement is the one that has already drawn blood — and it is the one the regulator has left entirely alone.

Whom the state protects

Step back from the particular failures — the unenforced law, the non-compliant platform, the idle regulator — and one fact organises all of them. None of these bodies lacks the power to act. Each has shown, in this very account, that it can move with speed and force the moment it decides a harm is worth stopping.

When a childminder posted a call to burn a hotel full of asylum seekers, she was charged within a fortnight and jailed within months. When eleven foreign speakers sought to address a rally, the Home Secretary barred them from the country before they arrived. When the grooming-gang scandal could no longer be contained, a government that had resisted an inquiry for a year reversed itself and produced a statutory inquiry, a national police operation and a raft of new law.⁴¹ The machinery, when the state wants it to move, moves fast.

Now hold that beside the harm at the centre of this article. The same statute that puts a poster in prison sits unused against an ecosystem inciting violence against Muslims for profit. The same incitement that, aimed at Jews, brings the full weight of the state — as it should — brings close to nothing when it is aimed at Muslims. A call to violence broadcast to a hundred thousand people drew a statement of concern. The libel that armed the man in Edinburgh has drawn no response at all. Not because nothing can be done, but because nothing has been chosen.

And the choice is not random; it follows the political weight. Where a community can command a response — where there is a constituency that will be heard, a danger the public already fears, a pressure the government feels on its own survival — the state moves. The victims of anti-Muslim incitement carry no such weight. There is no electoral price for ignoring them, and there is a political use in leaving the incitement alone: it feeds the immigration panic that wins seats, and the narrative has become too useful to too many to disturb. So it is left to run.

This is the failure beneath all the others, and it is neither regulatory nor procedural. It is political, and it is a failure of the duty that comes before every other — the duty of a state to protect its people from harm. In practice, some citizens of this country are denied the protection from harm the law extends to everyone else — tilted against them in the statute, as we saw, and then rationed away from them by every official who declines to act. It is a two-tier system, and the tier you fall into is set by whether your protection is found convenient. Right now, the citizens on the wrong tier are Muslims.

What can be done

The failure described here is a choice, and choices can be forced. The same Act that sits unenforced also handed the public levers the state would rather it did not notice — and none of them is a lawsuit or needs a lawyer. They need people willing to pull them.

The sharpest is the super-complaint. Since January 2026, the Online Safety Act has let an eligible organisation — a charity, a campaign, a representative body — bring a systemic complaint to Ofcom, which is then obliged to consider it and publish a response within ninety days.⁴² Individuals cannot bring one; organisations can. And the bodies already engaged with the mechanism are telling: the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Board of Deputies of British Jews are among them.⁴³ There is no reason a Muslim representative body — alone or in coalition — cannot do the same, and bring a super-complaint on the anti-Muslim incitement that X hosts and earns from. That is how the enforcement weight this article has shown Muslims to lack gets built: not by waiting to be protected, but by forcing the regulator onto the record, on a clock. And these bodies are not staffed by strangers — most run on volunteers, members and small donations. They cannot build that evidence without the public that feeds it. Join them, fund them, report to them; the super-complaint is only as strong as the casework behind it, and the casework is built by people.

Individuals are not powerless either, though here the power is collective rather than singular. Ofcom will not act on a lone report, and says so plainly — but it does use what is reported to build its picture of where harm sits. Report the post to the platform first, which puts its removal duty to the test; then report it to Ofcom’s portal. One report changes nothing. Ten thousand become the evidence base that turns “there is no data” into a pattern the regulator has to weigh. Every report is a mark against the ninety-seven per cent.

Count it where counting matters. Part of the reason antisemitic incitement draws a fast response is that a body exists to record it, year on year, and put the data in front of police and government. Anti-Muslim hate needs its equivalent supported and fed, so that the pattern is undeniable and already on the record when the next attack comes.

And make it cost something politically. The inaction has held because it has been free. Ask your MP and your candidates, in writing and in public, why the law against stirring up religious hatred is enforced for some and suspended for anti-Muslim incitement — and why the platform duties that fine pornographers go unused against incitement that has put men in hospital. The silence is a wager that no one is keeping score. Keep score.

What is being built

Return to Edinburgh, where this began. A man walked down a street with a machete and left five men wounded, shouting as he did the precise libel this article has followed from end to end — that Muslims rape British daughters. He did not compose that sentence. He received it. It was written for him by an influencer ecosystem that earns from it, carried by a platform built to spread it, licensed by a foreign provocation the government called dangerous and then ignored, and left in place by a law nobody enforced, a regulator that looked elsewhere, and a state that had decided the ecosystem’s targets, the ones he was inspired to attack, were not worth protecting. Hawkes swung the blade.

That is what a pipeline is. Incitement does not become violence by accident, in a single deranged leap. It is built, stage by stage, and at every stage there is a valve the state holds and chooses not to close: the post that should have been removed, the account that should never have been monetised, the broadcast that should have drawn a charge, the duty that should have been enforced. Each open valve is a decision. Edinburgh is what comes out of the end of the pipe.

Gather them, then — the people this article has set side by side. The girls a state abandoned for decades because confronting their abusers was inconvenient. The childminder it jailed in weeks for a single post. The billionaire it would not touch for a call to violence heard by a hundred thousand. The men left bleeding on an Edinburgh pavement. One thread runs through all of them: a state that protects some of its people and not others, and rations the difference by what it finds convenient. The girls and the men on that pavement were failed by the same instinct — the judgement that their safety could wait.

We know where this leads, because the stages are not new. Mass violence is never spontaneous; it is assembled, in the open, out of exactly these parts — a libel, a medium, a permission, an averted official gaze. We recognise the machinery because we have watched it run before, against other people, in other decades. What has changed is not the method. It is the target. This time it is being built against Muslims, in plain sight, with the tools that could dismantle it lying unused beside it.

This should trouble more than the community it targets. A state that hands out protection by the measure of convenience has made it conditional for everyone — it has only yet to find the rest of us inconvenient. The duty withheld from Muslims today is the one every citizen is owed, and withholding it is a precedent, not an exception.

One test remains, the one this article opened with. Take the sentence that left five men bleeding, and the post still earning beneath it, and change a single word: for “Muslim,” read “Jewish.” Ask whether any of it — the tolerance, the monetisation, the silence, the shrug — would survive a single day. You know that it would not. So the only question left is the one the whole machine is built to keep you from asking. Why does it survive now?

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

Feature image by Towfiqu barbhuiya / Pexels

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ The suspect’s words at the point of arrest, captured in footage circulated online and reported by Middle East Eye; quoted in full in the official statement of Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), 19 June 2026, which described the shout not as “one man’s outburst” but as the “Muslim rape gang” libel pushed daily by online agitators. [House-style decision for Jim: reproduce the expletive verbatim, or asterisk it for Fireline.]

² Exhibit A: post by the verified account @BROKENBRITAIN0, X, 08:41, 22 June 2026; 46,000 views; reported by the author and live at time of writing. [FLAG: confirm still live before publication; the fabricated “quarter of a million” figure is examined later.]

³ Police Scotland statement, 20 June 2026; Scottish Association of Mosques; Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND).

⁴ Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; Edinburgh Sheriff Court, 22 June 2026.

⁵ Keir Starmer, post on X, 20 June 2026.

⁶ Shabana Mahmood, Home Secretary, statement, 20 June 2026.

⁷ John Swinney, First Minister of Scotland, post on X, 20 June 2026.

⁸ Muslim Council of Britain; MEND; Scottish Association of Mosques, statements, 20–21 June 2026.

⁹ Public Order Act 1986, Part 3A (inserted by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006), section 29J, which protects freedom of expression; the offence under section 29B requires threatening words or behaviour together with intent to stir up religious hatred. England and Wales.

¹⁰ Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, stirring-up-hatred offences in respect of religion: threatening or abusive behaviour intended to stir up hatred, subject to a statutory protection for discussion and criticism and a defence of reasonableness. In force 1 April 2024.

¹¹ Community Security Trust, which records antisemitic incidents and shares its data with police; see its annual Antisemitic Incidents Report.

¹² Edict of Expulsion, England, 1290 (Edward I); Alhambra Decree, Spain, 1492 (Ferdinand and Isabella); expulsions also from France (1306 and 1394) and numerous other jurisdictions across the medieval period.

¹³ The blood libel: the medieval and early-modern accusation that Jews murdered Christian children for ritual purposes — a recurring pretext for massacre and expulsion.

¹⁴ Quebec City mosque shooting, 29 January 2017 (six killed); Finsbury Park van attack, 19 June 2017 (Makram Ali killed); Christchurch mosque shootings, 15 March 2019 (fifty-one killed). On the “For Rotherham” inscription on the perpetrator’s ammunition, see the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point analysis of the Christchurch attacks.

¹⁵ Public Order Act 1986, Part 3A, section 29B (inserted by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006); maximum seven years’ imprisonment. England and Wales.

¹⁶ Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, stirring up hatred in respect of religion; in force 1 April 2024.

¹⁷ Communications Act 2003, section 127.

¹⁸ Online Safety Act 2023: Schedule 7 lists stirring up religious hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 as priority illegal content; the illegal-content safety duties require proportionate systems to limit and remove it; Ofcom may impose penalties up to £18 million or ten per cent of qualifying worldwide revenue and may seek business-disruption (including service-blocking) orders.

¹⁹ Public Order Act 1986: racial-hatred offences (Part 3, especially section 18) reach “threatening, abusive or insulting” words where hatred is intended or likely; religious-hatred offences (Part 3A, section 29B) reach only “threatening” words where hatred is intended, subject to the section 29J protection for criticism of religion.

²⁰ Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548 (House of Lords), establishing the broad “ethnic group” test under the Race Relations Act 1976; Jews recognised as a racial or ethnic group on the same reasoning (cf. King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531).

²¹ Muslims have been held not to constitute a racial group under UK law (Nyazi v Rymans Ltd, EAT, 1988), Islam spanning many ethnicities and nationalities; anti-Muslim conduct attracts the racial-hatred or racially-aggravated provisions only where it is also tied to a racial or ethnic group (cf. J H Walker Ltd v Hussain [1996] ICR 291).

²² Center for Countering Digital Hate: reporting hateful posts through X’s own tools, the platform failed to act on 97 per cent of the anti-Muslim and 89 per cent of the anti-Jewish hate speech sampled (2023). X Corp. sued CCDH over related research; the suit was dismissed in March 2024 under California’s anti-SLAPP law.

²³ Center for Countering Digital Hate, “Anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim actors grow 4x as quickly on X” (11 April 2024): ten tracked accounts gained roughly four million followers in the four months after 7 October 2023, against about one million in the four months before; accounts monetised through X Premium subscriptions, with the platform taking a share of subscriber revenue, while brand advertising was served beside the content.

²⁴ Center for Countering Digital Hate, analysis of anti-migrant amplification on X (2025–2026): Elon Musk amplified narratives from Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (”Tommy Robinson”) and Rupert Lowe; 3,930 replies contained calls for violence, including 2,690 in replies to Yaxley-Lennon.

²⁵ Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, known as “Tommy Robinson” (account deactivated 2018), and Katie Hopkins (banned 2020), reinstated by Elon Musk on 5 November 2023.

²⁶ Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council was dissolved in December 2022, weeks after Musk completed his acquisition.

²⁷ “Unite the Kingdom” rally, London, 13 September 2025; crowd widely estimated at well over 100,000. Elon Musk addressed the rally by video link, telling the crowd “violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die” and calling for the dissolution of Parliament.

²⁸ UK government and Downing Street response describing Musk’s remarks as dangerous and inflammatory, September 2025.

²⁹ On the foreign funding of Yaxley-Lennon’s activism, see The Guardian’s 2018 investigation and subsequent reporting (naming, among others, the Middle East Forum and the donor Robert Shillman). [Body keeps this to “foreign think-tanks and donors”; the ideological character of that funding is reserved for separate treatment. Strip the named organisations here if you would rather park them entirely.]

³⁰ “Unite the Kingdom” rally, 16 May 2026; ahead of the event the Home Secretary barred eleven foreign nationals from entering the United Kingdom.

³¹ Lucy Connolly, 41, of Northampton: posted on X on 29 July 2024 calling for asylum-seeker hotels to be set alight and for mass deportation; pleaded guilty to publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred and was jailed for 31 months at Birmingham Crown Court (the case transferred from Northampton); the sentencing judge found she had intended to incite serious violence.

³² Tyler Kay, 26, of Northampton: jailed for 38 months on 9 August 2024 for resharing Connolly’s post, having admitted publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred.

³³ On Musk’s “Unite the Kingdom” remarks: Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey wrote to the Prime Minister alleging Musk had sought to incite violence; the government described the remarks as dangerous and inflammatory; the Metropolitan Police’s post-event investigation concerned the disorder and assaults on officers at the demonstration, not Musk’s address. No charge or sanction against Musk followed.

³⁴ National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (the “Casey audit”), 16 June 2025: local data from Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire showed clear over-representation of Asian and Pakistani-heritage suspects; the audit documented institutional avoidance of the ethnicity question, including for fear of appearing racist, and a case file in which the word “Pakistani” had been removed with correction fluid.

³⁵ Casey audit: ethnicity was not recorded for around two-thirds of grooming-gang perpetrators, and the national data is, in Baroness Casey’s terms, not good enough to support any statement about the ethnicity of group-based child sexual exploitation offenders at the national level.

³⁶ The “250,000” figure is not a government, police or Casey statistic. It originates in a 2018 House of Lords extrapolation by Lord Pearson of Rannoch from the Jay Report’s conservative estimate of roughly 1,400 victims of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham (1997–2013); fact-checkers (including Full Fact and others) have found the national figure unsupported. It was revived by the privately funded, non-statutory “Rape Gang Inquiry” associated with Rupert Lowe MP, and amplified by Elon Musk on X.

³⁷ West Midlands Police “Operation Satchel”: 21 individuals convicted on 5 April 2023 in the force’s largest child sexual abuse investigation, with a predominantly white roster including several women; sentences ranged from life to non-custodial. The convictions came the day after Home Secretary Suella Braverman wrote that grooming-gang members were “almost all British-Pakistani.”

³⁸ Ofcom enforcement under the Online Safety Act, 2025–2026: more than ninety platforms investigated and six fines issued since the duties came into force, including a £1 million penalty against AVS Group (the first seven-figure OSA fine) and further penalties against Kick (£800,000), 8579 LLC (£1.35 million) and others, chiefly for age-assurance failures and for failing to respond to statutory information requests. Ofcom has also placed services on notice of potential court applications for business-disruption (blocking) measures.

³⁹ Ofcom opened a formal investigation into X (X Internet Unlimited Company) on 12 January 2026 over the use of its Grok AI tool to generate non-consensual intimate images and child sexual abuse material, under the illegal-content risk-assessment and safety duties of the Online Safety Act.

⁴⁰ On 15 May 2026, Ofcom announced that X had committed to introducing stronger protections against illegal hate and terror content — a voluntary undertaking rather than a penalty or enforcement decision.

⁴¹ Following the Casey audit, the government — having resisted a national inquiry for much of the preceding year — announced a statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs (Home Secretary’s statement, 9 December 2025, chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield), alongside a national policing operation reviewing previously closed cases and new measures including better recording of suspects’ ethnicity and reform of the law on child rape.

⁴² The Online Safety Act’s super-complaints regime came into force on 1 January 2026, with Ofcom’s final guidance published on 10 February 2026. Eligible organisations — bodies that represent UK users or the public and act independently of regulated services — may bring a super-complaint about systemic risks of significant online harm; Ofcom must consider an admissible complaint and publish its response within 90 days. Individuals cannot bring super-complaints.

⁴³ Organisations engaged with Ofcom’s super-complaints process as of February 2026 include the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, among others.

He is a fifty-one-year-old historian who holds citizenship of two countries, and it was the passport of one of them — Israel, the country he had lived in for fifteen years, studied in, served in — that he was carrying when he walked off the plane and out of view.

That is the whole of what is known. Everything after it is silence.

The Silence

Start with the state, because the state is the one body that could end the question with a sentence. It has not. There has been no charge. There has been no hearing anyone can point to. There has been no statement confirming that Kirpichenok is held, or was ever held, or is free to go. What is certain is that he landed, and that he never came out of the airport. Russia’s ambassador to Israel, Anatoly Viktorov, said on 5 August that his embassy had taken note of the reports and had sent a request about Kirpichenok to the relevant Israeli authorities. He did not say the request had been answered.² Yet Kirpichenok remains missing, eleven days after the plane landed, and the country that holds his passport has said nothing about the man carrying it.

Around that silence sits a second one. This is a story about a citizen of a Western-aligned democracy who vanished at an international airport, and it has not been reported by a single wire service. Not the Associated Press, not Agence France-Presse, not Reuters. It has not appeared in the Guardian, the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post. The entire visible record of the case runs through a handful of Israeli outlets treating it as an unexplained curiosity, Russian state and state-aligned media, and a small circle of activists. A man disappears inside a functioning state and the machinery of Western journalism, which exists precisely to notice such things, has not turned toward it.³

And around that sits a third silence, the sharpest of the three. The outlets that report on exactly this — Israeli detention of critics, the treatment of people who cross the state’s lines — have not run it either. Middle East Eye, Mondoweiss, the Electronic Intifada: these are not general-assignment desks that missed a foreign story. This is their subject. When Israel held the journalist Majd Kayyal in 2014, they covered it. They know this beat. On Kirpichenok, so far, they have said nothing.

There is an innocent explanation for the second and third silences. The only people asserting that Kirpichenok has been detained are Russian state media and a network of activists aligned with them. No Israeli official has confirmed it. No court record shows it. His own lawyer has not spoken. A careful editor, handed a disappearance sourced entirely to those quarters, waits — waits for a second, independent confirmation before putting the outlet’s name behind the claim. That instinct is not cowardice. In the ordinary run of things it is exactly right.

But this is not the ordinary run of things, and the waiting has a flaw that this case exposes. The confirmation the editors are waiting for can only come from one place: the same state apparatus holding him. If he is inside a security investigation under a gag order, there will be no confirmation to wait for — not next week, not next month, not until the state decides. The event that finally breaks the silence may not be a charge sheet or a court date. It may be the news that he has been released after a fortnight with nothing to show for it, or the news that he has not been released at all. By the time the story is confirmed enough to be safe, it may no longer be a story about a man who can still be helped. It may be a story about one who cannot. The moment to apply pressure to a state that has made a person disappear is while the pressure can still change what happens to him — not after the outcome is fixed and the reporting is finally, uselessly, certain.

So the silence is not the absence of a story. The silence is the story. A man went through his own country’s airport and vanished, and every party that might account for him — the state that should explain, the press that should ask, the advocates who should shout — has, for its own reasons, said nothing. Which leaves the simplest question of all. Where is he?

The Man

Artyom Kirpichenok is a historian. He was born in Leningrad in 1975, emigrated to Israel with his family in the early 1990s, studied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, served in the Israeli army, and lived in the country for some fifteen years before returning to Russia, where he has worked since as a writer and publicist. He holds a doctorate. He has written books — a people’s history of Israel, a book on the 1956 Hungarian uprising, a study of Serbian settlement in eighteenth-century Ukraine. He is, by every account including those of his critics, a serious and productive scholar.

He is also, and without apology, an enemy of the Israeli state’s account of itself. His subject for years has been the case against Zionism — not the policies of one government or another, but the foundations. His people’s history of Israel is described, in its own catalogue, as a collection continuing the long tradition of Jewish criticism of the state — the insistence that to oppose Israel’s conduct is not to oppose Jews. His later books press the argument toward its sharpest form: that the Israeli project is a colonial one, and that it is heading, on its present course, toward catastrophe. This is not the work of a pamphleteer. It is the work of a trained historian who has spent a career assembling the counter-record — the version of events the state would prefer stayed in the margins — and presenting it with the apparatus of scholarship: sources, footnotes, the weight of a doctorate behind it.

He took the same argument into the present. In recent months, writing for the Russian-language service of Turkey’s state broadcaster, he compared Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizens to apartheid, examined Israel’s fear of Turkey as a rising power, and gave one essay on the country’s self-image after October 7 the title “The whole world hates us, and we’re proud of it.”⁴ This is not a man who criticised at the margins. He went at the centre, in public, in print, repeatedly.

And he went further than words on a page. Twice — in 2018, and again in 2022 — Kirpichenok travelled to Iran, a country almost no Israeli citizen sets foot in, and wrote about it. Of the first trip he was disarmingly direct about the appeal: “Being an Israeli citizen, it was very interesting to me to see where our bombs would fall.”⁵ A person can read that as gallows humour or as something colder. Either way, it was an Israeli passport-holder recording, in public, a visit to the state’s declared enemy and musing on the targets.

His politics are genuinely divisive, and not only to Israelis. On the largest question dividing the world he moves in, Kirpichenok has come down on the side of Moscow. Haaretz places him in a small faction of Russian communists who support the invasion of Ukraine, and his published commentary since 2022 has largely tracked the Russian government’s framing of that war.⁶ He has criticised the emigration of Russia’s anti-war dissidents. His defenders abroad are drawn from a corner of the Western left that has its own habit of measuring states by their alignment rather than their conduct — quick to condemn some governments for jailing writers and quiet about others.

This matters, and not as a disclaimer. His politics change nothing about the question his disappearance raises. A person’s views are not a licence for the state to make him vanish, and the more divisive those views, the more honestly that test is put. Whether you share his politics or find them objectionable, the test is the same.

Why Now

There is a question that sits underneath the first one. Not only where he is, but why a man like this, at a moment like this.

For most of his career Kirpichenok was, in the practical sense, harmless. He wrote books that sold in the low thousands. He posted essays to a Russian-language readership that has no vote in Israel and no leverage over it. He held views that a great many people find objectionable, and he held them at a distance of several thousand miles. A state does not, in the ordinary course of things, reach across a continent to lay hands on a fifty-one-year-old academic because he thinks the wrong things about its founding. There are millions who think the wrong things. It cannot detain them all, and it does not try.

What a historian produces, though, is not opinion. It is the other account — the documented, footnoted, sourced version of events that competes with the one a state tells about itself. That is a different kind of object from a slogan. A slogan can be shouted down. An account has to be answered, and the more credentialled the person making it, the harder it is to wave away. Kirpichenok’s entire body of work is the construction of that competing account: the argument that the Israeli state is a colonial project, made not as a chant but as history, by a man with a doctorate and a shelf of books to lend it weight.

In a settled time, that work is an irritant and no more. But this is not a settled time. Israel is fighting on several fronts at once, and it is losing something on all of them that it cannot replace by force — the argument. At the International Court of Justice, it stands as the respondent in a genocide case brought by South Africa; the court has issued a series of binding provisional orders requiring it to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza and to allow humanitarian aid, orders it has been widely found not to have complied with. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and its former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, on charges including the war crime of starvation and crimes against humanity — warrants that make them liable to arrest in any of the more than a hundred states party to the court. And in September 2025 a United Nations commission of inquiry, chaired by the former war-crimes judge Navi Pillay, concluded that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza — the word the state has spent two years insisting does not apply, now written into the record of a UN body.⁷ Each of these is a defeat not on the battlefield but in the domain that outlasts the fighting: the record of what happened, and who is judged to have done it. The ground of the fight has shifted from the terrain where Israel is dominant to the one where it is not — to the contest over whose account of the last two years the world will finally believe.

A state fighting for its account of itself has a particular reason to fear the people who produce the rival account. The most likely explanation for why Kirpichenok was worth reaching for is not that he held hostile views, but that he wrote a rigorous, sourced, hard-to-dismiss history the Israeli government found objectionable, and that he did so at the moment the state could least afford the competition. None of this is proven. What happened inside the airport is known to one party, and that party is silent. But of the explanations available for why a man like this vanished at a moment like this, it is the one that fits what is known — and the one the state could end in a sentence, if it were false. The disappearance of a critic is an act of suppression. The disappearance of a historian, in the middle of a war over the historical record, is something more precise. It is the removal of a witness.

The Doors

A person who lands at an airport and is not seen again has not evaporated. He passed into the controlled space of a state border and did not pass out of it, and the state that runs that border will not say what became of him. That settles more than it seems to. He did not vanish; he was made to vanish, inside the one place on earth where nothing moves unrecorded and no one is taken without authority. A man does not slip through Ben Gurion unseen. If Kirpichenok is gone, the state that controls every step of that ground is the party that made him gone. The only question the outside world cannot yet answer is which hand of the state is holding him — and the possibilities narrow to three.

The first is that he is being held by the security service. This is the reading the available claim points to: Darya Mitina, a Russian former parliamentarian, wrote on 5 August that Kirpichenok was in the custody of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency.⁸ Her claim is the origin of nearly everything said about his whereabouts since, and it should be weighed for what it is — an assertion by a politically aligned figure, not confirmed by Israel, not corroborated by his lawyer, not supported by any court record. It is thin. But it does not stand alone, and it is not the reason the security-service door ranks first. That reason is the shape of the disappearance itself. A man detained for questioning at a border and released a few hours later resurfaces. A man held in the ordinary criminal system gets a hearing, and a hearing leaves a trace. A total blackout — no contact, no location, no acknowledgement, sustained for eleven days — is the signature of a security hold, because a security hold is the one kind of detention the law permits to be conducted in exactly this way: incommunicado, unacknowledged, and sealed from the press. The disappearance looks like a Shin Bet case because a Shin Bet case is what a disappearance of this shape looks like.

The second possibility is an ordinary criminal detention under the law that makes his two Iran trips a crime. An Israeli citizen who travels to an enemy state without permission commits an offence, and Iran is on the list. If that is what happened, Kirpichenok is somewhere in the regular remand system awaiting a charge. But this door fits less well, because the regular system is not silent. It produces dockets, hearing dates, the ordinary paper trail of criminal process — and none has appeared. Either that paper is being suppressed, which points back toward the security apparatus and its gag orders, or he is not in that system at all.

The third possibility is that he was refused entry and is being held for deportation. One early Russian account raised it. It is the weakest fit — a deportation is an administrative act that neither the deportee’s family nor a foreign embassy is usually kept in the dark about for eleven days — but it cannot be ruled out from the outside, and it belongs on the list precisely so that the state can be asked to rule it out.

Three doors, then, and behind each of them the same fact: the key is held by one party. The Israeli state knows which door Kirpichenok is behind. It knows because if he is in a security cell, its agency put him there; if he is in remand, its courts are processing him; if he is awaiting deportation, its border authority is holding him; and if he is behind none of the three — if he walked out of the airport a free man and simply vanished into the country — then it is the one party with the machinery to establish that, and the one party that has chosen not to. Every branch of the possibility ends in the same place. The state can say where he is. It has not.

How It’s Done — and Done Lawfully

The most disturbing thing about a disappearance of this kind is not that it breaks the law. It is that it may not have to.

Israel has, on its books, the machinery to make exactly this happen and to keep it hidden. Three instruments, each ordinary, each lawful, together sufficient.

The first is the offence. Under the Prevention of Infiltration Law, an Israeli citizen who knowingly and unlawfully leaves the country for an enemy state commits a crime punishable by up to four years in prison. Iran was added to the list of enemy states by amendment in 2007.⁹ This is not a dormant provision. In a case decided in the Tel Aviv District Court, an Israeli citizen who had travelled to Iran to deal with property he owned there — after being warned by security officials not to go — had his sentence increased on appeal, the court holding that the security of the state takes precedence over a citizen’s freedom of movement, and that the gravity of the offence lies in the unlawful departure itself, whatever the traveller’s reasons.¹⁰ Kirpichenok travelled to Iran not once but twice, and wrote about it under his own name. If the state wished to build a case, the material is already public, supplied by the man himself.

The second instrument is the hold. Israel’s security service may detain a person suspected of a security offence and question him without access to a lawyer, for days at a stretch, without producing him in open court and without confirming the detention to anyone outside. The denial of counsel is not a loophole; it is a provision, available in security cases and used in them.

The third is the silence. An Israeli court may impose a gag order — a tzav issur pirsum, a prohibition on publication — that bars the country’s media from reporting a case at all. Such orders are not rare or exotic; they are a routine instrument of the security courts, granted on the state’s application, often for weeks at a time, and renewable. In its strongest form such an order forbids reporting even the existence of the order, so that the public cannot know there is anything it is not being told. The press does not defy these orders, because the penalty for defying them is real, and so the silence they produce is total within the country’s borders. This is the instrument that closes the circuit. The offence gives the state a reason to detain. The security hold lets it detain in silence. The gag order ensures the silence holds. A citizen can be taken, questioned incommunicado, and processed through a court, and the first the public may learn of it is when the state chooses to lift the veil — or when someone outside its jurisdiction, beyond the reach of the order, says something.

This is not hypothetical. In April 2014, a Palestinian citizen of Israel named Majd Kayyal, a young journalist who worked as a web editor for the legal centre Adalah, travelled to Beirut to attend a conference marking the fortieth anniversary of a Lebanese newspaper. Lebanon, like Iran, is an enemy state. Kayyal made no secret of the trip; he wrote about it on his own social media before he went. On his return he was arrested at the border by the Shin Bet, held incommunicado in a windowless cell with the lights kept on around the clock, and denied access to a lawyer for five days. His interrogators questioned him about contact with a foreign organisation. A gag order kept the entire affair out of the Israeli press, and while it held, his family’s home was searched. The order was lifted only after Adalah and a group of journalists petitioned the court to remove it — and only then did the country learn that a journalist had been sitting in a security cell for the better part of a week, on suspicion of a crime that amounted to attending a conference. He was released to house arrest, barred for a time from leaving the country or contacting anyone outside it, and in the end the charges were dropped.¹¹ He had gone to a conference, and written about it, and that had been enough.

Change the country from Lebanon to Iran, the conference-goer to a historian, and the year to now, and the Kayyal case is a description of what the machinery does. It is offered here not as proof of what happened to Kirpichenok — no one outside the state can offer that — but as evidence that the thing being described is real, that it has been done before, to a person of much the same profile, for much the same reason, and that when it was done, it looked exactly like this: a man crossing a border, a silence, and a public that knew nothing until someone made it impossible not to.

What Is Most Likely True — and What Would Prove It Wrong

Here is where the evidence stands, and what would overturn it.

On the evidence available — the manner of the disappearance, the profile of the man, the moment he was taken from, and the existence of a legal machinery built to produce precisely this outcome — the most probable explanation is that Artyom Kirpichenok is being held by the Israeli security service in connection with a security investigation, most likely one that touches his travel to Iran, his writing, or both, and that the silence around him is the ordinary working of a gag order rather than the absence of anything to report. That is a probability, not a certainty. It is where the evidence points, held to the standard the evidence allows.

What would overturn it is short and specific. If the Israeli authorities confirm that Kirpichenok was never in their custody, and that he left the airport and travelled onward, the reading is wrong and should be dropped. If he surfaces — released, deported, or simply reappearing — with an account that contradicts this one, it should be dropped. If a document emerges showing he is held in the ordinary criminal system with a hearing on the calendar, the specific claim about the security service is wrong, though the larger point about the silence would stand. Any of these would settle it. Every one of them requires the state, or Kirpichenok himself, to speak — and at the moment neither can, or will.

That is the trap. The claim made here is falsifiable in principle and unfalsifiable in practice, and it is unfalsifiable in practice for a single reason: the one body that could refute it in a sentence has chosen silence instead. A state that could end a damaging inference by producing a man, or a charge, or a simple statement of where he is, and declines to do so, invites the inference it declines to rebut. It cannot complain of being misread when it has made itself the sole author of the confusion.

And this is a live case. The veil may lift — Kirpichenok charged, or freed, or produced, and the question of where he is answered at last. That answer, when it comes, will be the measure of everything here. But the machinery does not care about the calendar, and the argument does not depend on the outcome. Whether he walks out tomorrow or vanishes for a year, the fact that a man could be made to disappear this completely, this lawfully, and this quietly, is the thing worth understanding — because it did not begin with him and it will not end with him.

The Convergence

The silence is where this began, and it is where the responsibility sits.

The state’s silence is a choice. It could produce Kirpichenok, or a charge, or a single sentence saying where he is, and it has chosen instead to say nothing, for eleven days, to a family, a foreign embassy, and a watching handful of people who noticed. The press’s silence is a caution — reasonable in the ordinary case, and the wrong instinct in this one, because the confirmation the editors are waiting for can only come from the state that is producing the silence, and it may never come, or come too late to matter. And the third silence, the one from the outlets that have made this exact subject their life’s work, is the one most easily broken. They do not need to declare Kirpichenok a martyr. They do not need to be certain. They need only to ask the question loudly enough that the state has to choose between answering it and being seen to refuse — and that question is worth asking now, while the asking can still change what happens to him, rather than after, when all that is left is to mark what did.

None of this depends on whether you share Kirpichenok’s politics. It depends on nothing about him except that he is a person, and that a state has made him disappear. A principle that protects only the people we admire is not a principle. It is a preference, and a preference offers no protection at all to the next person taken, who may be someone we admire, or may be us.

And there is the harder question, the one the silence forces and cannot answer. Look at what converges here. A historian whose work is the rival account of the Israeli state. A state losing the argument about itself on every front that matters — at the world court, at the criminal court, at the United Nations, where the word it has denied for two years was finally written down. A body of law that lets the state arrest a citizen for travelling to an enemy state, hold him in secret, and forbid anyone from reporting it. And a disappearance that fits the machinery as a key fits a lock. No one of those facts proves intent. Together they raise a question the state’s silence does nothing to dispel and everything to sharpen: what is a government that behaves this way trying to control?

The evidence does not permit an answer. It permits a supposition, and it is this. A state that is losing the war over its own story does not fear the man who shouts. It fears the man who documents. It reaches, when it reaches, for the people who write the version it cannot afford the world to believe — and it reaches for them at the moment that version is winning. Kirpichenok wrote that version. He was taken at that moment. What Israel is trying to control is not one historian. It is the account. And the surest sign that the account is worth controlling is the length a state will go to make its author disappear.

Where is Artyom Kirpichenok? The state knows. Everyone else is still waiting for it to say.

Working notes and primary sources on Telegram.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

Banner image: Artyom Kirpichenok, from his own social media, used in accordance with fair-dealing provisions for news reporting.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Details of the arrival and disappearance — Yerevan flight, the 10:41 message, contact ceasing, the unused 8 August return ticket — from NEWSru.co.il, “Стало известно о задержании в ‘Бен-Гурионе’ публициста Артема Кирпиченка,” 5 August 2026.

² Ambassador Anatoly Viktorov’s statement: TASS, “Diplomats monitor situation around detained Russian orientalist — ambassador,” 5 August 2026. The embassy noted a “presumed” detention on 2 August and said it had submitted a request to the relevant Israeli authorities; it did not report a reply.

³ The recent TRT Russian articles — the apartheid comparison, the Turkey essay, and “The whole world hates us, and we’re proud of it” — as reported in Haaretz, “Russian-Israeli Historian Disappeared After Landing in Israel, Russian Reports Say,” 10 August 2026.

⁴ The 2018 Iran travelogue quotation: Times of Israel, “Russian-Israeli historian missing after landing at Ben Gurion last week,” 10 August 2026, which also records the second (2022) trip.

⁵ Ukraine alignment: Haaretz, 10 August 2026 (as above), placing him in a small Russian communist faction supportive of the invasion.

⁶ International-law findings: ICJ, provisional measures orders in South Africa v. Israel (26 January, 28 March, 24 May 2024); ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, 21 November 2024; UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (chair Navi Pillay), report of 16 September 2025 finding Israel responsible for genocide in Gaza on a “reasonable grounds to conclude” standard.

⁷ Darya Mitina’s claim: Jerusalem Post, “Russia ‘monitoring’ as historian critical of Zionism vanishes upon landing in Israel,” 12 August 2026, quoting her Telegram statement (reported via Izvestia) that Kirpichenok is held by the Shin Bet.

⁸ Prevention of Infiltration (Offences and Jurisdiction) Law, 5714–1954, §2A (יציאה שלא כדין), four-year maximum; Iran added by the 2007 amendment (annotation תש”ך, תשס”ז). Text: Hebrew Wikisource and Nevo legal database.

⁹ State of Israel v. Mizrahi, District Court appeal עפ”ג 25495-04-14 (sentence increased on appeal for unlawful exit to Iran; “the security of the state prevails over its citizens’ freedom of movement”).

¹⁰ The Majd Kayyal case, April 2014: Al Jazeera, “Israel frees jailed Palestinian journalist,” 18 April 2014; Adalah, “Gag order lifted on case of arrest of journalist Majd Kayyal,” 16–17 April 2014 (five days without counsel; charges not pursued).

¹¹ Absence of wire-service and mainstream Western coverage, and of coverage by the specialist Middle East and Palestine press (Middle East Eye, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada): author’s review of available reporting as of 13 August 2026.

Every fight in Western politics — the mayor of London, the mayor of New York, a Black US president, immigration, criminal gangs, violence in the streets — summons the same stream of pundits, politicians, preachers, influencers and YouTubers to defame one thing: Islam. In a political climate this charged, moving at the speed of a meme, thick with people claiming to be in the know — some styling themselves ‘scholars’ — this series talks about what no one else will: the sleight of hand, the propagandist’s hand in your pocket while the other points at a horizon that isn’t there. It is not apologetics. You do not have to believe a word of Islam to see you are being lied to about it. That is where Fireline Press lives and works: between what is true and what is scorching the political landscape of the West.

YOU HAVE WATCHED the word do its work. A bombing somewhere, a name in the news, a face on a screen — and then the word, dropped like a gavel. Jihad. One syllable more than the sentence needs, and the case is closed on nearly two billion people. Holy war. A faith at war with you by its nature, commanded to fight until you submit or die. You were not asked to weigh anything. You were handed a verdict.

Whoever handed it to you has read the word but never studied it. They can throw a verse number at you — they got it from a meme, a book, a website, anywhere but the Qur’an itself — yet they have likely never read the verse in context, and could not tell you when it was revealed, why, or a single condition the faith places on it. They do not know that the same word they spit as “holy war” is the word the faith gives a believer struggling against their own greed and cowardice. Their interpretation of the word does its work whether they understand it or not.

But the ones who taught it to them understand it perfectly. The influencer feeding a following, the YouTuber growing a subscriber base, the preacher raising a congregation on a shared enemy, the propagandist who needs a civilisational threat for political gain — none of them is confused about jihad. They know what it means and misrepresent it on purpose, because the fear pays and the truth does not. The word is not there to inform you. It is there to shut your mind before you open it — to make a Muslim’s faith the evidence against them before they have said a word in their defence.

Pick the word up and read it for yourself. It does not say what they told you.

Jihad does not mean war. War has its own words in Arabic, and the faith calls none of them holy. Jihad means struggle — the effort a person makes toward what is right, against the easier thing. And the highest form of it, the Prophet said, is not a blade raised against an enemy. It is a sentence spoken to a tyrant. A word of justice, said to the face of a ruler with the power to kill you for saying it.¹ In the faith they have taught you to fear, the greatest struggle a believer can wage is a word mightier than the sword.

That is the thing they cannot afford you to learn. Because the moment you know what the word means, you start to ask who taught you the other thing — who built the monster, who armed it, who collects on the fear of it now. The word does not convict the Muslim in front of you. Read to the end, and the charge lands on the ones who put it in your mouth.

Here is the word. Here is who it belongs to. And here is who has been renting it out.

A Pope’s Word, Not a Prophet’s

Ask where the phrase came from. Not the bombing, not the headline — the words “holy war” themselves. You will be told they are what jihad means. They are not. They are not even Islamic. The phrase has a birthplace, and it is not Makkah. It is a frozen field in central France, and the date is the twenty-seventh of November, 1095.

That day, at Clermont, Pope Urban II stood before a crowd too large for any hall and preached a war. March east, he told them, take Jerusalem back from the Muslims, kill for the Church — and every sin you carry will be washed clean. Die on the road and you go straight to heaven, a lifetime’s penance paid in a single stroke. The crowd roared back three words: “Deus vult.” God wills it. Urban made them the battle cry of the Crusades.²

Look at what he did there, because it is the thing itself. He took war — killing, the oldest sin — and made it a sacrament. He blessed the sword. He offered paradise as the wage for spilling blood. That is holy war: not war a religion permits, but war a religion sanctifies — the killing itself an act of worship, the killer’s soul made cleaner for the corpse at his feet. Christendom built that idea. A pope preached it. Knights carried it to Jerusalem in 1099 and, by the crusaders’ own chroniclers’ telling, waded through streets ankle-deep in blood, certain God was pleased.

Now try to build the same thing inside Islam. The grammar will not hold it.

In Islam the sacred belongs to God — only to God. Nothing made by hands shares in it. Muslims who say “Holy Qur’an” or “Holy Prophet” are reaching for a word that does not fit; the careful ones say “Noble,” “Glorious,” “Most Beloved,” because to call a created thing holy is to hand it a piece of what belongs to God alone. And of everything the faith refuses to sanctify, war stands first in the line. Islam has its words for it — harb, for war; qital, for the killing — and not one of them carries a breath of the holy. The tradition treats war as close to the worst of what people do to one another, permitted only when nothing else is left, and never, on any reading, as a road to paradise. Islam has no sacrament of the sword — no rite that turns killing into worship, no ‘God wills it’ shouted over drawn blades. There is no indulgence for the blade. The single thing the Crusade made holy is the one thing Islam counts among the gravest.³

So when someone tells you jihad means holy war, see plainly what has happened. They have taken a doctrine their own church authored — armed pilgrimage, sin washed off in enemy blood, heaven promised to the one who kills — and fastened it onto a faith whose creed cannot even form the phrase. The sanctified war is a Christian inheritance. Its cry is Latin. Its author wore the papal tiara. And the loudest voices warning you that Islam is holy war are the cultural descendants of the men who made war a sacrament and called it the will of God.

They are not describing the Qur’an. They are describing their own history, and charging Islam with it.

Which leaves the question they never let stand where it belongs. If “holy war” is their phrase and not the Prophet’s, then it is worth seeing the full reach of the word they flattened into a single blade.

The Struggle They Never Mention

Start with the root, because the root gives the game away. Jihad comes from a verb that means to strive, to exert, to struggle toward something worth the effort. It is not built from the word for war (harb). It is not built from the word for killing (qital). It is the word a Muslim reaches for whenever the right thing is the hard thing and they do it anyway.

The Qur’an shows how wide it runs, and it shows it in the one place the fearmongers will never take you: Makkah, in the earliest years, when the Muslims had no army, no state, no sword to raise and no permission to raise one. Fighting had not yet entered the word at all. There, under persecution, God commanded a jihad — and named the weapon. “Strive against them with it,” the verse says, “a great striving” — and the “it” is the Qur’an. The recited word. The argument. This is the first jihad in Islam, revealed in the Makkan years before armed struggle was permitted: a hunted people preaching the truth to the power crushing them, and God called it “great.”⁴ That is no footnote to the meaning of jihad. It is the root of it — the sense the word carried before the sword was ever lawful.

And the Prophet named the same thing its highest form. Asked which jihad was best, he did not point to a battlefield. He pointed to a word of justice spoken to a tyrant — to the face of a ruler who could kill you for saying it. The first jihad the Qur’an commanded and the greatest jihad the Prophet named are one act: the truth, said aloud, to power that does not want to hear it. Neither has a sword in it.

That is the struggle they never mention. And it does not stop there. There is the jihad of wealth — the Qur’an pairs striving with your money and striving with your life, over and over, because feeding the hungry and funding what is just is its own hard road.⁵ And there is the oldest and most private jihad of them all, the one every believer fights alone: the struggle against the self, against your own temper and greed and cowardice, the fight no one sees and no one applauds, where the only enemy is you.

This is the plain content of the word, fourteen centuries deep, sitting in the book and the sayings the accusers claim to have read.

Now — is there a jihad of the sword? Yes. There is. A people attacked has the right to defend itself, and the tradition calls that striving too. Shrink the word down to nothing but private self-improvement and you hand the frauds the win — they point to the sword and call you a liar. So here it is, plainly: the sword is in the word. It is real. It is also the narrowest strip of it — one lawful, conditional, hemmed-in form of struggle among many — and, as you are about to see, nothing like the freelance slaughter they have hung on it.

That is what they did to a word. They took one that runs from a whispered refusal of your own worst impulse all the way to the lawful defence of a people — and cut everything off it but the blade. Then they bent the blade into a shape no Islamic institution would recognise, and told you that shape was the religion.

So where did that shape come from? Not from Makkah. Not from the verse revealed to a hunted, preaching minority. The caricature you were handed — the sword, freelance, unbound by any law, aimed at you — has a birthplace and a budget, and both are far more recent than the Qur’an. It was built. And we know who built it.

Share

The Monster They Built

Its name is Operation Cyclone.

That is not a label from a conspiracy forum. It is the CIA’s own name for what became the longest and most expensive covert operation in the Agency’s history — Carter’s signature, Brzezinski’s memos, a paper trail the United States has never seriously denied.⁶

Read the dates, because the dates rewrite the story you were told. Carter signed the first order to back the Afghan fighters on the third of July, 1979 — six months before a single Soviet tank crossed the border. Cash, radios, propaganda at first; then, within weeks of the invasion, weapons. America did not take up the mujahideen because the Soviets invaded. The involvement came first. The aim, in Brzezinski’s own words, was to bleed Moscow white in the mountains — to hand the USSR “its Vietnam war.” A proxy army, built to trap a superpower.

Then the money came, and it did not stop. Twenty to thirty million dollars a year at the start; six hundred and thirty million a year by 1987. Billions before the decade was out — and Saudi Arabia matched Washington dollar for dollar.⁷ Six to twelve billion dollars, American and Saudi, to raise an army from nothing.

And the guns came dressed as the enemy’s. To keep American fingerprints off them, the weapons had to be Soviet-pattern — and that took a coalition. Israel sold the CIA the Soviet arms it had captured in its wars with the Arabs; Egypt emptied its old Soviet stockpiles into the pipeline; Britain and China added more. A war on the Soviet Union, armed by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel alike. This was not a rogue cell or a fringe that grew itself. It was a coalition of states, taking a marginal thing and growing it on purpose.

The cash ran through Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, and the ISI chose who got the guns. It chose the hardest commanders it could find — Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Jalaluddin Haqqani, the most radical in the field, because the most radical fought hardest. The ISI armed and trained more than a hundred thousand fighters, and drew thirty-five to forty thousand foreign volunteers from across the Muslim world into a war that was never theirs.⁸

And they did not only arm it. They taught it. American aid money paid the University of Nebraska to print schoolbooks for Afghan children — millions of them — in which the alphabet ran K is for Kalashnikov, J is for jihad, and children learned to count not with apples but with tanks, with missiles, with dead Russian soldiers. Thirteen million of those books went out.⁹ The United States did not borrow the language of holy war. It printed it, bound it, and handed it to children.

Now hold the whole thing still and see what was made. Armed struggle in Islam belongs to a state — to a governing authority with a chain of command and a body that can be called to account. What the CIA and the ISI built was the exact inverse: private fighters, untrained in the law, answerable to no one, handed rifles and told they were mujahideen, told this was a personal duty owed to God. That is the invention. The freelance holy warrior — no state above them, no law around them, no authority but their own grievance — was not revealed in Makkah. That figure was manufactured in Peshawar, on an American budget, as a device to bleed the Soviet Union.

The Soviets left in 1989. The money had not built a country; it had built an idea, and the idea stayed standing after the paymasters went home. The camps stayed. The weapons stayed. The trained fighters stayed. And the idea stayed — that anyone with a gun and a grievance could name themselves a soldier of God, no state required. Washington had feted these fighters as freedom fighters — Reagan hosted their commanders in the Oval Office — and when they turned inconvenient, the label was swapped for terrorist and the builders walked away. Asked, two decades on, whether he regretted arming the fighters who fed al-Qaida, Brzezinski brushed it aside: what mattered more to history, he wanted to know — the fall of the Soviet empire, or “some agitated Muslims”?

And bin Laden? He was inside that world — running the office that funnelled Arab volunteers to the front, his ally Hekmatyar taking CIA money by the crate. Did the Agency cut Osama bin Laden a personal cheque? The historians who have read the files — Steve Coll, Peter Bergen — say no. It does not matter. You do not have to sign someone’s cheque to build the world they rise in. America built the machine that trained forty thousand foreign fighters and gave the word jihad its modern meaning — stateless, freelance, aimed at whoever the holder of the gun decided.¹⁰ Al-Qaida is what walked out of that machine.

So the monster is real. It has a maker, and the maker is not the Qur’an. But strip the manufacture away and one question stands where the whole operation was built to keep it buried: by whose authority did any of them fight? Islam has always had an answer. It is the answer that convicts every freelance killer who ever grabbed the word — and, as it turns out, the same answer the West once wrote into its own founding law, and then abandoned.

The Rule America Broke

By whose authority. Put the question to Islamic law, and the law answers without hesitation.

Armed jihad is an act of state. Not a mood, not a private project, not a duty anyone assigns themselves — an act of state: declared by a legitimate authority, fought by a regulated force under a chain of command, bound by rules of conduct, answerable for what it does. The classical jurists did not treat this as a pious preference. Al-Mawardi’s eleventh-century manual on Islamic governance — the classic statement of how Muslim rule was ordered — gives the matter an entire chapter: the appointment of the Emir of Jihad. An office. Appointed. In the law of Islam, war is a function of government, alongside the treasury and the courts. Whoever holds a rifle and a grievance holds no more authority to declare jihad than to mint currency.¹¹ The jurists allowed one narrow exception — a people invaded may repel the invader — and even that is a concession to communities under attack, not a licence for anyone on earth to appoint themselves to someone else’s war.

Now look at who else wrote that rule. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution: Congress shall have power to declare war. Not the president alone. Not a general. Not an angry believer with a cause. The founders understood what Islam had held from its earliest days, more than a thousand years before them — that killing in a nation’s name is too grave to be private, and the decision must belong to the law.

Then ask when America last obeyed it. June 1942. Congress declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania; Roosevelt signed the resolutions; and no Congress has formally declared war since.¹² Not for Korea. Not for Vietnam. Not for Afghanistan. Not for Iraq — the war that filled the word jihad with two decades of blood. For more than eighty years the United States has fought its wars on every authority except the one its own founding law names.

Sit with the shape of that. The civilisation lecturing Muslims about lawless holy war walked away from its own law of war in 1942. The religion being lectured still binds its believers to the rule America broke: no war without the state, no authority without account. On this point Islam is not looser than the US Constitution. It is the Constitution — still in force.

I did not get this from a book. I got it across a table from men who wanted me to break it.

Years into my life as a Muslim, members of a group I belonged to in Houston decided that armed jihad was their personal duty — that the war in Iraq was a summons addressed to them individually, and that God required them to answer it. In time, some of them began working out how to get there. Long before I ever wore a wire, I argued the law of this section to their faces. We do have a religious duty to help the people of war-torn countries — I agreed with them there, and said so. But vigilante justice through violent jihad is forbidden in Islam. The concept of jihad is no different from how America’s own military is constitutionally established. A legitimate Islamic army, for over 1,400 years, was always accompanied by a well-regulated military, controlled by a diplomatic apparatus — and vigilante hordes of ad hoc wannabe soldiers, forming their own groups and claiming religious legitimacy, are a danger to Muslims, to Islam, and to the world.¹³

They heard the law. They decided it did not apply to them. So I went to the FBI, and then I went back into those meetings as a civilian undercover operative, wearing a wire, and recorded them planning their private war. The press would come to call them the “Houston Taliban.” The case ended where the rule says every private war ends — in a courtroom, with convictions. Not one of them ever fought under a flag. Not one of them ever held an authority beyond their own anger.

And that is the pivot on which the last of the lie breaks. If armed jihad belongs to the state, then the freelance killer is not a soldier who answers to a different flag. The word for what they are is not mujahid (defender of the faith), and it is not martyr. Islamic law named what they are fourteen centuries ago — and that name is the next thing the fearmonger never reads to you.

Share

Criminals, Not Martyrs

Start with how a lawful armed jihad is fought, because the rules are older than you think, and the terrorist breaks every one.

In the year 632, the first caliph, Abu Bakr, sent an army north into Syria. Before it marched, he gave its commander ten standing orders. Do not kill a woman, a child, or the aged and infirm. Do not harm the monk in his monastery. Do not cut down a fruit-bearing tree or burn a field. Do not slaughter livestock except for food. Do not raze a home. No treachery. No mutilation. No looting.¹⁴ That is a law of armed conduct, dictated fourteen centuries before the Geneva Conventions, and it reads like their first draft. Rules that precise are not invented on the morning of a march. They are the residue of hard experience — and they did not begin with Abu Bakr. He was carrying forward the Prophet’s own instruction on the conduct of war, the standing guidance that years of battle had already fixed.

Now set the terrorist against it. The targets are the market, the mosque, the concert hall, the office tower — women, children, the old, the very people the code shields. No field is spared; the terrorist is the fire. Every line Abu Bakr drew, the terrorist crosses on purpose, because crossing it is the whole method. Whatever this is, it is the exact inverse of the thing Islamic law calls jihad. The Qur’an fixed the boundary in a single clause: fight those who fight you, and do not transgress.¹⁵ This is nothing but transgression.

Then there is the word they die for, the Martyr. The belief is that the vest makes a shahid — a martyr — that the act proves itself. It does not. Martyrdom in Islam is not self-awarded, and the tradition saw this coming. The Prophet said the first person brought to judgment on the Last Day will be a man killed in battle who presents himself as a martyr — and God will name him a liar, because he fought to be called brave, not for God; and he will be dragged face-down into the Fire.¹⁶ Whoever slaughters a crowd so that a website will post their picture and call them a martyr has already been answered, fourteen centuries in advance. Not paradise. The Fire, face-down, first in the queue.

So take away the two words they stole. Not a soldier — they answer to no state. Not a martyr — the tradition damns the claim by name. What is left? Islamic law has a word for what is left, and it is not a modern invention.

The Qur’an names a crime: to wage war against God and spread corruption through the land. The jurists called it hiraba — the waging of war against society — and the one who commits it a muharib. Read the classical definition and you are reading a description of terrorism set down a thousand years early — armed bands who fall on the defenceless, make the roads unsafe, kill to spread fear. Every school of Sunni law counts it among the gravest crimes a person can commit and fixes to it the harshest punishment in the code.¹⁷ That is the category the terrorist actually occupies. Not mujahid. Not martyr. Muharib — as near as the seventh century came to the word terrorist. This is not Islamic law bent to a cause. It is the precise crime that law was written to punish.

And the states that built the ‘freelance fighter’ knew every word of it. None of this is buried; it sits in the first manuals of the faith. They did not recruit jurists, educated in the faith. They recruited the young and the unlettered — often unable to read or write, and unschooled in the faith they were told they were dying for — put a rifle in their hands and a slogan in their mouths, and aimed them at an empire, because a fighter who mistook hiraba for jihad was gold. The ignorance was not a by-product of the operation. It was the product.

So the terrorist reads the word backwards, taking the crime for the duty — hiraba for jihad — and dies believing it made them a soldier of God. Now hold that thought, because a second person sells you the very same reading: the influencer, the preacher, the propagandist who points at the wreckage and swears that this is what jihad has always meant. The terrorist believed the lie. This one doesn’t need to believe a word of it — they only need you to, because the fear pays: subscriptions, books, donations, votes. Both need the same thing from you — that you take the crime for the faith. The first is dead. The second is waving a finger in front of you.

Two People, One Lie

The two have never met. One is dead under rubble they made. The other is on a screen, a stage, a pulpit — well-fed, and growing an audience. Put them in a room and each would call the other an enemy. They are running the same operation on you.

Start with what the terrorist needs. They need the world to call the crime jihad. That is the only thing that turns the slaughter into martyrdom, the muharib (the ‘warrior’) into a hero, the murder into worship. Strip the word away and the terrorist is what the law says: a criminal who killed the defenceless and broke every rule the faith set down. So the terrorist needs you to believe the lie about the word as badly as they needed the weapon. Without that belief, they died for nothing — and somewhere underneath the certainty, they knew it.

Now the second. This one needs the terrorist — needs the wreckage, the body count, the name in the news, because the wreckage is the product. No atrocity, no threat; no threat, no audience; no audience, no subscriptions, no books, no donations, no votes. The attack they claim to despise is the best thing that happens to their week. They do not have to plant it. They only have to point at it and say the word — this is Islam, this is what it has always meant — and the fear does the rest, and the fear pays.

Look at what they have built between them. The killer commits the crime and calls it the faith. The seller points at the crime and calls it the faith. Sworn enemies both agree, to the letter, on one false claim: that the crime is the faith. Two people who would gladly kill each other, telling you the identical lie, because each needs you to believe it. The terrorist cannot become a martyr without the seller’s help. The seller cannot make a living without the terrorist’s corpse. They are, in reality, business partners across a battlefield, and the bill falls on someone who was never part of the deal.

That someone is the Muslim in front of you. The neighbour, the colleague, the child in a classroom — the nearly two billion who had this word lifted out of their mouths and turned into the charge against them before they said a thing. They did not build the monster. Their book did not sanctify it; their law convicts it. They inherited a word that means the struggle to be better, and were handed the bill for a crime committed, funded, and sold by others.

So take the word back. You have it whole now, but not as it was handed to you. Jihad is the effort toward the harder, better thing. It is the word of justice spoken to the face of a tyrant who can kill you for it. It is the wealth given away and the self brought to heel. And yes, it is the narrow, lawful, hemmed-in defence of a people under attack — a matter for a state and its law, never for a private grievance and a weapon. That last, freelance thing they taught you to fear was not revealed in Makkah. It was built in Peshawar, on a Cold War budget, and the faith it claims to serve had a name for it long before the crime: not mujahid, not martyr — muharib. Criminal.

So the next time the word is dropped in front of you like a gavel — after the crime, under the headline, from the finger waving in your face — you are no longer the jury they picked. You know what the word means. You know who built the thing they are pointing at. You know who collects on your fear. The case they wanted to close on nearly two billion people does not close, because their one witness has just turned out to be two people telling the same lie.

The word never belonged to them. It belongs to the ones who live it — the believer struggling against their own greed and cowardice, the voice raised against a tyrant, a people defending their homes under the law. Hand it back to them. And read the charge to the ones who put it in your mouth.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

Banner: a page from The Alphabet of Jehaad Literacy, Volume 2 (1986) — an Afghan primer that teaches the alphabet through images of weapons and jihad, produced by the mujahideen's Education Center for Afghanistan and printed and distributed under the USAID–University of Nebraska at Omaha programme. Source: F. M. M. Asmaie, The Alphabet of Jehaad Literacy, Volume 2 (1986), Books in Dari and Pashto 5, Arthur Paul Afghanistan Collection, DigitalCommons@UNO — digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/daripashtobooks/5.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ On the greatest jihad being a word of justice spoken before a tyrannical ruler: Sunan Abi Dawud 4344; also Jami’ al-Tirmidhi 2174 and Sunan Ibn Majah; graded sahih (al-Albani) and hasan by corroboration.

² Council of Clermont, 27 November 1095: Urban II preached an armed pilgrimage to reclaim Jerusalem, promising remission of sins to those who fought and paradise to those who died; the cry “Deus vult” became the Crusades’ battle cry. Historians hold that he fused holy war, pilgrimage and penance rather than inventing the idea. On the 1099 sack of Jerusalem: Raymond of Aguilers and the Gesta Francorum.

³ On tawhid: in the strict creedal sense holiness belongs to God alone, so the careful favour “Noble” (al-Karim) or “Glorious” (al-Majid) for the Qur’an. On the terms: harb (war) and qital (fighting), neither sacred; classical law treats war as grave and last-resort, never as worship.

⁴ Qur’an 25:52 (al-Furqan), a Makkan verse: “strive against them with it a great striving” (jihadan kabiran) — “with it” glossed by Ibn Abbas and Ibn Kathir to mean the Qur’an itself. The first permission to fight, 22:39, is Madinan — so 25:52 precedes the armed sense.

⁵ On striving with one’s wealth alongside one’s life: the Qur’an repeatedly pairs the two — see 9:20, 9:41, and 61:11 — and 49:15 defines the believers as those who “strive with their wealth and their lives in the cause of God.”

⁶ Operation Cyclone, the CIA’s covert programme to arm the Afghan mujahideen (1979–89), was the longest and most expensive covert operation in the Agency’s history. Carter signed the first finding on 3 July 1979 — six months before the Soviet invasion of 24 December 1979 (Robert Gates, From the Shadows). On the “bleeder” strategy — Brzezinski’s stated aim of giving the USSR “its Vietnam war” — see his interview in Le Nouvel Observateur, 15–21 January 1998. The interview’s further claim that the US deliberately provoked the invasion is contested (cf. Steve Coll, Ghost Wars), but the pre-invasion timing of the aid is documented; the “some agitated Muslims” reply is from the same interview (William Blum’s translation of the French).

⁷ Funding rose from $20–30 million a year (1980) to $630 million (1987); combined US, Saudi and Chinese aid is estimated at $6–12 billion, with Saudi Arabia matching US funding dollar for dollar. To keep US involvement deniable, the arms were supplied in Soviet pattern: Israel sold the CIA Soviet weapons it had captured in its wars with the Arab states, and Egypt fed its older Soviet-made stock into the pipeline, with Britain (MI6 and the SAS) and China also contributing. (Steve Coll, Ghost Wars; corroborated on the CIA’s use of Israeli-captured Soviet arms in Pervez Hoodbhoy, “Afghanistan and the Genesis of Global Jihad,” Peace Research 37:1 (2005), 15–30; and standard histories of Operation Cyclone.)

⁸ The aid was routed through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which directed the largest share to the most radical commanders, notably Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani; the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents (1978–92), and an estimated 35,000–40,000 foreign volunteers passed through the training network.

⁹ Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, “From U.S., the ABC’s of Jihad,” Washington Post, 23 March 2002: USAID funded the University of Nebraska–Omaha (roughly $51 million, 1984–94) to produce Dari and Pashto primers filled with jihad and weaponry — children taught to count with tanks, missiles and land mines; over 13 million distributed, later adopted as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. USAID and the university state the violent content was supplied by the mujahideen groups. The same programme and its militarised primers are documented in Hoodbhoy, “Afghanistan and the Genesis of Global Jihad” (2005).

¹⁰ On bin Laden: his Maktab al-Khadamat channelled Arab volunteers into the war, and his ally Hekmatyar received direct CIA support via the ISI; the claim that bin Laden was himself a CIA asset is rejected by the historians who have examined the record — Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, and Peter Bergen, Holy War, Inc., who calls it an axiom advanced with no supporting evidence.

¹¹ Al-Mawardi (d. 1058), al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah (The Ordinances of Government), a foundational classical statement of Sunni governance, organises armed jihad as a function of the ruling authority, devoting its fourth chapter to the appointment of the Emir of Jihad. In classical jurisprudence, offensive jihad is a collective obligation (fard kifaya) discharged under legitimate authority; the defensive case — repelling an invasion of Muslim land — is the narrow exception in which the duty falls on the invaded community directly.

¹² US Constitution, Article I, Section 8. The last formal declarations of war by the United States were passed by Congress on 4 June 1942 and signed by President Roosevelt on 5 June 1942, against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (US Senate archives; Congressional Research Service, “Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force”). Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were all fought without one.

¹³ The exchange, and the argument as I made it at the time, are recounted in my memoir, God and Country, published under the pen name Will Prentiss.

¹⁴ The ten commands of Abu Bakr to his army bound for Syria (632) are recorded in Malik’s Muwatta (Book 21, Kitab al-Jihad) and in al-Tabari’s account of the expedition of Usama ibn Zayd: no killing of women, children or the aged; no harming of monks; no felling of fruit-bearing trees or burning of crops; no slaughter of livestock except for food; no destruction of dwellings; no treachery, mutilation or theft from the spoils. They extended the Prophet’s own prohibition on the killing of women and children in war (Sahih al-Bukhari 3015; Sahih Muslim 1744).

¹⁵ Qur’an 2:190: “Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not transgress. God does not love the transgressors.” From it the classical jurists derived the immunity of non-combatants — women, children, the elderly, clergy, and labourers not engaged in the fighting.

¹⁶ Sahih Muslim 1905 (also numbered Book 20, no. 4688): the Prophet is reported to say that among the first cast into the Fire on the Day of Judgment will be a man killed in battle who fought so that it would be said of him “he is brave” — condemned because he fought for reputation, not for God.

¹⁷ Qur’an 5:33, known to the jurists as “the hiraba verse,” condemns those who “wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land.” Classical jurisprudence across all four Sunni schools built on it the crime of hiraba — armed aggression that terrorises a community — whose perpetrator is the muharib, and attached to it among the severest of the hudud penalties. Modern scholarship treats hiraba as the classical Islamic category corresponding to terrorism.

The iconic British red double decker bus was parked in front of cameras, driven through market towns and Midlands car parks for the entirety of the spring of 2016, and the number on its side was a lie. Everyone involved in the broader Leave operation knew it was a lie. The UK Statistics Authority had ruled the figure “potentially misleading” on 21 April 2016, weeks before the bus tour even began.¹ When Vote Leave continued to use it anyway, the Authority issued a stronger statement on 27 May condemning the campaign’s persistence with a number it described as undermining trust in official statistics.² The House of Commons Treasury Committee published its own report the same day, telling the public to “discount this claim”.³ The actual gross figure was around £342 million per week, and after the rebate Britain had been receiving since 1985 the net contribution was closer to £250 million, and even that was before any of it returned in the form of agricultural payments, regional development funds, and university research grants.⁴ The implied promise — that the same money would be redirected to the National Health Service — was the lie wrapped around the lie.

The bus belonged to Vote Leave, the official campaign fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Nigel Farage led the rival Leave.EU campaign, and he was careful never to put the £350 million figure in his own mouth. What he did instead was the move of every used-car salesman who has ever lived. He stood next to the bus. He shared platforms with the people who stood next to the bus. He gave his own version of the same promise, citing a smaller and harder-to-disprove figure of around £34 million a day — what he later called a “featherbed” of money that could be spent “on the NHS, on schools, on whatever it is.”⁵ He let the public draw the conclusion the larger Vote Leave bus was inviting them to draw, and he never once during the campaign — when it might have cost him a vote — corrected them. He kept his own fingerprints off the specific number while doing everything in his considerable power to make sure the number worked.

The morning after the referendum, asked by Susanna Reid on ITV’s Good Morning Britain whether he could guarantee the £350 million would be spent on the NHS, Farage said: “No I can’t, and I would never have made that claim, it was one of the mistakes the Leave campaign made.”⁶ The bus had served its purpose. It was no longer needed. The man who had spent months letting the country believe the number was good for something now wanted everyone to know it had never been his number to begin with.

This is the move. Remember it. We will see it again.

In the ten years since, the National Health Service has not received an extra £350 million a week. Real-terms spending per head has continued to grow, but at the slowest sustained rate in the service’s history — averaging just 0.4 percent a year in the decade before the pandemic, with four years in which spending per head actually fell.⁷ The spending growth has fallen far short of the rate required to meet rising demand from an ageing population, the post-Covid backlog, and the costs of advancing medical technology. Waiting lists have grown to the longest in the service’s history. GP appointments have become so scarce that in much of the country the practice of seeing a doctor in person, on a day you actually need one, has been quietly retired. Dentistry has functionally collapsed for anyone without private cover. Social care has been left to die. The maintenance backlog on NHS buildings has more than doubled in real terms over the past decade.⁸ The fiscal pressure created by lower growth, reduced revenue, and the ongoing costs of a poorer trading relationship with the European Union — still, despite Brexit, Britain’s largest trading partner — has been addressed not by raising taxes on capital but by contracting the capacity of the public services on which the people who voted for Brexit most depend.

The contracts to fill the spaces left behind by that contraction have gone, in increasing measure, to American companies. UnitedHealth’s UK arm Optum is now paid by almost every Integrated Care Board in England for medicines management, primary care patient records, or both, after its £1.2 billion buyout of the British medical IT firm EMIS was approved by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2023.⁹ Palantir, the American data analytics firm whose chairman Peter Thiel has publicly said the NHS “makes people sick” and should be deregulated and part-privatised, was awarded the £330 million Federated Data Platform contract in November 2023 — potentially worth £480 million over its lifetime — to integrate the medical records of up to 240 NHS organisations on its Foundry software.¹⁰ The British Medical Association voted in June 2025 to oppose the rollout. Forty-seven thousand patients signed petitions against it. Multiple NHS trusts refused to adopt the platform. The contract proceeds.¹¹ The NHS contract is one node in a wider architecture: Palantir also holds a £75 million Ministry of Defence data-processing contract from 2021, and its software was used to sift the submissions to the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review. The systematic treatment of US surveillance, defence, and AI infrastructure inside the British state is the subject of Code, Contracts and Complicity 2.0, also at Fireline Press.¹² In 2024 the NHS spent a record £216 million outsourcing X-ray examinations alone to private firms, many with US ties.¹³ The constituencies that voted hardest for Brexit were disproportionately the deprived areas that have borne the worst of NHS capacity decline since.¹⁴ The voters who were promised £350 million a week for the NHS got less NHS, and what they have left is increasingly being run, billed against, and underwritten by companies headquartered four thousand miles away.

This is not the failure of Brexit. This is what Brexit was for.

I write this as someone who has lived inside both of the systems I am going to ask you to compare. I am a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and the United States. I have paid taxes in both countries. I have used the NHS, and I have used the American healthcare system. I have watched what happens to British towns when their industries close, and I have watched what happens to American towns when theirs do. I have stood in line at an American pharmacy counter and been told a prescription would cost me four hundred dollars I did not have. I have walked out of a British GP surgery with the same medication for nine pounds. I know what the difference between those two systems looks like in a person’s life because I have been the person in both of those scenes.

I am writing this because what is being offered to British voters under the banner of Reform UK is the second of those scenes. It is not being described that way. It is being described as the recovery of British sovereignty, the restoration of national pride, the end of the political class’s contempt for the people it governs. Those are powerful arguments and they speak to grievances that are real. But the system being delivered behind that wrapper is the one I have lived under in the country I left. I recognise it. I am writing this article because I think the British public deserves to recognise it before they are asked to vote for it.

The conventional account in the British press treats Reform as a political phenomenon — an insurgency mobilised by voter anger over immigration, the cost of living, and a generation of broken promises. That account is true as far as it goes. But it stops at the front door of the question and refuses to walk inside. It treats the visible candidate as the substance of the offer. It treats the polling as the meaning of the moment. It does not ask who funds the movement, what those funders own, what those owners want, what foreign actors have a stake in the movement’s success, or what Britain looks like on the other side of the policies the movement is selling.

The answers to those questions, assembled, do not describe the recovery of British sovereignty. They describe its transfer.

In 2016, the country was told it was taking its sovereignty back from Brussels. In 2026, the country is being asked to complete the journey that began with that vote — not back to Westminster, where the rhetoric promised it was going, but onward to Washington, where in practice most of it has already been delivered. The trade dependence is American. The defence integration is American. The technology platforms that mediate British public life are American. The intelligence relationship is American. The foreign policy alignment is American. The capital that funds the political movement now offering to complete the transition is, in significant measure, American or American-aligned. The model of the state being implicitly proposed — smaller, more privatised, more deregulated, more comfortable with extreme inequality, more hostile to international human rights frameworks, more willing to break international law in service of national power — is American.

Reform’s voters did not vote for any of this. They voted because they were angry, and because the people in power were not listening, and because they were promised a country that was theirs again. They are entitled to that anger. They are right that they were not listened to. They were lied to in 2016 and they are being lied to now, by some of the same people, working from a similar playbook, in service of an outcome that bears no resemblance to what they were told they were voting for.

This article is for them as much as for anyone else. The argument it makes is not that they are wrong to want their country back. The argument is that the movement they are being mobilised by would deliver them, at the end of the road, the country I left.

That is what is actually at stake.

The Man, Briefly

There is no point pretending Nigel Farage is a mystery. He has been a fixture of British political life for thirty years, his biography is on Wikipedia, and the central facts about him are as well known as anything about a politician of his stature can be. The personal exposé has been written and rewritten so many times that another version is unlikely to change a single mind. What the personal record can do is establish, briefly, who is asking the British public for their trust, so that the structural argument that follows lands on a foundation of fact rather than mystique.

Farage was born in 1964 in Farnborough, Kent, the son of a stockbroker. He attended Dulwich College, the fee-paying private school in south London where he joined the Conservative Party in 1978 at the age of fourteen after hearing Sir Keith Joseph speak.¹⁵ His time at the school has come under renewed scrutiny: in late 2025, twenty-six former pupils and teaching staff signed an open letter published in The Guardian asking him to apologise for what they described as racist and antisemitic behaviour during his time there, including alleged remarks of “Hitler was right” and “gas ‘em” directed at a Jewish classmate, and racial slurs against Black and Asian pupils. Multiple former pupils corroborated the allegations. Farage denied them. A 1981 letter from an English teacher to the headmaster, asking him to reconsider Farage’s appointment as a prefect, cited the boy’s “publicly professed racist and neo-fascist views”. Farage was made a prefect anyway.¹⁶

He skipped university. At eighteen he went into the City of London as a commodities trader, following his father into the financial sector. He worked for Drexel Burnham Lambert, then Crédit Lyonnais Rouse, then Refco, then Natixis Metals. In 1994, while still at Refco, he set up his own brokerage, Farage Futures. By the mid-2000s the business was wound up and at least one of his metal-broking ventures had ended in insolvency. A fellow broker quoted in the Financial Times described the suggestion that Farage had been a wealthy City man as “probably a bit of a misnomer”.¹⁷ The man who spent the next two decades railing against the political class as a self-styled outsider was, by background, a private-school stockbroker’s son who had spent his working life in the financial industry that political class had spent four decades deregulating.

He left the Conservative Party in 1992 over the Maastricht Treaty and joined the new UK Independence Party the following year. He was elected to the European Parliament in 1999, where he would remain for twenty-one years, drawing a Brussels salary while campaigning to leave the institution that paid it. He led UKIP from 2006 to 2009, and again from 2010 to 2016. He stood for election to Westminster seven times before he won one. He failed at Eastleigh, Salisbury, Bexhill and Battle, Buckingham, South Thanet (twice), and finally succeeded at Clacton in 2024, more than thirty years after he first stood as a UKIP candidate.¹⁸ The narrative of perpetual outsider contains, on inspection, the perpetuity of a career politician who simply could not get elected.

What he could do, throughout that thirty-year career, was monetise it. The pattern is documented and consistent. After the 2016 referendum, when he stepped back as UKIP leader, the insurance tycoon Arron Banks funded what Channel 4 News described as a lavish lifestyle to the tune of around £450,000 in a single year — a £4.4 million Chelsea home rented through a Banks-controlled company at £13,000 a month, the furniture and fittings inside it, a Land Rover Discovery, a personal driver, a security detail, a personal assistant, an office in Westminster, and multiple flights to the United States including business-class travel to the 2016 Republican National Convention and Trump’s inauguration. Throughout the same period Farage continued to draw his European Parliament salary of approximately €100,000 a year plus expenses.¹⁹

In June 2021 he joined GB News. By August 2024, with Reform polling at levels that would have been unthinkable for any of his previous vehicles, his entry on the parliamentary register of interests showed he was being paid £97,928.40 a month by the broadcaster — almost £1.2 million a year for thirty-two hours of work a month — making him the highest-paid Member of Parliament in Westminster.²⁰ In November 2023, between political projects, he had appeared on the ITV reality show I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here! for a fee reportedly negotiated up to £1.5 million.²¹ The money flowed continuously, from donors when he was a politician, from broadcasters when he was on air, from television production companies when he was eating witchetty grubs. Whatever he was doing, someone with a financial interest in his profile was funding it. The man who has spent thirty years telling the British public the political class is on the take has himself been the most reliably remunerated political brand in modern British public life.

Then, in 2024, he received the £5 million payment from Christopher Harborne — the donor examined in Section Four — that was structured as a personal gift rather than a political donation, that fell outside both the Electoral Commission’s disclosure regime and HMRC’s tax framework, and that arrived in the weeks before he reversed his stated position and stood as a parliamentary candidate.²² The pattern of that transaction has the same shape as the pattern of his entire career. Money arrives. It is described in whatever language minimises scrutiny. The political project advances. Inconvenient questions, when they arrive, are met with the same answer they have always been met with: I never made that claim. Someone else did. I am simply the man on the stage.

For two years the man on the stage has been polling as the most likely next prime minister of the United Kingdom. That is no longer certain. On 8 July 2026 he resigned his seat, forcing a by-election in Clacton, with the parliamentary standards investigation into his failure to declare the £5 million gift suspended until he returns to the Commons.²³ The Guardian also reported that bankers had filed a suspicious activity report with the National Crime Agency over the gift in May 2024, having been unable to trace the ultimate origin of the funds — a report that is an invitation to examine a transaction, not evidence of wrongdoing, and which the agency will neither confirm nor deny.²⁴ His personal approval has fallen to the lowest of this Parliament. Whether he is still leading his party a year from now is an open question — and a secondary one. Whether the public being asked to elect him, or whoever comes after him, understand who is paying for the stage, who built it, what it is being used for, and what they intend to do with it once he is on it: that is the question that matters. The answer begins, as it has to, with the issue Farage has spent thirty years making the central fact of British political life. It is the issue that explains, more than any other, why his support has reached the levels it has. It is also the issue on which the architecture of his project is most structurally vulnerable to honest scrutiny.

It is the issue of immigration.

Subscribe now

The Immigration Gate

The Reform voter is not stupid. The Reform voter is responding to something real.

In the year ending March 2023, net migration to the United Kingdom reached 944,000 — the highest figure in the country’s recorded history.²⁵ It has since fallen sharply, to 204,000 in the year ending June 2025, after the Conservative government finally tightened the visa rules they had themselves loosened.²⁶ But the recent fall does not erase the underlying experience of the previous decade, and that experience is the political fact that matters here. Across constituencies that voted hardest for Brexit, voters watched their schools fill, their GP waiting lists grow, their housing become unaffordable, their wages stagnate, and their towns reshape around populations and languages they had not been consulted about. They were told, at every stage, that the numbers were under control. They were not. They were told that anyone who raised the issue was bigoted. Most were not. They were told that the political class understood their concerns. It did not. Three successive prime ministers — Cameron, May, Boris Johnson — promised to bring the figures down. Under each of them, the figures rose. By the time Rishi Sunak inherited the office in 2022, the system had become an open-loop machine: governments promised reductions, the Home Office issued visas, the numbers climbed, the rhetoric tightened, the visas continued.

Reform’s voters are not wrong to have noticed this. They are not wrong to be angry about it. They are not wrong to conclude that the people who run the country have been lying to them about it for thirty years. Every word of that grievance is correct. The question is not whether the grievance is legitimate. The question is who has been profiting from the conditions that produced it, and who is now offering to address it, and whether the people offering to address it are the same people who profited from creating it.

The post-Brexit migration surge — the so-called “Boriswave” of 2021 to 2024 that Reform’s manifesto now decries — was not an act of nature. It was a deliberate set of policy choices made by a Conservative government under pressure from British employers who could not, or would not, fill jobs at the wages on offer. The Skilled Worker route was opened with a salary threshold low enough to import labour for sectors the British workforce had effectively been priced out of. The Health and Social Care visa was introduced to staff a care sector that had been deliberately starved of public funding for fifteen years, on the assumption that lower wages and worse conditions could be offset by importing workers from countries where those wages and conditions still represented an improvement. Work-route immigration rose from 125,000 visas in 2021 to 467,000 two years later, an increase of 342,000, of which 285,000 were in the health and social care sector alone.²⁷ The students arrived because British universities had been turned into export businesses dependent on international fees to subsidise the teaching of British undergraduates the state would no longer pay to educate properly. Each of these flows had a domestic economic constituency behind it. Each of those constituencies was paying lower wages, charging higher prices, or both. None of them paid the political price for the consequences. The voters did.

This is the first thing the Reform voter has to be told plainly, because almost no British politician will tell them. Mass immigration into Britain has not been an accident, and it has not been a conspiracy of remote Brussels bureaucrats forcing it on an unwilling government. It has been a feature of the British economic model for thirty years, sustained by what is most accurately described as the Uniparty — the cross-party consensus that has governed Britain regardless of which party occupied Downing Street — because it serves the interests of capital. Farage has since taken up the word himself, using it in July 2026 to describe the parties that declined to contest his by-election. That is not what it means here. It describes convergence on policy, not coordination against a rival. The Uniparty has chosen, at every turn, to import labour rather than to pay it. Mass immigration suppresses wages at the bottom of the labour market. It fills jobs the Uniparty refuses to fund properly. It expands consumer demand. It postpones the day of reckoning on social care, on agriculture, on hospitality, on construction, on the NHS workforce, on every sector where the underlying problem is that Britain has refused for forty years to pay British workers what those workers’ labour is actually worth. Immigration is the lubricant that allows the economic machine to keep running without the structural reforms that would make it fair. The voter who concludes that the system is rigged against them is not paranoid. They are reading the economy correctly.

What the voter has been asked to misread is who, exactly, is doing the rigging. Reform’s offer to those voters is straightforward: vote for us and we will close the borders, deport those who came illegally, abolish indefinite leave to remain, scrap settlement rights for hundreds of thousands of people who have built their lives here, and restore Britain to its native population.²⁸ The offer is emotionally satisfying. It locates the problem in a population the voter can see — the migrant in the next street, the asylum seeker in the local hotel, the worker on the building site — rather than in a system the voter cannot. It promises action against people the voter has been told for years they cannot speak about. It feels, for many voters, like the first honest conversation any politician has had with them in a generation.

The architecture behind that offer extends further than the language at the rallies suggests. Inside the Reform movement and the broader political ecosystem orbiting it, an additional term has entered the working vocabulary: remigration. The term is not Farage’s. He does not use it. But it is now in regular use among Reform-aligned commentators, members, and figures further to his right. Its lineage carries an argument that goes well beyond Reform’s stated policy. Remigration was coined by the French author Renaud Camus, the same writer who originated the “Great Replacement” theory. It was adopted as a working concept by the European Identitarian movement around 2015, expanded by the Austrian activist Martin Sellner into a three-phase plan whose final phase explicitly targets “non-assimilated” migrants who have already obtained citizenship, and brought into mainstream political discourse in January 2024 when the German news outlet Correctiv exposed a meeting at Potsdam between members of Alternative für Deutschland and Identitarian activists planning the deportation of German citizens with migrant backgrounds. The AfD adopted the term into its 2025 federal election manifesto. The architecture is documented and the lineage is documented. The term means what its proponents say it means: the removal, by state action, of populations defined by ancestry rather than by legal status.²⁹

In Britain, the term has now travelled further than its proponents publicly admit. In March 2026, the anti-racism organisation Hope Not Hate published the first comprehensive poll of Reform UK’s own membership. Fifty-four per cent of Reform members surveyed said non-white British citizens born abroad should be deported or encouraged to leave. Twenty-two per cent said the same of non-white British citizens born in Britain to immigrant parents.³⁰ These are the views of the membership of the party that has led the national polls for most of the past two years. The political commentator Matthew Goodwin, who stood as a Reform parliamentary candidate in 2026, has publicly stated that “it takes more than a piece of paper to make somebody ‘British’”, and has refused to disown the implication that British citizens of minority ethnic background may not in fact be British.³¹ Rupert Lowe, formerly a Reform MP, left the party in 2025 over what he considered Reform’s insufficiently aggressive deportation policy and founded a new party, Restore Britain, on a platform closer to explicit remigration; two-thirds of Reform members polled by Hope Not Hate viewed Lowe favourably.³² The membership of Reform UK is not, on the evidence, signed up to the moderated language of the manifesto. It is signed up to the harder claim that the language has been carefully designed not to make.

Farage is doing with remigration what he did with the £350 million bus. He does not paint the bus. He does not stand directly in front of it. He uses a careful, deniable, lower-figure version of the same argument — “Operation Restoring Justice”, mass deportation of “illegal migrants”, abolition of indefinite leave to remain — that lets the larger, harder, more dangerous claim do its work without his fingerprints on it. The members and commentators around him use the term he avoids. He does not correct them. He does not disown them. He benefits from their work mobilising the audience the harder claim brings to the polls, while preserving the political deniability that allows him to talk to centre-ground voters in language that sounds reasonable. The pattern is the one identified in Section Two. The bus was the prototype. Remigration is the same machinery deployed against a more dangerous claim, with the same architecture of plausible deniability around the man at the centre of it. What this means for the political horizon — beyond the next election — is a question Section Eight will return to. The door Reform offers is wider, in the language of its own membership, than the rhetoric at the rallies suggests.

The trouble is that the offer is structurally dishonest, and the people making it are structurally incapable of delivering on it without dismantling their own economic project at the same time.

Look at what Reform proposes alongside its immigration policy. The same manifesto that promises mass deportation also promises £70 billion a year in tax cuts, with the largest gains accruing to the highest earners.³³ It promises the abolition of net zero, the expansion of fossil fuel extraction, and the deregulation of the energy market. It promises the cutting of working-age benefits, the contraction of public spending, and what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called sums that “do not add up” without “substantial cuts to the quantity or quality of public services”.³⁴ It promises the further deregulation of the British economy in directions that would make it more attractive to American capital and the American economic model — which, as Sections Five and Six document, means lower wages at the bottom, weaker labour protections, more precarious work, and a shrinking welfare state. It promises, in short, to intensify every economic condition that drives the British employer class to import cheap labour in the first place.

The promise of immigration restriction inside this economic programme is a contradiction in terms. A Britain restructured along the lines Reform proposes would be a Britain with weaker employment protections, more precarious work, lower real wages at the bottom of the market, and a government with less fiscal capacity to invest in the training, housing, and infrastructure that would allow British workers to fill the jobs currently going to migrants. Demand for cheap immigrant labour would not fall under such a government. It would rise. The political pressure to maintain visa flows would intensify, because the alternative — paying British workers more and providing the conditions under which they could afford to take the jobs — would conflict with every other plank of the economic programme. A Reform government promising to close the borders while also delivering a deregulatory tax-cutting agenda would face the same choice every Conservative government has faced for thirty years, and would make the same choice. The visas would continue. The rhetoric would tighten. Reform voters would be told, again, that the numbers were coming down. They would not be.

This is the first half of the trap.

The second half of the squeeze is arriving from the other direction, and almost no one is talking about it because it has not yet fully landed. The same capital that has imported cheap immigrant labour for thirty years is now investing aggressively in the technology built to eliminate that labour entirely. The AI systems now deployed across the British and American economies — customer service, logistics, retail, finance, legal work, accountancy, journalism, software, transport, warehousing, and increasingly skilled professional work — are not theoretical. They are operational. They are taking jobs now. The Reform voter who spent ten years watching their wages suppressed by immigrant labour is about to spend the next ten watching their job, and their children’s, eliminated by automation that needs no labour at all.

The same hand is doing both things. The capital that has imported cheap labour to suppress wages is the same capital that is now investing in the technology to make labour unnecessary. The immigration restriction Reform offers does nothing to address the second squeeze. It cannot, because the political alliance that funds Reform — the donor class examined in Section Four, the foreign movement Reform is operationally aligned with, the technology firms whose data infrastructure is now installed in the British state — is precisely the alliance whose economic project depends on the AI rollout proceeding at maximum speed with minimum public oversight. A Reform government promising to protect British jobs from immigration while presiding over the elimination of those jobs by automation would not be a contradiction the movement could resolve. It would be the operating model.

The promise of closing one door while three others are being installed in the wall is the offer being made to the Reform voter. The voter is being asked to focus their political attention on the brown face in the next street while the blue light of a server farm in Slough is doing more to determine the future of their employment than any visa policy ever will. The architecture is set up for the voter to stay angry at the visible target — the migrant, the asylum seeker, the small boat — while the structural transformation of their economic position proceeds out of sight, funded by the same donor class, advanced by the same political movement, blessed by the same media ecosystem.

This is not an argument that the Reform voter is wrong about immigration. They are not wrong about immigration. They are right that the numbers are too high. They are right that the system has not served them. They are right that the Uniparty has lied. The argument is that the people now offering to solve the problem are, structurally, the people most invested in the conditions that produce it, and the project they are advancing alongside their immigration rhetoric is the project that will deliver the next, larger, irreversible squeeze on every Reform voter’s economic position. Reform is not the solution to the conditions Reform’s voters are in revolt against. Reform is the political vehicle for accelerating those conditions while keeping the voter’s attention pointed at a smaller, more visible, more emotionally satisfying target.

The honest answer to the voter is that the immigration question cannot be answered without addressing the economic model that creates the demand for immigration. The political movement asking for their vote will not address the economic model. It will deepen it. The voter is being offered the wrong door.

Once the voter has walked through that door, the rest of the architecture becomes visible. That architecture is what the next four sections examine.

The Funding Architecture

Christopher Harborne is not the whole story of Reform’s funding. He is the most visible piece of it. The Section Two examination of his architecture — the gift-versus-donation distinction, the £5 million payment timed to coincide with Farage’s reversal on standing as a candidate — is one node in a wider map. Reform’s funders, taken together, do not form the donor base of an insurgent grassroots party. They form a small, identifiable class with concentrated economic interests in specific UK policy outcomes, and a collectively documented pattern of policy alignment with the platform of the party they fund.

The single most important number for understanding Reform’s funding architecture is the one published by the climate research organisation DeSmog in June 2024. Of the £2.3 million Reform UK received between the 2019 general election and the start of the 2024 campaign, 92 per cent came from fossil fuel interests, highly polluting industries, or individuals associated with organised climate science denial.³⁵ That figure has held in subsequent reporting. The pattern of Reform’s funding is not a constellation of unconnected wealthy individuals who happen to share a political preference. It is a concentrated alignment between the party’s platform and a specific industrial sector whose business model depends on the abandonment of the policies Reform exists to abandon. Reform calls for the scrapping of the UK’s 2050 net zero target, new fossil fuel extraction in the North Sea, the reopening of coal power plants, the ending of the windfall tax on oil and gas companies, and the winding down of subsidies for renewable energy.³⁶ Each of these policies serves, with mathematical directness, the financial interests of the donors funding the party that proposes them.

Take the most documented case after Harborne. The hedge fund founder Jeremy Hosking has donated £1.7 million to Reform between 2019 and 2024.³⁷ His firm, Hosking Partners, holds approximately £326 million in oil, gas, and coal company shares, an increase of more than 50 per cent in the past year alone, with positions in ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Warrior Met Coal, and Peabody Energy.³⁸ Hosking also owns The Critic magazine, which routinely attacks climate policy and supports new North Sea oil and gas exploration. The current Reform manifesto’s energy policy reads, in detail, like a return on investment for Hosking Partners shareholders. Hosking has stated that he is not personally invested in fossil fuels — that those are the holdings of his firm’s clients — and that he does not seek to direct policy. The structural fact remains. The party he funds advocates the regulatory environment in which his firm’s portfolio appreciates. Whether or not that alignment was intentional from the donor’s side, the alignment exists, and its existence is the part that matters for British public life.

Other donors complete the pattern. Terence Mordaunt’s First Corporate Consultants has given Reform £200,000; Mordaunt is a director and former chair of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (now operating as Net Zero Watch), the UK’s most prominent organised climate science denial group, and his other company, Bristol Port Company, handles 25 per cent of all UK aviation fuel imports.³⁹ David Lilley, a metals and mining sector investor, has given £364,000.⁴⁰ The party’s treasurer is the billionaire property developer Nick Candy, who has been actively recruiting wealthy donors in Monaco, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates.⁴¹ More than half of Reform’s 2024 donations — approximately £2.5 million — came from individuals resident in low-tax jurisdictions or with substantial business interests in offshore corporate structures.⁴² The pattern is consistent. Reform is funded, to a degree unmatched by any other major British political party, by a class of individuals whose personal residence, business structure, or both are located outside the United Kingdom whose politics they are paying to shape.

The pattern did not stop in 2024; it concentrated. By the Electoral Commission’s own filings, Christopher Harborne has given Reform more than fifteen million pounds since 2025 — including a single nine-million-pound payment in August 2025 that set the record, at the time, for the largest individual political donation in British history — entirely separate from the five-million-pound personal gift to Farage that is now the subject of a parliamentary standards inquiry.⁴³ He was not alone. In the first quarter of 2026, Reform raised £9.9 million, more than the Conservatives and Labour combined, the highest of any British party; roughly seven million of it came from two men. The second was Ben Delo, a British crypto billionaire who gave four million pounds in two payments as the government moved to cap donations from overseas-based donors at one hundred thousand pounds a year. Harborne and Delo both got their millions in under the wire before the cap took effect on the twenty-fifth of March 2026; Harborne has signalled he may challenge the cap in court, and Delo is relocating his tax residency to the United Kingdom to sidestep it entirely. In July 2026 a third billionaire arrived: Sasan Ghandehari, an Iranian-born property magnate resident for tax in Switzerland, who pledged “regular payments” running to “more than one or two million” and began moving his tax residency to the UK for the express purpose of funding Reform beyond the cap.⁴⁴ Ghandehari is offshore wealth with a personal grievance against Tehran — the Islamic Republic seized his assets over a failed infrastructure venture — and a declared Atlanticist agenda. He calls Farage’s relationship with Donald Trump “a major asset” for Britain and lists security, immigration, defence, and North Sea oil and gas as the ground he and Farage share. He is not hidden foreign money in the Nathan Gill sense. He is the opposite, and the more revealing for it: a man the Tehran regime dispossessed, reading Farage-plus-Washington as the vehicle worth funding, and rearranging his own tax affairs to pour uncapped money into it. Three billionaires now supply the working core of Reform’s money — all of them offshore wealth, all of them moving around the same donation cap, all of them buying into the same alignment. The party that calls itself the insurgent voice of the British people is, in its actual bank account, three foreign-based fortunes and a shared bet on Washington.

The implications of this pattern are not theoretical. They run through every major plank of Reform’s platform. The crypto-friendly regulatory programme that benefits Christopher Harborne’s Tether holding. The climate and energy programme that benefits Jeremy Hosking’s portfolio and Terence Mordaunt’s port and aviation fuel businesses. The deregulatory tax-cutting programme that benefits the offshore-resident donor class as a whole, by reducing the rates and broadening the exemptions on the kinds of income and wealth that class derives from the UK economy. The opposition to international human rights frameworks and the ECHR — frameworks that, in addition to their human-rights function, create regulatory predictability and constraints on executive power that capital concentrated in offshore jurisdictions has direct interests in dismantling. The platform is not random. It does not emerge from the demands of Reform’s voters in Clacton or Boston or Skegness. It emerges from the converged interests of the donor class that funds it. The voters and the donors are not aligned. The platform serves one of them.

There is a recent case that illustrates how thinly the formal protections against foreign financial influence in British politics actually function. In November 2025, Nathan Gill — formerly the Brexit Party leader in Wales and a Reform Party MEP — was sentenced to ten years and six months in prison for taking payments from a Russian-linked Ukrainian businessman, Oleg Voloshyn, between 2018 and 2019. The payments were in exchange for making specific pro-Russian statements directed by Voloshyn in the European Parliament and in the media.⁴⁵ Farage described Gill as “a bad apple”. The wider problem the case revealed is structural rather than individual. Following the Gill sentencing, the British government announced in December 2025 an independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics — an acknowledgement that the existing donation regime, designed in 2000 to police nationality on paper, no longer reliably captures the mechanisms by which foreign money and foreign-state-aligned actors influence British political outcomes.⁴⁶ The Gill case was the visible failure. The Harborne architecture, the offshore-resident donor pattern, and the foreign-aligned political-movement coordination examined in Section Five are the structural failure the visible failure is a symptom of.

Reform’s funding architecture is not the only example of this problem in British politics. Both Conservative and Labour fundraising has been increasingly concentrated among a small number of mega-donors over the past decade. The Director of Policy at Transparency International UK, Duncan Hames, observed in March 2026 that British democracy “is becoming a plaything for the super-rich”.⁴⁷ The structural problem is the Uniparty problem named in Section Three: a Westminster political class that has, across all parties, accepted the proposition that the funding of British political life is appropriately the domain of a small number of very wealthy individuals whose interests determine the boundaries of acceptable policy in advance. Reform is not a departure from this pattern. Reform is its purest current expression. Where the Conservative Party has historically dispersed its donor dependency across a wider donor base, and Labour has historically dispersed its dependency across a combination of trade unions and individual donors, Reform has concentrated its dependency on a tiny handful of offshore-based billionaires to a degree without precedent in modern British politics. The party that markets itself as the insurgent voice of the British people against the political establishment is, in its actual financial structure, the most extreme example of the establishment’s dependency on offshore-aligned wealth.

The donor architecture is the first piece of the wider structural picture. The second piece is the political project the donor architecture is helping to deliver. The donors are not, individually or collectively, the architects of British political alignment with Washington. They are funding a party that operates within an alignment that pre-existed it, and that the donor class as a whole has been quietly building for thirty years. That alignment is what Section Five will examine. It is the answer to the question raised at the end of Section One: where, exactly, has the sovereignty Britain recovered in 2016 gone?

Subscribe now

Brussels to Washington

The Brexit voter’s central argument in 2016 was about sovereignty. The European Union, the argument ran, exercised power over British life that was not democratically accountable to the British people, and that power should be returned to Westminster, where it could be answered for at the ballot box. The argument was not absurd. The European Union had accumulated, by 2016, a significant body of regulatory authority over British economic, environmental, agricultural, financial, immigration, and procedural law, exercised through institutions whose connection to the British electorate was real but attenuated. The Brexit voter who concluded that British sovereignty had been compromised by Brussels was not wrong. They were responding to a real condition. What has happened to British sovereignty in the ten years since they cast their vote to recover it?

Take the case that has appeared most directly in British public life. In December 2025, the British government signed the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal. The pharmaceutical pricing component of that deal, finalised in April 2026, committed the National Health Service to a 25 per cent increase in the cost-effectiveness threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to assess new medicines, allowing higher-priced drugs to qualify for NHS use. The deal also reduced the rebate that US pharmaceutical companies are required to pay back to the NHS on branded medicine sales — from 22.9 per cent in 2025 to a capped 15 per cent through 2028 — and committed Britain to doubling the share of GDP it spends on new medicines, from 0.3 per cent to 0.6 per cent by 2035. In exchange, Britain received zero tariffs on its pharmaceutical exports to the United States.⁴⁸ The framing was favourable. The substance was that a US administration threatening tariffs of up to 100 per cent on British pharmaceutical imports had successfully extracted a commitment from a British government to increase the price its public health service pays for the products of US pharmaceutical companies, and to reduce the rebate those companies are required to pay back to the NHS budget. The British public, who pay for the NHS through general taxation, will be paying more for their medicines so that British pharmaceutical exports to the United States can continue without tariff. That is not a trade deal between equals. That is a transfer of resources from a smaller economy to a larger one, structured to look like a partnership. It is also a transfer of regulatory autonomy: NICE thresholds — the mechanism by which the British public health system has, for twenty-five years, decided which medicines are worth its money — were renegotiated under foreign tariff pressure. The British public was not consulted. Parliament barely debated the terms. The deal was announced, then signed, then implemented.

The same architecture exists across British defence and military integration. In July 2025 the United Kingdom signed the Geelong Treaty with Australia, a fifty-year bilateral commitment to construct the SSN-AUKUS submarine fleet that will form the backbone of the Royal Navy’s underwater capability for the next half-century. The submarines will be built around US Virginia-class technology. The combat systems are American. The vertical launch cells are American. The propulsion technology is shared with the United States under the trilateral AUKUS Naval Nuclear Propulsion Agreement. The Strategic Defence Review of 2025 — sifted, as Section One noted, by Palantir software — committed the UK to building twelve such submarines, with £6 billion already allocated in eighteen months.⁴⁹ The structural condition this creates is not subtle. The Royal Navy’s primary instrument of underwater force projection for the next fifty years will require continuous US technology cooperation, US logistical support, and US regulatory permission to function. A British government that wished, for any reason, to pursue a defence posture independent of Washington’s preferences would discover that the underlying hardware no longer permits the choice. That is not a partnership. That is a structural foreclosure of strategic autonomy, presented to the British public as a major industrial achievement, and signed up to by a government no one elected on a mandate to do so.

The Iran war of 2026 made the position concrete in a way no treaty document quite manages to. On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel began a series of strikes against Iran. The British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, initially refused US access to UK military bases for the strikes, including Diego Garcia — the joint UK-US airbase on the Chagos Islands that Britain leases from Mauritius following the return of sovereignty in 2024. Within forty-eight hours, Starmer reversed that position, framing the U-turn as “the best way to eliminate the urgent threat”.⁵⁰ Iranian counter-strikes targeted UK military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and Cyprus. The Royal Air Force was deployed in a defensive capacity, intercepting incoming Iranian missiles aimed at infrastructure where US forces were stationed. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was killed in the joint US-Israeli strikes. The British prime minister, asked in the House of Commons whether his government’s actions had compromised UK independence, replied that “American planes operating out of British bases, that is the special relationship in action”.⁵¹ He was not wrong. He had described the architecture accurately. He had simply mistaken the description for a defence. The British public, who had not voted for war with Iran, who had not been consulted on whether the United Kingdom should host strikes that killed a foreign head of state, whose military bases were attacked in retaliation for actions ordered in Washington, watched the special relationship operate exactly as the structural conditions of the past decade had been quietly arranging it to operate. There was never any serious question whether Britain would host the operation. There was only the question of how long it would take to capitulate to the pressure to do so. Forty-eight hours was the answer. The war did not stay concluded; it resumed in the summer of 2026 under a renewed American strike campaign, and the British bases stayed open to it — a continuity Section Eight returns to.

The technology and surveillance dimension, treated in full in Code, Contracts and Complicity 2.0, has already surfaced here. The American firm Palantir holds the £330 million contract to integrate the medical records of up to 240 NHS organisations on its Foundry software, holds a £75 million Ministry of Defence data-processing contract, and was used to sift the submissions to the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review. The same Palantir software runs the operating layer of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mass deportation programme — the ImmigrationOS system, awarded a $30 million contract in April 2025 and now embedded across the federal architecture the Trump administration has been rebuilding for the rapid removal of millions of people from the United States.⁵² A future Reform government promising to deliver the mass deportation programme set out in Operation Restoring Justice would not need to build the infrastructure to do it. The infrastructure is already there. It is the same software stack, written by the same company, that is currently delivering equivalent operations in the United States. The British state has, without public debate, installed across its public services software written by the same company whose product now forms the operating layer of American mass deportation. The party most likely to use it is a party whose leadership has spent the past decade aligning operationally with the American political movement that built it. This is not a coincidence. The architecture was built in the order it was built because each piece serves the next.

The foreign policy alignment runs alongside the structural integration. British policy on Israel, on Iran, on the Gulf states, on the Indo-Pacific, on China, on Russia, has converged with Washington’s positions across successive governments — Conservative and Labour — over the past decade to a degree without precedent in postwar British foreign affairs. This is the Uniparty problem named in Section Three applied to foreign affairs: a cross-party consensus that the strategic direction of British policy is settled, and the only question between the parties is which one delivers it more efficiently. The few moments of British divergence have been, in retrospect, small disagreements over presentation rather than substantive differences over direction. Where Britain has disagreed with Washington under the Trump administration — Chagos, Greenland, the conduct of the Ukraine war, the framing of the Iran strikes — the disagreements have been performative and short-lived, walked back within days under pressure. Where Britain has tried to maintain an independent line — most visibly on climate policy under the Conservative government before Brexit completed and during the early Starmer period — the line has been progressively abandoned under combined pressure from US-aligned domestic media, US-aligned domestic donors, and US-aligned political movements. The Reform manifesto’s call for the abandonment of the 2050 net zero target is not a British political development standing alone. It is the British end of a transatlantic political project funded by the same fossil capital and amplified by the same media architecture as its American counterpart. The same is true of immigration policy. The same is true of regulatory deregulation. The same is true of the abandonment of international human rights frameworks. The British political conversation has, over the past decade, become operationally synchronised with the American conservative political conversation in a way that it never was in the postwar period.

The intelligence dimension is the deepest and least visible. The Five Eyes arrangement — the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, founded in the immediate postwar period — has integrated over two decades to the point where GCHQ operates on what is functionally a single network with the American National Security Agency. British signals intelligence, communications surveillance, cyber and counter-terrorism operations all run through cloud infrastructure built and maintained by the American technology industry. British intelligence cannot be conducted, in any operationally meaningful sense, independently of American technology, funding, or coordination. That is not contested within the intelligence community. It is the accepted price of the relationship, and it has never been presented to the British public as something they might wish to debate.

In 2016, the country was told it was taking its sovereignty back from Brussels. In 2026, the sovereignty in question lives in Washington. The trade dependence is American. The defence integration is American. The technology platforms that mediate British public life are American. The intelligence relationship is American. The foreign policy alignment is American. The capital that funds the political movement now offering to complete the transition is, in significant measure, American or American-aligned. The model of the state being implicitly proposed — smaller, more privatised, more deregulated, more comfortable with extreme inequality, more hostile to international human rights frameworks, more willing to break international law in service of national power — is American. The Brexit voter who concluded in 2016 that British sovereignty had been compromised was not wrong. They were correctly diagnosing one face of a problem. They were misled, by a political class that knew better, about which direction the larger threat was actually coming from. The sovereignty Britain recovered from Brussels was real but limited. The sovereignty Britain has surrendered to Washington is broader, deeper, and more consequential. Reform UK, the party that has spent two years polling as the most likely vehicle for delivering the next British government, is not the recovery of British sovereignty. Reform UK is the political project that exists to complete its transfer.

What Americanisation Looks Like

The structural argument of the previous section can be made concrete in what it would change about ordinary British life. The architecture of US-UK integration is not, for most people, an abstract treaty document. It is a set of conditions that determine what they pay for medicine, what is in their food, what their employer can do to them at work, what is done with their personal data, what their children breathe, and what they are permitted to say about it. The trajectory across all of them has pointed one way, consistently, for the past decade.

Take the most easily quantified case first. The American healthcare system, the model towards which a significant section of British political and donor opinion has been quietly working for thirty years, costs the average American family with employer-sponsored health insurance approximately $26,993 per year in premiums alone, of which the worker contributes around $6,850 directly out of paycheck.⁵³ The average annual deductible — the amount a person must pay out of pocket before insurance begins covering anything — is approximately $1,886 for individual coverage, with high-deductible plans now exceeding $9,000 in many cases.⁵⁴ Approximately two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies in the United States involve medical bills. Approximately 60 per cent of American adults report having had medical debt at some point in their lives. Approximately 70 per cent of those with medical bills report having cut food expenses to manage them.⁵⁵ The federal poverty line for an American family of three in 2025 was $26,650 — less than the average cost of family health insurance for a single year. None of these conditions is rhetorical. Each is a published number from a documented source. The British reader who has just read the Section Five account of the December 2025 pharmaceutical pricing deal, which raised the NHS cost-effectiveness threshold by 25 per cent under US tariff pressure, can decide for themselves how far down this road the British system has already begun to travel.

The food and consumer protection question is, in 2026, an unresolved live front rather than a completed surrender. The UK-US trade deal of May 2025 explicitly excluded chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef from the agreement, and Defra Secretary Steve Reed reiterated in early 2026 that imports of both remain illegal under UK law.⁵⁶ That is the official position. The structural reality is that the US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, has been using the £31 billion UK-US technology partnership signed in September 2025 to press for the agricultural concessions not won in the trade negotiations of the previous year — pressure documented in The Telegraph and Farmers Weekly in late 2025 and continuing through 2026.⁵⁷ The architecture of the relationship makes the pressure structural rather than incidental. Each new economic deal becomes a vehicle through which the US administration extracts further concessions on regulatory standards the British public has consistently said it does not want. The food standards consensus that has held in Britain since the 1990s — high hygiene and animal welfare standards from farm to fork, rather than chemical washes at the slaughterhouse — has not yet been broken. The architecture pushing toward breaking it is in place. The question is not whether the Uniparty will eventually capitulate. The question is which administration capitulates and on what timeline.

The labour and worker protection dimension follows the same pattern. American labour law permits at-will termination without cause in most states, guarantees no paid sick, parental, or annual leave, allows shifts scheduled with no notice and arbitration clauses that bar employees from suing, and reclassifies a growing share of the workforce as independent contractors precisely to strip the protections employees would otherwise hold. The British conversation has moved steadily toward these conditions, not away from them: Reform’s calls for reduced employment protection, the broader Conservative-and-Reform enthusiasm for “flexible labour markets”, and the sustained pressure against the EU-derived protections that survived Brexit all point the same way.⁵⁸ The British worker who cannot understand why their hours are precarious, why their schedule can change without notice, why they have less recourse than their parents had, is reading it correctly: the labour market is being reshaped along American lines, and the project funding Reform is the most visible vehicle for continuing that reshaping.

Data privacy and the regulation of large technology firms run along the same axis. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, the consumer-protection frameworks Britain inherited from membership, and the constraints on large platforms that survived 2016 are exactly what the American technology industry and its political allies most want dismantled. The British consumer in 2026 still holds protections far more robust than their American counterpart: data portability, the right to be forgotten, the right to know what an algorithm is doing with their information, redress against unfair practices. These rights survive — against pressure applied through every UK-US trade and technology negotiation since 2016, and intensified sharply under the Trump administration’s Tech Prosperity Deal of September 2025. The trajectory is consistent. The question is the rate of erosion.

The climate and environmental dimension has moved further than the others. The Reform manifesto calls for the abandonment of the 2050 net zero target, the reopening of coal power, the ending of the windfall tax on oil and gas, the scrapping of subsidies for renewable energy, and a referendum on the entire net zero framework.⁵⁹ The Conservative Party under Kemi Badenoch has, since 2024, progressively abandoned its previous commitments on the same policies. Labour’s climate ambition has, under sustained donor and media pressure, been quietly walked back across multiple flagship areas. The British political consensus on climate that survived from the 2008 Climate Change Act through the 2010s no longer exists. The donor architecture documented in Section Four — the 92 per cent of Reform’s funding from fossil fuel interests, polluters, and climate science deniers — has been doing exactly what one would expect such a donor architecture to do: shifting the political conversation toward the abandonment of the policies the donors have a financial interest in seeing abandoned. The British public, who have for the past two decades supported climate action by majorities in repeated public polling, are watching the policy framework being dismantled by a Uniparty funded to dismantle it. The atmospheric and economic consequences of that dismantling will be borne by the British public regardless of whether they were consulted about it.

The legal and free speech dimension is the deepest and the least visible. The proposed British departure from the European Convention on Human Rights — a Reform manifesto commitment, increasingly an emerging Conservative position, and a permanent fixture of the right-aligned political conversation — would remove from British citizens the legal protection that has, since 1953, sat outside Westminster’s reach. The justification offered is that the ECHR obstructs British control of immigration. The architecture of the proposal is broader than that. The ECHR is the final legal recourse against arbitrary detention, against torture, against discrimination, against state interference in family life, against the suppression of free expression. Removing it relocates all of those protections inside Westminster, where a parliamentary majority can amend or remove them at will. The American constitutional model offers Bill of Rights protections that are, in practice, increasingly subject to executive interpretation and enforcement discretion under the Trump administration’s expansive theory of presidential power. The project described here is not proposing to import the American constitutional model wholesale. It is proposing to remove the international legal framework that currently sits above Westminster, leaving British citizens with only the protections that a future Westminster majority chooses to provide. In the era of the alignment documented above, that is not a hypothetical concern. It is the structural condition the project is moving toward.

Each individual dimension can be defended on its own terms by its proponents. Each structural change is presented as discrete, necessary, modest. The cumulative direction is consistent across every dimension: toward an American model of the state, an American model of the economy, an American model of the relationship between capital and labour, an American model of the legal protection of citizens against state and corporate power. The British public has not voted for this transition at any point in the past decade. The Uniparty has delivered it across every party in turn, accepting between the parties only the question of pace, never the question of direction. The function of Reform, as the analysis of Section Four made clear, is to deliver the most aggressive and most rapid version of the structural trajectory the rest of the Uniparty has been delivering more slowly. None of this is the recovery of British sovereignty. All of it is the substitution, piece by piece, of one external set of constraints on British public life for another.

Labour’s Surrender

On 22 June 2026, on the tenth anniversary of the Brexit referendum, Keir Starmer announced his resignation as Labour leader and prime minister. He stood outside Downing Street as protestors across the road played Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” — the anthem of the European Union — and read his resignation statement. He will remain as caretaker prime minister until a new Labour leader is chosen, no later than 1 September. Andy Burnham, the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, entered Downing Street on 20 July 2026 as the United Kingdom’s seventh prime minister in a decade.⁶⁰ The collapse diagnosed above had arrived at its first political consummation.

Labour’s collapse was not a failure of communication or political positioning. It was the result of a substantive surrender. The Starmer government accepted, on point after point, the structural trajectory described in the previous two sections, and lost the voters whose interests would have required it to do otherwise. Labour cannot stop Reform because Labour and Reform are, in their actual policy positions on the questions that matter most to British public life, different points along the same trajectory. The voter who would once have voted Labour as the party of working people now reads correctly that the party offers no meaningful alternative to the direction the country is being taken in. They are looking for someone who will. Reform is the answer they have been offered. The fact that Reform is structurally a worse answer does not change the fact that Labour, on the evidence, has not been an answer at all.

What needs naming first is the substance of what the Starmer government has actually done. Virtually every major policy decision Starmer has taken has been a Conservative decision. The fiscal posture is Conservative — the welfare cuts in the first eighteen months were Conservative welfare cuts, the tax-threshold freeze is a Conservative fiscal-drag mechanism, the increase in defence spending to 2.7 per cent of GDP funded by cuts to foreign aid and disability benefits is a Conservative fiscal trade-off, the maintenance of the two-child benefit cap that pushes children into poverty is Conservative welfare policy continued under a Labour government.⁶¹ The defence and foreign policy posture is Conservative — the AUKUS commitment was confirmed and accelerated, the Iran war capitulation took forty-eight hours, the F-35 supply chain to Israel was specifically exempted from arms suspension on grounds the Labour government’s own legal advice indicated were unsafe, the Tech Prosperity Deal with the Trump administration was signed in September 2025, the pharmaceutical pricing concession to US tariff pressure was finalised in April 2026.⁶² The promises Labour made in opposition — on the welfare state, on workers’ rights, on the relationship between government and capital, on Britain’s posture in the world — have been, on point after point, either renegged on or quietly abandoned. The voter who concludes that the man they voted for as a Labour prime minister is governing as a Conservative one is not misreading the evidence. They are reading the evidence correctly.

The deeper case is the civil rights rollback. The Starmer government has, in its first eighteen months, advanced an attack on British civil liberties that no recent Conservative government managed. In July 2025, on the recommendation of Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Parliament voted to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act, making membership of, or expression of support for, a peaceful direct-action protest group punishable by up to fourteen years in prison.⁶³ The consequences were what one would expect from the wholesale application of counter-terrorism law to peaceful protest. By the end of 2025, the Home Office’s own data showed that 3,034 terrorism-related arrests had been made in the United Kingdom that year — more than eleven times the 2024 figure of 250 — of which 92 per cent were linked to supporting Palestine Action. Terrorism arrests had surged, in a single year, to the highest level on record. By June 2026 the cumulative total of arrests for expressing support for the group exceeded three thousand three hundred, with more than seven hundred charged under the Terrorism Act. Of those charged, 237 had been booked on section 13 offences in the first nine months of 2025 alone — more, Middle East Eye reported, than during the entire period from 2001 to June 2025. The average age of those arrested for supporting Palestine Action was 59. The same demographic the Labour government had stripped of the winter fuel allowance in its first months in office was, by the end of its first year, the demographic being arrested in the largest numbers under counter-terrorism legislation. Among them were vicars and priests, NHS midwives and mental health nurses, retired doctors, the elderly using walking sticks, the disabled in wheelchairs, a sixty-two-year-old blind man named Mike Higgins arrested twice, a disabled Royal Air Force veteran using a walker, and the Reverend Sue Parfitt — an eighty-three-year-old retired Anglican priest, arrested in the first wave on the day the proscription took effect. In February 2026, the High Court ruled the proscription “disproportionate” and “unlawful” under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The government appealed. On 15 June 2026, the Court of Appeal — a panel of five judges led by Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr — overturned the High Court and ruled the proscription lawful. The architecture has now been judicially confirmed. The presumption that the most senior British courts would act as a brake on the misuse of counter-terrorism powers against peaceful protest has not survived contact with the case. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood defended the proscription she inherited from her predecessor through both courts. She has also stated, in plain words, what the apparatus she is building is for. In December 2025, in a public conversation with Tony Blair, Mahmood described her vision for the criminal justice system: to achieve, “by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times.”⁶⁴ She later said the remark referred only to offenders tagged on community sentences. The qualification does not survive her own policy. In January 2026 she announced the largest expansion of live facial recognition in British history, raising the number of recognition vans deployed across England and Wales from ten to fifty, and told the BBC she made “no apology” for it. Privacy campaigners called it one of the most significant threats to civil liberties in the history of British policing. Al Jazeera reported that the software selected for the rollout appeared to be the same facial-recognition system used by the Israeli military to track Palestinians at checkpoints in Gaza.⁶⁵ The panopticon is not a metaphor and not a forecast. It is a procurement decision, already taken, by the department that also holds the proscription power described above.

The architecture being built — extended protest restrictions, expanded police powers to ban “repeat protests”, the prosecution of journalists and ordinary citizens under counter-terrorism legislation for non-violent dissent, the proscription of a protest group upheld on appeal despite a High Court finding that it should never have been proscribed — is the architecture of a state preparing for political opposition that exceeds its democratic tolerance.

It was built, in its current form, by a Labour government led by a former Director of Public Prosecutions and former human rights lawyer. The voter who has noticed that the Labour Party of 2026 is rolling back civil liberties faster than the Conservative governments that preceded it is not exaggerating. The precedent does not stay where it was set. The architecture built to proscribe a peaceful protest movement on the political left does not become unavailable when the political wind changes. The same legal mechanism that has put pensioners in handcuffs for opposing a war they consider genocidal is available, on the next administration’s interpretation, against the man protesting outside an asylum hotel, the woman who says publicly that women are women, the Raise the Colours campaigner accused of littering the streets with flags, the father who sends a WhatsApp group message about his child’s headteacher, the Reform supporter at a rally whose chant the Home Secretary decides to reclassify, the doctors and nurses protesting for better pay, the pensioner protesting the loss of the winter fuel allowance, criticism of government policies at home. The people currently cheering the proscription of Palestine Action are not exempt from what they are cheering on, even in a Reform government. They are simply earlier in the queue.

The surveillance architecture is the next dimension, and the one that connects most directly to the rest. The Palantir Federated Data Platform, the Palantir-sifted Strategic Defence Review, and the integration of American technology into the operating layer of British public services were delivered, not paused, under Labour. Beneath these contracts sits the state’s quieter migration into pre-crime — Minority Report made real. The National Data Analytics Solution, developed within British policing, scores individuals on the probability of future offending before any offence has been committed.⁶⁶ South Wales Police pioneered app-based facial recognition that turned every officer into a mobile surveillance unit, deployed disproportionately in minority neighbourhoods and at events like the Notting Hill Carnival. The feedback loop is the one Code, Contracts and Complicity 2.0 documents: more police presence generates more arrest data, the algorithm predicts more crime there, more police presence is justified, the loop tightens. The presumption of innocence — the foundation on which British liberty has rested for eight hundred years — dissolves into a probability score the citizen cannot inspect, challenge, or appeal. Where Reform proposes the architecture in opposition, Labour is delivering it in office. The voter alarmed about state surveillance is, again, reading correctly: it is happening, it is happening rapidly, and it is happening under the party historically associated with the protection of civil liberties.

The deepest single piece of evidence on what this architecture is for arrived from the company itself. On 18 April 2026, Palantir — the American firm now structurally embedded across the British state — published a thousand-word manifesto on the social network X, distilled from CEO Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic.⁶⁷ The post arrived without provocation. No scandal demanded a response. Palantir simply chose to declare what it believed and what it intended to build, in twenty-two numbered points, for any reader who cared to look. Hard power, the manifesto declares, “in this century will be built on software”. The question of AI weapons “is not whether” they will be built but “who will build them and for what purpose”. The post-war “neutering of Germany and Japan”, the manifesto declares, “must be undone”. And in its closing points, the manifesto turns from weapons to culture: pluralism is dismissed as “a shallow temptation”, and it declares that “some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive”. The criteria for that judgement are not provided. They do not need to be. This is the published doctrine of the company that runs the operating layer of the National Health Service, the Ministry of Defence’s data-processing contracts, and the software that sifted the United Kingdom’s last Strategic Defence Review. A Labour government has chosen to make this company structurally indispensable to British public life. The Belgian philosopher of technology Mark Coeckelbergh, of the University of Vienna, called the manifesto “an example of technofascism”.⁶⁸ The Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis described it as a willingness “to add to nuclear Armageddon the AI-driven threat to humanity’s existence”. The Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins identified what the manifesto attacks beneath its civilisational rhetoric: “verification, deliberation, and accountability” — the three pillars of democratic life. The political colour of the project does not match the political colour of the party delivering it. That disconnect is the central political fact of the Starmer period.

Subscribe now

The national digital identity scheme of September 2025 is the worked example. Digital ID was not in Labour’s 2024 manifesto. The public was never asked. Starmer announced the scheme on the twenty-fifth of September 2025 — fifteen months into office, with no electoral mandate — presenting it as a measure to combat illegal immigration and modernise government services.⁶⁹ The response was instructive. Reform UK opposed it, calling it a “cynical ploy” to “fool” voters. The Conservative Party, under Kemi Badenoch, opposed it on cost and privacy grounds. The Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the Scottish National Party, and all five main parties in Northern Ireland — uniting unionists and nationalists in a configuration almost without precedent in modern British politics — opposed it. A parliamentary petition against the scheme reached over two point nine million signatures within weeks, making it one of the largest in parliamentary history.⁷⁰ Significant Labour backbench scepticism emerged. The strategic miscalculation here is not subtle. The Labour leadership pushed a policy that united Reform supporters, Conservative supporters, Liberal Democrat supporters, Green supporters, Scottish nationalists, Irish nationalists, Ulster unionists, civil libertarians of the left, and civil libertarians of the right in active opposition to it. It is difficult to identify a single major political constituency in the United Kingdom that the policy has not alienated. The leadership pursued it anyway, on the calculation that it would demonstrate “toughness” on immigration to a Reform-curious voter who, on every available reading of the evidence, is not going to vote Labour regardless of what the leadership offers them. Polling collapsed. More in Common measured net support falling from plus thirty-five per cent in summer 2025 to minus fourteen per cent the weekend after the announcement — a forty-nine-point reverse. Cabinet ministers privately briefed that the rationale was “incoherent” because right-to-work checks already exist. Labour backbenchers rebelled. In January 2026, the leadership announced what was widely reported as a U-turn: mandatory digital ID would now be optional, with introduction pushed back to 2029. The U-turn was performative. Within days, Starmer told the House of Commons that “there will be checks, they will be digital and they will be mandatory”. The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told BBC Breakfast that the U-turn stories had been “overwritten”. A government spokesperson confirmed: “We are committed to mandatory digital right to work checks.” The Guardian quoted officials confirming that “this was not a U-turn”.⁷¹ This is the strategic pattern of the entire Starmer period. Pursue something the public was never asked about. Force it through against cross-spectrum opposition. Backtrack publicly under pressure. Continue the policy quietly. Pander to people who will never vote Labour. Alienate the people who would have. Repeat. Polling collapse follows.

The communities dimension cuts to the heart of the moral case. The Starmer government has consistently presented itself as the defender of British communities — Jewish, Muslim, and others — against threats both foreign and domestic. The substance of that presentation has not matched the rhetoric. When the false HAYI narrative spread across the British media in March 2026, amplified by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, picked up by the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, and broadcast by the BBC and Fox News before being identified as fabrication by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague, the British government did not correct the record.⁷² The Prime Minister’s public statement on the Golders Green ambulance arson made no qualification of the HAYI claim, made no distinction between actual extremism and an Israeli information operation, and made no public acknowledgement when the operation was identified as fictitious. The damage of that silence falls on both communities the government claims to protect. British Jews are placed in continued fear of a threat that does not, on the available evidence, exist. British Muslims are subjected to renewed suspicion on the basis of a fabricated narrative that the government has refused to publicly correct. The same pattern operates on the Gaza dimension. The government talks about protecting Jewish communities while continuing to supply F-35 components to a state under International Court of Justice examination for genocide. The government talks about countering Islamophobia while criminalising the protest movement that has organised against the British contribution to the conflict. Both rhetorical positions are operating simultaneously, in opposite directions, in the same government, and the people the government claims to be protecting are being damaged by both.

The Starmer project, taken as a whole, is the Uniparty project delivered with party loyalty as its only remaining distinguishing feature. The substantive direction is the same direction the Conservative government before it pursued, accelerated where the political cover of a Labour government permits acceleration that a Conservative government could not have managed. The civil rights architecture is more aggressive, the surveillance integration is faster, the rollback of policy commitments to the welfare state is more visible because it comes from a government supposedly committed to that welfare state. The voter who would once have voted Labour as the party of working people, the party of civil liberties, the party of international human rights, the party of the welfare state, has watched the party they trusted on each of those grounds deliver the opposite of what they were told they were voting for. The Mandelson appointment is the case study in personal judgement that the rest of the political class has finally been forced to acknowledge. Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson — a long-documented friend of the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — as British Ambassador to the United States in December 2024, against the recommendation of the government’s own security vetting agency, before in-depth vetting had even been completed.⁷³ The appointment ended in September 2025 when emails emerged showing Mandelson had encouraged Epstein to “fight for early release” from prison; Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, who had sponsored the appointment, resigned; the Foreign Office’s senior civil servant Olly Robbins was dismissed; police opened an investigation into Mandelson for passing sensitive government information to Epstein in 2009; and as of April 2026 Starmer himself acknowledged to Parliament that the appointment was a “judgment I made that was wrong”.⁷⁴ The episode is not the structural problem itself. The episode is the moment the rest of the country was forced to recognise what Labour’s own base had already concluded for other reasons: that the man’s judgement is bad. The collapse in Labour’s polling was not a failure of communication. It was the public reading the situation correctly. Labour as it existed under Starmer is not the answer. The resignation does not change that. The architecture that produced the resignation is still in place. The next Labour leader inherits it untouched. Section Eight will examine what that means for the political horizon.

Synthesis

I started with a bus and a number that was a lie. I want to end with the man who stood next to that bus and never quite touched it. Nigel Farage is the most honest political figure in Britain in the sense that the architecture he serves is the most clearly visible through him. He has spent thirty years performing the role of the outsider, the scourge of the political class, the man who tells the truths the establishment will not. His own biography is the documented refutation of every part of that performance. The donor architecture behind him is the financial refutation. The substance of what he is now selling is the structural refutation. He is not insurgent against anything. He is the most polished current product of the architecture he performs his insurgency against. The signature move I asked you to remember — stand next to the lie, let it work, deny ownership of it afterwards — is not just the bus. It is the entire shape of his career. It is the £350 million figure and the remigration vocabulary and the £5 million payment from a Thailand-based crypto billionaire described as a personal gift. It is the same move every time, and it has worked every time, because the British political press has spent ten years treating him as the story when he was always the salesman.

What he is selling, this time, is the completion of a transfer. The sovereignty Britain was told it was reclaiming in 2016 was real but small. The sovereignty Britain has surrendered since to Washington — through trade architecture, through defence integration, through technology dependency, through intelligence merger, through foreign-policy alignment, through the donor capital funding both major British parties — is far larger and far more consequential. The man who told Britain in 2016 to take its sovereignty back from Brussels is the man asking Britain in 2026 to deliver what is left of it to Washington. He will not phrase it that way. He will phrase it the way he phrased it in 2016 — as patriotism, as restoration, as the recovery of something that was taken. The transfer he is now offering to complete is not the recovery of sovereignty. It is the conclusion of its disposal. He is, in his own person, the principal British vehicle for the second leg of the Brussels-to-Washington journey. That is what he represents. Everything else about him is the wrapper.

Reform UK is the political project the wider architecture has been waiting for. The donor class needs a delivery vehicle for the policy programme its capital has been pre-paying for. The Conservative Party, having spent thirteen years in office, has lost the political authority required to push the harder version of the project. Labour, having spent eighteen months in office accelerating the same project under different colours, has lost the trust of the voters whose continued cooperation the project requires. Reform offers what the architecture needs: a movement with the populist mandate to deliver the deregulation, the welfare retrenchment, the climate retreat, the surveillance integration, the ECHR withdrawal, and the deeper alignment with American capital that the Conservative and Labour projects have been delivering more slowly and with less popular cover. Reform is not an insurgency against the British establishment. Reform is the British establishment’s latest chosen vehicle, dressed in the costume of the resistance to it, sold to voters who have every reason to want a resistance to it and almost no reason to recognise that this is not what they have been offered.

The civil liberties inheritance is where the consequence of all this lands hardest. The Labour government has built the architecture. The Palestine Action proscription, the three thousand three hundred arrests, the surveillance integration with American technology platforms, the predictive policing infrastructure, the mandatory right-to-work verification regime — these are now in place. The next government will inherit them. If that government is a Reform government, the same legal mechanism that has put pensioners in handcuffs for opposing a war they consider genocidal will be in the hands of a Home Secretary chosen by Reform’s funders and operating on the political doctrine of Reform’s allies. The Reform voter who cheered the proscription, who shared the Home Office press releases on Facebook, who agreed that the protestors should have known better, is being asked — without being told this is what they are being asked — to hand the same machinery to a government whose stated policy commitments will, in time, use it against them. The architecture does not have a political conscience. It does not care which party holds the keys. It has only an operator. Once it is built, the question is no longer whether it will be used. The question is who it will be used against next.

The deepest reason all of this is happening has a plain name. Britain is suffering from a crisis of leadership. Across every party, across every institution, across every level of public life, the country has lost the capacity to produce leaders who can tell the truth about the structural condition the country is in. The Conservative Party has spent a decade pretending Brexit could be made to work without addressing the structural conditions that produced the vote. The Labour Party has spent eighteen months pretending it can govern as a Conservative party while retaining a Labour electorate. The Liberal Democrats have spent a decade pretending the centre still exists. Reform is pretending it represents the people while taking its instructions from the donors. The Greens are pretending climate policy can survive the donor architecture. None of the available political vehicles is offering the British public an honest account of what is happening to their country, who is doing it, who benefits, and who pays. That absence is the crisis. Farage is its most successful current exploiter. Starmer is its most visible current victim. Andy Burnham, who entered Downing Street on 20 July 2026, inherits all of it. He inherits the Palantir contracts. He inherits the Palestine Action proscription, the three thousand three hundred arrests, the seven hundred prosecutions, the senior judicial blessing of the architecture. He inherits the pharmaceutical pricing deal that raises the NHS cost-effectiveness threshold under foreign tariff pressure. He inherits the AUKUS commitment, the Iran war precedent, the F-35 supply chain to Israel, the AI policy indistinguishable from the trajectory. He inherits the donor architecture that has captured Westminster across every party. His first act was to scrap one piece of it. On 18 July 2026, two days before entering Downing Street, Burnham’s team announced that Starmer’s digital identity scheme would be abandoned, its resources redirected to the cost of living, in what his spokesperson called a reset of priorities.⁷⁵ That is a real break from his predecessor and deserves to be recorded as one: a scheme opposed by three million petition signatories and by every other party in Parliament, killed within days of the handover. It was also the cheapest break available. The verification architecture beneath the card survives intact. Right-to-work checks remain mandatory, and new legislation is expected to extend them into the gig economy — parcel couriers, delivery drivers — while the illegal-working crackdown that produced almost nine thousand arrests last year continues. The card is gone. The checking is not. Burnham has, on a small number of occasions, been more willing than Starmer to break with the Westminster consensus on Gaza. In October 2023, with London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, he signed a statement calling for a ceasefire while Starmer was still publicly endorsing Israel’s right to cut power and water to Gaza. In June 2025, he co-signed a letter pushing the British government toward formal recognition of Palestinian statehood. Those were genuine breaks from the leadership line. They were also, on the record, the limits of those breaks. Asked by The Guardian on 5 June 2026 — twelve days before the Makerfield by-election that returned him to Parliament — whether Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, Burnham declined to answer, citing the limits of his mayoral position: “I can’t judge things of that enormity from where I am as mayor of Greater Manchester.”⁷⁶ Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and a United Nations commission of inquiry have answered the question. The Mayor of Greater Manchester demurred. The question that arrives with Burnham on the doorstep of Number Ten is whether the limit he set as mayor still applies. He cannot, as prime minister, claim that the question is beyond his pay grade. He will be the man with the F-35 supply chain in his cabinet, the AUKUS treaty on his desk, the Palantir contracts in his hands, the Palestine Action prosecutions he can drop, the statutory instrument he can lay to remove the group from the proscribed list, the further appeal to the Supreme Court that Huda Ammori has signalled. His first days in office gave the first answer. He apologised for Labour’s handling of Gaza — the party “didn’t get it right”, he said, and had been “too slow to call for a ceasefire”. But he declined once more to call the killing a genocide, moving the hedge from the limits of his mayoralty to the authority of international courts: a determination, he now said, best left to them. The dodge he could not honestly repeat as prime minister, he repeated in a new costume. He kept Shabana Mahmood at the Home Office — the minister who defended the proscription through both courts, who ordered the largest facial-recognition rollout in the country’s history, and who has said plainly that her vision for the British state is a panopticon in which the eyes of the state are on the citizen at all times. And he continued, at once, Britain’s role in America’s war. Three days before the handover, Starmer had resolved at a Cobra meeting to keep RAF Fairford and the Diego Garcia airfield open to American bombers for what the government calls “defensive” strikes on Iran; Burnham was briefed on the decision and agreed with it. On 21 July 2026, the day after he entered Downing Street, a US B-1 bomber took off from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire to strike Iranian Revolutionary Guard targets — the first American strike mission flown from British soil under the new prime minister. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard declared any British base used against it “a legitimate target”.⁷⁷ The apology was the tone. The bomber leaving Gloucestershire was the government. The structural settlement does not give him much room. The room he has is the only room remaining. This is Labour’s last chance to get it right — to break a trajectory, to name what has been done in the British public’s name and with British contributions, to begin to dismantle the surveillance architecture, to walk back the pharmaceutical pricing concession, to restore the civil liberties that Starmer’s government has crushed. If Burnham continues the trajectory, the consequence is not that Labour loses the next election. The consequence is that the architecture is handed, with Labour’s signature on the transfer, to the party waiting to receive it. This is do or die. The architecture is bigger than any of them. Farage may not survive the year. The standards case, the by-election he called to escape it, and the questions about where his money came from may yet finish him. It will not matter. The architecture will continue to grind forward — through this prime minister, through the next, through the one after — until a leadership emerges that can tell the country the truth about its trajectory and offer a real alternative. None of the figures on offer — not Reform, not Labour, not the Conservative Party as constituted — is that leadership. The crisis is structural and bipartisan; it cannot be solved by changing the colour of the government. It can be solved only by the emergence of a political project that names the trajectory honestly and proposes to break it. That project does not yet exist. The architecture is ahead of any opposition to it. That is what is actually at stake.

I started with the country I left. I want to finish with the country I am still in. Britain in 2026 is a country in which a Labour government has arrested three thousand pensioners and priests for holding signs, signed a pharmaceutical pricing deal that raises the NHS cost-effectiveness threshold by twenty-five per cent under foreign tariff pressure, hosted American strikes that killed a foreign head of state from British military bases, and tied the operating layer of British public services to a defence contractor whose published doctrine attacks the foundations of democratic life. The opposition party is polling first on a programme that proposes to inherit all of that and accelerate it. The governing party is changing its leader. Neither change addresses the architecture. The press is treating this as a normal political contest. It is not a normal political contest. It is a country accelerating into a settlement no part of its electorate has voted for, led by figures none of its electorate trusts, on a trajectory none of its institutions are willing to name. The bus said £350 million a week. The country was told it was taking its sovereignty back. Ten years on, the bus is gone, the sovereignty is gone, and the man who stood next to the bus is asking for the rest. The British public deserves the chance to see what is being offered to us. This article has tried to give us that chance. What we do with it now is up to us.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Sir Andrew Dilnot to Norman Lamb MP, UK Statistics Authority, 21 April 2016.

² UK Statistics Authority, “Statement on the use of official statistics on contributions to the European Union,” 27 May 2016.

³ House of Commons Treasury Committee, The economic and financial costs and benefits of the UK’s EU membership, May 2016.

⁴ HM Treasury 2015 figures cited in House of Commons Treasury Committee report, May 2016, with corroboration from Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis. Gross weekly contribution approximately £342 million; rebate approximately £85 million per week; net contribution before EU spending returning to the UK approximately £250–280 million.

⁵ Nigel Farage, interview with Susanna Reid on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, 24 June 2016 (clip published by GMB on Twitter, 24 June 2016); transcripts in Her.ie and JOE.co.uk, 24 June 2016.

⁶ Nigel Farage interviewed by Susanna Reid, ITV’s Good Morning Britain, 24 June 2016; HuffPost UK and ITV News, 24 June 2016.

⁷ Nuffield Trust, “The past, present and future of government spending on the NHS,” October 2022.

⁸ House of Commons Library, NHS Expenditure, briefing paper SN00724, 2025.

⁹ Polly Smythe, “The Scandal-Hit US Health Insurance Company Deeply Embedded in the NHS,” Novara Media, 17 January 2025.

¹⁰ NHS England, “Federated Data Platform and Associated Services” contract notice, Contracts Finder, November 2023; “NHS England awards £480m Federated Data Platform contract to Palantir,” DigitalHealth.net, 21 November 2023; PublicTechnology.net, 22 October 2025.

¹¹ Corporate Watch, “FOI requests reveal Palantir’s NHS FDP rollout failures,” 13 August 2025; British Medical Association resolution, June 2025; foxglove.org.uk and openDemocracy, 2024–2025.

¹² James S. Coates, “Code, Contracts and Complicity 2.0,” Fireline Press, 2 June 2026.

¹³ “The NHS on life support: four decades of betrayal, and a Farage victory could be the final blow,” The Canary, 27 May 2025.

¹⁴ Anita Charlesworth et al., “Short of Capacity?”, Health Foundation, 2024; King’s Fund, The state of the NHS, 2024; IFS, “Funding for local public services”; Sascha Becker, Thiemo Fetzer and Dennis Novy, “Who Voted for Brexit? A Comprehensive District-Level Analysis,” Economic Policy, 2017.

¹⁵ “Nigel Farage,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed April 2026; “Nigel Farage,” Wikipedia, accessed April 2026.

¹⁶ “Twenty-six former Dulwich College pupils and staff demand apology from Farage over alleged racist behaviour,” The Guardian, November 2025; The Independent and The Guardian, biographical reporting on the 1981 Chloë Deakin letter.

¹⁷ “Nigel Farage: what the Brexit Party leader was doing before politics,” The Week, May 2019, citing Financial Times; Huw Spanner, “Nigel Farage,” High Profiles, 2011.

¹⁸ Encyclopaedia Britannica biographical entry; House of Commons Library constituency results.

¹⁹ “Nigel Farage’s funding secrets revealed,” Channel 4 News, 16 May 2019.

²⁰ Parliamentary register of interests, August 2024; “Nigel Farage Paid Almost £98,000 a Month to Present GB News,” Bloomberg, 16 August 2024; ITV News, 16 August 2024.

²¹ “Nigel Farage to be paid up to £1.5m for I’m a Celebrity,” The Independent, November 2023.

²² Guardian investigation into the £5 million payment from Christopher Harborne to Farage, April 2026; “Nigel Farage received undisclosed £5 million from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne in 2024,” Left Foot Forward, April 2026.

²³ “Nigel Farage resigns as MP for Clacton,” BBC News, 7 July 2026 (resigned 8 July; poll set for 13 August). On the suspended standards investigation by Commissioner Daniel Greenberg, which resumes if Farage returns to the Commons: ITV News Anglia, 10 July 2026. On the approval rating (net −27, his lowest of this Parliament): Opinium/Observer, fieldwork 7–10 July 2026.

²⁴ Anna Isaac, “Revealed: Farage’s £5m gift reported to UK crime agency over money laundering concerns,” The Guardian, 7 July 2026. The report was raised with the National Crime Agency on 16 May 2024; the NCA “does not confirm or deny the receipt of SARs.” Farage said he was unaware of it and had “no reason to doubt the ultimate source of the money.”

²⁵ ONS, Long-term international migration, provisional: year ending June 2025, 27 November 2025; House of Commons Library, Migration statistics, briefing paper SN06077, 2026.

²⁶ ONS, ibid.; Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, “Net migration to the UK,” January 2026.

²⁷ Home Office, Net Migration, May 2025 analysis paper.

²⁸ Reform UK, Operation Restoring Justice, 2025–2026; Reform UK, Our Contract with You, 2024 manifesto.

²⁹ On the term’s origin and lineage: “Remigration,” Wikipedia, accessed April 2026; “What is remigration, the far-right fringe idea going mainstream?”, Al Jazeera, 26 December 2025; “Remigration: The Rise of a Fringe Idea into the Political Mainstream,” CSO Hate, 20 January 2026. Renaud Camus originated both remigration and the “Great Replacement” theory; Martin Sellner’s three-phase plan in Remigration: A Proposal (2024); January 2024 Correctiv report on the Potsdam meeting; AfD adopted the term in its 2025 manifesto.

³⁰ Hope Not Hate, State of Hate 2026, March 2026; “Most Reform members believe non-white UK citizens born abroad should be forced or encouraged to leave, poll finds,” The Guardian, March 2026.

³¹ Matthew Goodwin, public statement, The Guardian, 2026.

³² “Rupert Lowe leaves Reform UK and launches Restore Britain,” Hope Not Hate, 2025–2026; State of Hate 2026, March 2026.

³³ Reform UK, Our Contract with You, 2024; Institute for Fiscal Studies, June 2024.

³⁴ Institute for Fiscal Studies, “Reform UK manifesto analysis,” June 2024.

³⁵ Adam Barnett and Sam Bright, “Nigel Farage’s Reform Party Has Accepted £2.3 Million from Fossil Fuel Interests, Climate Deniers, and Polluters Since 2019 Election,” DeSmog, 4 June 2024.

³⁶ Reform UK, Our Contract with You, 2024 manifesto, energy and net zero sections.

³⁷ Adam Barnett, “Reform Donor Expands Fossil Fuel Portfolio to £300 Million,” DeSmog, 28 April 2026; Electoral Commission donation records.

³⁸ DeSmog analysis of Hosking Partners’ SEC filings, Q1 2026, reported 28 April 2026.

³⁹ Adam Barnett, “Nigel Farage’s Reform Party Took £135,000 from Climate Science Deniers and Fossil Fuel Interests,” DeSmog, 17 November 2023; Bristol Port Company corporate disclosures; openDemocracy, 2022.

⁴⁰ Harriet Williamson, “Reform Is the Political Arm of the Fossil Fuel Industry,” Novara Media, 9 May 2025.

⁴¹ “Who funds Reform UK? Inside Farage’s party’s £5m donor network,” openDemocracy, 12 June 2025.

⁴² openDemocracy analysis of Electoral Commission donation records for Reform UK, 2024.

⁴³ Electoral Commission donation records, data released 4 June 2026, as reported in “Reform UK secures fundraising lead with support from crypto billionaires,” Crypto Briefing, June 2026; on the £9 million August 2025 donation as the largest individual political donation in UK history at the time, and the £5 million personal gift to Farage now under parliamentary standards inquiry, see the Guardian investigation of April 2026 (endnote 22 above) and “Could Farage quit? Questions swirl over Reform UK leader’s future,” The Guardian, 5 July 2026.

⁴⁴ “Reform UK leader unveils party’s third billionaire backer Sasan Ghandehari,” GB News, July 2026; “Only Farage can deliver change, says Reform’s third billionaire backer,” The Telegraph, July 2026 (Ghandehari’s Atlanticist alignment and the seizure of his assets by the Islamic Republic). On the Q1 2026 totals and the £100,000 overseas-donor cap effective 25 March 2026: Electoral Commission data, released 4 June 2026. Delo’s £4 million was given on 14 January and 2 March 2026.

⁴⁵ R v Gill (Crown Court, November 2025); House of Lords Library briefing on political donations, February 2026.

⁴⁶ Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, “Restoring trust in our democracy,” 17 July 2025; UK Government announcement of independent review into foreign financial influence in UK politics, December 2025.

⁴⁷ Duncan Hames, Transparency International UK, statement of 5 March 2026.

⁴⁸ Office of the United States Trade Representative, “U.S. Government Announces Agreement in Principle with the United Kingdom on Pharmaceutical Pricing,” 1 December 2025; UK Government, 1 December 2025 and 2 April 2026. NICE threshold raised from £20,000–£30,000 to £25,000–£35,000 per QALY; VPAG repayment rate fell from 22.9 per cent to a capped 15 per cent for 2026–2028; medicines spending commitment doubled from 0.3 to 0.6 per cent of GDP by 2035.

⁴⁹ House of Commons Library, AUKUS submarine (SSN-A) programme, briefing paper CBP-9843, 5 August 2025; Australian Defence Ministers, “Joint Statement on the Geelong Treaty,” 26 July 2025; UK Ministry of Defence, 10 December 2025.

⁵⁰ House of Commons Library, Israel/US-Iran conflict 2026: Background and UK response, CBP-10521; “Starmer Stands By Decision to Not Join Initial Strikes on Iran,” Time, 19 March 2026. On the death of Ali Khamenei: “Iran confirms Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dead after US-Israeli attacks,” Al Jazeera, 1 March 2026; “Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been killed,” NPR, 28 February 2026; “Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is dead after U.S., Israel attack,” NBC News, 1 March 2026.

⁵¹ Sir Keir Starmer, House of Commons, March 2026, reported in Time, 19 March 2026.

⁵² Axios, “ICE pays Palantir $30M to build new tool to track and deport immigrants,” 1 May 2025; American Immigration Council, 22 August 2025; American Civil Liberties Union, April 2026.

⁵³ Kaiser Family Foundation, Employer Health Benefits Survey 2025, October 2025.

⁵⁴ Kaiser Family Foundation, ibid.

⁵⁵ Kaiser Family Foundation; Commonwealth Fund; David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, peer-reviewed analyses of US personal bankruptcy filings; KFF Health Care Debt Survey, 2022.

⁵⁶ UK Government, “UK and US agree historic trade deal,” May 2025; Food Safety News, 12 May 2025; Farmers Guide, 27 January 2026; Steve Reed, public statements, 2025–2026.

⁵⁷ “US seeks food standards change as price for £31bn tech deal,” Farmers Weekly, 29 December 2025, citing The Telegraph.

⁵⁸ Reform UK, Our Contract with You, 2024; analysis from the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Resolution Foundation, and the TUC, 2024–2026.

⁵⁹ Reform UK, Our Contract with You, 2024; Reform statements 2024–2026.

⁶⁰ “Keir Starmer resigns as prime minister and leader of Labour Party,” BBC News, 22 June 2026; “Why has Keir Starmer resigned as UK prime minister, and who will take over?”, Al Jazeera, 22 June 2026. On Burnham’s Makerfield by-election win (18 June 2026) as the favourite to succeed, Al Jazeera, 22 June 2026.

⁶¹ “UK government backs down on disability benefit cuts after rebellion,” Al Jazeera, 27 June 2025; The Week, 24 June 2025; The Big Issue, 9 May 2025.

⁶² HM Treasury defence spending review documents, 2025; House of Commons Library briefings on AUKUS (CBP-9843) and Iran (CBP-10521); FCDO, “Government statement on arms export licences to Israel,” 2 September 2024; The Guardian, “UK keeps F-35 parts flowing to Israel despite arms suspension,” September 2024.

⁶³ House of Commons Hansard, division on the proscription order, 2 July 2025; UK Home Office, Operation of Police Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, 18 December 2025; “Terror arrests surge to highest level on record following Palestine Action proscription,” Morning Star, March 2026.

⁶⁴ R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: High Court, 13 February 2026 (proscription ruled unlawful under ECHR Articles 10 and 11); Court of Appeal, 15 June 2026, per Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, reversing that ruling. On the cumulative arrest and charge totals, “UK Home Office graph reveals shocking scale of Palestine Action arrests,” Middle East Eye, 13 February 2026; “Police Fail to Arrest Two-Thirds in Biggest-Ever Protest Against Palestine Action Ban,” Novara Media, 7 September 2025.

⁶⁵ On the panopticon remark (December 2025, in conversation with Tony Blair): The Daily Telegraph, 18 January 2026. On the rollout from ten to fifty facial-recognition vans and Mahmood’s “no apology”: “Mahmood defends rollout of facial recognition to all police forces,” BBC News, January 2026. On the software’s reported use in Gaza: “UK police to use AI facial recognition tech linked to Israel’s war on Gaza,” Al Jazeera, 28 January 2026.

⁶⁶ James S. Coates, “Code, Contracts and Complicity 2.0,” Fireline Press, 2 June 2026; Big Brother Watch and Liberty reporting, 2018–2025; Big Brother Watch, Face Off: The lawless growth of facial recognition in UK policing, 2018.

⁶⁷ Palantir Technologies (@PalantirTech) post on X, 18 April 2026, distilling Alex Karp and Nicholas Zamiska, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West (Crown Currency, 2025).

⁶⁸ Mark Coeckelbergh, public statement, April 2026; Yanis Varoufakis, public statement, April 2026; Eliot Higgins, public statement, April 2026.

⁶⁹ Sir Keir Starmer, statement on the digital identity scheme, 25 September 2025; UK Government statement, 2 October 2025; “Why is the UK introducing digital IDs – and why are they so controversial?”, Al Jazeera, 29 September 2025.

⁷⁰ “UK Digital ID,” Wikipedia, accessed April 2026; “Identity – The Crisis You Can’t See: Time for digital ID?”, The Constitution Society, 18 November 2025.

⁷¹ Rachel Wearmouth, “Why Keir Starmer U-turned on digital ID,” New Statesman, January 2026; “Digital ID: what’s changed?”, Full Fact, January 2026; “Starmer ‘abandons’ plans for mandatory digital IDs in ‘13th U-turn’ since election,” LBC, January 2026; The Guardian, January 2026.

⁷² James S. Coates, “The Silence After the Lie,” Fireline Press, March 2026.

⁷³ “Relationship of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein,” Wikipedia, accessed April 2026; “Pressure builds as Starmer rejects calls to resign over Mandelson appointment in Epstein fallout,” PBS News, April 2026; “UK PM Starmer says he shouldn’t have appointed Epstein-linked pick for US ambassador,” CNN, 20 April 2026.

⁷⁴ Sir Keir Starmer, House of Commons, April 2026; “Starmer’s ex-chief of staff says sorry over Mandelson appointment as U.K. leader faces more pressure,” The Columbian, 28 April 2026.

⁷⁵ “Burnham to scrap Starmer’s digital ID scheme in ‘reset of priorities’,” The Guardian, 18 July 2026. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated the scheme’s cost at approximately £1.8 billion, an estimate rejected by officials; the petition against it attracted approximately three million signatures. Sources close to Burnham confirmed his continued commitment to the previous government’s crackdown on illegal working, which produced almost 9,000 arrests in the preceding year, with right-to-work checks remaining mandatory and new legislation expected to extend verification to the gig economy.

⁷⁶ Andy Burnham, interview with The Guardian, 5 June 2026, declining to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide: “I can’t judge things of that enormity from where I am as mayor of Greater Manchester.” On the October 2023 ceasefire statement, see Greater Manchester Combined Authority, “Statement from the Mayor and Deputy Mayor on the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict,” October 2023. On the June 2025 letter urging recognition of Palestinian statehood, see “Andy Burnham Declines to Call Israel’s Mass Killings in Gaza a Genocide,” Novara Media, 5 June 2026.

⁷⁷ “Burnham approves US use of UK bases for some strikes on Iran, Bloomberg reports,” Middle East Eye, 22 July 2026 (continuation of Starmer’s policy; decided at a Cobra meeting before the handover, Burnham briefed and in agreement). On the 21 July B-1 mission from RAF Fairford: “US bombs Iran from UK air base for first time under Burnham,” The Daily Telegraph, 23 July 2026, citing Axios. On the IRGC “legitimate target” warning: Revolutionary Guard statement, 23 July 2026.

Every fight in Western politics — the mayor of London, the mayor of New York, a Black US president, immigration, criminal gangs, violence in the streets — summons the same stream of pundits, politicians, preachers, influencers and YouTubers to defame one thing: Islam. In a political climate this charged, moving at the speed of a meme, thick with people claiming to be in the know — some styling themselves ‘scholars’ — this series talks about what no one else will: the sleight of hand, the propagandist’s hand in your pocket while the other points at a horizon that isn’t there. It is not apologetics. You do not have to believe a word of Islam to see you are being lied to about it. That is where Fireline Press lives and works: between what is true and what is scorching the political landscape of the West.

A woman in Kansas walked into an American courtroom to collect a debt her husband owed her. She walked out with nothing. Not because her claim was weak. Because of a law her own state had passed to protect her.

Her husband had signed a marriage contract. In it he promised her a dower — in Islam, the mahr, the wife’s own property, hers by right the moment it is agreed, not a gift he can claw back later. Hers was 1,354 gold coins. Around $677,000. When the marriage ended she asked the court to make him pay what he had put his name to. The court refused to enforce the contract.¹

Weeks earlier, Kansas had forbidden its judges to give any effect to “foreign” religious law. The politicians who passed it called it a shield for women. Read that again. A law sold as protection for Muslim women — and weeks later, a Kansas court stripped a Muslim woman of $677,000 that was hers.

Now cross the country. In New York, another woman brought her religious marriage contract to another court. Hers was a ketubah, signed under Jewish law. The court enforced it without blinking.² No statute stood in her way. Nobody had written one.

Two women. Two religious contracts. Two American courts. One walked out whole. One walked out robbed. The only difference between them was the faith on the paper — and a law written to make that difference the whole point.

So ask the question they are counting on you never to ask. What is this “Shariah” they passed a law to ban — the thing not one of them could define if you stopped and made them try?

The thing they couldn’t define

Start with the man who wrote the ban, because he let the point slip once. David Yerushalmi drafted the model bill that statehouses across the country copied, and he told the New York Times what it was really for. Its value, he said, was “heuristic” — his word.³ Not legal. Heuristic. No American court had ever forced Shariah on anyone; there was no danger to guard against, and his laws changed nothing on the ground. Their purpose was to plant the word in the public mind as a menace and keep it there. The point was never to stop Shariah. The point was to keep you afraid of it.

And the fear runs on one trick: the word only frightens you while you cannot define it. A thing with no shape can be made any shape you dread. So they keep it shapeless. Shariah is the blank, and they fill it with whatever nightmare sells.

And fill it they did. More than forty states have seen these bills. Roughly a dozen passed them. In 2025 it reached Congress: Representative Randy Fine of Florida introduced the “No Sharia Act,” to bar any US court or public body from enforcing a judgment or contract rooted in Sharia.⁴ A nationwide war on a word — and not one of the ones waging it can tell you what it means.

I can. Here it is.

There is no book called Shariah. You cannot buy it, ban it, or hold it up at a podium. The word is Arabic for the path to water — the road across the desert to the spring that keeps you alive.⁵ It is not a code of law. It is a direction: the belief that a life should be lived toward God.

And here is the thing they need you never to hear. Shariah — the divine path — is one thing. What human beings made of it is another, and it carries a different name: fiqh. Fiqh is the human work — fourteen centuries of scholars reading scripture and reasoning their way out to the questions of ordinary life. Shariah is held to be perfect, because it is God’s. Fiqh is human, and Muslims have said so from the beginning: fallible, partial, argued over without end. When a congressman vows to ban “Shariah law,” he is aiming at fiqh — at a library of human opinion that Muslims themselves have never stopped fighting about.

Because fight about it they do. There is no pope in Islam. No head office. No single volume anyone could seize off a shelf. There are schools — five that survive, four Sunni and one Shia, each named for the scholar who founded it — and they contradict one another.⁶ On how to stand in prayer. On the terms of a divorce. On how an estate is divided, what a contract may hold, what may be sold. Put one question to Shariah and you do not get an answer. You get four, sometimes five, each with a thousand years of argument behind it, each certain the others are wrong.

It does not even hold still. Fiqh was built to move — to meet the new century, the new machine, the question the founders never dreamed of, and to reason it through again from the source. That is what a politician swears to abolish with a single vote: a fourteen-hundred-year argument, with no book, no central authority, and no last word, that Muslims have run among themselves since before England had a parliament.

And the part they scream about — the amputations, the stonings — is the smallest corner of the whole. The rest is prayer and fasting, charity, marriage, inheritance, trade, how a man washes before he prays. The penal code they wave in your face is the practice of a few dictatorships, not the faith of nearly two billion people. And even that, as you are about to see, they took from an older book.

So when the next candidate promises to ban Shariah, hear the trap in his other favourite question — do you reject it? For a Muslim, the heart of Shariah is not a punishment. It is the declaration of faith, the five daily prayers, the fast of Ramadan. It is being Muslim at all. To reject it is to stop being Muslim. To demand a Muslim reject Shariah and call that moderation is to demand a Christian spit on the Nicene Creed and call it reform.

The Bible says it too

Here is what the fearmongers never mention, because it detonates their whole case. The punishments they hold up as proof of Islam’s savagery — the stoning, the amputation, the death for apostasy — did not begin with Islam. They begin in the Bible.

Open Deuteronomy. It commands death for the Israelite who turns to other gods — death for apostasy, by name. Open Leviticus. It lists the capital crimes and assigns death to each.⁷ These are not buried verses. They are scripture, shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike — the same God, the same page. The death sentences they brand as uniquely Muslim sit, in black ink, in the book on the pulpit of every church in the country.

So what became of them? Every faith did the same thing with them. It stopped.

Judaism prescribed those deaths and then, two thousand years ago, buried them under procedure. No execution without two eyewitnesses to the act itself. No conviction without a warning delivered in the seconds before, and proof the accused had heard it and gone ahead anyway. Courts ordered to seize on any excuse to acquit. The Mishnah passes sentence on any tribunal that still managed to kill: one that executed so much as once in seventy years, it says, was a court of butchers.⁸ The verses stayed on the page. The killing stopped. And when the Temple fell, the court that alone could have ordered it was gone.

Christianity took the long road, over a mountain of corpses. For more than a thousand years, Christian authorities burned apostates and heretics on precisely the scripture their heirs now brandish at Muslims. Aquinas taught that heresy earned death. The Inquisition carried it out. Calvin’s Geneva burned a man alive over a point of theology.⁹ The stake worked its way across Europe until the wars of religion had bled the continent white and the Enlightenment shamed it into stopping. Today the Catholic Church’s punishment for leaving the faith is a letter of excommunication. Not a blade.¹⁰

Most of the Muslim world has done the same. The great majority of Muslim-majority countries run civil or mixed law and reach for nothing like the old punishments; those cling on in a handful of regimes and in the sermons of their clerics.¹¹ Where the state still swings the sword, it is a state that has seized religion to control its own people — the oldest trick there is, wearing a holy book. It is not the faith of the grandmother in Jakarta, the schoolteacher in Dakar, the shopkeeper in Sarajevo. It is the whip of the ones who rule them.

Which leaves the people crusading against Shariah holding a live grenade. The savagery they parade as Islam’s is sitting untouched in the Old Testament on their own nightstands. The charge against the Qur’an is a charge against the Bible, word for word. The only difference is that no one is drafting a bill to ban Leviticus.

Share

The Jewish court down the street

No one is writing laws against the Bible. They are writing them against Shariah courts. So let me tell you what a Shariah court in America actually is, because it is nothing like the thing they put in your head.

It is not a courthouse. It is an arbitration panel — a room where two people who both agreed to walk in bring a private quarrel and accept a ruling on it. A divorce. An inheritance. A soured contract. It does not replace the law of the land. It cannot. Its rulings run exactly as far as American law allows and not an inch further. It has no power over crime. It has no power over anyone who did not choose to be there — not one non-Muslim, and not a Muslim who declined to come. Whatever it decides, an ordinary judge reviews on the same terms as any private deal: freely made, fair, lawful. Nobody is sentenced. Nobody is bound who did not choose to be — and those who chose are held to it exactly as you are held to any contract you sign. That is the whole of its power. The force of a promise, and nothing past it.

If that sounds familiar, it should, because the Jews have been doing it in this country for over a century. The Beth Din.¹² Jewish couples take their divorces and their disputes to it, and American courts enforce its rulings like any other arbitration, under the same law that governs a builder’s contract or a union grievance.¹³ In New York, in London, in a dozen cities, a rabbinical court sits every week of the year. No legislature has ever lifted a finger to ban it.

And it is not only the Jews. Christians do it too. Evangelical and Catholic bodies run their own conciliation panels, settling disputes between believers by scripture, their rulings enforced by the same secular courts under the same arbitration law.¹⁴ American judges uphold Christian arbitration exactly as they uphold the Beth Din. Three faiths. One arrangement. Identical standing in law.

The Muslim tribunals were often built on the Jewish model on purpose, because it worked.¹⁵ And they are the only one of the three anybody has ever moved to outlaw. Strike the word “Muslim” from the bills and they would shut the Beth Din and the church panels in the very same sentence. Which is exactly why they are written to name Islam, and only Islam. These laws do not target a practice. Every faith shares the practice. They target a people.

So go back to the two women. The Jewish woman’s contract was honoured because that is what courts do — they treat a religious marriage contract as the binding agreement it is. The Muslim woman’s was torn up for one reason and one reason only: a law written to make her faith the exception. Her contract was sound. Before Kansas passed its ban, American courts enforced Muslim marriage agreements the same way they enforce Jewish and Christian ones.¹⁶ The ban shielded her from nothing. It reached into a protection every other believer in America keeps, and pulled hers out by name.

The country they told you to defend

So America carves one faith out of a protection every other faith enjoys. Ugly enough. But the ugliest version of this is not in Kansas or Tennessee. It is in the one country these same crusaders hold up as the last wall of Western civilisation.

Israel runs Shariah courts.

Not tolerates them. Runs them. They are organs of the state — paid for by it, staffed by judges it appoints, topped by a Sharia Court of Appeal, the whole apparatus sitting under the Ministry of Justice.¹⁷ The qadis who preside swear their oath to the State of Israel. Over Israel’s Muslim citizens these courts hold sole authority on marriage and divorce, and share the rest of family law with the civil bench.¹⁸ This is not some tolerated tribunal on the Beth Din model. This is Islamic law, run by the Jewish state as a working arm of its own government.

And it is no accident of the moment. Israel took the system from the Ottomans, who let every religious community judge its own marriages, and kept it through the British Mandate and into statehood. The state runs a full set of official religious courts to this day — rabbinical for Jews, Shariah for Muslims, others for the Druze and the recognised Christian churches — each with authority over its own community’s family life.¹⁹ The Shariah court is no grudging concession. It is a load-bearing pillar of the state, there from the first day.

And it goes further than anything in America. Israel has no civil marriage at all. There is no way to marry lawfully inside the country except through a religious court — the rabbinate if you are a Jew, the Shariah court if you are a Muslim.²⁰ The nation sold to you as the bulwark against creeping religious law is bound to religious law, in the most private corner of its citizens’ lives, more tightly than any American state now writing bills to ban it.

Then think again about the man who wrote it. Yerushalmi — the lawyer whose model bill the states copied — is, by the account of those who have tracked his work for years, a veteran of the Israeli settler movement.²¹ A devoted partisan of the one state on earth that runs the very courts his law was built to destroy in our nation. That is not an accident. It is not a secret. It is only something the people parroting his talking points would rather you never found out.

Britain swallowed it whole

The fever did not stay in America. It crossed the Atlantic, and Britain drank it down without reading the label.

Turn on a British broadcast or open a British paper and you will meet the same warning that runs in Oklahoma: sharia courts, spreading through the country, a shadow legal system taking root. There is one problem with the British version. It is not even true on the surface. What Britain calls “sharia courts” are not courts. They are councils — and a council has no legal power whatsoever. It cannot marry you or divorce you in law. It cannot fine you, jail you, seize a penny, or bind a soul who walks out the door. Its ruling carries the legal weight of a priest’s blessing, which is to say none. The 2018 government review stated plainly that “sharia councils have no legal jurisdiction in England and Wales.”²²

So what do these councils actually do, if they can do none of the things the panic promises? In the main, one thing. They help Muslim women get divorced.

Here is the part the alarmists will never tell you, because it turns their story inside out. Many British Muslim couples marry in a religious ceremony the state never registers as a civil marriage. In the eyes of British law those women were never married — so British law will not divorce them either. To get out, a woman needs the religious authority that married her to release her. That is who walks into these councils: not conquerors imposing a caliphate, but women asking for the way out of a marriage. When the British government finally sat down and studied the councils, in a formal review, that is exactly what it found — that the great majority of the people using them are women seeking a religious divorce. The shadow empire of the headlines turned out to be a queue of women trying to get free.

And the review did not call for a ban. It called for the opposite: more protection, not less. Its central recommendation was to change the marriage law so that a Muslim religious wedding carries a civil registration with it — the way British law has long handled a Jewish or a Quaker one. Register the marriage and the woman gets a civil divorce, and the councils lose the only real hold they have over her. The government stared at the thing everyone was frightened of and concluded the cure was to pull Muslim women further inside the protection of British law, not to slam the door on them.

None of it stopped the politicians. In 2025 Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary — a man who has read, or could read in an afternoon, his own government’s report — stood up and demanded that “sharia courts” be banned.²³ Courts, he called them. Bodies with no legal power, that mostly help women leave, that his own party in government had studied and moved to reform rather than abolish. He wants them gone, and he wants you to cheer while they go.

And all the while, in the same country, under the same law, the London Beth Din hears its cases week after week — the identical arrangement, the identical Act of Parliament, the identical religious arbitration — and not one British politician has ever risen to demand its abolition. The Jewish court is fine. The Christian panel is fine. Only the Muslim one is a danger to the realm. Britain had its own evidence sitting on the shelf, disproving the fear in black and white. It swallowed the fear anyway.

Share

The next rung

Now strip these laws down to what they actually do. They are not banning stonings. No American legislature was ever going to stone anyone; no American court was ever asked to. What they are banning is the marriage contract, the arbitration panel, the religious divorce — ordinary religious practice, the same practice every faith in the country carries out in the open. The amputation is the poster. The practice is the target.

And here is why it should frighten you even if you never meet a Muslim in your life. A government that teaches itself it can strike one faith’s practice out of the law has not learned a lesson about Islam. It has learned a lesson about power. The machine does not care about the label once it is running. Build a mechanism to carve Muslims out of the protection everyone else enjoys and you have built a mechanism that carves. Whoever holds it next gets to choose the next name.

The courts saw it coming. When Oklahoma wrote its ban into the state constitution, a federal court struck it down — and not as a favour to Muslims.²⁴ It fell because the Constitution forbids the government from singling out any one religion for special disfavour, full stop. That is not a Muslim protection. It is the protection standing over the Beth Din, the church conciliation panel, the Quaker meeting house, and your own pew on a Sunday morning. One clause, shielding all of them at once. Pull the thread loose for Islam and it runs for every faith behind it.

Notice what Oklahoma’s own lawyers were forced to admit in that courtroom: that no court in the state had ever once applied Shariah to anybody. The law fixed nothing, because nothing was broken. It was never meant to fix anything. It was built to mark a people — and to find out whether the state could get away with marking a faith and calling it safety. This time the answer was no. But they keep coming back, bill after bill, state after state, because the ban on Shariah was never the prize. The power to ban a religion is the prize. A government that wins that power does not give it back, and it does not keep it aimed where you first pointed it.

So understand where you are standing. This is a ladder, and the rung marked “Muslim” is only the bottom one — chosen first because they judged it the rung you would be least troubled to watch them climb. Your church is on this ladder. Your synagogue is on this ladder. The hand that clears the lowest rung is already reaching for the next. The only question these bills are really asking is whether you will hold the ladder steady while they climb it — or kick it over while it can still be kicked.

Read it yourself

Go back over what you were handed. A word, dropped in your lap as a threat — Shariah, coming for your courts, your family, your country. Now look at what is left of it.

There is no book to ban. There is an argument fourteen centuries old, with no final answer, that Muslims wage among themselves. The savagery pinned to it is older than Islam and abandoned by everyone, sitting in the Bible on the accuser’s own shelf. The courts they want outlawed are the courts the Jews and the Christians run, in the open and unbothered — the courts the State of Israel runs for its own Muslims. And the man who drew up the ban is a partisan of the one nation on earth that keeps the very thing he would abolish here. Every plank of the fear, pulled up and turned over. Nothing underneath any of them.

So the fear was never about your safety. It was a product. Someone built it, priced it, and sold it — for votes, for clicks, for the donation your outrage triggers on its way past. You were not the one these laws were meant to protect. You were the customer. And the sale only closes if you never stop to read — never read the contract, never read the verse, never read the report a government commissioned and then buried. Fear is the one product a single afternoon of reading destroys. That is why they need you frightened, they need you incurious, and they need you exactly there.

You are no longer there.

And here is the last thing they would keep from you, because it turns the knife around in their hand. The word they taught you to fear traces back to the Qur’an — so open it. In it, God commands justice, and good to one’s neighbour, and forbids oppression. He tells the believer to stand firm for what is right even against himself, his own parents, his own kin.²⁵ That is the source they are pointing at when they say “Shariah.” The woman in Kansas, robbed of what was hers by a law that spat on the contract in her hand — that book commanded the justice their law denied her. The oppression was never in her faith. It was in the ones who wrote the ban, and in every hand that has helped them carry it since.

They will keep selling the fear; it is what they do. But a product survives only while the buyer stays ignorant — and you have just read to the end. Tell someone what you found here. It is the one thing they cannot afford.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

Image: See Li (See Li Photo Capital), London, 28 April 2014. Via Wikimedia Commons, licensed CC BY 2.0. Cropped for banner.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Soleimani v. Soleimani, No. 11CV4668 (Johnson County Dist. Ct., Kansas, 28 August 2012); Kansas House Substitute for Senate Bill No. 79 (2012).

² Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 N.Y.2d 108 (1983).

³ Andrea Elliott, “The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement,” New York Times, 30 July 2011.

⁴ No Sharia Act, H.R. 5512, 119th Congress (2025), introduced by Rep. Randy Fine (FL-06), co-introduced by Rep. Keith Self and cosponsored by Rep. Chip Roy; companion measure introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tommy Tuberville. On the state wave: more than 200 anti-Sharia/foreign-law bills introduced across some 43 states since 2010, roughly a dozen enacted (Southern Poverty Law Center; National Conference of State Legislatures).

⁵ Qur’an 5:48; on the etymology (”the path to a watering place”), standard lexical references.

⁶ On the distinction between Shariah (the divine path) and fiqh (its human jurisprudence), and the surviving schools (madhāhib), see Wael B. Hallaq, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Cambridge University Press, 2009).

⁷ Deuteronomy 13; Leviticus 20.

⁸ Mishnah, Makkot 1:10 (”A Sanhedrin that executes once in seventy years is called bloody”).

⁹ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 11, a. 3 (on heresy); the execution of Michael Servetus, Geneva, 1553.

¹⁰ Code of Canon Law (1983), canon 1364 (apostasy, heresy and schism incur excommunication, not death).

¹¹ Council on Foreign Relations, Understanding Sharia: The Intersection of Islam and the Law (updated 2021).

¹² The Beth Din of America (Rabbinical Council of America / Orthodox Union); the London Beth Din.

¹³ Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16; Arbitration Act 1996 (UK).

¹⁴ On Christian religious arbitration, see the Institute for Christian Conciliation; Encore Productions, Inc. v. Promise Keepers, 53 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (D. Colo. 1999); and Pew Research Center, Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S. (2013).

¹⁵ Michael J. Broyde, Sharia Tribunals, Rabbinical Courts, and Christian Panels: Religious Arbitration in America and the West (Oxford University Press, 2017).

¹⁶ Odatalla v. Odatalla, 355 N.J. Super. 305 (Ch. Div. 2002) (a Muslim mahr enforced on neutral contract principles).

¹⁷ Qadis Law, 5721-1961 (Israel): the Sharia courts sit within the state system under the Ministry of Justice; qadis are appointed by a state committee and sworn to the state. See Library of Congress, Global Legal Monitor (2017).

¹⁸ Jurisdiction is exclusive over the marriage and divorce of Muslim citizens and concurrent with the civil family courts over other personal-status matters since the Family Court Law (Amendment No. 5), 2001.

¹⁹ Israel’s system of separate state religious courts derives from the Ottoman millet system, continued under the British Mandate: rabbinical, Sharia, Druze and recognised Christian courts each hold jurisdiction over their community’s personal-status matters.

²⁰ Israel provides no civil marriage; marriage within the country is conducted only through recognised religious authorities.

²¹ Southern Poverty Law Center, extremist file on David Yerushalmi.

²² The independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales, Cm 9560 (2018), chaired by Mona Siddiqui: sharia councils have no legal jurisdiction (”Sharia law has no jurisdiction in England and Wales”); the majority of those who use them are women seeking a religious divorce; the review recommended amending marriage law so that civil registration accompanies religious marriage, as already provided for Jewish and Quaker marriages.

²³ Robert Jenrick, Shadow Justice Secretary, remarks calling for sharia courts to be banned (2025).

²⁴ Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2012), enjoining Oklahoma’s “Save Our State” amendment (State Question 755); the court applied heightened scrutiny because the measure singled out one religion (see Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982)), and the state conceded that no Oklahoma court had ever applied Sharia law.

²⁵ Qur’an 16:90 (God commands justice, good conduct and generosity, and forbids indecency, wickedness and oppression) and Qur’an 4:135 (stand firm for justice, even against yourself, your parents and your kin).

And antisemitism is being weaponised. Not by everyone, not always cynically, but systematically and to documented political effect. The charge is being deployed to silence Palestinian advocacy, to discipline Jewish dissent, to delegitimise protest under counter-terrorism law, and to manufacture consent for a domestic crackdown on speech and assembly. The Forde Report, commissioned by the Labour Party itself, concluded as much in 2022.⁶ The High Court found the proscription of Palestine Action unlawful in February 2026.⁷ The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is currently the subject of a formal legal complaint for false claims about Palestine march routes.⁸ These are not fringe assertions. They are findings of record.

Both things are true at once. And here is the harder truth that neither side of the argument is willing to say plainly: the second feeds the first. The weaponisation of antisemitism increases antisemitism. The cycle is self-reinforcing. The people most harmed by it are ordinary Jews — the people in whose name it is conducted, and on whose fear it depends.

The cycle’s operators are not, in fact, hiding the logic. In May 2026, a poster appeared on a lamppost in midtown Manhattan, circulated approvingly on X by the Israeli writer Uri Kurlianchik. It read: “The more you attack Jews around the world, the more you prove Israel must exist.”⁹ The text was rendered with a Star of David and addressed not to Jews but to the world — a public instruction in how to read the rising attacks on Jewish life. Read it again. The argument requires antisemitism to keep rising in order to justify the Israeli state. It is not a case for Israel. It is a case for keeping diaspora Jews afraid forever. The people most harmed by that calculation are the Jewish people in whose name it is made.

This essay is about the language that holds the cycle together. Not the conflation itself — that has been documented elsewhere. Not the institutions that profit from it — those have been named. This essay is about the working vocabulary: the specific verbal moves, deployed live and in real time, that keep the dissenting Jewish voices off the table and the cycle running. From Hannah Arendt to Peter Beinart, from Avi Shlaim to Omer Bartov, the Jewish dissenting tradition has been trying to break this cycle for a century. The vocabulary exists to make sure they can’t.

Share

The Cycle

The cycle has six steps. They are observable in the public record, they have been operating for at least two decades, and they have accelerated since October 2023.

Step one: antisemitism rises. The causes are real and overlapping — the radicalisation of online conspiracy ecosystems, the displacement of class anger onto ethnic targets, the resurgence of explicit fascism on the European right, and the spillover of rage about the Gaza war onto Jewish communities who are not the Israeli state. The CST data is not invented. The Heaton Park attack in October 2025 was real.¹⁰ The Kenton firebombing was real. The Golders Green stabbings were real. Jewish institutions have hardened their security to a degree that should embarrass any country that calls itself civilised.

Step two: institutions and pro-Israel commentators respond by collapsing all criticism of Israel into antisemitism. The mechanism is the IHRA working definition and its accompanying examples, which equate certain forms of criticism of the Israeli state with hatred of Jews. The mechanism is also rhetorical: the slippage from “anti-Zionism” to “antisemitism” in mainstream discourse, the redefinition of opposing the existence of the State of Israel as opposing Jewish existence as such, the systematic conflation of a 19th-century European political project with a 3,500-year-old religion. Each individual instance is indefensible on its own terms, but each is institutionally excused. The cumulative effect is a discursive trap in which any argument with Israeli policy becomes an argument with Judaism itself.

Step three: the conflation lands, and the public fractures. Those who began with sympathy for Israeli civilians watch protesters criticise an actual Israeli government — its settlement expansion, its bombing of Gaza, its assassinations in foreign capitals, the Jewish supremacy and Arab hatred that B’Tselem itself has named, the wholesale dehumanisation of Arabs and Muslims with Arab Christians lumped without distinction into the category of “Muslim terrorist,” the propaganda and the lies, war crimes of insurmountable scale committed in response to war crimes of lesser scale, the disproportionality, the flagrant violations of international law — and watch all of it reclassified, by the institutions, as antisemitism. Some deny the criticism outright. Others conclude it is dishonest.

A second audience reacts differently. Those whose sympathies were with Gaza, or with Palestinians more broadly, watched the same conduct on their screens for two years. They were then told that the only acceptable framework for what they had seen was one that classified them as antisemitic for having seen it. They concluded the institutions were not merely dishonest. They concluded the institutions were captured. Either way, their trust in mainstream institutions collapses.

Both audiences look elsewhere for explanations. “Elsewhere” is where actual ethnic and cultural racism and antisemitism lives. The conspiracy theorists, the explicit racists, the people who really do think Jews control the world. The institutional refusal to distinguish good-faith critique from ethnic hatred drives ordinary people — from opposite starting points, by different routes — toward the precincts where ethnic hatred is on offer.

Step four: the conflation also licences existing antisemites. If every critic of Israel is by definition antisemitic, then antisemites can recast themselves as merely critics of Israel. The far right has noticed this. Tucker Carlson has noticed this. The very people most hostile to Jewish people in their own countries can now wrap their hostility in the language of anti-Zionism, because the institutional definition of anti-Zionism has been stretched wide enough to accommodate them. The conflation, designed to protect Israel, has provided cover for the people most threatening to diaspora Jews.

Step five: antisemitism rises further. The genuine kind — graffiti, harassment, assault, arson — increases because the discursive environment has been deliberately confused. The strategically useful kind — the kind that justifies legislation, march bans, terrorism designations — also increases, because every act of conflation is registered as antisemitism in the data even when the underlying conduct is political speech. The CST counts “from the river to the sea” as antisemitic in its incident reporting. So does the Met. The phrase, in its mirror form, has been Likud party policy since 1977 — “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty” — and remains in the Likud platform of 1999, has been quoted by Netanyahu, Uri Ariel, Gideon Sa’ar, and Tzipi Hotovely, and has never been rescinded.¹¹ One version, chanted by a Londoner protesting for freedom and self-determination for Palestine, is logged as a hate crime. The other, voted into the platform of the governing party of Israel, is policy. The numbers go up. The fear goes up. The political case for emergency measures goes up.

Step six: the rise in antisemitism is then deployed to justify the next round of weaponisation. Marches must be banned because antisemitism is rising. Speech must be policed because antisemitism is rising. Palestinian advocacy organisations must be proscribed because antisemitism is rising. Jewish dissenters must be marginalised because antisemitism is rising and they are giving cover to it. The cycle closes, and the next iteration begins from a higher baseline of fear and a narrower aperture of permissible speech.

This is not a theory. It is a process operating in plain sight, documented across police statements, government legislation, court rulings, journalism, and the testimony of the dissenting Jewish tradition. The Palestine Action proscription, ruled unlawful by the High Court after 2,787 arrests for holding placards, is a perfect specimen.¹² The Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s claim that Palestine Solidarity Campaign marches “set out with intent to march near synagogues” — false on the documented record, currently the subject of a formal legal complaint — is another. The reclassification of the Golders Green attacker’s first stabbing victim, the Muslim man Ishmail Hussein, as a personal dispute within hours, while the second and third stabbings of two Jewish men were declared antisemitic terrorism on the same timetable, is a third.¹³

Each instance is institutionally excused in isolation. The pattern is the indictment.

But a cycle running this consistently across decades, jurisdictions, and political regimes is not held together by accident. It is held together by language. Specific words, deployed at specific moments, perform specific functions. They take voices off the table. They foreclose argument before argument can begin. They mark certain speakers as illegitimate so that the substance of what they say never has to be answered.

That language is what this essay is about.

The Vocabulary

On 5 May 2026, Einat Wilf posted to X: “Motion to replace the term ‘self-hating Jews’ with ‘Pick Me Jews’. (I think it reflects the underlying psychology and incentive structure far better).”¹⁴

Wilf is not a fringe figure. She is a former Knesset member for the Israeli Labour Party, a Cambridge PhD, an intelligence officer who served in Unit 8200, the founder of the Oz Party, and the author of seven books defending Zionism.¹⁵ Her phrase is not careless. The word she chose was motion. A motion is a piece of formal procedure — something tabled, debated, and adopted by a deliberative body. It is the language of a community deciding, in session, who counts and who does not. The phrase she proposed for adoption, “Pick Me Jews,” is borrowed from a misogynistic internet pejorative — the “pick me girl,” a woman who performs anti-feminism for male approval — and applied to Jewish anti-Zionists, recasting them as performatively betraying their own community for outsider applause.¹⁶

The motion was not new. It was the most recent specimen of a procedure that has been running, under different names, for more than a century.

The progenitor was Theodor Herzl. In The Jewish State, published in 1896, Herzl described his Jewish opponents — the Jews who would not endorse his political project — as “disguised antisemites of Jewish origin.”¹⁷ The construction is worth pausing on. The dissenter is not engaged. The dissenter is reclassified. By Herzl’s formula, a Jew who opposes Zionism cannot be a Jew acting in good faith from inside the tradition; he must be an antisemite wearing Jewish clothes. The Jewish opponent is, by definition, not really Jewish — or not really opposed for Jewish reasons. The argument is removed before it can be made.

Two years later, the formula was used against Herzl himself. The Viennese journalist Karl Kraus, an opponent of Zionism, observed that Herzl shared with the antisemites of his day a preoccupation with Jewish difference and a desire to remove Jews from Europe.¹⁸ But Herzl’s coinage proved more durable than Kraus’s reply. Within three decades it had been compressed into a single phrase. The Viennese writer Anton Kuh used the term Jewish self-hatred in the aftermath of the First World War; the philosopher Theodor Lessing’s 1930 book Der jüdische Selbsthass — Jewish Self-Hatred — popularised it.¹⁹ Lessing was, at that point, a recent convert to Zionism. He used the term against academics opposed to it.

By the post-war period, “self-hating Jew” had become standard issue. It is the workhorse of the vocabulary — the most-deployed, longest-running specimen. It performs its function with elegant efficiency. It does not engage the dissenter’s argument. It pathologises the dissenter. The dissenter is not wrong; the dissenter is sick. The dissenter does not believe what he says; he says it because he hates himself. The argument cannot be answered, but it does not need to be answered, because the speaker has been removed from the category of speakers whose arguments must be answered.

What Wilf understood — and her precision deserves credit here — is that “self-hating” had aged. The pathologising frame still worked, but its psychiatric register had grown stale. “Pick Me Jews” updates the move into the vocabulary of contemporary internet discourse. It replaces the clinical with the contemptible. The dissenter is no longer pitied as ill; the dissenter is mocked as a sycophant. The function is identical. The packaging is younger.

The catalogue extends from there. Each item is a different procedure, deployed in different settings, but each performs the same operation: it takes a voice off the table without engaging what the voice was saying.

There is kapo — the most aggressive specimen in the vocabulary. Originally the word for prisoners conscripted by the SS to police other inmates in Nazi camps, it has been deployed against anti-Zionist Jews since at least the 1980s.²⁰ The deployment is not metaphor; it is accusation. The dissenting Jew is being charged with collaboration in the murder of his own people. The charge is absurd on its face — a Jewish dissenter from Israeli policy is not a concentration camp guard — but absurdity is not the point. The point is that no argument survives the comparison. To answer “kapo” is to descend into a debate about the Holocaust on terms set by the accuser. Most dissenters decline. The voice is removed.

There is as a Jew. This is the inverse procedure. Where “self-hating” and “kapo” remove dissenters by reclassifying them as not really Jewish, “as a Jew” removes them by reclassifying them as performing their Jewishness — making the identity itself the ulterior motive. A dissenter who opens a sentence with “as a Jew, I oppose…” is treated, by the operators of the vocabulary, as having confessed to the deployment of identity for political effect.²¹ The framing is symmetrically perverse: the Jews who endorse Zionism speak as Jews and are heard as Jews, while the Jews who dissent are accused of merely invoking Jewishness instrumentally. The procedure turns the dissenter’s identity into evidence against the dissenter’s argument.

There is anti-Zionism is the new antisemitism. This is the macro-procedure — the parent claim under which most of the others operate. Its function is epistemic capture. Once the equivalence is established, every act of criticism of the Israeli state becomes, by definition, an act of hatred against Jews; and every Jewish dissenter from that state becomes, by definition, an antisemite. The phrase is not an argument; it is a definitional move. It does not establish that anti-Zionism causes antisemitism, or that anti-Zionists are antisemitic in their conduct. It simply asserts that the two are the same thing, and proceeds as though the assertion were a finding.²²

Beneath the macro-procedure, the institutional machinery codifies the move into law. The 2016 IHRA working definition of antisemitism — drafted under different auspices a decade earlier by the American Jewish Committee’s Kenneth Stern — is the codification.²³ The definition itself, taken alone, is uncontroversial: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”²⁴ The eleven illustrative examples that accompany it are not. Seven of the eleven concern criticism of Israel rather than hatred of Jews.²⁵ Adopt the examples and the move is made: certain forms of criticism of the Israeli state become, definitionally, antisemitism. Stern, the lead drafter, has spent the last decade publicly objecting to the institutional adoption of his text. He has called its weaponisation “an attack on academic freedom and free speech.”²⁶ The man who wrote the definition says it is being used for purposes he never intended and explicitly opposes. The institutions that adopted it have not noticed.

Beneath the codification, the criminalisation. The phrase from the river to the sea is now logged as an antisemitic incident in the data of both the Community Security Trust and the Metropolitan Police.²⁷ The phrase globalise the intifada was, until 29 April 2026, treated as potentially incitement to terrorism — the basis on which the 80-year-old Anglican priest Peter Tatchell was arrested for holding a placard. The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case that day, on the eve of trial, having concluded there was no realistic prospect of conviction.²⁸ The dropping of the charge did not undo the chilling. It clarified what the charge was for. The charge was not meant to convict. The charge was meant to remove a voice from the public square for the time it took the case to be dropped.

And beneath the criminalisation, the asymmetry. The vocabulary’s most revealing feature is not what it covers but what it exempts. The institutions most active in policing anti-Zionist speech as antisemitism have shown no comparable interest in policing the actual antisemites operating openly on the political right. Elon Musk can endorse a Great Replacement post — the same antisemitic theory cited by the Tree of Life synagogue shooter — by replying “You have said the actual truth” to his 163 million followers, and twelve days later be personally welcomed to Israel by the Prime Minister and given a guided tour of Kfar Aza, broadcast live on the same platform from which the endorsement was issued.²⁹ The Republican base from which Donald Trump draws his political power is, on every available measure, more antisemitic than the British or American left;³⁰ yet the institutional vocabulary that polices anti-Zionism on the left has been remarkably restrained when it confronts antisemitism on the right. The asymmetry is not random. It tracks utility. Antisemitism that can be useful to the Israeli state — antisemitism that frightens diaspora Jews into closer political dependence on Israel — is treated with a different procedure than antisemitism that cannot.

Step back and look at what we have. The vocabulary is not a collection of insults. It is a working operating system. Every item in the catalogue is a procedure, and not one of them is an argument. Each of them performs the same operation: it removes a voice from the conversation without engaging what the voice was saying. The cumulative effect is the foreclosure of the argument the cycle cannot survive — the argument that the conflation of political Zionism with Judaism is the project’s deepest danger, not its protection. That argument has, for a century, been made most clearly by Jews. The vocabulary exists to make sure they are not heard making it.

Share

The Voices the Vocabulary Was Built to Silence

A vocabulary this elaborate is not built to police casual antisemites. Casual antisemites do not need to be named with this much precision; they can be ignored, or refuted, or — when they are politically useful — quietly tolerated. The vocabulary is built for harder targets. The targets it was calibrated to remove are the people whose arguments cannot be answered and whose standing cannot be denied. Those people are, almost without exception, Jews.

Among the people who would have to be classified as “Pick Me Jews” under Wilf’s proposed motion are the witnesses without whom the post-war Jewish intellectual tradition cannot be reconstructed.

Hannah Arendt warned in 1948 that the project of an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine, defended by force against an Arab majority, would, if it were not careful, become the kind of nationalism it had escaped from in Europe.³¹ She was the philosopher who gave the world the analysis of totalitarianism. Her warning was specific, technical, and based on her own life’s work. The vocabulary in its 1948 form had a name for her — the precursors of “self-hating Jew” had been in circulation for half a century by then — and that name was applied. Her warning has been substantially borne out. The vocabulary’s reply, eight decades later, is to call her a “Pick Me Jew.”

Martin Buber, the philosopher of I and Thou, proposed binationalism — a single state in which Jews and Arabs would share political power. He was ignored.³² Albert Einstein declined the Israeli presidency in 1952, partly on the grounds that he could not endorse the direction of the political project.³³ Judah Magnes, the founding chancellor of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, opposed the establishment of an exclusively Jewish state and advocated for a binational solution until his death in 1948.³⁴ These are not figures who can be removed by the vocabulary. They were removed anyway. Their arguments — which the vocabulary’s contemporary operators decline to engage on substance — were placed outside the boundary of legitimate Jewish thought.

The Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, born in Baghdad, raised in Israel, knighted in the United Kingdom, is the foundational scholar of the 1948 war. His work on the documentary record of that war is canonical.³⁵ Ilan Pappé’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine — drawing on declassified Israeli archives — forced Israeli academic acknowledgement of Plan Dalet, the systematic expulsion of Palestinian villages in 1948.³⁶ The Holocaust scholars Omer Bartov and Amos Goldberg, both Israeli, both of whom built their careers on the rigorous scholarship of genocide, have published in the past two years explicitly identifying Israeli conduct in Gaza as genocide.³⁷ Bartov is one of the world’s foremost scholars of the Holocaust. When he uses the word genocide of Israeli conduct, the vocabulary’s response is not to engage his argument; it is to apply the procedure.

Gideon Levy of Haaretz has reported from the West Bank and Gaza for forty years.³⁸ The IDF veterans of Breaking the Silence have published more than a thousand testimonies of conduct they witnessed in uniform.³⁹ Auschwitz survivors signed a public letter against the Gaza war in 2024.⁴⁰ Peter Beinart, raised in the American liberal Zionist tradition, edited The Forward and now edits Jewish Currents; his book The Crisis of Zionism marked the breaking of the American liberal Zionist consensus, and his more recent writing has argued that the safety of American Jews depends on America being a country that distinguishes them from a foreign state.⁴¹ Naomi Klein, the author of The Shock Doctrine, declared in her 2024 Passover address that “our Judaism cannot be contained by an ethnostate” — the equation of Jewishness with Zionism, in her telling, being among the deepest threats to Jewish life in the diaspora.⁴² Norman Finkelstein, the son of two Holocaust survivors, has spent his career documenting the political instrumentalisation of Holocaust memory.⁴³

And in July 2025, two of Israel’s most prominent human rights organisations — B’Tselem, the country’s foremost Israeli–Palestinian rights group, and Physicians for Human Rights Israel — published reports concluding, after 22 months of war, that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.⁴⁴ B’Tselem titled its report Our Genocide. The pronoun is the argument. An Israeli institution, staffed by Israelis and Palestinians, looked at the conduct of the Israeli state and named the conduct as belonging to its own society. “Nothing prepares you,” said B’Tselem’s Executive Director Yuli Novak at the press conference, “for the realisation that you are part of a society committing genocide.”⁴⁵ This is not the voice of a foreign critic. It is the voice of Israelis refusing to be the alibi.

These are the names. The list is not exhaustive. Beneath the named figures sit the institutional voices: Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow in the United States; Jewish Voice for Labour, Yachad, Na’amod, and the Jewish Socialists’ Group in the United Kingdom; the anti-Zionist Haredi communities of Neturei Karta. Each of these is a Jewish organisation. Each holds positions closer to the actual range of Jewish opinion in its host country than the institutional voices the press treats as authoritative.⁴⁶ Each is, by the procedure of the vocabulary, a “Pick Me Jew.”

The argument these voices share is not unanimous on every question. Beinart’s liberal Zionism is not Pappé’s anti-Zionism. Bartov’s careful scholarly distinctions are not Finkelstein’s polemic. Klein’s broad analysis is not Levy’s daily reporting. The Auschwitz survivors are not the Haredi anti-Zionists. The disagreements among them are real. But they share a single observation, made from inside the tradition, and made with the standing only the tradition can confer: the conflation of political Zionism with Judaism is not the protection of Jews. It is the project’s deepest danger, and Jews are the people who pay the cost.

Beneath that observation sits a deeper one, and it is the premise the vocabulary works hardest to suppress. Nation states do not have a right to exist. People do. A state is a political instrument — a particular constitutional arrangement, with a particular set of borders, a particular flag, a particular legal framework — assembled at a particular moment in history for particular purposes. Such instruments come into being and pass out of being. They merge, dissolve, partition, federate, and reconstitute. The Soviet Union had no right to exist. The Ottoman Empire had no right to exist. Yugoslavia had no right to exist. Czechoslovakia had no right to exist; the Czech Republic and Slovakia have no right to exist either; and the people of all those countries continue to exist regardless of which state, or no state, they live under. Rights inhere in persons, not in administrative arrangements.⁴⁷

The conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism depends on smuggling this premise past the listener. It treats the State of Israel as having the moral standing of a person — its existence framed as something the world has a duty to protect — rather than as the political instrument it is. Once the premise is named, the conflation collapses. To question whether a particular state should exist in its current form, with its current borders and constitutional arrangements, is not to question whether the people living within those borders should exist. The two questions are entirely separate. They have always been entirely separate. The vocabulary exists to make sure they cannot be asked separately.

This is the argument the vocabulary exists to remove from circulation. Not because it is weak. Because it is strong. The vocabulary’s procedures do not engage the argument — none of them does, none of them needs to, that is the point — they remove the speaker, on the grounds that no Jew who makes that argument can be a Jew making it in good faith.

The cycle requires this. The conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism cannot survive a credible Jewish voice that refuses to make it. So the vocabulary marks every credible Jewish voice that refuses, in advance, as not-credible. The procedure is older than Wilf and older than her formulation. It is older than “self-hating Jew” and older than Lessing. It is older than the State of Israel. It begins with Herzl, in 1896, and it has been running, in updated forms, ever since.

The vocabulary does not work on the people it removes. It does not need to. Arendt did not stop being Arendt because she was called the precursor of “self-hating Jew.” Bartov is not less a Holocaust scholar because Wilf’s followers will call him a “Pick Me Jew.” The vocabulary works on the public — on the listener who needs a quick reason to discount the dissenter without engaging the dissenter’s evidence. The vocabulary provides that reason. It is the procedural instrument by which the discussion is kept narrow enough for the cycle to keep running.

The cycle is broken when the vocabulary stops working. The vocabulary stops working when the listener notices what it is.

What This Requires

Naming the vocabulary is not the same as dismantling it. The vocabulary has institutional momentum. It has political backing. It has the rhetorical advantage that any attempt to describe it can itself be described as antisemitism — the procedure defending itself, in real time, against the act of being named. Anyone who writes this essay will be accused of antisemitism. That is not a failure of the essay. It is the vocabulary working as designed.

Three things are required to refuse it, and none of them are easy.

First, the real thing must be acknowledged without qualification. Antisemitism is rising. British Jews are afraid for reasons grounded in observable fact. The arsons are real. The CST data is real. The Heaton Park attack was real. The Golders Green stabbings were real. Anyone who attempts to relativise this is conceding ground that does not need to be conceded. The honest observation about weaponisation gains nothing by minimising the underlying harm and loses everything by appearing to.

Second, the weaponisation must be named with equal directness. The Forde Report is public. The High Court ruling on Palestine Action is public. The legal complaint against Mark Rowley is public. The Mahmood quote about “the eyes of the state on you at all times” is public.⁴⁸ The £240 million Palantir contract is public.⁴⁹ The reclassification of the Hussein attack is public. None of this is hidden. The institutional incentive is to treat it as separate from the discussion of antisemitism. It is not separate. It is the second half of the same picture, and pretending otherwise is what allows the cycle to continue.

Third, the vocabulary itself must be refused. Each time “self-hating Jew” is deployed against a Jewish dissenter, the listener should hear it as what it is: not an argument, but the foreclosure of one. Each time “Pick Me Jew” is offered as a more contemporary update, the listener should notice the procedure beneath the new packaging. Each time “kapo” is hurled at an Israeli historian of the Nakba, the listener should ask why no answer is being offered to the historian’s documentation. Each time “as a Jew” is treated as a confession of identity-deployment rather than as a statement of standing, the listener should ask whose Jewishness is being treated as transparent and whose is being treated as suspect. The vocabulary works because the listener does not yet see it. It stops working the moment the listener does.

And the listener should see what the deployment of the vocabulary actually is. To tell a Jew that her dissenting Jewish voice is not really Jewish — that she is self-hating, that she is a Pick Me Jew, that she is a kapo, that her invocation of “as a Jew” is performance rather than identity — is to deny her right to be Jewish on her own terms. It is to make Jewish identity conditional on political compliance with a foreign state. It is to insist that there is only one acceptable way to be a Jew, and that Jews who refuse it are not Jews at all. By any honest definition of antisemitism, that is antisemitism. The IHRA working definition itself includes the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination as an example of anti-Jewish hatred. The vocabulary, deployed at every dissenting Jewish voice, denies that right to individual Jews daily. The institutions that police antisemitism by deploying it are, in this exact operation, committing it. They protect a state by abusing its people.

This is the most that one essay can do. It cannot dismantle a system that has been operating, in updated forms, since 1896. It can put a name on the procedure, identify the specimens, foreground the voices the procedure was built to silence, and trust that the next reader who encounters the vocabulary in the wild will recognise it.

The cycle is not unbreakable. It is being held together by institutional pressure, by media compression, by political incentive, and by a vocabulary that has been doing its work for so long that most listeners no longer hear it as procedure. Once the procedure is named, it can be refused. Once it is refused, the voices it was built to silence can be heard. And once they are heard — Arendt, Buber, Einstein, Magnes, Shlaim, Pappé, Bartov, Goldberg, Levy, Klein, Beinart, Finkelstein, Breaking the Silence, the Auschwitz survivors, B’Tselem — the conflation that powers the cycle cannot survive.

Both things are true at once. Antisemitism is rising. Antisemitism is being weaponised. The second feeds the first. The people most harmed by the cycle are the Jewish people in whose name it operates, and whose dissent has been marked, in advance, as not-Jewish, so that the cycle does not have to answer them.

Refusing to hold both is not balance. It is complicity in a system that has been failing the people it claims to protect for more than a century. The first refusal is the one this essay attempts: to name the language, identify its function, and trust the reader to do the rest.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

Banner image: Stephen Kapos at UCL, May 2024. Photo: Alisdare Hickson / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Community Security Trust, Antisemitic Incidents Report 2024 and Antisemitic Incidents Report 2025.

² “Jewish volunteer ambulances set on fire outside London synagogue in antisemitic attack,” CNN, 24 March 2026; Hansard, “Hatzola Ambulance Attack,” 23 March 2026.

³ “Two teens arrested over arson attack at Kenton United Synagogue in north London,” ITV News, 20 April 2026; “Kenton synagogue targeted in suspected arson attack,” Jewish News, 19 April 2026.

⁴ “Golders Green attack,” reported across UK and international press, 29 April 2026.

⁵ UK Government statement raising the national terrorism threat level from substantial to severe, 30 April 2026.

⁶ Martin Forde QC, The Forde Report, Labour Party, 19 July 2022.

⁷ R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin), 13 February 2026.

⁸ “Legal complaint filed by Palestine activists against Met Police chief over synagogue remarks,” Middle East Eye, 6 May 2026.

⁹ Uri Kurlianchik (@VerminusM), post on X, 7 May 2026.

¹⁰ “Manchester synagogue attack,” Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation, 2 October 2025.

¹¹ Likud Party Platform, 1977; revised 1999 platform. See The Nation, “It’s Time to Confront Israel’s Version of ‘From the River to the Sea,’” 22 November 2023; Mondoweiss, 25 January 2024; Al Jazeera, 3 November 2023.

¹² R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin); “UK appeals High Court ruling that granted Palestine Action a victory,” Al Jazeera, 28 April 2026.

¹³ “Legal complaint filed by Palestine activists against Met Police chief over synagogue remarks,” Middle East Eye, 6 May 2026.

¹⁴ Einat Wilf (@EinatWilf), post on X, 5 May 2026.

¹⁵ Wikipedia, “Einat Wilf”; JNS, “’Shape the Future’: Einat Wilf Outlines Her New Party’s Manifesto,” 4 December 2025; The Times of Israel, “Einat Wilf: Fall of Iran an opportunity to uproot ‘Palestinianism’,” 10 March 2026.

¹⁶ The Atlantic, “The ‘Pick Me Girl’ Trend, Explained,” 2022.

¹⁷ Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat, 1896); Lev Topor, “A Short History of Jewish Self-Hatred,” San Diego Jewish World, 12 August 2024; My Jewish Learning, “Self-Hating Jews.”

¹⁸ Karl Kraus, response to Herzl, 1898; Paul Reitter, On the Origins of Jewish Self-Hatred (Princeton University Press, 2012).

¹⁹ Theodor Lessing, Der jüdische Selbsthass (Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1930); Reitter, On the Origins of Jewish Self-Hatred.

²⁰ Antony Lerman, The Making and Unmaking of a Zionist (Pluto Press, 2012); Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (Verso, 2000).

²¹ Bret Stephens, “The Progressive Assault on Israel,” New York Times, 2019; Peter Beinart, “Anti-Zionism Is Not Antisemitism,” Jewish Currents, 7 March 2019.

²² Natan Sharansky, “3D Test of Antisemitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization,” Jewish Political Studies Review 16 (Fall 2004); Judith Butler, Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism (Columbia University Press, 2012).

²³ International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, “Working Definition of Antisemitism,” adopted 26 May 2016.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Kenneth S. Stern, “A Bad Deal,” Knight First Amendment Institute, Columbia University; The Nation, “How a Leading Definition of Antisemitism Has Been Weaponized Against Israel’s Critics,” 27 December 2023.

²⁷ Community Security Trust, Antisemitic Incidents Reports 2024 and 2025; Metropolitan Police public statements, 2023–2026.

²⁸ “CPS drops case against Peter Tatchell over ‘globalise the intifada’ placard,” The Guardian, 29 April 2026.

²⁹ Elon Musk, post on X, 15 November 2023; Time, “Elon Musk Calls Antisemitic Post on X ‘The Actual Truth,’” 16 November 2023; CNN, “Elon Musk visits Israel, meets Netanyahu in wake of antisemitic post,” 27 November 2023; Rolling Stone, “Netanyahu Welcomes Elon Musk to Israel After Antisemitic Post,” 27 November 2023.

³⁰ Anti-Defamation League, Antisemitic Attitudes in America: Topline Findings, annual surveys 2022–2024.

³¹ Hannah Arendt, “To Save the Jewish Homeland: There Is Still Time,” Commentary, May 1948; The Jewish Writings, ed. Jerome Kohn and Ron H. Feldman (Schocken, 2007).

³² Martin Buber, A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs, ed. Paul Mendes-Flohr (Oxford University Press, 1983).

³³ Albert Einstein, letter to David Ben-Gurion declining the Israeli presidency, 18 November 1952; Fred Jerome and Rodger Taylor, Einstein on Race and Racism (Rutgers University Press, 2005).

³⁴ Judah Magnes, Like All the Nations? The Life and Legacy of Judah L. Magnes, ed. William M. Brinner and Moses Rischin (SUNY Press, 1987); Arthur A. Goren, Dissenter in Zion (Harvard University Press, 1982).

³⁵ Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (W.W. Norton, 2000); Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew (Oneworld, 2023).

³⁶ Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld, 2006).

³⁷ Omer Bartov, “Infinite License: The World After Gaza,” The New York Review of Books, 24 April 2025; Amos Goldberg, “Yes, It Is Genocide,” The Palestine Project (Medium), April 2024.

³⁸ Gideon Levy, The Punishment of Gaza (Verso, 2010); ongoing column in Haaretz.

³⁹ Breaking the Silence, Our Harsh Logic: Israeli Soldiers’ Testimonies from the Occupied Territories, 2000–2010 (Metropolitan, 2012).

⁴⁰ “Holocaust survivors call for an end to Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza,” open letter, The Guardian, 15 February 2024.

⁴¹ Peter Beinart, The Crisis of Zionism (Times Books, 2012); Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning (Knopf, 2025).

⁴² Naomi Klein, “We need an exodus from Zionism,” The Guardian, 24 April 2024.

⁴³ Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (Verso, 2000).

⁴⁴ B’Tselem, Our Genocide, 28 July 2025; Physicians for Human Rights Israel, Destruction of Conditions of Life: A Health Analysis of the Gaza Genocide, 28 July 2025; CNN, “For first time, two leading Israeli human rights groups accuse Israel of genocide in Gaza,” 28 July 2025.

⁴⁵ Yuli Novak, B’Tselem Executive Director, press conference, Jerusalem, 27 July 2025; Democracy Now!, “’Our Genocide’: Israeli Human Rights Groups Accuse Israel of Destroying Palestinian Society in Gaza,” 29 July 2025.

⁴⁶ Survation polling for the Jewish Chronicle, 2015–2024; Forde Report, 2022.

⁴⁷ UN Charter, Article 1.2; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1; UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970; “Does Israel have a right to exist? The impact of Statehood,” Pearls and Irritations, 22 December 2024.

⁴⁸ Shabana Mahmood in conversation with Tony Blair, January 2026; “Britain’s Home Secretary wants AI so the eyes of the state can be on you at all times,” Boing Boing, 26 January 2026.

⁴⁹ “Palantir, the controversy, the contracts and the campaign against the FDP,” The Lowdown, 1 April 2026.

Every fight in Western politics — the mayor of London, the mayor of New York, a Black US president, immigration, criminal gangs, violence in the streets — summons the same stream of pundits, politicians, preachers, influencers and YouTubers to defame one thing: Islam. In a political climate this charged, moving at the speed of a meme, thick with people claiming to be in the know — some styling themselves ‘scholars’ — this series talks about what no one else will: the sleight of hand, the propagandist’s hand in your pocket while the other points at a horizon that isn’t there. It is not apologetics. You do not have to believe a word of Islam to see you are being lied to about it. That is where Fireline Press lives and works: between what is true and what is scorching the political landscape of the West.

SOMEONE posts it like a trump card. A thread about Islam, a fight about immigration, a comment under a news story — and there it is. Taqiyya. Dropped with the confidence of a man who thinks he has found the cheat code to an entire religion. Muslims are allowed to lie to non-believers. It’s called taqiyya. Look it up.

He hasn’t looked it up. He couldn’t name the verse, or the man it was revealed for, or a single condition that governs it. He doesn’t know that most of the world’s Muslims have never used the word in their lives. But he doesn’t need to know any of that, because the word isn’t doing the work he thinks it’s doing. It’s doing a different job, for people he has never heard of.

The word travels a long way from that comment section. It’s the reason a Muslim’s reassurance gets heard as a threat, and his denial as a confession. It’s why a professional of the counter-Islam movement can look at the most peaceful Muslim in the room and call him the most dangerous — because the quiet ones, the argument runs, are the ones doing the concealing. Taqiyya isn’t an insult. It’s an instruction: whatever the Muslim in front of you says, don’t believe him.

That instruction wasn’t improvised in a comment section. It was built and paid for. Here is the key.

The Skeleton Key

Taqiyya reaches the comment section from an industry. Not a figure of speech — an industry, with revenue and a paper trail. By the count of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, working from public tax filings, more than a thousand charities channelled money to thirty-nine counter-Muslim organisations between 2014 and 2016 — an apparatus with a combined revenue capacity of at least $1.5 billion.¹ Some of it came from cranks. Much of it moved through household donor funds — Fidelity, Schwab — and faith-based charities that let the giver stay anonymous. That is the scale of the industry. And of everything the money buys, taqiyya is the one claim it cannot do without.

It’s the claim the professionals never surrender. The Middle East Forum has published taqiyya as a standing doctrine of deception — permitted, sometimes obligatory, aimed at the non-believer.² Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy told its readers that every practising Muslim engages in it, and defined it as religiously mandated lying.³ Robert Spencer built a following on a single line: that a Muslim cannot take an oath of office honestly, because his faith commands him to lie.⁴ Clear away the footnotes and the reports, and the message underneath runs to one sentence. Don’t believe them.

They never surrender it because it’s the key to everything else on the shelf. Every other accusation can be checked, and most of them fail the check. Taqiyya is the one claim built so that it can’t. Watch it turn. A Muslim says something reassuring: that could be taqiyya. He denies the charge: that’s taqiyya. A scholar sits down and explains what the word actually means: advanced taqiyya. Whatever the Muslim says, the key turns and the words fall away — because saying anything at all is treated as proof of the accusation. It needs no evidence. It survives all of it.

That is what taqiyya is for. Not to describe Muslims — to pre-empt them. To turn a man’s own words into the case against him before he has finished speaking, and to leave anyone who reads the rebuttal feeling naïve for having read it. It’s a rule for refusing to listen, passed off as a fact about Islam. Every other lie in the catalogue leans on this one, because every other lie can be corrected — unless the correction has been ruled inadmissible before it’s spoken.

So it’s worth taking the key apart. Not because the people holding it can be talked out of it — they can’t — but because the man with the screenshot can be, and because the word, once you actually read it, turns in the hand and convicts the people wielding it. What follows is the verse they cite, the man it was revealed for, the law that governs it, and the plain fact that the accusers’ own scriptures and their own history run on the very thing they call uniquely Muslim.

Start with the word itself.

The Wrong Word

Take the word apart, and the first thing that falls out is where it comes from.

Taqiyya is Arabic, from a root that means to guard, to shield, to protect oneself.⁵ Its home is Shia Islam — the minority tradition, roughly one Muslim in ten — where it hardened into a formal doctrine for a plain reason. The Shia spent centuries as a hunted minority under Sunni rule, and a hunted people learns to conceal what it believes in order to stay alive. That is the soil taqiyya grew in. Persecution. Not conquest.⁶

The counter-Islam writers know the word turns up in Sunni books too, and they’ll say so the moment you call it Shia. They’re half right. The term surfaces in Sunni commentary on the Qur’an, and Sunni exegetes have discussed it for centuries.⁷ But the ordinary Sunni Muslim has never organised his life around a doctrine called taqiyya; most have never had cause to use the word at all. The Sunni ground for the same question — what is a person excused for when something is forced out of him — is called idtirar: necessity. It’s the rule that lets a starving man eat pork, a dying man drink wine, a man with a blade at his throat say whatever will spare him.⁸ It isn’t a strategy. It’s the recognition that God does not hold a person to account for what is torn out of him under duress.

So set the sectarian point aside; it isn’t where the case turns. Shia doctrine or Sunni principle, the thing on the page is the same, and it’s small: permission to survive when your life is the price of telling the truth. That is the whole of it. There is no version — Shia or Sunni, ancient or modern — in which it means lie to your neighbour, deceive the man who trusts you, hide a plot behind a smile. They took a doctrine about the blade at the throat and recast it as a doctrine about the knock at the door. They didn’t misread the word. They inflated it — from what a man may do to stay alive into what every Muslim is supposedly commanded to do to everyone else, always.

And then they fixed that inflation onto nearly two billion people, most of whom would not know the word if you said it to them.

Share

The Man in the Verse

So read the verse. Every accusation about taqiyya runs back to one passage of the Qur’an — chapter 16, verse 106 — and the ones who wave it have never told you where it came from. Here is where it came from.

Makkah, the earliest days of Islam. The faith had no army, no state, no power of any kind. Its first followers were the people with the least to lose and the least to shield them — the poor, the enslaved, the ones no tribe would stand up for. The Quraysh, the tribe that ran the city, did not argue with them. They tortured them.

Among the first to believe was a family of slaves with no protection at all: Yasir, his wife Sumayyah, and their son Ammar. When the Quraysh learned they had converted, they made an example of them. The family was dragged into the open under the midday sun, beaten, stretched across the burning sand, and told the price of their faith was pain and the price of relief was to renounce it.

Sumayyah would not. Abu Jahl — one of the most powerful men in Makkah, and among the cruellest enemies of the Prophet — ran her through with a spear. She died refusing to hide what she believed. Islam remembers her as its first martyr. Not a warrior. A slave, and a woman, killed for the very thing the accusers say her faith licenses her to conceal.

Yasir was killed as well.

Ammar lived — but not whole. They broke his body until, as the sources tell it, he no longer knew what his own mouth was saying, and under that he spoke the words they demanded: a curse on the Prophet, praise for their gods. Then they let him go.

He went to Muhammad in tears. Not frightened of the Quraysh — frightened of God, certain the words torn out of him had cost him his soul. The Prophet asked him one question. How do you find your heart? Ammar answered: firm in faith. And the Prophet told him — if they do it again, do the same.

Then the verse came: whoever renounces God after belief is condemned, except one forced, while his heart holds firm.⁹

That is the origin of taqiyya. Not a scheme. Not a licence to work into a man’s trust and betray it. A dispensation handed to a tortured man so the words beaten out of a breaking body would not damn him. Permission to survive.

And even that permission has a ceiling. Al-Tabari, whose Qur’an commentary is about as authoritative as Sunni scholarship gets, reads the verse narrowly: concealment is excused only under mortal danger — and even then, the one who refuses to conceal and accepts death has taken the nobler road.¹⁰ The door opens both ways. God permits survival; he honours the martyr more. Neither door leads where the accusers are standing.

So look again at where the verse was born. A woman run through with a spear because she would not conceal her faith. Her son forgiven for concealing his, only because his body had been broken first. The whole account is about people who would sooner die than hide — and a God who would not condemn one of them for breaking under torture. On that, the counter-Islam industry has built a doctrine of infiltration and betrayal. They took the verse revealed over Sumayyah’s body and turned it into proof that her descendants cannot be trusted to tell you the time.

The Man at the Bottom of Hell

Set the exception aside now and look at the rule, because the rule is the thing they need you never to see.

Islam’s baseline on lying isn’t soft, or partial, or hedged. It’s a flat prohibition, stated and restated across the most widely taught collections in the faith. The Prophet: truthfulness leads to righteousness and righteousness to Paradise, and a man keeps telling the truth until God records him as truthful; falsehood leads to wickedness and wickedness to the Fire, and a man keeps lying until God records him as a liar.¹¹ Elsewhere, flatly: whoever cheats is not one of us.¹² The honest merchant, another hadith promises, will stand on the Day of Judgement among the prophets and the martyrs.¹³ This isn’t a faith that treats a lie as a tactic. It treats it as a road to Hell.

And it keeps a particular place in that Hell for one man above all: the hypocrite. The munafiq — the man who shows one face and hides another, who says with his mouth what he doesn’t hold in his heart — is no minor offender in Islam. The Qur’an sets him beneath the open disbeliever, in the lowest depths of the Fire.¹⁴ The Prophet drew his portrait in three strokes: when he speaks, he lies; when he promises, he breaks it; when he is trusted, he betrays.¹⁵

Read that portrait again, slowly. A man who lies as a matter of course, breaks his word, and betrays the trust of everyone who relies on him. That isn’t the Muslim of the faith. It’s the Muslim of the accusation — the taqiyya-practising infiltrator of the blog posts and the videos, smiling while he deceives. The counter-Islam industry has drawn its portrait of the typical Muslim, and it’s line for line the portrait the Qur’an draws of the man it sends to the bottom of Hell.

Even the exceptions refuse to help them. Islam does allow a lie in a few narrow places, and the hadith that lists them — on the authority of Umm Kulthum bint Uqba — gives the complete set: to make peace between two people at odds, to speak in war, and between a husband and wife to keep a marriage whole.¹⁶ Three. That is the entire list. Read it a hundred times and you will not find deceive the non-believer on it, or hide your faith to convert his children, or lie your way into his institutions. The exceptions are as narrow as the rule is broad, and there is no room in either for the thing the accusers describe.

So this was never a misreading. A misreading gets the emphasis wrong; this gets the faith backwards. They took the one figure Islam damns below all others — the two-faced man, the liar, the betrayer of a trust — and fixed his face onto every Muslim alive, and called that the doctrine. They didn’t misunderstand taqiyya. They took the man Islam sends to the bottom of Hell and told you he was the man in every mosque.

The War They Need

There’s one card left in their hand, and it’s the only one worth playing. The list of permitted lies has war on it, and war, they’ll tell you, is exactly the point — because Islam considers itself at war with the West. So the war-licence covers you: the neighbour, the commuter, the man at the next desk. This is the sophisticated version of the argument, the one the professionals reach for when the crude version fails. It fails too. It fails on the meaning of the word, and then it fails on what it reveals about the people making it.

Start with the word. The hadith says war is deceit, and the word behind “deceit” is khud’a — a battlefield stratagem, a ruse. Al-Nawawi, explaining it, is plain: it means misleading the enemy in combat, and it’s permitted in the state of war.¹⁷ It’s the feint, the false position, the army that looks weak the night before it strikes. And there’s nothing Islamic about it. The Hague and Geneva Conventions permit the ruse of war in so many words; every commander from antiquity to the last century has used it; Washington used it, and so did Eisenhower.¹⁸ Even the Middle East Forum’s own man, laying out the case against taqiyya, concedes that Sun Tzu and Machiavelli and Hobbes all sanctioned deceit in war. Deceiving an enemy on a battlefield isn’t a Muslim doctrine. It’s soldiering.

Now the part they never quote. The same scholars who permit the ruse draw a hard line through the middle of it. Al-Nawawi again: deceive the enemy in war by any means — except by breaking a treaty or a trust. That is forbidden.¹⁹ Treachery has its own name in Islamic law, ghadr, and it’s condemned outright; the Qur’an curses those who break their covenants, and the tradition warns that God hands the treacherous over to their enemies. Read that against the caricature. The smiling infiltrator who wins your confidence and betrays it — the very portrait they paint of the taqiyya-practising Muslim — is the one act the war-rule expressly outlaws. They reached for the exception that convicts their own picture.

And it convicts them twice over, because the rule was never only about armies and treaties. The Muslim who takes citizenship, leave to remain, or a visa — who agrees to stay for a length of time or live under a country’s laws in exchange for its protection — has entered a covenant, and the Qur’an commands the believer to honour his oaths. This isn’t a concession to the West; it’s a divine command. The Prophet set the precedent himself: when his first followers were hunted in Makkah, he sent them to shelter under the Christian king of Abyssinia, where they lived by their host’s law, kept their faith, and plotted against no one.²⁰ By that standard the Muslim who takes a country’s protection and then turns on it isn’t practising his religion — he’s breaking it. The loyalty they say he fakes is the very thing his faith demands.

And there’s a last turn they never see coming. For a great many Muslims, it is safer to practise Islam in the West than in much of the Muslim world — freer in London or New York than in Riyadh or Cairo, where a sermon against the regime can cost a man his liberty or his life. The very countries the fearmongers say Islam is scheming to bring down are, more often than not, the ones where a Muslim can live his or her faith freely. They have more reason than anyone to keep the covenant. It is the thing protecting them and worth protecting in return.

Which leaves only the bridge, and the bridge is where the whole argument gives itself away. To make a rule about the battlefield reach your neighbour’s kitchen, you have to claim the battlefield is everywhere — that Islam is at war with the West right now, in your street, at your border, in every mosque. That isn’t the belief of mainstream Islam; the Qur’an itself commands the believer to deal justly and kindly with the non-Muslim who is not fighting him.²¹ It was the belief of Osama bin Laden — that the world is permanently at war between Islam and everyone else, that there is no such thing as a Muslim living honestly under a non-Muslim government, and that any peace between them is a fiction waiting to be broken. The counter-Islam campaigner has to pick up that reading — al-Qaida’s reading — and press it onto two billion people who spend their lives disproving it, as neighbours, as citizens, as the family next door. And when one of them says he isn’t at war with you, the campaigner has his answer ready. Taqiyya.

So follow it all the way down and see where they’re standing. To convict the ordinary Muslim of a doctrine of war-deceit, they must first agree with the terrorist about what Islam is. The Islamophobe and the man in the cave hold the same article of faith — that Islam and the West are locked in permanent war — and every Muslim who denies it stands against them both. One side calls that Muslim an apostate. The other calls him a liar. Neither will let him simply be what he is: a man who is not at war with anyone.

Share

The Only One Charged

Here is where the accusation falls apart — not on the doctrine, but on the double standard. The act it describes — conceal what you believe when the truth would get you killed — isn’t a Muslim invention. It’s the oldest survival instinct there is, and every faith and every people that has ever been hunted has practised it. Islam’s one peculiarity is that it gave the reflex a name. For that, and that alone, Muslims are called uniquely deceitful.

Start with the book the accusers say they’re defending. It doesn’t merely permit concealment under threat — it takes the people who lie to save a life and makes them heroes.

When Pharaoh orders the Hebrew midwives to kill every newborn boy, Shiphrah and Puah refuse. Then they stand in front of the most powerful man in Egypt and lie to his face — the Hebrew women, they tell him, are too vigorous, they deliver before we ever arrive. It’s a fabrication, invented to cover a capital act of disobedience. And Scripture answers it in a single line: God dealt well with the midwives, and gave them households of their own.²²

Then Rahab. Two Israelite spies slip into Jericho and shelter in her house, and when the king’s men come to her door after them she has already hidden the two on her roof under stalks of drying flax. She looks the soldiers in the eye and tells them the men were here but left at dusk, and sends them chasing toward the fords of the Jordan while the spies lie flat above their heads. For that lie — not despite it, for it — she and her household are the only souls spared when Jericho falls. And the tradition doesn’t quietly forgive her. The Letter to the Hebrews sets her among the champions of faith, beside Abraham and Moses. The Letter of James holds her up as proof that faith shows itself in action — and the action he singles out, the works that justify her, is the deception at the door.²³ David, hunted and cornered, feigns madness before a hostile king to get out of his city alive, clawing at the gates and letting spit run down into his beard, and Scripture lets the ruse stand without a word of rebuke.²⁴ These aren’t obscure verses. They’re founding stories, and the lesson in each is the same: a lie told to keep a life is no sin in the biblical tradition. It’s counted as faith.

Then the history — and the people who lived it under the same knife the first Muslims did.

When the Spanish Inquisition gave the Jews of Iberia the choice to convert, flee, or burn, thousands took a fourth road: bow to the Church in the daylight and stay Jewish behind the shutters. The Conversos had their children baptised and taught them the Shema in secret; they ate pork at a Christian table and kept Passover in a locked room. No honest person reads that and calls them liars. They’re remembered as heroes of endurance, and their descendants keep their memory still. And every Yom Kippur eve, in synagogues the world over, the cantor chants Kol Nidre — the prayer that releases a soul from its vows — which Jewish memory has long bound to exactly those forced converts and the oaths wrung out of them under threat.²⁵

Now watch what was done with that prayer, because you’ve already seen it done once in this piece. For centuries, antisemites held Kol Nidre up to the world as proof of what they had decided in advance: that a Jew’s word is worthless, that here in his own liturgy he unbinds himself from his oaths on the holiest night of his year, that no promise a Jew makes can be trusted because his own religion dissolves it. They lifted the prayer clean out of its history of persecution and waved it as evidence of something rotten in the blood. They even had the mechanism wrong — Kol Nidre releases vows made to God, not promises made to other people, a distinction the rabbis had spelled out for centuries to anyone honest enough to ask.²⁶ Read that back slowly, and it is the same play they run on taqiyya: a prayer of the persecuted, torn from its context, stripped of its real meaning, and brandished as proof that a whole people is deceitful by blood. Same distortion, same theft, same conclusion — a different minority, an earlier century. The ones who sell taqiyya today are running the exact play their forerunners ran on the Jews, and failing to see that is how you fail to see it running now.

The Christians lived it too, wherever the power turned on them. In the first centuries they buried their dead and held their rites in the catacombs beneath Rome, and scratched a fish on the wall to tell a friend from an informer, because to be known was to be sent to the arena.²⁷ In Elizabethan England, Catholic families cut hidden chambers into the walls of their houses — priest holes, some barely larger than a coffin — and when the priest-hunters came hammering at the door, they lied, and held the lie steady while a man crouched silent behind the panelling for two days at a stretch. We don’t call those families deceivers; their church calls a number of them saints.²⁸ In Japan, after Christianity was outlawed in 1614, the Hidden Christians kept the faith alive for two and a half centuries with no priests and no churches — disguising the Virgin Mary as Kannon, the Buddhist goddess of mercy, so a statue on the shelf would read to the authorities as devotion to the wrong god, and passing the prayers down by mouth, in secret, generation after generation, until missionaries returning in the 1860s found them still there.²⁹ And within living memory, when Europe filled with cattle cars, Christians across the continent forged baptismal certificates, wrote false names into parish registers, and lied to the Gestapo across a kitchen table to keep the family in the cellar out of the ovens. We have a name for those people. We call them the Righteous Among the Nations, and their names are cut into stone at Yad Vashem — honoured for the courage of the lie.³⁰

And beneath all of it, quietly, the law itself agrees. Every Western legal system throws out a confession wrung from a suspect under duress, on the plain and ancient understanding that a man will say whatever he must to stop the pain, and that words forced out of him are not the truth. That’s taqiyya — the whole principle of it — sitting in the statute book of every country now being taught to fear the word.³¹

So here it is, laid flat. The principle is human, not Muslim. The Jews lived it and were smeared for a prayer about it. The Christians lived it and are canonised and memorialised for it. The law wrote it into its own foundations. Islam gave it a name — and for the single offence of naming what the whole human race has always done, its followers alone are branded the liars. The accusation was never about the doctrine. If it were, it would have to charge Rahab and the midwives, the Conversos and the priest-hole families and the Righteous of Yad Vashem, and the founding logic of Western law, all in the same breath. It charges none of them. It charges only the Muslim. Which tells you, in the end, what it always was. Not an argument about lying. An argument about who.

Who Holds the Blade

Return to the man with the screenshot — the one who posted the word like a trump card. Look at what’s left in his hand.

Nothing. No book called taqiyya to hold up. A Shia dispensation born of persecution, and a Sunni principle of necessity in the face of danger — neither of which means what he was told. A verse revealed to console a man tortured half to death, whose mother had been murdered for refusing to hide her faith. A religion that sends the liar to the bottom of Hell, and a battlefield rule that forbids the very treachery he thinks it commands. A principle every hunted people on earth has lived, and every court in the West has written into its law. Turn the accusation over, and there’s nothing on the other side of it.

So why does the lie hold? Because it was built to.

Look at what taqiyya actually requires, then watch the ones who wield it fail every part of it. Taqiyya needs a blade at the throat — mortal danger, real compulsion. It needs a heart that stays true beneath the forced words. And it answers, in the end, to God, who sees what the tongue hides. Real taqiyya is a frightened man’s dispensation, accountable to heaven for every use of it.

Now the industry. No one holds a blade to Robert Spencer’s throat. No one compels the Middle East Forum to cut the verse from its context, drop the story of Ammar, bury the war-rule’s own limits, and hide the plain fact that every scripture on their own shelves rests on the thing they call uniquely Muslim. They conceal all of it — freely, safely, for profit. Concealment without a single one of the conditions that ever excused it. They do the very thing they accuse, stripped of the only circumstance that ever made it forgivable.

That’s the case in one sentence. Taqiyya is what a man does when there’s a blade at his throat. What they do is hold the blade — and call him a liar for flinching.

And here’s why they can afford to. What they sell was never a fact; a fact can be checked, and thrown out when it fails. It’s a permission never to listen — a claim built so that every answer a Muslim gives counts as proof against him. A claim like that never wears out. It keeps a man suspicious for life, deaf in advance to every correction, sealed off from every Muslim who might have told him the truth. That’s why they need it in the air, and why they need you never to notice you’re the one breathing it.

The key only turns in your hand. That’s the trick, the whole of it: the claim works for exactly as long as you hear a Muslim’s answer as a confession instead of an answer. Every time you do, you turn it for them. Refuse, and it’s scrap — a key is nothing without a hand to work it, and the hand is yours to take away. You’ve read where the word comes from now, met the man it was revealed for, watched the war-rule forbid the very treachery it was supposed to license. You know the key for what it is.

So it is already dead in your hand — not because the men who forged it were argued out of anything, but because it was never built to work on a reader who lets a Muslim's answer be an answer. That is the one thing it cannot survive: an honest hearing.

But not everyone will. Some have already decided that a paid stranger on a screen knows a Muslim’s faith better than the Muslim does — and no verse reaches a man who picked whom to trust before the evidence arrived. Leave them. They were never the ones in play, and you don’t need them. The ones in play are the crowd behind them, far larger: the people who repeated the word once without staking anything on it, who can still be shown what it costs to carry. So put it in their hands and make them look. The ones who sell the lie have survived being wrong for years — what they can’t survive is being ignored. Every hand you reach is a hand that never closes around the key again. And a lie this size doesn’t die in an argument. It dies when the room stops filling.

Image: An auto-da-fé of the Spanish Inquisition and the execution of sentences by burning heretics at the stake in a market place.” Engraving by Bernard Picart. Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BY 4.0.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Council on American-Islamic Relations, Hijacked by Hate: American Philanthropy and the Islamophobia Network (Washington, DC: CAIR, 2019). Figures for 2014–2016 drawn from publicly available IRS tax filings via GuideStar and the Foundation Directory Online, including the donor-advised-fund and faith-based-charity channels (Fidelity Charitable, Schwab Charitable, the National Christian Foundation, the Jewish Communal Fund).

² Raymond Ibrahim (associate director, Middle East Forum), “How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War,” Middle East Quarterly 17, no. 1 (Winter 2010); see also “Islam’s Doctrines of Deception,” Middle East Forum, 2009.

³ Center for Security Policy, Shariah: The Threat to America (2010), which casts taqiyya as religiously mandated deception practised by observant Muslims; documented in Center for American Progress, Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America (2011).

⁴ On Robert Spencer’s use of taqiyya to argue that Muslims cannot swear oaths honestly: Southern Poverty Law Center, extremist-files profile, “Robert Spencer.”

⁵ Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v. “Taḳiyya”: the term derives from the Arabic root w-q-y, “to guard” or “to protect oneself.”

⁶ On the Shia as roughly a tenth of the world’s Muslims: Pew Research Center, Mapping the Global Muslim Population (2009). On taqiyya’s development as a formal doctrine among the Shia under Sunni-majority rule: Etan Kohlberg, “Some Imāmī-Shīʿī Views on Taqiyya,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 95 (1975).

⁷ On the term’s presence in Sunni Qur’anic exegesis, see al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 3:28.

⁸ Qur’an 6:119 (”He has detailed to you what He has forbidden you, save that to which you are compelled”); idtirar (necessity) and ikrah (coercion) are the Sunni juristic categories governing what is excused under duress.

⁹ On the family of Yasir, the martyrdom of Sumayyah bint Khayyat, and the revelation of Qur’an 16:106 in response to Ammar ibn Yasir’s ordeal: the sira of Ibn Ishaq and the occasion-of-revelation (asbab al-nuzul) tradition, as recorded in the tafsir of al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir on the verse.

¹⁰ Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, on Qur’an 16:106: concealment is excused only under mortal danger, and the one who refuses and accepts death takes the nobler course. The same preference for martyrdom over the dispensation is recorded in Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fath al-Bari (commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari).

¹¹ On truthfulness leading to Paradise and falsehood to the Fire: Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (narrated by Abdullah ibn Mas’ud).

¹² “Whoever cheats is not one of us”: Sahih Muslim.

¹³ On the truthful and trustworthy merchant standing among the prophets, the truthful and the martyrs: Jami’ al-Tirmidhi.

¹⁴ Qur’an 4:145 (”the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire”).

¹⁵ On the three signs of the hypocrite: Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (narrated by Abu Hurayra).

¹⁶ On the three circumstances in which a lie is permitted — reconciliation between people, war, and speech between spouses: Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Umm Kulthum bint Uqba (no. 2605).

¹⁷ “War is deceit”: Sahih al-Bukhari (no. 3029) and Sahih Muslim (no. 58). Al-Nawawi, in his commentary on Sahih Muslim, glosses khud’a as a stratagem for misleading the enemy, permitted in the state of war.

¹⁸ On the ruse of war as lawful in the international law of armed conflict: Hague Regulations (1907), Art. 24, and Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), Art. 37(2) (ruses permitted; perfidy prohibited). On the universality of military deception across commanders and traditions: Joel Hayward, “War is Deceit: An Analysis of a Contentious Hadith on the Morality of Military Deception” (Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre); the same universality — Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Hobbes — is conceded in Ibrahim’s article at note 2 above. On the two commanders named: George Washington’s battlefield deceptions in the War of Independence (feints and inflated estimates of his strength), and Eisenhower’s Operation Bodyguard — its Fortitude component the fictional army group that fixed German forces at the Pas-de-Calais and away from Normandy in 1944.

¹⁹ Al-Nawawi: deception of the enemy in war is permissible by any means “except breaking a treaty or trust,” which is forbidden. The principle of amān (safe-conduct) binds the one who receives it: a person admitted under a guarantee of safety may not betray it — a rule the classical jurists of siyar, al-Shaybani and al-Sarkhasi, apply to anyone who enters under protection, and which modern scholars extend to a visa or residence granted by a host state, so that betraying the country one lives under is itself treachery. On the prohibition of treachery (ghadr) more broadly: Qur’an 8:56–58, and the report of Ibn Abbas in Malik’s Muwatta (”no people betray their covenant but that God gives their enemies power over them”).

²⁰ On the command to honour oaths and covenants: Qur’an 5:89 (see also 5:1; 16:91). On the first migration to Abyssinia — the Prophet sending his persecuted followers to live under the Christian king (the Negus), where they kept their host’s law and practised their faith unmolested: the sira of Ibn Ishaq.

²¹ Qur’an 60:8 (”God does not forbid you from being righteous and just toward those who do not fight you over religion or drive you from your homes”). The reading that places Islam in a state of perpetual active war with all non-Muslims (dar al-Harb) is the militant one, exemplified in the bin Laden statements marshalled in Ibrahim’s article at note 2 above.

²² Exodus 1:15–21 (the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah; “God dealt well with the midwives”).

²³ Joshua 2 (Rahab conceals the spies); Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25 (”justified by works”).

²⁴ 1 Samuel 21:10–15 (David feigns madness before Achish, king of Gath).

²⁵ On the Conversos (Marranos) of the Spanish Inquisition: standard histories. On Kol Nidre: the prayer is attested well before the Spanish Inquisition (Geonic period, 8th–9th centuries), and its popular association with forced conversion is traditional rather than a settled historical origin. See Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Kol Nidrei.”

²⁶ Kol Nidre annuls only vows between a person and God, not obligations to other people — a distinction rabbinic authorities have stressed for centuries against precisely this misreading.

²⁷ On the early Christian catacombs and the ichthys (fish) as a covert identifier: standard histories of the early Church.

²⁸ On Catholic recusancy and the concealment of priests (”priest holes”) in Elizabethan England: standard histories.

²⁹ On the Kakure Kirishitan (Hidden Christians) of Japan — the faith outlawed in 1614, the surviving communities rediscovered in 1865: standard histories.

³⁰ On the Righteous Among the Nations, honoured at Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center.

³¹ On the inadmissibility of confessions or testimony obtained under duress, a foundational principle of Western legal systems.

Part II documented the collapse. The institutions that were supposed to enforce the rules activating with speed and moral clarity when the violator was an adversary — and going silent when the violator was the architect. Nuclear facilities struck by the nation that drafted the conventions prohibiting exactly that. Journalists killed at a rate that exceeds every major conflict in modern history. A war launched without constitutional authority, packaged as content, livestreamed on an app. The evidence was specific, dated, sourced, and damning.

But the evidence, devastating as it was, remained the symptom.

Institutions do not fail on their own. Laws do not violate themselves. Targeting lists are not generated by machines operating without human direction. Behind every decision documented in this series — the decision to bomb a nuclear plant, to strike a water source, to kill a journalist, to remain silent when the rules are broken — there is a human being. A person with a conscience, or without one. A leader who chose power over principle, or a population that allowed it.

This article goes to the root.

The deepest indicator of civilisational decline is not economic. It is not military. It is not technological. It is ethical. It is the erosion of what the classical philosophers called natural law — the baseline agreement, older than any constitution, that there are things we do not do to each other. Not because we lack the capability but because we have chosen, collectively, to be something more than our capability allows. That agreement is the thing that separates a civilisation from a mob. It is the thing that makes law possible, that makes institutions credible, that makes the social contract worth the paper it was never written on.

And it is dissolving. Not because some external force attacked it. Not because an enemy breached the walls. But because a disease that was always latent in human nature — held in check by the physical constraints of proximity, consequence, and shame — has been freed. Freed by a technology that removed the constraints without replacing them. Freed by leaders who discovered that the disease was useful. Freed by an algorithm that learned, long before anyone taught it, that cruelty is more engaging than kindness, that outrage travels faster than evidence, and that a lie told with confidence will always outperform a truth delivered with nuance.

I call it the zombie virus — the pathology of public discourse that turns conscience into a liability and cruelty into a credential. It has always existed. Every civilisation has carried it, the way every body carries dormant pathogens. What is new is the scale. What is new is the speed. What is new is that the people who were supposed to be the immune system — the leaders, the institutions, the educated, the powerful — have become the primary carriers.

Parts I and II told the story from the top down — civilisation, nation, institution. This article works from the bottom up. From the individual. From the cellular level of the infection. Because that is where it starts. Not in the halls of power but in the comment section. Not in the Security Council but in the scrolling feed. Not in the targeting list but in the human heart that stopped flinching when cruelty became content.

When you lose what it means to be civilised, you have no civilisation. This is the story of how that loss happens — not in nations and institutions, but in people. One conscience at a time.

The Zombie Virus

The virus is not new. It is as old as the species. Every village had its bully. Every hall of power had its sycophant. Every crowd contained people who would do things in a group that they would never do alone. The capacity for cruelty without conscience — for treating another person as an object to be used, discarded, or destroyed — has always been part of the human repertoire. It was never absent. It was held in check.

The check was physical. You moderated yourself because the person you were talking to could see your face, judge your character, refuse to associate with you, or punch you in the nose. The social cost of cruelty was immediate, visible, and personal. Leaders lost elections for mud-slinging. It was considered uncivilised. Communities expelled members who behaved with consistent malice. Reputation was local, and destroying someone else’s meant risking your own. None of this made people good. It made the cost of being publicly cruel high enough that most people chose not to pay it.

Social media did not create the virus. It removed the check.

The architecture of every major platform is built on a single economic insight: engagement is monetisable, and nothing generates engagement like conflict. The algorithm does not distinguish between expertise and performance. It does not reward accuracy. It rewards confidence — because confidence provokes reaction, reaction generates engagement, and engagement generates revenue. A measured, evidence-based response to a complex question will reach dozens of people. A furious, reductive, emotionally charged attack on the same question will reach thousands. The platform does not care which one is true. It cares which one keeps people scrolling.

The result is an environment in which the virus does not merely survive but thrives. The feedback loops that once held it dormant have been reversed. Cruelty is rewarded — with visibility, with followers, with the dopamine hit of engagement metrics climbing. Conscience is punished — with silence, with irrelevance, with the algorithmic burial that awaits anyone who chooses nuance over outrage. The person who posts a sourced, cited, carefully reasoned argument receives a fraction of the attention given to the person who posts a slogan, an insult, or a lie delivered with conviction. The platform has taught an entire generation that the way to be heard is to be loud, and the way to be loud is to be cruel, and the way to be cruel without consequence is to do it from behind a screen where no one can see your face or punch you in the nose.

This produced three things that did not exist at this scale before.

The first is the grifter class — people who discovered that the virus is profitable. They do not believe what they say. They may not even care about the subjects they discuss. But they have learned that outrage is a business model, that an audience built on fear and hatred is the most loyal audience of all, and that the platform will pay them for every unit of rage they produce. They are not ideologues. They are entrepreneurs of cruelty, and the market has never been better.

The second is the armchair scholar — the person with a platform and no expertise, speaking with absolute authority on subjects they have never studied, citing sources they have never read, deploying vocabulary they do not understand. The platform gives everyone a lectern but requires no one to know what they are talking about. The problem with social media is that any ignoramus can pretend to know what they are talking about and ignore facts as if they do. The algorithm makes ignorance indistinguishable from expertise in the public square, then rewards the ignorance with more visibility — because outrage and certainty generate more engagement than nuance and evidence.

The third — and this is the one that kills civilisations — is the survival binary. The conscientious person, watching this environment, faces a choice that no previous generation faced at this scale: absorb the abuse or become the virus yourself. Be someone’s punching bag or pick up the same tools and fight dirty. The middle ground — the ground where you engage honestly, cite your sources, and trust that the truth will win — has been strip-mined by the algorithm. It still exists. But the cost of standing on it has become so high that most people either retreat into silence or adopt the tactics of the people they despise.

And when the conscientious adopt the tactics of the sociopathic, the baseline shifts. Permanently. What was outrageous last year is normal this year. What was unspeakable last decade is a campaign slogan this decade. The ratchet turns in one direction only. Each cycle is lower than the last.

This is the infection cycle:

Social media removes the consequences for cruelty. The algorithm rewards cruelty with visibility. Conscience is punished — decency gets ignored or attacked. The conscientious fight back using the same tools. The baseline of acceptable behaviour shifts downward. And the cycle repeats — each iteration lower than the one before, each new floor becoming the ceiling of the next descent.

The virus did not need social media to exist. But social media gave it something it never had before: a world without friction. A world where cruelty costs nothing, where lies travel at the speed of light, where the person who shouts loudest reaches farthest, and where the ancient human instinct to moderate your behaviour in the presence of other humans has been rendered irrelevant by a screen. The disease was always in the blood. The technology removed the immune system.

And once the immune system is gone, the infection spreads everywhere — not just through the mob, but upward, into the people who are supposed to hold the line.

Share

The Virus in Action

I can describe the virus in the abstract. I can name the mechanisms and trace the cycles and cite the research. But I have also lived inside it — for years, in public, on platforms where the infection is most concentrated — and the lived experience is different from the theory in ways that matter for the argument this article is making.

The pattern is daily. You post something factual — sourced, cited, verifiable — and the response is not a counter-argument. It is a label. “Revisionist.” “Terrorist sympathiser.” “1619 true believer.” “Jihadist.” The label is never accompanied by evidence. It does not need to be. Its function is not to prove you wrong. Its function is to make the silent reader afraid to agree with you.

A man called my sourced, cited breakdown of the Ridda Wars “revisionist history” and compared me to a “fantasist.” I asked him to name a single source that contradicted anything I had written. He admitted he could not. Then he called me a fantasist again. He did not have a counter-argument. He did not need one. He had a label, and the label performed the only function that mattered — it told his tribe that he was loyal, and it told anyone watching that agreeing with me came at a cost. The truth of what I had written was irrelevant. The social performance was everything.

This is the playbook. It operates identically across every community, every platform, every political tribe. The content of the label changes — “revisionist” on the right, “apologist” on the left, “deviant” in the religious community, “extremist” in the secular one — but the function never varies. Label. Isolate. Punish. The virus does not win by converting everyone to cruelty. It wins by making the cost of conscience so high that most people go quiet. And when enough of the conscientious go quiet, the virus controls the public space without having to infect every individual in it. It only needs to silence the ones who would resist.

I know what that silence costs, because I have paid for refusing it.

I have had death threats. My name, my face, and my location have been circulated online with calls to find me. I have been expelled from organisations I helped build — not because I violated any principle those organisations stood for, but because my public positions made me inconvenient to people who preferred silence to confrontation. My ex-wife and her children were ostracised from their community. One of the girls left Islam entirely — not because she stopped believing, but because the cruelty of the believers around her became indistinguishable from the cruelty the faith was supposed to cure. The virus did not care that she was a child. It does not distinguish between combatants and bystanders. It infects whatever it touches.

I refused the binary. I would not absorb the abuse in silence, and I would not pick up the same weapons and fight dirty. I chose a third option — the only option that the virus cannot metabolise. I verify everything before I post it. I use my opponents’ own sources against them. I write for the person reading silently, not the person shouting. And when someone calls me a liar and cannot produce a single source to support the accusation, I say: fact check me. I dare you.

They never do. And that is the evidence — not the argument, but the evidence — that the virus cannot survive contact with this discipline. The man who called me a fantasist did not fact-check me because he knew what he would find. The virus depends on the assumption that no one will look. When someone does look, the virus retreats from that specific battlefield. It does not die. It adapts. It finds another angle, another fabrication, another label. But it cannot hold ground against someone who insists on evidence, because evidence is the one currency the virus cannot counterfeit.

I learned this lesson in a radio studio in Houston, years before social media made the virus pandemic.

During the Iraq War, a Houston talk radio host named Chris Baker ran an anti-Islam segment built around a grainy audio recording supplied by Ali Al-Ahmed — a Saudi dissident based in Washington who ran a propaganda outlet targeting the Saudi government. Al-Ahmed claimed the recording was of a Saudi religious scholar calling for violent jihad against America, grounded in the Quran. Chris ran with it. Every Muslim caller was shouted down. The recording was barely audible, but Al-Ahmed’s interpretation was delivered with the confidence the virus rewards — absolute certainty, no caveats, no nuance.

But I knew enough Arabic to hear what was actually on that recording. And it was not what Al-Ahmed claimed.

I called the station, identified myself, and told Chris what I thought of the recording. He ran out of time but agreed to let me bring a native Arabic-speaking scholar — Sheikh Waleed Bassiouni — onto the show the following day. What I did not know was that Chris had stacked the deck. He invited Al-Ahmed back, along with one of his own Arabic-speaking friends, to challenge us on air.

We debated. Chris played the recording for everyone to hear. Sheikh Waleed gave a literal translation of the Arabic and an interpretation of the content. Al-Ahmed maintained his fabricated version. Chris took a break while his own friend — the one he had brought to verify Al-Ahmed’s claims — reviewed the recording independently. When they came back on air, Chris’s friend confirmed our translation. Al-Ahmed hung up.

The fabrication was exposed. The evidence won. And it changed nothing.

Chris was more careful afterward about accepting fabricated evidence. But his rhetoric on Islam did not change. The underlying hostility remained. The virus retreated from that specific battlefield — the particular lie had been disproven — but it did not die. It adapted. It found other material, other angles, other fabrications to feed the same emotional current.

This is the lesson the Chris Baker episode taught me, and it is the lesson that scales from a radio studio in Houston to a civilisation in decline: you can win the battle of evidence and still lose the war of conscience. The virus does not need every claim to survive scrutiny. It just needs enough of them to keep the emotional current flowing. Chris did not need that recording to sustain his hostility toward Islam. The recording was a prop. The hostility was the product. And when one prop was taken away, another appeared — because the demand for the product never wavered.

The man who called me a fantasist about the Ridda Wars is the same virus in a different host. The anti-Islam commentators who proliferated after 11 September 2001 are the same virus in a different medium. The algorithm that buries evidence-based posts and amplifies outrage is the same virus encoded in software. The function is always identical: suppress the truth, punish the truthful, and keep the emotional current flowing. The medium changes. The mechanism does not.

And if the virus operated only at this level — individual cruelty, online mobs, radio demagogues — it would be damaging but survivable. Civilisations can absorb a certain amount of cruelty in the public square. They always have. What makes the current infection civilisationally lethal is not its presence in the mob. It is its presence in the elite.

But before tracing the virus upward into the people who are supposed to hold the line, it is worth understanding why it works at all — because the mechanism is not what most people assume.

The Psychology Behind the Virus

The intuitive explanation for the man who called me a fantasist is that he was ignorant. He did not know the history. He had not read the sources. He was operating on prejudice rather than evidence. And if that were the whole explanation, the virus would be curable — because ignorance can be remedied by education. Show someone the facts, and they will change their mind.

They do not. The research on this is extensive, and the findings are counterintuitive enough to unsettle anyone who believes that truth wins arguments.

Dan Kahan, a professor at Yale Law School, has spent more than a decade studying what he calls identity-protective cognition — the mechanism by which people process information in a way that preserves their sense of self and their membership in the groups that define them.¹ His central finding inverts the common assumption about polarisation: the people who hold the most extreme views are not the least informed. They are the most cognitively proficient. They are not making a mistake. They are applying their intelligence — rigorously, efficiently, and with considerable skill — not to finding truth but to defending group membership.²

This is the mechanism that explains the fantasist episode. The man who called me a fantasist was not trying to win an argument. He was performing loyalty. He knew he could not counter my sources — he admitted as much. But accepting the evidence, even evidence that was neutral or favourable to his own position, would have meant breaking ranks with his group. Challenges to group beliefs threaten to drive a wedge between a person and their tribe. They impugn the social competence of the group. And in the environment the virus has created, the cost of being right is exile. The cost of being wrong is nothing — because his tribe was not checking sources. They were checking loyalty.

This is not a bug in human psychology. It is a feature — one that evolved when your tribe was thirty people and loyalty to the group was literally a survival strategy. Defecting from the consensus meant risking expulsion, and expulsion from a group of thirty in a hostile environment meant death. The human brain learned, over a hundred thousand years, that belonging matters more than being correct — because you can survive being wrong, but you cannot survive being alone.³

Social media scaled this ancient mechanism to millions of people while keeping the same primitive loyalty architecture intact. A platform that connects you to a tribe of three million strangers activates the same neural circuitry that evolved for a tribe of thirty relatives. The algorithm does not reward accuracy. It rewards tribal performance — the public demonstration that you are one of us, that you hold the right positions, that you will attack the right enemies, and that you will never, under any circumstances, break ranks. The currency of social survival is no longer competence or character. It is conformity. And the virus thrives in conformity the way bacteria thrive in stagnant water.

Related research deepens the picture. Belief perseverance — the tendency to persist in beliefs even after the information they were based on has been discredited — means that even a successful debunking leaves the original belief largely intact.⁴ The backfire effect, though recent research suggests it is rarer and more context-dependent than initially thought, describes cases in which correction actually strengthens the original belief — particularly when the correction is perceived as coming from an out-group source and the belief is tied to identity rather than evidence.⁵ The man who called me a fantasist twice was not failing to process information. He was processing it with extraordinary efficiency — running it through a filter calibrated not for truth but for tribal safety, and discarding everything that threatened his position within his group.

The civilisational implication is devastating. If the virus were powered by ignorance, it could be fought with education. If it were powered by stupidity, it could be fought with better arguments. But it is powered by something far more durable than either — by the deepest and oldest social instinct the human brain possesses. The instinct that says: belong or die. The instinct that social media has hijacked, scaled, and weaponised into the most efficient engine of collective self-deception in human history.

The zombie virus, at the neurological level, is a latent pathology activated at scale by a technology that made tribal performance the currency of social survival — while removing the physical-proximity feedback loop that used to moderate it. The constraints are gone. The instinct remains. And the instinct, unchecked, does not produce wisdom. It produces mobs.

This is what separates the current moment from every previous era of public cruelty. The cruelty is not new. The mechanism is not new. What is new is the scale — and the fact that the technology has made the mechanism impossible to moderate through the means that previously kept it in check. You cannot restore the feedback loop of physical presence to a platform designed to eliminate it. You cannot teach the algorithm to reward nuance when its economic model depends on outrage. And you cannot educate your way out of a pathology that is not caused by ignorance.

The virus is not a knowledge problem. It is a belonging problem. And that is why it is so difficult to cure.

The Elite Strain

Everything described so far — the mob cruelty, the tribal performance, the algorithmic amplification of outrage — is survivable. Civilisations have always contained people who behave badly in public. The Roman mob bayed for blood in the Colosseum. The medieval crowd cheered at the gallows. The twentieth-century rally chanted slogans that would produce genocide. None of this was new. What held civilisation together through all of it was the existence of a stratum above the mob — leaders, institutions, educated classes — whose function was to hold the line. To say: this is beneath us. To model the behaviour that the society aspired to, even when the crowd demanded something worse.

When that stratum holds, the virus is contained. It operates in the public square, but it does not set the terms. The institutions correct course. The leaders absorb the pressure and maintain the norms. The educated provide the counter-narrative. The mob rages, and the civilisation survives — not because the mob was defeated but because the immune system was stronger than the infection.

When that stratum becomes the infection, there is no immune system left. That is when decline becomes terminal.

Consider Rudy Giuliani. Former federal prosecutor. Former mayor of New York City during the worst attack on American soil in modern history. A man who spent decades in the upper reaches of American public life — who understood law, who practiced it, who enforced it. In March 2026, while US-Israeli airstrikes were hitting a university in Tehran, Giuliani posted “MUST WATCH VIDEO” on social media, framing Iranian civilians as the aggressors and presenting cluster bomb footage as entertainment.⁶

He knows the difference between targeting civilians and targeting military infrastructure. He knows what cluster munitions are and who uses them. He has prosecuted cases built on exactly the kind of evidentiary distinctions he was deliberately collapsing in that post. He is not ignorant. He is not a victim of identity-protective cognition in the way the man who called me a fantasist was — a person performing loyalty without fully understanding the mechanism. Giuliani understands the mechanism. He built a career on it. And he is using it anyway — not because his tribe demands it but because the virus has become the most efficient path to relevance in a media ecosystem that rewards exactly this behaviour.

This is the elite strain of the virus. It is not the same as the mob strain. The mob carrier may genuinely believe what he is saying. He may be operating on incomplete information, tribal instinct, and the cognitive machinery that Kahan describes. The elite carrier knows better. He has the education, the experience, and the institutional memory to distinguish between truth and performance. He chooses performance — not because he is deceived but because the incentives have shifted. The platform rewards it. The audience demands it. The political ecosystem runs on it. And the personal cost of resisting — of being the elite who holds the line while everyone around him crosses it — has become higher than the cost of joining the infection.

This is the pattern that makes civilisational decline irreversible. When the mob is cruel and the elite corrects course, the system is self-healing. When the mob is cruel and the elite joins in — or worse, leads the cruelty — the correction mechanism is gone. There is no higher authority to appeal to. There is no institution uncaptured enough to push back. There is no leader willing to absorb the political cost of saying: this is wrong, and I will not participate, even if it costs me everything.

Giuliani is one example. He is not the disease. He is a symptom — a visible marker of an infection that has reached the stratum that was supposed to be immune. The infection is visible in the members of Congress who know the war in Iran violates the War Powers Act and say nothing. In the diplomats who know the institutional silence on Iranian nuclear facilities is indefensible and remain silent anyway. In the media executives who know the difference between journalism and content and have chosen content because content is profitable. In the former generals who know the laws of armed conflict and provide commentary that treats their violation as strategy rather than crime. Every one of these people has the knowledge, the training, and the institutional position to hold the line. Every one of them has chosen not to.

The elite strain is not wilful ignorance. It is wilful hypocrisy — the deliberate, informed, eyes-open decision to participate in the destruction of the norms you were trained to defend. And it is civilisationally catastrophic for a reason that the previous section makes clear: if the virus were powered by ignorance, the educated could cure it. But when the educated are carrying it — when the people with the most knowledge, the most power, and the most responsibility are the ones spreading it — then knowledge itself is no longer a defence. The immune system has not failed. It has defected. And a body whose immune system has joined the infection does not recover. It dies.

The Transmission Model

I have watched this process happen in real time, across nearly three decades, from inside the communities it infected. What I can offer that most analysts cannot is not expertise in epidemiology or political science but a longitudinal view — the same virus, observed across three distinct stages, from the position of someone who was both a target of the infection and a participant in the immune response.

The first stage began on 12 September 2001.

In the weeks and months after the attacks, a wave of right-wing counter-Islam commentators rose across the United States. Some were opportunists. Some were genuine ideologues. All of them were infected — not necessarily because of their opinions about Islam itself, but because of a particular strain of wilful ignorance that treated an entire faith and its 1.8 billion adherents as a monolithic threat. I documented this proliferation in my memoir God and Country, and I watched it unfold in real time from inside the American Muslim community — a community that had overwhelmingly condemned the attacks and joined its fellow citizens in grief.⁷

But the leadership immune system still functioned. This is the detail that matters. Despite launching wars in two Muslim-majority countries, despite using language like “crusade” in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Bush administration publicly backed the American Muslim community. George W. Bush visited a mosque within days of the 11th of September. He said, publicly and repeatedly, that America was not at war with Islam.⁸ His administration engaged Muslim community leaders at events, invited them to the White House, and maintained — however imperfectly, however inconsistently — a public posture that distinguished between the attackers and the faith they had hijacked.

That distinction mattered more than most people realise. It did not stop the virus. The counter-Islam commentators continued to proliferate. The hate crimes continued. The surveillance programmes expanded. The wars ground on. But the leadership’s public posture created space — space for education, for pushback, for inoculation. Muslim community leaders could point to the President’s words and say: this is not who America is. The immune system was holding. The virus was spreading, but it was being contained at a level that did not threaten the civilisational baseline.

But the baseline was already shifting beneath the surface. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan had built an entire moral framework around the Soviet Union as the “evil empire” — and a significant part of what made it evil, in the American telling, was that it went after families. The KGB did not just target dissidents. It targeted their wives, their children, their parents. That was the line between civilisation and barbarism. That was what made them the enemy and us the good guys.

By 2015, Republican presidential candidates were competing on a debate stage over who would be more willing to do exactly that. Ted Cruz promised to carpet-bomb ISIS “into oblivion” — “I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out” — a pledge the Council on Foreign Relations described as a promise to authorise war crimes. Donald Trump went further. “I would be very, very firm with families,” he said during a Republican debate in December 2015. “Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”¹¹ Not a slip. Not an extreme position walked back under pressure. A policy argument, delivered on a national debate stage, for the deliberate targeting of civilians to deter their relatives. And the audience cheered. And he won. The thirty-five-year arc from “the Soviets are evil because they target families” to “we should target families” is the erosion of conscience compressed into a single generation. The thing that defined the enemy became the platform of the leader. And no one called it what it was — the adoption of the enemy’s morality — because by that point, the baseline had shifted so far that it no longer registered as transgression.

The second stage began on 20 January 2017.

When Trump took office, the immune system did not merely fail. It became the virus. The distinction that Bush had maintained — imperfectly, instrumentally, but publicly — was abandoned. The new administration did not just tolerate the counter-Islam commentators. It hired them. It elevated them. It adopted their language, their framing, and their policies. The Muslim ban was not an aberration. It was the virus reaching the executive branch and rewriting immigration law in its own image.⁹

But the infection was never limited to Muslims. That is the point most people miss when they dismiss anti-Muslim bigotry as a niche concern. The virus that entered through the door marked “Islam” did not stop there. It spread — to immigrants, to racial minorities, to political opponents, to journalists, to judges, to scientists, to anyone who challenged the new consensus. The hatred was not targeted. It was structural. It was a way of operating — an approach to public life in which cruelty was not a regrettable side effect but the primary tool of governance. Christian nationalism provided the theological justification. Social media provided the delivery mechanism. And the highest office in the country provided the legitimisation that the virus had never previously received.¹⁰

People changed seemingly overnight. Individuals I had known for years — reasonable, educated, decent people — began expressing views they would have been ashamed of twelve months earlier. They felt legitimised. The dark recesses of their private thoughts, the ones that social proximity and institutional norms had kept inert, were suddenly not just acceptable but celebrated. The leadership was not failing to contain the infection. The leadership had become the primary vector. The counter-Islam commentators of 2002 were a manageable infection. The legitimisation from the highest office in 2016 was the moment the virus went pandemic.

The third stage is now.

After years of this — years of the virus operating at every level, from the comment section to the Oval Office, from the algorithm to the airstrike — the capacity for inoculation has been degraded beyond recognition. Education cannot reach the infected, because identity-protective cognition rejects the treatment. Institutional correction cannot function, because the institutions have been captured. Leadership cannot model better behaviour, because the leaders are the carriers. The immune system is not weakened. It is gone.

This is the epidemiological principle that most decline analyses miss: elite-to-mass transmission is exactly how actual pandemics operate through social hierarchies. Behaviour modelled at the top cascades downward and becomes normalised. A disease that remains in the general population can be managed — quarantined, treated, educated against. A disease that reaches the leadership class and is transmitted downward with the full force of institutional authority does not get managed. It becomes the new normal. And once the new normal is established — once cruelty is the entry requirement for public life, once lies are the lingua franca of political discourse, once the baseline has shifted so far that the outrages of last year are the policies of this year — the ratchet does not turn back. Each cycle is lower than the last. Each new floor becomes the ceiling of the next descent.

When you lose what it means to be civilised, you have no civilisation. That is not a prediction. It is a diagnosis — delivered not from a safe academic distance but from inside the body, by someone who has watched the infection spread for nearly thirty years, who has been targeted by it, who has fought it with evidence and discipline and the refusal to become it, and who can tell you that the patient is not recovering.

Share

The Pattern and the Precedent

Humanity has been here before.

The descent into the European Dark Ages was not a single event. It was a slow collapse of shared meaning — the erosion of literacy, the retreat of law, the elevation of brute power over institutional legitimacy, the punishment of independent thought, and the replacement of civic participation with feudal obedience. It took centuries. The mechanisms were the same ones operating now — wilful ignorance, tribal loyalty over truth, the punishment of dissent, the elevation of performative cruelty — but they operated at the speed of horses and handwritten manuscripts. The recovery took centuries too. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the slow reassertion of reason and law and the dignity of the individual — these were not inevitable. They were fought for, generation after generation, by people who refused to accept that the darkness was permanent.

We are descending into a new patch of dark age. The difference this time is speed. Social media has compressed what previously took centuries into decades. The same civilisational collapse that unfolded across generations in the Roman world and the medieval world is unfolding in real time, in front of us, measurable in news cycles rather than centuries. The technology has not changed the disease. It has changed the timeline. And a collapse that arrives faster than the immune response can adapt to it is, by definition, more dangerous than one that allows time for recovery.

But there is a precedent more precise than the Dark Ages — one that strips away the complexity of human politics and economics and isolates the behavioural mechanism in controlled conditions. It is an experiment that almost no one interprets correctly, and its implications for the argument this series is making are devastating.

Between 1968 and 1973, at the National Institute of Mental Health, an American behavioural researcher named John B. Calhoun conducted an experiment he called Universe 25. He placed four pairs of mice into a designed utopia — a physical environment in which every material need was met. Unlimited food. Unlimited water. Unlimited nesting material. No predators. No disease. The only finite resource was space, and the habitat was built to accommodate four thousand mice comfortably. The population never reached half that number.¹¹

The collapse followed a sequence that Calhoun documented with meticulous precision.

In the first phase, the population grew and social structures formed. Territories were established. Hierarchies emerged. The mice behaved as mice behave — competing for space, forming bonds, mating, raising young. The system functioned.

In the second phase, dominant males seized the most desirable territories. Males who failed to secure a social role — who could not find a place in the hierarchy — withdrew. They aggregated in passive pools in the centre of the habitat, physically intact but socially dead. They stopped competing. They stopped mating. They stopped participating. The cost of engagement had become too high, and they chose withdrawal over the discomfort of continued failure.

In the third phase, a generation emerged that Calhoun called “the beautiful ones.” These mice had been raised in the broken social environment created by the second phase. They had never learned normal social behaviours. They were physically perfect — sleek, well-groomed, unblemished, because they never fought and never mated. They spent their time eating and grooming themselves. They showed no interest in social engagement of any kind. They were, in Calhoun’s words, capable only of the most simple behaviours compatible with physiological survival. They were alive. They were not living.¹²

The last conception in Universe 25 occurred on day 920. The population, which had peaked at 2,200, crashed to zero. Total extinction. Not because the mice ran out of food. Not because disease swept the colony. Not because predators breached the walls. The resources were still there. The space was still there. Everything the mice needed to survive was still available. What had collapsed was the social contract — the web of behaviours, roles, and mutual obligations that made the colony a society rather than a collection of organisms occupying the same space.¹³

Calhoun said the mice died two deaths. The first was the death of the spirit — the death of purpose, of social meaning, of the will to participate in the life of the colony. The second was the death of the body. The first death caused the second. Not the other way around.¹⁴

The standard reading of Universe 25 is that it is a parable about overpopulation. This is wrong. The mice never ran out of space. The habitat could have held nearly twice the peak population. The collapse was not material. It was social and behavioural. The parallel to the argument of this series is precise, and it does not require treating mice as humans to see it.

The aggressive mice who seized territory and made the environment hostile — they are the elite carriers of the zombie virus, the people who captured the institutions and set the tone.

The withdrawn mice who stopped participating because the cost was too high — they are the conscientious people who go silent, who retreat from public discourse because the abuse is not worth the engagement, who watch the infection spread and conclude that the personal cost of resistance exceeds the personal benefit of participation.

The beautiful ones — physically perfect, socially dead, capable of nothing but consumption and self-grooming — they are the armchair scholars, the social media performers, the grifters, the influencers. People who look functional. People who occupy space in the public square. People who have lost the capacity for genuine social participation and replaced it with performance. They are not building anything. They are not contributing anything. They are consuming and grooming — endlessly, beautifully, vacantly — while the colony dies around them.

And the collapse happens in abundance, not scarcity. This is the detail that matters most. The West is not collapsing because it is running out of resources. It is collapsing because the social contract has been destroyed by the very abundance and technology that was supposed to perfect it. The mice did not starve. The civilisation is not poor. The problem is not material. It is meaning. And when meaning collapses — when the roles that gave life purpose are no longer available, when the cost of participation exceeds the reward, when the beautiful ones have replaced the builders — the extinction that follows is not caused by a lack of resources. It is caused by a surplus of comfort and a deficit of purpose.

Calhoun’s key conclusion deserves to be quoted directly: “No matter how sophisticated we are, once the number of individuals capable of filling social roles greatly exceeds the number of such roles, only violence and disruption can follow.”¹⁵ That is not a resource problem. It is a meaning problem. And it is the problem that the zombie virus, operating at every level from the comment section to the Security Council, has made civilisationally acute.

I have written about this elsewhere. In my forthcoming book Neither Gods Nor Monsters, I explore what I call the paradox of comfort — the observation that the more you have, the less it means. That humans are built for the climb, not just the summit. That the dopamine system activates more powerfully during pursuit than arrival. That removing the striving does not liberate the person — it hollows them out. “In wealthy societies where material needs are largely met,” I write, “the epidemic is not poverty. It is meaninglessness.”¹⁶ In The Road to Khurasan, I wrote that “we are drowning in content, but thirsting for meaning” — that the human heart has never been more restless despite, or because of, material abundance.¹⁷

Universe 25 gives experimental weight to that argument. It demonstrates, under controlled conditions, that a society can have everything it needs to survive and still destroy itself — not through scarcity but through the collapse of the social structures that give life meaning. The mice were not metaphors. They were data. And the data says that the trajectory we are on has a precedent, and the precedent ends in extinction.

The caveat must be stated honestly: mice are not humans. Animal behaviour experiments cannot be mapped directly onto human civilisation without acknowledging the vast differences in cognitive complexity, cultural adaptation, and individual agency. Humans can reflect on their condition in ways that mice cannot. Humans can choose to change course. The question is not whether we are capable of it. The question is whether we will.

Terminal or Treatable?

This series began with a myth and ends with a question.

The myth — that America was the indispensable nation, uniquely qualified to build and sustain an international order grounded in law — is dead. It was killed not by America’s enemies but by America itself, confessed from the podium of the Munich Security Conference and confirmed, thirteen days later, in the wreckage of Iranian nuclear facilities, universities, and water infrastructure.

The institutions that were supposed to enforce the rules have revealed themselves to be instruments of selective application — functioning with speed and moral authority when the violator is an adversary, and producing silence so complete it constitutes its own kind of statement when the violator is the architect. The evidence is specific, dated, sourced, and documented across the first two parts of this series. It is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what it means.

This article has argued that the evidence — the institutional failure, the legal violations, the civilisational destruction — is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is older and deeper. It lives in the erosion of individual conscience — in the zombie virus that turns cruelty into currency, that punishes decency and rewards performance, that has been freed by technology and legitimised by leadership until the baseline of acceptable behaviour has shifted so far downward that the outrages of one decade become the policies of the next.

The psychology is clear. Identity-protective cognition means the virus cannot be cured by education — because the infected are not making a mistake. They are performing loyalty, and the cost of breaking ranks exceeds the cost of being wrong. The elite strain means the virus cannot be corrected by institutions — because the institutions have been captured by the carriers. The transmission model means the virus cannot be contained at any single level — because it flows downward from leadership to population with the force of legitimisation behind it, and each cycle ratchets the baseline lower than the last.

Universe 25 demonstrated, under controlled conditions, that a society can have everything it needs to survive and still destroy itself through the collapse of social meaning. The mice did not run out of resources. They ran out of reasons to participate. The beautiful ones groomed themselves in silence while the colony died around them. The parallel is not perfect — humans are not mice — but the mechanism is recognisable. The withdrawal of the conscientious. The dominance of the aggressive. The rise of a generation that looks functional but has lost the capacity for genuine engagement. The extinction that follows not from scarcity but from the slow, irreversible death of the spirit.

Is this terminal? Or is it the darkness before another renaissance — another long, painful recovery of the kind that followed the fall of Rome, that followed the Black Death, that followed every previous descent into barbarism?

I do not know. I do not think anyone does. The honest answer is that both outcomes remain possible, and the dishonest answer is the one that claims certainty in either direction. What I can say — from the position of someone who has watched this virus operate for nearly three decades, who has been targeted by it, who has fought it with evidence and discipline and the refusal to become it — is that the trajectory is downward, and the forces driving it are accelerating, and the mechanisms that previously arrested civilisational decline are either absent or compromised.

The Dark Ages lasted centuries before the recovery began. But the Dark Ages did not have social media. They did not have algorithms optimised for outrage. They did not have the capacity to transmit the virus at the speed of light to every connected human on the planet simultaneously. The compression of the timeline is not a detail. It is the defining feature of the current crisis. A collapse that took centuries to settle in is now taking decades. The question is whether the recovery — if it comes — will be similarly compressed, or whether the same technology that accelerated the descent will make the recovery impossible by destroying the very capacity for collective self-reflection that recovery requires.

I write for the person reading silently. I have always written for that person — the one who sees what is happening, who feels the unease, who has not yet surrendered to the binary of absorb-it or become-it. That person exists. I know because they write to me. They are the evidence that the virus has not won completely — that somewhere, beneath the noise and the cruelty and the performance, the conscience of the civilisation is still alive. Wounded. Exhausted. Afraid to speak. But alive.

Whether that is enough, I cannot say. What I can say is that silence is not neutrality. Silence, in the face of what has been documented in this series, is a choice — and it is the choice the virus depends on. Every person who sees the evidence and says nothing, every leader who knows the law and enforces it selectively, every institution that functions for some and goes silent for others, every citizen who watches the baseline descend and concludes that it is someone else’s problem — they are not bystanders. They are the environment in which the virus thrives.

The myth of the indispensable nation is dead. The institutions built on that myth are failing. The conscience that held the civilisation together is eroding — not everywhere, not in everyone, but in enough people, at enough levels, at enough speed, that the trajectory is unmistakable.

When you lose what it means to be civilised, you have no civilisation.

The question is no longer whether we are losing it. The question is whether enough of us remember what it meant to want it back.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Dan M. Kahan, “Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition,” Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper Series No. 164, Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 605 (May 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2973067.

² Ibid. Kahan’s central finding: “the people who are the most polarized are also the most cognitively proficient — the ones who are most likely to be using System 2. At that point, you have to reevaluate what you thought was going on... They’re not making a mistake. The problem isn’t that they’re irrational, the problem is that they’re too rational.” See also Kahan’s interview with the Informal Science project, informalscience.org.

³ The evolutionary basis of tribal loyalty as a survival mechanism is well-established in evolutionary psychology. For a foundational treatment, see Robin Dunbar, “Neocortex Size as a Constraint on Group Size in Primates,” Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 22, no. 6 (June 1992), pp. 469–493. Dunbar’s number — approximately 150 — represents the cognitive limit of stable social relationships, but the core loyalty mechanisms evolved for much smaller kin groups.

⁴ Lee Ross, Mark R. Lepper, and Michael Hubbard, “Perseverance in Self-Perception and Social Perception: Biased Attributional Processes in the Debriefing Paradigm,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 32, no. 5 (1975), pp. 880–892. See also Craig A. Anderson, Mark R. Lepper, and Lee Ross, “Perseverance of Social Theories: The Role of Explanation in the Persistence of Discredited Information,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 39, no. 6 (1980), pp. 1037–1049.

⁵ The backfire effect was first described in Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions,” Political Behavior, vol. 32, no. 2 (June 2010), pp. 303–330. Subsequent research has found the effect to be more context-dependent and less robust than initially reported. See Thomas Wood and Ethan Porter, “The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence,” Political Behavior, vol. 41 (2019), pp. 135–163, which found little evidence of backfire across 36 issues.

⁶ Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani), X post, March 2026: “MUST WATCH VIDEO: Iran continues to target Israeli civilian areas with cluster bombs.” Posted while US-Israeli strikes were hitting universities and civilian infrastructure in Tehran. For the broader context of the strikes, see Part II of this series, endnotes 22–25.

⁷ James S. Coates (as Will Prentiss), God and Country (memoir). The proliferation of counter-Islam commentators in the post-9/11 period is documented throughout the memoir’s account of the author’s experience in the American Muslim community from 2001 onward. See also James S. Coates, “Antisemitism and Counter-Islamism: The Industry,” Fireline Press, 2026, which documents the funding infrastructure behind the counter-Islam commentator network.

⁸ George W. Bush, “Remarks at the Islamic Center of Washington,” 17 September 2001 — six days after the attacks. Bush stated: “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.” Full transcript published by the White House Archives.

⁹ Executive Order 13769, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” signed 27 January 2017. The order suspended entry from seven Muslim-majority countries and was widely referred to as the “Muslim ban.” It was challenged in court and revised multiple times before the Supreme Court upheld a modified version in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018).

¹⁰ The theological infrastructure of Christian nationalism and its capture of American foreign policy is documented in James S. Coates, “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy,” Fireline Press, 2025.

¹¹ Donald Trump, Republican presidential debate, Las Vegas, 15 December 2015, as reported by The Guardian: “I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” See Spencer Ackerman, “Republican candidates compete over who would do most to terrorize ISIS,” The Guardian, 16 December 2015. Ted Cruz, speaking at the FreedomWorks “Rising Tide” Summit, Des Moines, 5 December 2015: “If I am elected president, we will utterly destroy ISIS... We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out.” The Council on Foreign Relations described Cruz’s pledge as “a promise to authorize the commitment of war crimes.” See Micah Zenko, “Sen. Ted Cruz and the Myth of Carpet Bombing,” CFR, 29 February 2016.

¹² John B. Calhoun, “Death Squared: The Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 66 (January 1973), pp. 80–88. The Universe 25 experiment was conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health between 1968 and 1973.

¹³ Ibid. Calhoun described the “beautiful ones” as mice that “never learned to engage in the aggressive behaviour necessary to establish social position” and whose behaviour was limited to “eating, drinking, sleeping, and grooming” — activities “compatible with physiological survival but not ones that contribute to the social organisation of the colony.”

¹⁴ Ibid. The habitat was designed for approximately 3,840 mice (Calhoun’s calculated capacity based on nesting space). Peak population reached 2,200 on day 560. The last surviving birth occurred on day 600. The last conception occurred approximately on day 920.

¹⁵ Ibid. Calhoun wrote: “For an animal so simple as a mouse, the most complex behaviours involve the interrelated set of courtship, maternal care, territorial defense and hierarchical intragroup and intergroup social organization. When behaviours related to these functions fail to mature, there is no development of social organization and no reproduction.”

¹⁶ John B. Calhoun, “Population Density and Social Pathology,” Scientific American, vol. 206, no. 2 (February 1962), pp. 139–148. This earlier paper introduced the concept of the “behavioural sink” and laid the groundwork for the Universe 25 experiment.

¹⁷ James S. Coates, Neither Gods Nor Monsters (forthcoming, November 2026). The passages on the paradox of comfort appear in Chapter 6, “The Climb.”

¹⁸ James S. Coates, The Road to Khurasan.

Two world wars killed roughly a hundred million people. The Holocaust industrialised murder on a scale that forced the civilised world to confront what civilisation actually meant. And in the aftermath — at Nuremberg, at San Francisco, at Geneva — the victors sat down and constructed something unprecedented: a body of law designed to ensure that power alone could never again justify aggression, that sovereignty meant something, that the strong could not simply devour the weak and call it statecraft.

The Nuremberg Tribunal declared that the waging of aggressive war was “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”¹ The United Nations Charter, signed in 1945, prohibited the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.² The Geneva Conventions codified the protection of civilians, prisoners, and the wounded.³ The Genocide Convention — born directly from the ashes of the Holocaust — made the destruction of a people a crime under international law, regardless of who committed it.⁴ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserted that certain protections belonged to every human being, not as gifts from governments but as inherent rights that governments were obligated to respect.⁵

This was not an abstract exercise. These were binding legal instruments, ratified by sovereign nations, designed to constrain the behaviour of the powerful. And they were authored, in large part, by the United States of America — the nation that served as chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, that drafted the UN Charter, that championed the Geneva Conventions, and that declared to the world that the rule of law would govern relations between nations just as it governed relations between citizens.

That order is now dying. And the nations killing it are the ones that built it.

The Architecture

To understand what is being destroyed, you must first understand what was built and why it mattered.

The post-war legal order rested on a simple foundation: states do not get to bomb other states. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. There are exactly two exceptions. The first is authorisation by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII — the collective security mechanism by which the international community, acting through its designated body, can authorise the use of force to maintain or restore peace. The second is self-defence under Article 51, which preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.⁶

Two exceptions. Everything else is illegal.

The architecture was not naive. The people who built it understood power. They had just fought a war against nations that believed power was its own justification, and they had won. The question was whether their victory would produce something better than the system it replaced — or whether they would simply install themselves at the top of the same hierarchy and call it progress.

The answer was imperfect. The Security Council structure was a concession to power from the start. Five nations — the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China — were given permanent seats and the power to veto any substantive resolution.⁷ This was the price of getting the great powers to participate. The alternative, in 1945, was no United Nations at all. The League of Nations had already demonstrated what happened when major powers refused to join or walked away when the institution inconvenienced them — it died, and the world got a second war even worse than the first.

The contradiction was visible from the moment the ink dried. One of the five nations given permanent power to enforce the prohibition on mass atrocity was, at that very moment, responsible for the deaths of millions of its own people. Stalin’s purges, his forced collectivisation, his gulags, and the engineered famine in Ukraine had killed an estimated twenty million people — a death toll that rivalled the Holocaust in scale.⁸ The architect of those killings took his seat at the table, received his veto, and the system designed to prevent crimes against humanity was built to accommodate a man who was actively committing them. The post-war order was not corrupted later. The corruption was foundational.

So the architects accepted the compromise. The veto was the structural flaw sewn into the foundation. But the foundation itself — the prohibition on aggressive war, the protection of civilians, the principle that sovereignty means something — was sound. And for eighty years, imperfectly and inconsistently, with glaring failures and shameful exceptions, it held. It did not prevent every war. It did not stop every atrocity. But it established a framework within which violations could be named, condemned, and — at least sometimes — punished. It created a language of accountability that had not existed before. And it prevented a third world war.

What is being tested now is not whether any particular nation survives. It is whether that framework survives. And if it does not, the nations that will suffer most from its collapse are the ones that are currently tearing it apart.

The principle that law should govern the conduct of nations is not a foreign concept imposed on the United States from outside. It is the foundational American idea, taken to its logical international conclusion. Aristotle said it first: “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.”⁹ Thomas Paine made it the cornerstone of the American revolution: “In America, the law is king.”¹⁰ John Adams enshrined it in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 as “a government of laws, and not of men.”¹¹ The post-war international legal order was nothing more than the extension of this principle beyond national borders. The United States did not merely sign that order. It authored it.

And now it is shredding its own work.

The Erosion

The United States did not abandon international law overnight. It eroded it — war by war, precedent by precedent, each violation a little larger than the last, until the original design became unrecognisable.

Korea, 1950. President Truman sent American troops to fight a full-scale war without a declaration of war from Congress. He called it a “police action.” The United Nations provided a fig leaf of legitimacy through a Security Council resolution that passed only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the Council at the time — a procedural accident that would never be repeated.¹³ Thirty-six thousand Americans died.¹² The constitutional power to declare war was not repealed. It was simply ignored, and Congress’s silence was treated as consent.

Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964 — the alleged second attack on the USS Maddox — was later determined to have likely not occurred. The NSA’s own declassified internal history, published in 2005, concluded that the signals intelligence used to justify the resolution was flawed.¹⁴ But by then, fifty-eight thousand Americans and millions of Vietnamese were dead¹⁵, villages had been burned, civilians massacred at My Lai, and a generation had learned that their government would fabricate a pretext for war and call it self-defence.

Iraq, 2003. The most consequential violation of the post-war order by its principal architect. The United States launched a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation without Security Council authorisation, on the basis of fabricated evidence about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. No armed attack had occurred. No imminent threat was demonstrated. The war produced Abu Ghraib, where American soldiers tortured and sexually humiliated prisoners. It produced Guantánamo, where men were held without charge and subjected to interrogation techniques that the Red Cross called torture.¹⁶ It killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. And it established the precedent that the most powerful nation on earth could wage a war of choice, in open violation of the Charter it had authored, and face no institutional consequence whatsoever.

Libya, 2011. The United States provided seventy-five per cent of the aerial refuelling and seventy per cent of the intelligence for a NATO campaign¹⁷ that exceeded its Security Council mandate — authorised for civilian protection, executed for regime change. The Obama administration argued that sustained bombing operations did not constitute “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution. The word had been redefined to mean whatever the executive needed it to mean.

And running through these wars is a parallel escalation that the legal order has never addressed: what happens to the leaders of the states that America targets.

Saddam Hussein was captured during an illegal war, tried by a tribunal established under American occupation, and executed on the thirtieth of December 2006.¹⁸ The Iraqi High Tribunal was nominally Iraqi, but it was created under conditions that the United States engineered — and it did not meet international fair trial standards. Human Rights Watch called the trial “fundamentally flawed.”¹⁹ The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights raised concerns about due process.²⁰ Whatever Saddam’s crimes — and they were monstrous — the legal vehicle for his conviction was the product of a war that had no legal basis.

And that should matter to everyone, because due process — the right to a fair trial — is the foundation of law that protects all of us, rich or poor, regardless of status, no matter how large or small the crime. The worst criminals in the history of human civilisation were given a trial at Nuremberg. We are now refusing even that for alleged criminals who have not matched the threshold of crimes those laws were founded to prevent.

Muammar Gaddafi did not even get a trial. He was captured by rebel fighters during the fall of Sirte on the twentieth of October 2011, beaten, and shot — an extrajudicial killing captured on video and broadcast to the world.²¹ The United States did not pull the trigger. But it created the conditions: the NATO campaign that toppled his government exceeded the Security Council’s mandate, and the lawless vacuum it produced made his killing inevitable. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reaction, captured on camera — “we came, we saw, he died”²² — was not a confession of guilt. It was something worse. It was indifference to the distinction between law and conquest.

The trajectory is unmistakable. With Saddam, there was at least a trial, however compromised. With Gaddafi, there was no trial — only killing in the chaos that American intervention had engineered.

And then Iran. February 2026. The capstone.

The United States and Israel launched a sustained military campaign against a sovereign nation — during active negotiations. This was the second time. In June 2025, Israel had launched a surprise attack on Iran during a prior period of diplomatic engagement, drawing the United States into a twelve-day war.²³ The pattern was established then: negotiate, then strike while the other side is at the table. February 2026 repeated it — and exceeded it.

On the twenty-fifth of February, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated publicly that a historic agreement was “within reach.”²⁴ On the twenty-seventh of February — one day before the strikes began — Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi appeared on CBS News and disclosed that Iran had agreed to never stockpile enriched uranium, to downgrade its existing stockpiles to the lowest level possible through irreversible conversion to fuel, and to submit to full verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Al Busaidi called it “a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved in previous rounds of negotiations.”²⁵ This was not the JCPOA being reheated. This went beyond what the Obama-era deal had secured. Iran had conceded everything the United States had asked for. Additional talks were scheduled for the following Monday in Vienna. They never took place. On the twenty-eighth of February, the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury.

No Security Council resolution authorised the strikes. No armed attack by Iran had occurred. No congressional declaration of war was sought or obtained. The Senate voted on a resolution requiring presidential authorisation for further military action; it failed, 47 to 53. The House voted on a similar measure; it failed, 212 to 219.²⁶ Congress did not authorise this war. But it refused to stop it. Silence, once again, read as consent.

The campaign killed Iran’s supreme leader — Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a head of state, assassinated by airstrike as a deliberate military objective. Not captured. Not tried. Not even given the sham proceedings that Saddam received. Simply killed, along with forty-nine other senior officials²⁷, in a strike designed to decapitate a sovereign government. The escalation from Saddam to Gaddafi to Khamenei is the erosion of due process rendered in human lives: from a flawed trial, to no trial, to no pretence that a trial was ever contemplated. It struck a girls’ school, killing 175 children.²⁸ It bombed civilian economic infrastructure, destroyed ten thousand homes in Tehran alone²⁹, and pursued explicit regime change. The White House posted videos splicing real war footage with Call of Duty video game clips.³⁰ The Secretary of War claimed more than fifteen thousand “enemy targets” had been struck.³¹

The international response confirmed the illegality in terms that have no precedent among traditional allies. France stated the strikes were conducted “outside the framework of international law.”³² Spain rejected the strikes outright and refused the use of its military bases.³³ Switzerland accused the United States and Israel of violating international law.³⁴ Norway emphasised the illegality. At the United Nations Security Council, 135 nations co-sponsored a resolution on the crisis — the largest co-sponsorship in Security Council history.³⁵ The European Council on Foreign Relations concluded that there is “little question that the US and Israeli war against Iran is an unlawful act of aggression.”³⁶ Professor Mohamed Arafa, writing in JURIST, described the strikes as violations of “both US constitutional law and foundational international norms.”³⁷

No allied government called this war legal. No adversarial government called it legal. No neutral government called it legal. Not one.

Each violation in this trajectory established a precedent. Each precedent made the next violation easier. Korea established that a president could fight a war without a declaration. Vietnam established that a president could fabricate the justification. Iraq established that a president could ignore the Security Council entirely. Libya established that a president could redefine what “hostilities” meant. Iran established that a president could launch a war during active peace negotiations, assassinate a head of state, pursue regime change, and face no institutional consequence — not from Congress, not from the courts, not from the international community. Not from anyone.

This is what eighty years of erosion produces. The constitutional power to declare war has not been repealed. It has been abandoned. Not by amendment, not by judicial decision, but by the slow, bipartisan accumulation of precedents, each one a little larger than the last, until the original design is unrecognisable.

Share

The Institutions That Looked Away

The erosion is not limited to the Security Council. It runs through the entire institutional architecture of international accountability — including bodies that have no veto mechanism to blame.

Consider the International Atomic Energy Agency. When Russia occupied the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine — Europe’s largest — the IAEA responded with force and specificity. Director-General Rafael Grossi condemned strikes in explicit terms, calling them “unacceptable” and “reckless,” demanding they “must stop now.”³⁹ The agency established five concrete principles for protecting the facility. It maintained permanent on-site inspectors from September 2022 onwards. It convened emergency Board of Governors meetings. The UN Secretary-General specifically condemned attacks by name. When a Ukrainian drone struck a reactor containment structure, Grossi said it “significantly increases the risk of a major nuclear accident.”⁴⁰ The IAEA’s report concluded that Russia’s occupation violated all seven pillars of nuclear safety.³⁸

Now consider Natanz and Bushehr.

On the twenty-first of March 2026, Iran’s atomic energy organisation confirmed that the United States and Israel had struck the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility — one of the country’s most important nuclear sites.⁴¹ The IAEA’s response was a statement noting “no increase in off-site radiation levels” and Grossi reiterating a “call for military restraint to avoid any risk of a nuclear accident.”⁴² Three days later, a projectile struck within the compound of the Bushehr nuclear power plant — an operating reactor, the kind of target Grossi himself had called the “reddest line” of nuclear safety.⁴⁴ The IAEA confirmed the strike hit a structure 350 metres from the reactor.⁴³ The language, again, was passive: “restraint,” “concern,” a reiteration of previous calls.

No condemnation. No demand that the strikes “must stop now.” No permanent on-site monitoring mission. No emergency Board session demanding accountability. No five principles established for protecting Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA explicitly called on the agency to condemn the attacks. The agency did not do so.⁴⁵

The same agency. The same director-general. The same category of threat — military strikes on nuclear facilities during an armed conflict. Two entirely different institutional responses. One gets condemnation, permanent presence, and binding principles. The other gets calls for restraint.

The contrast is even starker when measured against the IAEA’s own history. In June 1981, Israel struck Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor — the first military attack on a nuclear facility. The IAEA Board of Governors condemned the attack. The IAEA General Conference condemned it again in September and suspended all technical assistance to Israel.⁴⁶ A draft resolution to expel Israel from the agency entirely was introduced, though it was ultimately defeated. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 487, condemning the strike as “a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct” — with the United States voting in favour.⁴⁷ In 1981, the international community treated a strike on a nuclear facility as an offence demanding institutional consequences. In 2025 and 2026, the same country has struck Iranian nuclear facilities repeatedly — including an operating reactor — and the institutional response has regressed from condemnation and suspension to calls for restraint and radiation monitoring.

The IAEA has no veto mechanism. There is no structural excuse for this disparity. What there is, plainly, is the operating logic of the entire international system when power overrides law: the rules apply to those who cannot prevent their enforcement, and they do not apply to those who can.

The Enablers and the Enabled

The erosion of international law does not radiate from a single source. It cascades. When the most powerful nations demonstrate that law is optional, every other nation in the system absorbs the lesson — including those with legitimate grievances, and including those that should know better.

The post-Holocaust legal architecture — the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions — was built in direct response to the industrialised murder of European Jews. The world looked at what had happened and said: we will construct laws to ensure that this can never happen to anyone, ever again. “Never again” was not a tribal claim. It was a universal commitment, encoded into binding international law that protects all peoples equally.

The Genocide Convention does not say “against Jews.” It defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. The law that protects Jewish people from genocide is the same law that protects Palestinians, Tutsis, Bosnians, Rohingya, and Darfuris. It protects everyone, or it protects no one.

Israel has invoked the moral authority of “never again” while violating the legal instruments that give that phrase its force. The International Court of Justice has identified evidence of genocidal intent. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants. Amnesty International reviewed 102 official Israeli statements and found 22 constituting direct evidence of genocidal intent.⁴⁸ These are not the words of commentators or activists. They are the words of sitting government ministers, spoken on the record, documented by international legal bodies:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked Amalek — the biblical command to exterminate a people to the last child. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for the “total annihilation” of Gaza. Defence Minister Yoav Gallant called Palestinians “human animals.” President Isaac Herzog declared that there are no innocent civilians. Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza.⁴⁹

You cannot claim “never again” as your moral shield while your own officials use the language of extermination. You cannot invoke the memory of the Holocaust to silence criticism while your government’s own words meet the legal standard for genocidal intent established by the very institutions built in the Holocaust’s aftermath.

The Palestinian right to resist occupation is recognised under international law. General Assembly resolutions have repeatedly affirmed the right of peoples under colonial and foreign domination to struggle for self-determination by all available means, including armed struggle.⁵⁴ The occupied status of Gaza — even after the 2005 withdrawal of settlers — has been affirmed by the UN, the ICJ, and the overwhelming majority of international legal opinion, on the basis that Israel retained effective control over borders, airspace, territorial waters, population registry, and the movement of goods and people.⁵⁵

This does not make everything that happened on the seventh of October 2023 legal. Targeting civilians and taking hostages are war crimes under the Geneva Conventions regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying struggle. The right to resist does not extinguish the obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

But Israel’s response did not distinguish either. And even where a state has a legitimate right to respond in self-defence, that response is subject to the principle of proportionality under international humanitarian law — the requirement that harm to civilians must not be excessive in relation to the concrete military advantage anticipated.⁵⁶ Israel’s campaign has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, destroyed the majority of Gaza’s infrastructure, and produced famine conditions across the territory. This is not a proportionality question with a difficult answer. It is not proportionality at all. It is collective punishment on a scale that multiple international bodies have identified as genocide.

And the context cannot be severed from the response. The people of Gaza had been hemmed inside a wall, subjected to a blockade that controlled their calories, their water, their electricity. They had endured repeated military campaigns that Israeli officials themselves described as “mowing the grass” — periodic operations designed not to resolve the conflict but to degrade Palestinian military capability at regular intervals, accepting civilian casualties as a cost of maintenance. They had been ethnically cleansed when Israel established its state. They lived under conditions that the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and multiple human rights organisations had described as collective punishment — which is prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.⁵⁷

October 7 did not emerge from a vacuum. And Israel’s response — the campaign that the ICJ, the ICC, Amnesty International, and the UN’s own investigators have identified as plausible genocide — was enabled by a single structural mechanism: the United States veto.

The Security Council voted repeatedly on Gaza ceasefire resolutions from October 2023 onwards. The draft resolutions demanded ceasefire, hostage release, and humanitarian access. In vote after vote, all fourteen other members of the Council voted in favour. The United States vetoed them — not to protect American interests, but to shield an ally from accountability while genocide findings accumulated from the very institutions the United States had helped to build.

One nation. One vote. The will of the entire rest of the Council nullified. The legal apparatus activated and then rendered impotent by the nation that authored it.

Iran: When the Victim Becomes the Violator

Iran was subjected to an illegal war. Its right to self-defence under Article 51 — the very provision the United States ignored — is arguably the strongest legal claim any party to this conflict holds. A sovereign nation was attacked without provocation, without Security Council authorisation, during active negotiations, and its leader was assassinated.

And yet.

Iran’s retaliation struck Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — nations that had not attacked Iran. The picture, however, is not as simple as that sentence suggests. According to the Washington Post, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had multiple phone calls with Trump urging him to attack Iran⁵⁸ — while publicly positioning the Kingdom as an advocate for diplomacy and restraint. Saudi Arabia did not fire a shot at Iran. But it lobbied for the war that produced Iran’s retaliation, and it did so behind closed doors while presenting a different face to the region. That is not neutrality. It is treachery. None of which makes Iran’s strikes on Saudi civilian infrastructure legal — but it complicates the narrative of six innocent nations caught in someone else’s war. Iranian missiles and drones hit civilian infrastructure, energy facilities, and residential areas across the Gulf. The strikes killed civilians in six countries. Iran’s attacks on Qatar’s Ras Laffan gas facility — which produces twenty per cent of the world’s liquefied natural gas⁵⁹ — threatened global energy supplies. A projectile struck near the Burj Al Arab hotel in Dubai. Fallen debris damaged residential towers. Eight people were killed in the UAE alone, including civilians.⁶⁰

President Pezeshkian’s position — that Iran targeted “US military bases, not neighbours”⁶¹ — does not survive contact with the casualty figures. Iran claimed it was exercising its right to self-defence against American military assets hosted in neighbouring states. But the distinction between a military base and the country surrounding it collapses when your missiles are killing that country’s civilians and destroying its economic infrastructure. The Saudi foreign minister warned that patience in the Gulf was “not unlimited.”⁶² Qatar condemned the attack on Ras Laffan as “a blatant violation of national sovereignty.” The UAE called the strikes “terrorist attacks.”

The Security Council adopted Resolution 2817, condemning Iran’s “egregious attacks” against its regional neighbours, with 135 co-sponsors. The resolution passed 13 to 0, with two abstentions.⁶³ The condemnation was swift, specific, and nearly unanimous.

But here is what the resolution did not do: it did not condemn the illegal war that triggered Iran’s retaliation. The same Security Council that condemned Iran’s strikes against its neighbours has not held the United States and Israel accountable for the war of aggression that started the entire chain of events. The mechanism that condemned the response was structurally incapable of condemning the cause — because the cause was committed by a permanent member with veto power.

The argument is not that Iran had no right to respond. It is that responding to an illegal war by committing your own violations of international law does not restore the legal order. It confirms its collapse. When the system fails to prevent the initial violation, the victims do not restore the system by responding within it — because the system has already demonstrated that it does not work. They respond outside it. And the collapse accelerates.

Iran’s retaliation proves the thesis of this article. When law dies, everyone becomes a violator.

The Genocides No One Prevented

Since 1945, the world has witnessed genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, and Myanmar — and in most cases, the international community failed to prevent it. The Genocide Convention exists. The institutions exist. The law exists. But the enforcement has been catastrophically selective.

In Rwanda, eight hundred thousand Tutsis were murdered in a hundred days⁶⁴ while the United Nations debated whether to call it genocide — because calling it genocide would have triggered a legal obligation to act. In Bosnia, the massacre at Srebrenica occurred under the protection of UN peacekeepers who stood aside while eight thousand Bosnian Muslim men and boys were executed.⁶⁵ In Darfur, the ICC issued arrest warrants that were never enforced. In Myanmar, the Rohingya were subjected to mass murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing while the Security Council was blocked from action.

Most people are never taught about these genocides in any depth. The public understanding of genocide is distorted — as if it were a historical event that happened once, to one people, and the legal architecture exists to protect that one people alone. It exists to protect everyone. And when it is applied selectively — enforced for some, ignored for others, wielded as a shield by those committing the violations — “never again” becomes the most hollow promise in the history of international law.

Share

The Structural Failure

The evidence is now overwhelming. The question is why the system cannot correct itself. The answer is structural, and it is embedded in the architecture that was supposed to make the system work.

Article 27(3) of the United Nations Charter gives five nations — the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom — the power to veto any substantive resolution of the Security Council. The veto was the compromise that made the UN possible. Without it, the great powers would not have joined, and the institution would have died in the womb as the League of Nations died before it.

But the compromise has become the disease.

The Gaza record is the clearest contemporary illustration. The United States has vetoed Gaza ceasefire resolutions repeatedly since October 2023. In vote after vote, all fourteen other Council members voted in favour. The draft resolutions demanded ceasefire, hostage release, and humanitarian access — demands that were not controversial to any other nation on the Council. One vote blocked them all. One nation, acting alone, prevented the Security Council from fulfilling its mandate to maintain international peace and security — while supplying the weapons used in the campaign those resolutions sought to stop.

The Iran war compounds the indictment. One hundred and thirty-five nations co-sponsored a Security Council resolution on the crisis — the largest co-sponsorship in the history of the institution. The resolution condemned Iran’s retaliatory strikes against its neighbours. It passed. But no resolution has held the United States and Israel accountable for the illegal war of aggression that triggered those strikes — because the United States would veto any such resolution, and everyone knows it. The multilateral framework was not even tested. It was simply bypassed, because the outcome was structurally predetermined.

Russia has used the veto to shield itself from accountability in Ukraine. The United States has used it to shield Israel in Gaza. China has used it to block action on human rights. The pattern is bipartisan and transnational: the veto does not distinguish between legitimate security concerns and naked obstruction of justice. It treats them identically. The powerful are exempt.

The global majority recognises the problem. The France-Mexico initiative — a proposal for voluntary restraint on the veto in situations involving mass atrocity crimes — now has the support of 107 nations.⁶⁶ The ACT Code of Conduct, which urges permanent members to refrain from vetoing action against genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, has 120 signatories.⁶⁷ The 2022 “veto initiative” — General Assembly Resolution 76/262 — automatically triggers an Assembly meeting each time a Security Council veto is cast, ensuring that vetoed resolutions receive public scrutiny.⁶⁸ Seventeen vetoes have triggered seventeen meetings since its adoption.

But the General Assembly can only issue non-binding resolutions. Scrutiny without consequence is not accountability. And the fundamental structural trap remains: amending the UN Charter requires a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly, ratification by two-thirds of member states, and — crucially — the approval of all five permanent members. The veto protects itself. The mechanism that prevents accountability cannot be reformed without the consent of the nations that benefit from its existence.

Any system that gives the accused the power to block their own prosecution is not a legal system. It is an arrangement of power. When the United States vetoes resolutions on Gaza while supplying the weapons used in the campaign those resolutions seek to stop, it is not exercising a safeguard — it is obstructing justice. When Russia vetoes resolutions on Ukraine while occupying Ukrainian territory, it is doing the same thing. The veto does not distinguish between these cases. It was not designed to. It was designed to ensure that the most powerful nations could never be constrained by the institution they created. And it is working exactly as designed.

The defenders of the veto argue that removing it would cause the great powers to leave, collapsing the United Nations as the League of Nations collapsed. But the League did not fail because it constrained the powerful too much. It failed because it could not constrain them at all. The Security Council is now reproducing that failure — not by driving the powerful away, but by allowing them to remain while rendering the institution incapable of acting against them. The result is the same: an international body that cannot fulfil its stated purpose.

Accountability Without Permission

If the Security Council cannot hold the powerful accountable because the powerful control the Security Council, then accountability must be built through mechanisms that do not require their consent.

This is not a utopian proposition. Several of these mechanisms already exist. None of them is sufficient on its own. But the argument that “nothing can be done” is itself a form of complicity — a surrender dressed as realism — and the evidence does not support it.

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza — the first warrants ever issued against the leader of a Western-backed state. Israel rejected the court’s jurisdiction. The United States called the warrants “outrageous” and sanctioned ICC judges and prosecutors. But the warrants stand. The ICC’s appeals chamber upheld them in December 2025, and all 125 member states of the Rome Statute are legally obligated to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter their territory.⁶⁹ Netanyahu’s plane now flies non-standard routes to avoid the airspace of signatory states.⁷⁰ That is not nothing. A sitting prime minister rerouting his flights to avoid arrest is the architecture of accountability functioning — not perfectly, not swiftly, but functioning. The warrants create permanent legal exposure that does not expire and cannot be vetoed.

Universal jurisdiction offers a complementary path. National courts in signatory states can investigate and prosecute international crimes regardless of where they occurred. Belgium opened a judicial investigation into a Belgian-Israeli citizen who served in an IDF sniper unit in Gaza.⁷¹ A group of lawyers filed suit in the United Kingdom accusing ten British nationals of war crimes committed while fighting for the Israeli army.⁷² Spain’s attorney general announced the creation of a task force to investigate violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.⁷³ An Israeli reservist suspected of war crimes had to flee Brazil to avoid arrest.⁷⁴ These are not symbolic gestures. They are legal proceedings in sovereign courts, and they establish the principle that individuals who commit war crimes cannot assume safety outside the conflict zone.

The General Assembly has emerged as an alternative centre of gravity when the Security Council is paralysed. Resolution 76/262 — the veto initiative — automatically triggers an Assembly meeting each time a Security Council veto is cast, ensuring that blocked resolutions receive public debate. The Uniting for Peace mechanism allows the Assembly to recommend collective measures when the Council fails to act. These instruments produce non-binding resolutions, not enforceable orders. But they are norm-setting. They establish, on the record, what the global majority believes the law requires — and they deny the vetoing power the ability to act in silence.

Economic and diplomatic consequences imposed by coalitions of states offer another avenue. The 135 nations that co-sponsored Security Council Resolution 2817 on the Iran crisis demonstrated that the global majority can organise. The question is whether that organisation can translate into material consequences — trade restrictions, diplomatic isolation, suspension from international bodies — outside the Security Council framework. Individual states have already acted: Spain refused the use of its military bases for the Iran war. South Africa brought the genocide case against Israel to the ICJ. Colombia, Chile, and Bolivia severed diplomatic relations with Israel over Gaza. These are not coordinated, and they are not sufficient. But they demonstrate that states are not powerless outside the veto structure.

Domestic accountability remains the most direct mechanism — and the most neglected. The United States Congress has the constitutional power to declare war and the power to refuse to fund one. It exercised neither in Iran. The Senate voted 47 to 53 against requiring presidential authorisation for further military action. The House voted 212 to 219 on a similar measure. These were not landslide defeats. They were narrow failures in which a shift of a handful of votes would have changed the outcome. The judiciary has standing to review executive overreach — though courts have historically been reluctant to intervene in war powers disputes. Citizens have standing to demand that their representatives act. The erosion of congressional war powers is not inevitable. It is a choice, made repeatedly, by elected officials who have decided that the political cost of opposing a war is higher than the constitutional cost of abdicating their responsibility.

And there is a form of accountability that operates on a longer timescale than any of these: the historical record. Nuremberg did not happen during the Second World War. It happened after. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established years after Srebrenica. The documentation being assembled now — by the ICJ, the ICC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN Commission of Inquiry, journalists, and forensic investigators — may not produce consequences today. But it forecloses the possibility of future denial. Every satellite image of a bombed school, every verified civilian casualty count, every recorded statement of genocidal intent by a sitting official, every vetoed resolution in which fourteen nations voted yes and one voted no — these become the evidentiary foundation for accountability that the current political moment cannot deliver but that the future may demand.

The post-war legal order was not built during the war. It was built after, by people who looked at what had happened and decided that it must never happen again. The institutions they created are failing. But the principle that animated them — that power must be accountable to law — is on life support. And the outcome of that test depends not on whether the Security Council reforms itself — it will not, voluntarily — but on whether enough nations, enough courts, enough citizens, and enough institutions are willing to build accountability without waiting for permission from the nations that benefit most from impunity.

What Happens When Law Dies

This is not abstract. When the most powerful nations demonstrate that law is optional, every nation in the system absorbs the lesson.

Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and cited the Kosovo precedent — which the United States had established. The Iran war establishes the precedent that a sufficiently powerful state can launch a war of choice during active negotiations, assassinate a head of state, pursue regime change, bomb civilian infrastructure, and face no institutional consequence. Iran’s retaliation establishes the precedent that a nation under attack can strike six of its neighbours and claim self-defence. Israel’s campaign in Gaza establishes the precedent that genocide findings from the ICJ and ICC can be rendered meaningless by a single veto.

Each precedent feeds the next. Each violation teaches the system that violation is costless. The architecture of accountability does not collapse in a single dramatic failure. It collapses incrementally — as each actor watches the one before it escape consequences, and calibrates accordingly.

The question from the Iran war articles applies at the systemic level: what happens when it is your turn?

The United States will not always be the most powerful nation on earth. The precedents it is setting — that aggressive war is permitted, that the assassination of foreign leaders is acceptable, that international law is a constraint on rivals but not on oneself — will be cited by the next power that decides another nation’s sovereignty is inconvenient. The rules that America is breaking are the rules that were designed to protect America when it is no longer strong enough to protect itself.

Rome did not fall to barbarians at the gates. It fell because it had spent centuries treating its own rules as optional — applying them to its subjects while exempting itself — until the rules meant nothing and there was no structure left to hold the empire together. The post-war order that the United States built in 1945 was designed to prevent precisely this cycle. It worked — imperfectly, inconsistently, with glaring failures and shameful exceptions — but it worked well enough to prevent a third world war for eighty years. What is being tested now is not whether any particular regime survives. It is whether that order survives.

The people who should know are already giving their answer. On the twenty-first of March 2026, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said: “We are witnessing a stage in history taking us back to a world where nothing existed — no international law, no Versailles system, no Yalta system — nothing. A world where might makes right.”⁷⁵ Four days later, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote: “International law is dead in practice — driven by Western double standards on Gaza vs. Ukraine and silence on Israel-US aggression on Iran.”⁷⁶ China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on the international community to oppose “the regression of the world to the law of the jungle.”⁷⁷

These are not neutral observers. Russia is occupying Ukrainian territory. China has its own record on Xinjiang.⁷⁸ Iran has struck six of its neighbours. None of them comes to this argument with clean hands. And that is precisely the point. When even the nations that violate international law are declaring the system dead, it is not propaganda. It is a diagnosis. The order has collapsed so visibly that its own violators feel no need to pretend it still exists.

The Choice

The choice is not between the current system and a perfect one. Perfection was never available. The choice is between a flawed system that constrains power — imperfectly, inconsistently, with shameful exceptions — and no system at all.

The Security Council needs reform. The veto, as currently constituted, is an instrument of impunity, not of peace. The structural trap is real — the veto protects itself — but that does not make the problem unsolvable. It makes it urgent. The longer the current structure stands unreformed, the more precedents accumulate, the more the law is hollowed out, and the harder it becomes to rebuild the consensus that law should govern the conduct of nations at all.

But structural reform is only possible if enough people understand what is at stake. And what is at stake is not an abstraction. It is the difference between a world in which nations are accountable to law and a world in which they are accountable only to power. We have lived in the former, however imperfectly, for eighty years. We are watching, in real time, the transition to the latter. The League of Nations collapsed, and the world got a second war worse than the first. The United Nations was built to ensure there would never be a third. If this order collapses — if the prohibitions on aggressive war, the protections for civilians, the principle that sovereignty means something are allowed to die — then history is not ambiguous about what follows. The architecture that has prevented a third world war for eighty years will be gone, and nothing will have replaced it.

If you believe that laws should govern the conduct of nations, then you must believe it when those laws are inconvenient for the nations you support. If you only value international law when it serves your interests, you do not value international law. You value power. And the historical record is unambiguous about what happens to civilisations that mistake power for law.

They discover, eventually, that the rules they broke were the ones holding them up.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that's how the fire spreads.

Share

If you found this valuable, please support me with a like, share, or Subscribe.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Nuremberg Tribunal, Judgment, 1 October 1946. The full passage: “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

² Charter of the United Nations, signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945. Article 2(4): “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

³ Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ratified by the United States on 2 August 1955.

⁴ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951.

⁵ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 10 December 1948.

⁶ UN Charter, Articles 2(4) and 51. Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

⁷ UN Charter, Article 27(3): “Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members.”

⁸ Estimates of deaths attributable to Stalin’s regime vary widely among historians. Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (Oxford University Press, 1990), estimated approximately twenty million. Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (Basic Books, 2010), provides lower estimates for specific campaigns. The figure remains contested; “an estimated twenty million” reflects the upper range of mainstream scholarly estimates.

⁹ Aristotle, Politics, Book III, Chapter 16.

¹⁰ Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776).

¹¹ Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, Part the First, Article XXX, drafted by John Adams.

¹² Department of Defense, Defense Casualty Analysis System. Total US deaths in the Korean War: 36,574.

¹³ The Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council from January to August 1950 in protest at the refusal to seat the People’s Republic of China. Security Council Resolution 83, adopted 27 June 1950, recommended military assistance to South Korea.

¹⁴ Robert J. Hanyok, “Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2–4 August 1964,” Cryptologic Quarterly, declassified 2005.

¹⁵ Department of Defense, Defense Casualty Analysis System. Total US deaths in the Vietnam War: 58,220.

¹⁶ International Committee of the Red Cross, Report on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and Other Protected Persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq During Arrest, Internment and Interrogation, February 2004.

¹⁷ Congressional testimony and Department of Defense reporting on US involvement in the 2011 Libya intervention.

¹⁸ Saddam Hussein was executed on 30 December 2006 following conviction by the Iraqi High Tribunal for crimes against humanity in the Dujail massacre.

¹⁹ Human Rights Watch, “Judging Dujail: The First Trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal,” November 2006.

²⁰ UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, statements on the Saddam Hussein trial, 2006.

²¹ Muammar Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel fighters during the fall of Sirte on 20 October 2011. The killing was recorded on video.

²² Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CBS News interview, 20 October 2011.

²³ The Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran began in June 2025 with an Israeli surprise attack. House of Commons Library, “US-Israel strikes on Iran: February/March 2026,” research briefing, March 2026.

²⁴ Al Jazeera, “Iran’s FM says deal with US ‘within reach,’” 25 February 2026.

²⁵ CBS News, “U.S.-Iran deal is ‘within our reach,’ Omani mediator says,” 27 February 2026. Al Busaidi disclosed that Iran had committed to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium, irreversible downgrading of existing stockpiles, and full IAEA verification.

²⁶ Senate vote on war powers resolution, 4 March 2026, failed 47 to 53; House vote on similar resolution, 5 March 2026, failed 212 to 219.

²⁷ US President Donald Trump stated that the strikes killed Khamenei and 49 other top Iranian officials. Al Jazeera, CNN, and Reuters, 28 February–1 March 2026.

²⁸ The strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, Hormozgan province, occurred on 28 February 2026. Iranian authorities reported 175 killed; the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights stated victims were mainly girls aged between 7 and 12. CNN, NPR, BBC Verify, TIME, and Al Jazeera investigations, March 2026.

²⁹ Al Jazeera, “Iran war: What is happening on day 16 of US-Israel attacks?” 15 March 2026, citing Tehran’s governor.

³⁰ ABC News, “White House posts so-called ‘hype’ videos combining real Iran war footage alongside movie, video game clips,” 7 March 2026; CNN, “White House posts video about Iran strikes using ‘Call of Duty’ video game footage,” 5 March 2026.

³¹ Al Jazeera, “Iran war: What is happening on day 16 of US-Israel attacks?” 15 March 2026, citing Secretary of War Hegseth.

³² French President Emmanuel Macron, statement, 4 March 2026.

³³ Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected the strikes, refused the use of Spanish military bases, and called the war an escalation. Multiple sources, March 2026.

³⁴ Swiss Defence Minister Martin Pfister, interview with SonntagsZeitung, 8 March 2026. Reuters, “Iran attacks breach international law, Swiss Defence Minister says,” 8 March 2026.

³⁵ Al Jazeera, “UN Security Council adopts resolution condemning Iran’s attacks in the Gulf,” 12 March 2026.

³⁶ European Council on Foreign Relations, “War over law: Europe’s unforced errors over the use of force in Iran,” 12 March 2026.

³⁷ Professor Mohamed Arafa, “No Authorization, No Imminence, No Plan: The Iran Strikes and the Rule of Law,” JURIST, March 2026.

³⁸ IAEA, “Nuclear Safety, Security and Safeguards in Ukraine,” ongoing reporting from September 2022. Director-General Grossi established the Seven Indispensable Pillars of Nuclear Safety in March 2022 and the Five Principles for protecting Zaporizhzhia in May 2023.

³⁹ IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi, statement, 11 August 2024. Arms Control Association, “IAEA Warns of Risks at Russian Nuclear Plant,” September 2024.

⁴⁰ NPR, “Attacks Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant increase accident risk, IAEA head says,” 8 April 2024. Grossi confirmed three direct hits on reactor containment structures.

⁴¹ Al Jazeera, “Iran says US and Israel attacked Natanz nuclear facility,” 21 March 2026.

⁴² IAEA statement on X, 21 March 2026. “No increase in off-site radiation levels reported. IAEA is looking into the report. IAEA Director General reiterates call for military restraint to avoid any risk of a nuclear accident.”

⁴³ World Nuclear News, “’Projectile’ hit 350 metres from Bushehr nuclear reactor — IAEA,” March 2026.

⁴⁴ NucNet, “IAEA’s Grossi Says Iran Nuclear Plant Strike Risks Crossing ‘Reddest Line,’” March 2026. Grossi: “An accident on an operating nuclear power plant would be something very, very serious. This is the reddest line of all.”

⁴⁵ Iran International, “IAEA says no damage at Iran nuclear sites, envoy...,” 2 March 2026. Iran’s ambassador Reza Najafi called on the IAEA to condemn the attacks.

⁴⁶ National Security Archive, “Israeli Attack on Iraq’s Osirak 1981,” George Washington University, 7 June 2021. The IAEA Board of Governors condemned the attack in mid-June 1981; the IAEA General Conference condemned it again in September 1981 and suspended all technical assistance to Israel.

⁴⁷ UN Security Council Resolution 487, adopted unanimously on 19 June 1981, condemning the Israeli strike as “a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct.”

⁴⁸ Amnesty International review of 102 official Israeli statements, finding 22 constituting direct evidence of genocidal intent. Referenced in ICJ proceedings, South Africa v. Israel, 2024.

⁴⁹ The following statements by Israeli officials have been documented by Amnesty International, the ICJ, and multiple international legal bodies: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked Amalek (1 Samuel 15:3) in the context of the Gaza campaign, October 2023. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for the “total annihilation” of Gaza. Defence Minister Yoav Gallant stated on 9 October 2023: “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” President Isaac Herzog stated on 13 October 2023 that there are no innocent civilians. Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza in a radio interview, 5 November 2023.

⁵⁰ See endnote 49.

⁵¹ See endnote 49.

⁵² See endnote 49.

⁵³ See endnote 49.

⁵⁴ UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974); Resolution 37/43 (1982), reaffirming the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for self-determination “by all available means, including armed struggle.”

⁵⁵ ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall, 9 July 2004; ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 19 July 2024. The majority of international legal opinion holds that Gaza remains occupied territory.

⁵⁶ Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), Article 51(5)(b).

⁵⁷ Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, Article 33.

⁵⁸ The Washington Post reported that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had multiple phone calls with Trump urging him to attack Iran. Cited in Wikipedia, “2026 Iran war,” accessed 25 March 2026.

⁵⁹ Al Jazeera, “War enters new phase as Israel attack on Iran gasfield sparks Gulf response,” 19 March 2026.

⁶⁰ Wikipedia, “2026 Iranian strikes on the United Arab Emirates,” citing UAE Ministry of Defence figures, accessed 25 March 2026.

⁶¹ Al Jazeera, “Iran to halt strikes on neighbours unless attacks from there: Pezeshkian,” 7 March 2026.

⁶² Al Jazeera, “Saudi FM warns Iran that patience in Gulf not ‘unlimited’ amid attacks,” 19 March 2026.

⁶³ UN Security Council Resolution 2817 (2026), adopted 13 to 0 with 2 abstentions. UN Meetings Coverage, “Security Council Adopts Resolution 2817 (2026),” March 2026.

⁶⁴ The genocide in Rwanda occurred between April and July 1994. The figure of approximately 800,000 is cited by the United Nations and the Rwandan government.

⁶⁵ The massacre at Srebrenica occurred in July 1995. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia established that approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were executed.

⁶⁶ The France-Mexico Joint Declaration on voluntary restraint of the veto in cases of mass atrocity, presented in 2015. As of 2025, 107 countries support the proposal. UN General Assembly debates on Security Council reform, 2025.

⁶⁷ Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) Code of Conduct. As of January 2020, 120 member states had signed. Security Council Report, “The Veto.”

⁶⁸ UN General Assembly Resolution 76/262, adopted 26 April 2022.

⁶⁹ ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on 21 November 2024 for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Upheld on appeal, 15 December 2025.

⁷⁰ Ynetnews and multiple outlets reported that Netanyahu’s plane flew non-standard routes to avoid airspace of ICC signatory states.

⁷¹ Belgian public prosecutor’s office, investigation into Belgian-Israeli citizen, October 2024. Justice Info, “Justice for Gaza: who is doing what?” November 2025.

⁷² Lawsuit filed in the United Kingdom, April 2025, on behalf of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and the Public Interest Law Center. Justice Info, ibid.

⁷³ Spain’s attorney general, announcement, September 2025. Justice Info, ibid.

⁷⁴ Israeli reservist fled Brazil, January 2025. Justice Info, ibid.

⁷⁵ Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, interview for Looking Back television programme, 21 March 2026. Reported by Anadolu Agency and Türkiye Today.

⁷⁶ Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, post on X, 25 March 2026. Reported by Yeni Şafak and The Hill.

⁷⁷ Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, in phone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. Chinese Foreign Ministry press conference, 2 March 2026.

⁷⁸ UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region,” 31 August 2022. The report concluded that serious human rights violations had been committed which “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”

The Romans of the fourth century still built roads. Not ordinary roads — roads that would outlast every empire that followed, engineered with a precision that would not be matched for a thousand years. The aqueducts still carried water. The legions still marched. The Senate still convened, even as its authority had been hollowed out by emperors who treated it as a rubber stamp. By every visible metric, Rome remained the most powerful civilisation on earth. And it was dying. Not from a single blow — not from any one invasion or any one defeat — but from a slow, structural divergence between the system’s stated purpose and its actual conduct. The roads still worked. The civilisation they served did not.

The British Empire told itself the same story in a different accent. In 1939, Britain ruled a quarter of the earth’s surface and a quarter of its population. Its navy was the most powerful afloat. Its diplomatic influence shaped the policies of nations on every continent. And within two decades, it would shed an empire — India, Palestine, Burma, Malaya, Kenya, Aden — and discover it could no longer project power without American backing. The infrastructure of empire remained. The will — and the moral authority — to sustain it had evaporated. Britain did not lose its empire in a war. It lost the belief that the empire was justified, and without that belief, the machinery could not be sustained.¹

The Soviet Union collapsed not because it ran out of missiles but because it ran out of legitimacy. The parades continued. The cosmonauts launched. The nuclear arsenal remained the largest on earth. But the gap between what the system promised and what it delivered had become so vast that no amount of military hardware could bridge it. When the end came, it came not with an invasion but with a shrug — the recognition, shared by the rulers and the ruled alike, that the system no longer meant what it said. The Cold War was won not by the side with the most weapons but by the side whose narrative could still be believed.²

This is the pattern. Not a dramatic fall but a slow rot, concealed behind metrics that no longer measure what matters. Military spending remains high. GDP continues to grow. The technology advances. And the civilisation behind it — the agreement about what the power is for, the shared understanding of what is permissible and what is not — erodes so gradually that the people inside it mistake the persistence of the machinery for the persistence of the meaning.

Part I of this series told the story of how the United States built the post-war international order and why its foundation was always cracked — by Manifest Destiny, by American Exceptionalism, by the unreconciled gap between the nation’s stated ideals and its actual history. This article examines what happens when the crack becomes a chasm. When the nation that wrote the rules begins breaking them so openly that the entire system loses its legitimacy. When the institutions designed to restrain the powerful activate only when it is convenient for the powerful. When the evidence is not abstract but specific — dated, sourced, and visible in the wreckage of nuclear power plants, the rubble of universities, and the bodies of journalists killed in numbers that exceed every major war in modern history combined.

The machinery still runs. The civilisation it was built to serve is collapsing.

The Rules-for-Thee Order

On 11 August 2022, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, addressed the United Nations Security Council to warn that the situation at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant had become “very alarming.”³ Russian forces had occupied the facility — Europe’s largest nuclear power plant — and shelling in and around the site had caused explosions near the electrical switchboard and triggered a power shutdown. “These military actions near such a large nuclear facility could lead to very serious consequences,” Grossi told the Council.⁴

The gravity of the warning was matched by the speed of the response. The international system — the system America had built for precisely this kind of moment — activated with a coordination that seemed to vindicate every institution, every treaty, every norm established since 1945.

More than forty nations issued a joint statement condemning Russia’s actions at Zaporizhzhia.⁵ The IAEA Board of Governors convened an emergency session and passed a resolution — twenty-six votes in favour, two against — demanding that Russia “immediately cease all actions against, and at, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and any other nuclear facility in Ukraine.”⁶ The Security Council held urgent meetings. The American Nuclear Society declared it “unjustifiable for a civil nuclear facility to be used as a military base or be targeted in a military operation.”⁷ Grossi established five explicit principles for the protection of nuclear facilities during armed conflict — no attacks on or from the plant, no heavy weapons stored on site, no threats to off-site power, full protection of essential safety systems, and no action that could undermine these commitments.⁸ NATO condemned Russia. The European Union condemned Russia. Every lever of the international architecture was pulled, every institutional voice raised, every mechanism of collective disapproval deployed. And rightly so. The threat of a nuclear accident at Zaporizhzhia was real. The shelling of a nuclear facility in an active war zone was genuinely dangerous. The international response was proportionate, grounded in law, and precisely what the post-war system was designed to do: mobilise the collective authority of nations to restrain behaviour that endangered the world.

It was the system working. It was the system proving that the rules mattered. It was the system demonstrating that no nation, however powerful, could threaten nuclear safety without facing the unified condemnation of the international community.

Now hold that response in your mind. Hold all of it — the forty-nation statement, the Board resolution, the five principles, the emergency sessions, the universal condemnation. Hold the speed with which the machinery activated, the moral clarity of the language, the institutional certainty that this was unacceptable. Hold it. And compare it to what followed.

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a bombing campaign against Iran.⁹

It was not the first time. Eight months earlier, Israel had struck Iran’s nuclear facilities and assassinated its scientists, drawing the United States into direct bombardment days later.¹⁰ The international institutions had already been tested — and had already failed. The February 2026 campaign was a repetition, launched with the confidence that comes from knowing no one will act.

Over the following four weeks, US-Israeli airstrikes struck the Natanz uranium enrichment facility — multiple times. Satellite imagery confirmed damage to entrance buildings of the underground fuel enrichment plant.¹¹ They struck the Bushehr nuclear power plant — at least three times.¹² They bombed the Arak heavy water research reactor. They hit a yellowcake production plant in Yazd province.¹³ These were not military installations commandeered by an occupying force, as at Zaporizhzhia. These were safeguarded civilian nuclear facilities in a sovereign nation — facilities that the IAEA itself had been monitoring for years.

And what had the IAEA found? On 2 March 2026, four days into the bombing campaign, Grossi told the IAEA Board of Governors: “We don’t see a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons.”¹⁴ The following day, CNN asked him directly whether Iran was “days or weeks away from building a bomb.” His answer: “No.”¹⁵

The pretext for the strikes — that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat — was contradicted by the agency charged with verifying exactly that claim. The Arms Control Association concluded that “this is a war of choice, waged in violation of international law and without the necessary approval from Congress.”¹⁶ And the diplomacy had been working. Just days before the strikes began, Oman’s Foreign Minister, Badr Al-Busaidi, announced that a “breakthrough” had been reached — Iran had agreed to never stockpile enriched uranium and to submit to full IAEA verification. The deal, he said, was “within reach.” After the bombing began, Al-Busaidi said he was “dismayed” that “active and serious negotiations” had been undermined.¹⁷

The legal case against the strikes was clear. The evidentiary basis was absent. The diplomatic alternative had been abandoned. And the institutional response — the response of the same system that had mobilised with such speed and moral clarity for Zaporizhzhia — was silence.

No IAEA Board resolution demanding the United States and Israel cease strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. No forty-nation joint statement condemning the attacks. No Security Council resolution — not even a draft. No emergency principles for the protection of Iranian nuclear sites. No institutional declaration that bombing safeguarded nuclear facilities was “unjustifiable.” The same Rafael Grossi who had warned the Security Council that actions at Zaporizhzhia were “very alarming” and could lead to “very serious consequences” now merely “urged restraint” and “reiterated his call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint.”¹⁸

Russia condemned the strikes as “a blatant violation of international law.”¹⁹ The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons warned that “striking nuclear installations is explicitly banned under international law and risks causing radioactive contamination harmful to human health and the environment.”²⁰ The World Health Organisation began preparing for the “worst-case scenario” of a nuclear catastrophe.²¹ But the Western institutions — the ones that had built the rules, funded the agencies, drafted the resolutions, and demanded compliance from Russia — produced a silence so complete that it constituted its own kind of statement.

The statement was this: the rules apply to our enemies. They do not apply to us.

This is not hypocrisy in the ordinary political sense. Politicians have always been hypocritical. This is something more structural — a system designed to function as universal law revealing itself to be a tool of selective enforcement. The institutions are not broken. They are not dysfunctional. They are not paralysed by bureaucratic incompetence. They work. They work swiftly, decisively, and with full moral authority — when the violator is an adversary of the West. They go silent when the violator is the West. The immune system has not failed. It has made a choice. It recognises the virus as self, and it refuses to attack it.

The implications extend far beyond the Middle East. The entire post-war international order was built on a premise — the necessary fiction, if you prefer — that the rules applied to everyone. That no nation was above the law. That the system America built would constrain America as much as it constrained anyone else. That fiction held for eighty years, not because it was true — anyone paying attention to the history of American foreign policy knows it was never entirely true — but because enough people believed in it, or at least in the aspiration behind it, to give the system legitimacy. That legitimacy is now dead. Not wounded. Not weakened. Dead. Because every nation on earth can see what happened. Every foreign minister, every military planner, every government that once calibrated its behaviour against the rules of the international order now knows that the rules are a function of power, not principle. And once that becomes visible — once the pretence collapses — the system does not recover. Legitimacy, unlike military capability, cannot be rebuilt by force.

Share

The Bombardment of Civilisation

To understand what is being destroyed in the current war, stop thinking about it as a war and start thinking about it as a targeting list.

Wars destroy military infrastructure. That is their nature and, within the laws of armed conflict, their legal scope. But what is being destroyed in Iran is not military infrastructure. It is the infrastructure of civilisation itself — the physical and institutional systems that allow a society of ninety million people to function as a society rather than as a collection of individuals struggling to survive.

Nuclear power plants — the facilities that generate electricity for cities, hospitals, and water treatment systems. Universities — the institutions that produce the scientists, engineers, doctors, and teachers on whom a modern society depends. Museums — the repositories of a civilisation’s memory, the physical evidence of who a people are and where they came from. Schools — the places where the next generation learns to read, to reason, to participate in civic life. Hospitals — the facilities that keep people alive. Steel factories — the industrial backbone of a modern economy. Oil refineries and desalination plants — the systems that provide energy and clean water. The Iranian Red Crescent — the humanitarian organisation tasked with helping the wounded and displaced.

By late March 2026, the scale of destruction was staggering. Iranian officials reported that US-Israeli strikes had damaged at least one hundred and twenty museums and historical sites across the country.²² More than six hundred schools and universities had been damaged or destroyed — including Malek Ashtar University in Tehran, which the Israeli military described as a research and development facility, ignoring the thousands of civilian students and academics who studied and worked there.²³ Two of Iran’s largest steel factories — the Khuzestan Steel facility and the Mobarakeh Steel complex in Isfahan — had been destroyed.²⁴ Oil, gas, and desalination infrastructure had been targeted across the country. On 28 March 2026, US-Israeli forces struck a major water source in the city of Haftgel, in Iran’s western Khuzestan province.²⁵ Water. The most elementary requirement of human survival. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibits attacking “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” including “drinking water installations and supplies.”²⁶ The nation that drafted those conventions was now violating them.

More than nineteen hundred people had been killed and twenty thousand injured in Iran since the campaign began on 28 February.²⁷ In Lebanon, Israeli strikes killed over eleven hundred people in the same period, including one hundred and twenty-two children and forty-two health workers.²⁸ The head of the Iranian Red Crescent delegation, Maria Martinez, told a United Nations press briefing that paramedics trying to rescue survivors from the rubble of buildings flattened by US-Israeli strikes had discovered the bodies of their own family members.²⁹ Consider what that means. Not as a statistic, but as a human reality. A paramedic crawls into the wreckage of a collapsed building, searching for survivors, and finds his own brother. His own mother. His own child. This is not a side effect of the war. This is the war. This is what the targeting list produces when it is applied to a civilian population — not military advantage but human devastation so intimate that the people sent to rescue the victims become the victims.

And this war — this campaign of civilisational destruction — was launched without the authorisation of the United States Congress. The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the President to obtain congressional approval within sixty days of committing US forces to hostilities. The United Nations Charter, which the United States drafted and ratified, prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation. Neither condition was met. The Arms Control Association concluded bluntly: “This is a war of choice, waged in violation of international law and without the necessary approval from Congress.”³⁰ The nation that wrote the War Powers Act is violating the War Powers Act. The nation that drafted the UN Charter is defying the UN Charter. The architect is not just demolishing the building. He is demolishing it with his own tools, in full view of the world, and daring anyone to stop him.

And perhaps the most revealing detail of all is not what is being destroyed but how the destruction is being packaged. In March 2026, the White House launched a mobile application — promoted across its official social media channels — that provided real-time content related to ongoing military operations.³¹ War as content. Military operations as something to watch on your phone, between checking the weather and scrolling through social media. In 1987, the film The Running Man depicted a dystopian society so desensitised that murder had become televised entertainment. It was science fiction — a dark satire, an exaggeration so extreme it felt absurd. Now the government of the United States is packaging its war for public consumption on an app, and a former mayor and federal prosecutor — Rudy Giuliani — posts “MUST WATCH VIDEO” on social media, framing Iranian civilian casualties as content to be consumed, while universities in Tehran are being bombed.³² The distance between the dystopia and the reality has collapsed. The state has adopted the pathology of the algorithm — packaging violence for engagement, treating war as a product, and measuring success not in legal or moral terms but in views.

This is not collateral damage. Collateral damage is the unintended consequence of strikes against legitimate military targets. What this targeting list reveals is something different: the systematic degradation of a civilian population’s capacity to sustain itself as a functioning society. When you bomb a nuclear power plant, you do not just damage a building — you threaten the electricity supply of millions. When you bomb a university, you do not just destroy a campus — you destroy the institution that produces the next generation of doctors and engineers. When you bomb a water source, you do not just hit a pipe — you threaten the survival of everyone who depends on it. When you livestream it on an app, you do not just broadcast a war — you normalise the destruction of civilisation as entertainment. The cumulative effect is not military advantage. It is civilisational destruction — the reduction of a modern society to a pre-industrial condition in which the population’s energy is consumed entirely by the struggle to survive, witnessed by a global audience that has been trained to consume it as content.

And there is one category of target that deserves particular attention, because it reveals not just a disregard for the laws of war but a systematic effort to eliminate the people whose job it is to tell the world what is happening.

Since 7 October 2023, Israel has killed more journalists than any government in the recorded history of press freedom monitoring. The numbers are not contested. They are documented by every credible press freedom organisation on earth, and they are staggering.

As of 28 March 2026, the Committee to Protect Journalists documented at least two hundred and fifty-nine journalists and media workers killed across Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Israel, and Iran since the war began.³³ That figure reflects CPJ’s conservative methodology, which requires individual verification of each death. Broader aggregations — drawing on CPJ, the International Federation of Journalists, and other monitoring bodies — placed the number killed by Israel at up to two hundred and seventy-four by August 2025, with two hundred and sixty-nine of them Palestinian.³⁴ The true number is almost certainly higher than either count.

To grasp the scale of this, consider a finding from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University: the war in Gaza alone has killed more journalists than the combined total killed during the United States Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War — including related conflicts in Cambodia and Laos — the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s and early 2000s, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan.³⁵ Every major conflict in modern American history — combined — did not produce as many journalist deaths as the Israeli military has produced in Gaza in under three years.

That statistic deserves to be read again, because the mind instinctively resists it. Every major American war. Combined. Fewer journalists killed than in Gaza alone.

The pattern is consistent and documented across years. In 2023, nearly seventy-five per cent of all journalists killed worldwide were Palestinians killed in Israel’s war on Gaza.³⁶ In both 2024 and 2025, Israel was responsible for two-thirds of all journalist deaths globally.³⁷ Reporters Without Borders declared Israel the biggest killer and “the worst enemy” of journalists of 2025, with nearly half of all journalists killed that year murdered by the Israeli military.³⁸ The CPJ stated that Israel is “engaging in the deadliest and most deliberate effort to kill and silence journalists that CPJ has ever documented.”³⁹ Israeli airstrikes damaged or destroyed at least forty-eight media facilities in Gaza.⁴⁰ Reporters Without Borders filed complaints with the International Criminal Court. UNESCO awarded its 2024 World Press Freedom Prize to the Palestinian journalists of Gaza — many of them already dead when the award was announced.

This is not collateral damage. This is not the incidental cost of urban warfare. This is a pattern sustained over years, escalating in scale, documented by every independent monitoring body, and producing a kill rate against journalists that has no precedent in the history of armed conflict.

And the pattern extended into the current war. On 28 March 2026, Lebanese journalist Fatima Ftouni was killed by an Israeli strike. At the beginning of the month, she had reported live on air on Israel killing seven members of her own family. Then she was killed herself. She was not embedded with a militia. She was not at a military installation. She was a journalist, doing the thing that journalists do — telling the world what she saw. And she was killed for it, weeks after reporting the murder of her own family.⁴¹

The same day, Israeli soldiers detained a CNN crew in the occupied West Bank and put a journalist in a chokehold.⁴² An American news crew. From the network of the nation co-conducting the war. Physically assaulted and detained for the act of reporting. If this is what happens to a CNN journalist in full view of the camera, what happens to the Palestinian and Lebanese reporters with no institutional protection, no Western passport, no global network to raise the alarm?

Kill the journalists and you kill the evidence. Without evidence, there is no accountability. Without accountability, there is no restraint. Without restraint, there is no law. And without law, what remains is not civilisation. It is power — unwitnessed, unaccountable, and unconstrained — doing whatever it wishes to whoever it wishes, and calling it security.

Share

The Emboldening

When the enforcer becomes the violator, the system of enforcement does not merely weaken. It inverts. The rules that once constrained behaviour begin to license it — because if the most powerful nation on earth can violate them without consequence, then the rules have become evidence of what is permissible, not what is prohibited.

But before examining how the collapse radiates outward, it is worth understanding the internal mechanics that made it possible — because the United States did not arrive at this point by accident. It arrived here through the logic of overstretch, the same logic that has preceded every imperial decline in recorded history.

America’s global military footprint is, by any measure, the most extensive in human history. The United States maintains approximately seven hundred and fifty military bases in at least eighty countries.⁴³ Its defence budget exceeds that of the next nine nations combined.⁴⁴ Its navy operates eleven aircraft carrier strike groups — more than the rest of the world’s navies put together.⁴⁵ This is not strength in the traditional sense. It is overextension — the commitment of resources to maintaining a global posture that was designed for the Cold War and has never been meaningfully reduced. Every base requires funding. Every deployment requires logistics. Every commitment creates an expectation that must be honoured or abandoned at the cost of credibility. The system does not scale back gracefully. It either sustains itself at ever-increasing cost or it fractures — and the fractures appear not where the system is weakest but where the gap between commitment and capacity is widest.

The economic dimension compounds the military one. The United States dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency has allowed America to fund its global posture by borrowing at rates no other nation could sustain. But reserve currency status is not a law of nature. It is a function of trust — and trust, like legitimacy, erodes when behaviour diverges from expectation. The weaponisation of the dollar through sanctions, the seizure of sovereign assets, and the willingness to use financial infrastructure as a tool of coercion have accelerated the search for alternatives. The expansion of BRICS, the growth of bilateral currency agreements that bypass the dollar, and the quiet diversification of central bank reserves are not signs of a conspiracy against America. They are the predictable response of a world that has watched the referee become a player and concluded that the game is rigged.⁴⁶

And institutional capture — the process by which the interests that benefit from expansion come to dominate the institutions that are supposed to govern it — has rendered self-correction nearly impossible. The defence industry, the intelligence community, the network of think tanks and policy institutes funded by defence contractors, the revolving door between government and the private sector — these are not aberrations of the system. They are the system. They ensure that the logic of expansion is never seriously questioned, that every conflict generates a constituency for the next conflict, and that the machinery of empire continues to run long after the civilisational purpose it was built to serve has been forgotten.

This is the internal condition. And it explains why the external behaviour has become so reckless — because a system captured by the logic of its own expansion cannot restrain itself. It can only expand until the cost exceeds the capacity, and then it breaks. The question is not whether the break will come but what it will look like when it does.

Externally, the effects are already visible. The erosion of American moral authority does not stay contained within one society. It radiates outward, because international order is not maintained by treaties alone. It is maintained by expectation — the shared understanding, held by governments and populations alike, that certain behaviours will be met with certain consequences. When those consequences fail to materialise for the most powerful actor in the system, the expectation collapses for everyone.

Russia did not invade Ukraine in a vacuum. It invaded after watching two decades of selective enforcement. The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 without Security Council authorisation, on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and faced no institutional consequences.⁴⁷ NATO intervened in Libya in 2011 under a Security Council resolution authorising civilian protection, then exceeded the mandate to pursue regime change — and faced no institutional consequences.⁴⁸ The Saudi-led coalition waged war in Yemen for years with US and UK logistical support and arms sales, bombing weddings and school buses and hospitals, and faced no institutional consequences.⁴⁹ The lesson was not subtle. The lesson was that international law is a function of power. That the rules constrain the weak and excuse the strong. That the system will mobilise against you if you are Russia, but not if you are America or its allies.

Russia learned the lesson. Its invasion of Ukraine was many things — illegal, brutal, catastrophic — but it was not irrational. It was the behaviour of a state that had observed, for twenty years, that the rules-based order was a rules-for-thee order, and decided to act accordingly.⁵⁰

China has drawn the same conclusion. Its construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea, its rejection of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s 2016 ruling in favour of the Philippines, its imposition of the National Security Law on Hong Kong in 2020, its escalating military posture toward Taiwan — these are the actions of a rising power that has watched the incumbent power exempt itself from its own rules and concluded that the rules are instruments of control, not principles of governance.⁵¹ China does not need to defeat the American-led order militarily. It only needs to wait for the order to discredit itself — which it is doing, in real time, with every bomb that falls on a safeguarded nuclear facility and every journalist killed without consequence.

And the emboldening does not stop with great powers. It cascades downward. When Israel can bomb nuclear plants and kill journalists at historically unprecedented rates without facing institutional sanction, every regional power receives the same signal. When the United States can launch a war without congressional authorisation and the institutions designed to prevent exactly that remain silent, every aspiring power takes note. The restraint that characterised the post-war order — imperfect, inconsistent, but real enough to shape behaviour — dissolves. Not because the rules have been formally repealed, but because everyone can see that they are no longer enforced.

The physics of power abhors a vacuum. When the enforcer of the international order delegitimises itself, the order does not simply fade. It invites replacement — not by a better system, because there is no better system waiting in the wings, but by the raw logic of competition among powers unconstrained by any shared framework. This is not a new world order. This is the old world disorder — the pre-1945 reality of great-power competition with no referee — returning because the referee has decided that the rules apply to everyone except himself.

The post-war system was never perfect. It was hypocritical, selectively enforced, and weighted toward the interests of its architects. But it was something. It provided a framework — however flawed — within which the weak had at least some protection from the strong, and the strong had at least some incentive to restrain themselves. What is replacing it is not a reformed system or a more equitable order. What is replacing it is nothing. A void. And into that void will flow the oldest forces in human politics: competition, domination, and the logic of the strongest.

Part I asked how the indispensable nation became the demolition crew. This article has documented what the demolition looks like: an institutional architecture that functions only against the enemies of its architect. Laws of armed conflict invoked for Zaporizhzhia and abandoned for Natanz. Civilian infrastructure — universities, hospitals, water systems, nuclear power plants — destroyed by the nation that wrote the rules protecting them. Journalists killed at a rate that exceeds every major conflict in modern history, their deaths met not with institutional action but with institutional silence. And the war itself packaged as content — livestreamed on an app, promoted by former prosecutors as must-watch entertainment — while the nation that launched it did so in violation of its own War Powers Act and the UN Charter it wrote.

The evidence is specific. It is dated. It is sourced. And it is damning.

But the evidence, devastating as it is, remains the symptom. The institutions did not fail on their own. The laws did not violate themselves. The targeting lists were not generated by machines operating without human direction. Behind every one of these decisions — the decision to bomb a nuclear plant, the decision to strike a water source, the decision to kill a journalist, the decision to remain silent when the rules are broken — there is a human being. A person with a conscience, or without one. A leader who chose power over principle, or a population that allowed it.

The disease is not institutional. It is human. It lives in the erosion of individual conscience — the slow, infectious process by which a society loses the capacity to distinguish between what it can do and what it should do, between capability and morality, between strength and civilisation. Part I described how the myth of the indispensable nation was built and why it was always fragile. This article has documented how the system that myth sustained is being dismantled — from the inside, by its own architects, in full view of the world.

Part III goes to the root. To the question of what is happening to the people — not the institutions, not the governments, but the people — inside a civilisation that is losing its conscience. To the zombie virus of public discourse. To the social media platforms that reward cruelty and punish decency. To the erasure of empathy in the public square. To the question that sits beneath all the evidence documented here: can a civilisation that has lost its conscience recover it? Or is what we are watching terminal?

When you lose what it means to be civilised, you have no civilisation.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

The Decline of Western Civilisation is part of a three part series. Part II of this series is scheduled to release June 30, 2026.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Britain’s post-war loss of empire was driven by economic exhaustion, the rise of anti-colonial nationalism, and the loss of moral authority to sustain imperial rule. The Suez Crisis of 1956 is often cited as the moment when British imperial decline became undeniable.

² The Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991 was preceded by years of economic stagnation, political delegitimisation, and the failure of reform efforts under Gorbachev.

³ Rafael Grossi, Director General of the IAEA, statement to the United Nations Security Council, 11 August 2022.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Joint Statement on the situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, issued on behalf of forty-two-plus nations, 12 August 2022. Published by the European External Action Service (EEAS).

⁶ IAEA Board of Governors resolution, 15 September 2022. Passed 26-2 (Russia and China voting against), with seven abstentions.

⁷ American Nuclear Society statement, August 2022.

⁸ Grossi presented five principles for the protection of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant to the Security Council on 30 May 2023.

⁹ US-Israeli strikes on Iran commenced 28 February 2026.

¹⁰ Israel launched strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, military sites, and nuclear scientists on 13 June 2025. The United States joined the bombardment on 21–22 June 2025, using B-2 bombers and massive ordnance penetrators against underground enrichment facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. A ceasefire was announced on 24 June 2025. See Arms Control Association, “Israel and U.S. Strike Iran’s Nuclear Program,” July 2025.

¹¹ IAEA confirmed damage at entrance buildings to the underground Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant, 3 March 2026. Further strikes on Natanz reported 21 March 2026. Al Jazeera, 3 March and 21 March 2026.

¹² Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation reported Bushehr nuclear power plant struck on 28 March 2026, the third such attack in recent days. CNN, 28 March 2026.

¹³ Bloomberg, 28 March 2026: US and Israeli airstrikes targeted the Arak heavy water reactor and a yellowcake production plant in Yazd province.

¹⁴ IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, statement to IAEA Board of Governors emergency session, 2 March 2026.

¹⁵ Grossi, CNN interview, 3 March 2026.

¹⁶ Arms Control Association, “Did Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Programs Pose an Imminent Threat? No.” March 2026.

¹⁷ Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi, 27 February 2026. Arms Control Association, March 2026.

¹⁸ Grossi, IAEA statement, 2 March 2026.

¹⁹ Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, statement on Natanz strikes. Al Jazeera, 21 March 2026.

²⁰ International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), statement by Executive Director Melissa Parke, 21 March 2026.

²¹ World Health Organisation preparations for nuclear catastrophe scenarios reported via UN News and CNN, March 2026.

²² Iranian officials, reported via Al Jazeera, 27 March 2026: 120+ museums and historical sites damaged.

²³ The Israeli military announced it struck a research and development facility at Malek Ashtar University in Tehran. Al Jazeera, 21 March 2026. Total schools and universities damaged: 600+, per Iranian officials via Al Jazeera, 27 March 2026.

²⁴ Bloomberg, 28 March 2026: the Khuzestan Steel facility and the Mobarakeh Steel complex in Isfahan were struck. Al Jazeera, 27 March 2026.

²⁵ Al Jazeera, citing Iran’s Fars news agency and a local security official, 28 March 2026.

²⁶ Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Article 54.

²⁷ Iranian Red Crescent, reported via CNN, 28 March 2026: at least 1,900 killed and 20,000 injured since 28 February.

²⁸ Lebanese Ministry of Health, reported via UN News, 22 March 2026: 1,142 killed and 3,315 injured from Israeli strikes since 2 March, including 122 children and 42 health workers.

²⁹ Iranian Red Crescent delegation head Maria Martinez, UN press briefing, 28 March 2026.

³⁰ Arms Control Association, March 2026. The War Powers Act (War Powers Resolution of 1973, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548) requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without congressional authorisation. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state except in self-defence (Article 51) or with Security Council authorisation (Chapter VII).

³¹ The White House launched a mobile application in March 2026, promoted across official social media accounts, providing real-time content related to ongoing military operations.

³² Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani), X post, March 2026: “MUST WATCH VIDEO: Iran continues to target Israeli civilian areas with cluster bombs.” Posted while US-Israeli strikes were hitting universities and civilian infrastructure in Tehran.

³³ Committee to Protect Journalists, as of 28 March 2026: at least 259 journalists and media workers killed across Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Israel, and Iran since the war began.

³⁴ Aggregated data from CPJ, the International Federation of Journalists, and other monitoring bodies, by 11 August 2025: Israel had killed up to 274 journalists, with 269 of them Palestinian. The higher figure reflects a broader counting methodology than CPJ’s individual verification standard. CPJ’s own figure for the same period was 192 (as of 10 August 2025). The United Nations placed its count at 242 by the same date.

³⁵ Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University. The report found that the war in Gaza since 7 October 2023 led to the deaths of more journalists than the combined total killed during the US Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Yugoslav Wars, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan.

³⁶ Committee to Protect Journalists, annual report, February 2024: nearly 75% of the 99 journalists killed worldwide in 2023 died in the Israel-Gaza war.

³⁷ CPJ annual report, February 2026: Israel was responsible for two-thirds of all press killings in both 2025 and 2024.

³⁸ Reporters Without Borders, December 2025: declared Israel the biggest killer and “the worst enemy” of journalists of 2025.

³⁹ Committee to Protect Journalists: Israel is “engaging in the deadliest and most deliberate effort to kill and silence journalists that CPJ has ever documented.”

⁴⁰ CPJ and multiple international press freedom organisations: 48 media facilities damaged or destroyed in Gaza. UNESCO awarded its 2024 World Press Freedom Prize to the Palestinian journalists of Gaza.

⁴¹ Fatima Ftouni, Lebanese journalist, killed by Israeli strike, 28 March 2026. At the beginning of March she had reported live on air on Israel killing seven members of her own family.

⁴² Israeli soldiers detained a CNN crew in the West Bank; a journalist was put in a chokehold during the incident. 28 March 2026.

⁴³ David Vine, Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (Metropolitan Books, 2015). Updated figures from the Department of Defense’s annual Base Structure Report.

⁴⁴ Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Military Expenditure Database, April 2025. In 2024, the United States spent $997 billion on defence, exceeding the combined military expenditure of the next nine largest spenders. SIPRI’s definition is broader than the US Department of Defense budget alone, including military pensions and some international affairs expenditure.

⁴⁵ The United States Navy operates eleven nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (ten Nimitz-class and one Gerald R. Ford-class). No other navy operates more than two. US Naval Institute; Department of Defense.

⁴⁶ The expansion of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and new members from 2024) and the growth of bilateral currency agreements bypassing the US dollar reflect a broader trend of de-dollarisation driven in part by the weaponisation of the dollar through sanctions and asset seizures.

⁴⁷ The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 proceeded without UN Security Council authorisation. No weapons of mass destruction were found.

⁴⁸ NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011, authorised under UNSC Resolution 1973 for civilian protection, was widely criticised for exceeding its mandate through regime change.

⁴⁹ The Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen (2015–present) was conducted with US and UK logistical and arms support despite widespread documentation of strikes on civilian targets, including the Dahyan school bus attack of August 2018 that killed forty children.

⁵⁰ This is not a defence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which violated international law and has caused immense suffering. It is an observation about the strategic logic that informed the decision.

⁵¹ China’s rejection of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s July 2016 ruling in Philippines v. China and its imposition of the National Security Law on Hong Kong on 30 June 2020 are consistent with a rising power testing the limits of a selectively enforced order.

The Metropolitan Police declared the Golders Green stabbings a terrorist incident the same evening.⁸ Commissioner Mark Rowley’s characterisation of the suspect as having “a history of serious violence and mental health issues” was, on examination of the public record, an understatement. In January 2008, Suleiman — then 27 years old, in Swindon — had attacked Police Constable Neil Sampson, who had been called to a knife incident at a nearby property. Suleiman stabbed the officer multiple times in the head, face and leg with what was reported to be a bread knife, and also wounded the officer’s police dog, Anya. Sampson required five months off work to recover. Suleiman was sentenced to nine years for grievous bodily harm. The sentencing judge, Douglas Field, described Suleiman as having committed “three episodes of grave violence” in a single incident: an initial attack on a man at the flat where Suleiman was staying, the attack on PC Sampson, and the attack on the police dog. The court was told Suleiman had previous convictions for assaults on police officers.⁹ He was a British national, born in Somalia, who came to the United Kingdom as a child in the early 1990s. He was referred to the government’s Prevent counter-extremism programme in 2020. The referral was closed the same year.¹⁰ The Met did not say why. A psychiatric evaluation is expected to be central to the judicial proceedings now under way.

This is not the profile of a state-sponsored terror operative. It is the profile of a man with documented severe mental illness, a long history of extreme violence including the near-murder of a police officer, who had been sectioned and recently released, who was under active NHS mental health care up until the days before the rampage, and whom the state had repeatedly failed. The first person he attacked on 29 April 2026 was not a Jewish stranger in the street but a Muslim friend in a flat in south London. The Golders Green stabbings were the second and third stops of a rampage by a man whose violence on Wednesday began with someone he had known for years.

By Friday morning, the Crown Prosecution Service had authorised the charges. Three counts of attempted murder under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, one for each of Suleiman’s three victims that day: Ishmail Hussein, the Muslim friend in Southwark; and the two Jewish men in Golders Green, Shloime Rand and Moshe Shine. One count of possession of a bladed article. No charges under terrorism legislation. The case was assigned to the CPS Counter Terrorism Division — the division that prosecutes terrorism cases — but the charges themselves were ordinary violent-crime charges.¹¹ The state’s most senior prosecuting authority, with the full file in front of it, did not bring terrorism charges. It brought attempted murder. The same indictment that names the two Jewish victims also names the Muslim victim. The British state’s own charging document records what the British state’s own political class is now framing as antisemitic terror as something different: three counts of attempted murder, against three victims of a single rampage, by a man whose mental illness is the only motive on the public record.

Within hours of the video appearing online, the Green Party leader Zack Polanski — himself Jewish, and a member of the London Assembly that holds responsibility for overseeing the Metropolitan Police — reposted a comment describing the footage as showing officers “repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head” while he was already incapacitated. Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, publicly responded that he was “disappointed” by Polanski’s post and called it “inaccurate and misinformed.”¹² The Prime Minister, the same week, described Polanski as “disgraceful” and “not fit to lead any political party.” Within forty-eight hours Polanski had apologised for “sharing a tweet in haste,” conceding that it had not been appropriate, while maintaining that the police “should not be above scrutiny.” The video was on the public record. The Commissioner’s response was not a correction of the facts shown in the footage. It was an attack on a Jewish member of the body responsible for police oversight for noticing them. The Spectator, the same day, published a defence of the police conduct under the headline “Zack Polanski’s shameful reaction to the Golders Green arrest” — framing his sharing of the post as “an absurd framing of events, focusing on the terror suspect’s supposed victimhood rather than the danger he posed to officers and the public.”¹³ That, too, is part of the record of Wednesday and Thursday — the speed with which a man’s mental illness was rewritten into the language of terror, and the speed with which dissent from that rewriting was named as the offence.

That distinction did not appear in the Prime Minister’s speech at Downing Street on Thursday 30 April. By the time Sir Keir Starmer stood in front of the cameras at 10 Downing Street, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre had raised the United Kingdom’s national threat level from “substantial” to “severe” — the second-highest tier, meaning a terrorist attack is “highly likely.”¹⁴ A COBRA meeting had been convened.¹⁵ The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, had described antisemitism as “an emergency” and “the top security issue” she faced.¹⁶ £25 million had been pledged for additional police presence around synagogues, schools and community centres.¹⁷ Fast-track legislation had been announced to allow the prosecution of people acting as proxies of state-sponsored groups, with Iran specifically named.¹⁸ New powers had been promised to shut down charities promoting “antisemitic extremism,” to bar “hate preachers” from the country, from campuses, from streets and from communities. The courts would speed up sentencing on antisemitic attacks.¹⁹

And the Prime Minister told the country that protesters using the phrase “globalise the intifada” should be prosecuted.²⁰

This is the package the British state announced in the thirty-six hours after the Golders Green stabbings. It is the package this article is about.

The package is not the response to a terrorist plot. The plot has not been alleged in court. The man charged with the stabbings has been charged with attempted murder by prosecutors who chose, with full knowledge of the file, not to bring terrorism charges. He is mentally ill. He has a documented history of serious violence. The Prevent system reviewed him five years ago and closed the referral. There is, as of writing, no public evidence of operational connection to any organised group. Nor is there any evidence of an antisemitic motivation for the attack.

There is, however, a claim. An online post under the name Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia — HAYI — claimed responsibility for the Golders Green stabbings within hours of them happening.²¹ HAYI is the same name that was attached to the firebombing of Hatzola ambulance vehicles in the same neighbourhood on 23 March 2026, five weeks earlier. It is the same name that has now been attached, across nearly two months and six countries, to more than a dozen claimed attacks against synagogues, Jewish schools, Jewish-owned businesses, an Iranian dissident broadcaster in Wembley, and a claimed drone strike on the Israeli Embassy in Kensington that the Metropolitan Police investigated, found to be nothing, and closed.²²

HAYI did not claim Iranian-proxy origin. The Iranian-proxy framing was constructed by other parties. On 12 March 2026, Joe Truzman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies — a Washington organisation whose own IRS filings state its mission as enhancing Israel’s image and educating the public on Israeli-Arab issues — floated the Iran link in The Long War Journal. On 16 March, the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism formalised the framing in a special report, giving the predicate state-authoritative imprint. On 23 March, the day of the Golders Green arson, the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague published Hybrid Threat Signals, a research-body report that documented multiple inconsistencies in HAYI’s own materials and then absorbed them into the Iranian-backed thesis as evidence of “plausible deniability” rather than as evidence of fabrication. The BBC and the mainstream British press distributed the framing the next day. Each stage of the pipeline performed its function in laundering alleged Iran links into the mainstream.²³

I documented in The Anatomy of HAYI what those materials actually contained when examined: a Quranic misquotation no Muslim composes; Religious Zionist vocabulary no Muslim militant uses; a logo built on a Soviet Dragunov SVD where every real pro-Iranian Shia militia uses AK-pattern rifles; an Arabic misspelling of the word “Islamic” on the group’s own logo; a Telegram administrator who wrote in American English, justified the group’s actions through Christian and Jewish philosophy, and deleted the account when CBS News asked who was paying. Two named institutional sources — Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi for Middle East Eye and Adam Hadley of Tech Against Terrorism for The National — independently identified HAYI’s materials as AI-generated within twenty-four hours of the Golders Green arson.²⁴ The fingerprint of the people who built HAYI is the fingerprint of operators fluent in Anglo-American Jewish religious-political life and Western media production, dressed in the symbology of the community the campaign was designed to blame.

That fingerprint did not change on 29 April. HAYI’s claim of Wednesday’s stabbings fits the same fabrication pattern The Anatomy of HAYI documented across the campaign.

The Metropolitan Police, nearly two months in, have made twenty-six arrests across the broader campaign of attacks attributed to HAYI. Eight have been charged with arson-related offences. One has been convicted of arson. The first arrest under terrorism legislation came on 26 April 2026 — and it was on suspicion only of preparing terrorist acts, not on any predicate of foreign-state direction.²⁵ Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans, the United Kingdom’s Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter Terrorism Policing, has publicly characterised the operational pattern as “recruiting violence as a service” — paid criminal proxies with “no allegiance to the cause,” used once and thrown away. Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes has described it as “thugs for hire.”²⁶ The legislation Parliament wrote in 2023 for foreign-state-directed hostile activity — the National Security Act, used in the Wagner-Earl prosecution to name Russia in court²⁷ — is sitting unused. The Met has not named a foreign sponsor. It will not, because the evidence to do so has not been built — because the operational reality does not support what the political class is now claiming the operational reality to be.

On Thursday 30 April 2026, the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was asked whether HAYI’s claim of responsibility for the Golders Green stabbings was credible. She said authorities were investigating whether the claim was credible or “opportunistic.”²⁸ That was on the same day she described antisemitism as “an emergency” and “the top pressing issue in relation to security” she faced, on the same day the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre raised the threat level from “substantial” to “severe,” and on the same day the Prime Minister stood at Downing Street and announced the package of emergency powers built around HAYI’s named threat.

This is the position the Home Secretary’s “opportunistic” admission catches the political class up to. The Met has been operating against a paid-proxy criminal campaign for weeks. The framing the political class is using to justify emergency powers is a framing the operational investigation no longer supports. Shabana Mahmood’s word — opportunistic — was the smallest possible public concession that the claim does not match the case. It was given on the same day the threat level was raised, the government announced it would fast-track through parliament a new bill amending the National Security Act 2023 to create a state-threats proscription power — with Security Minister Dan Jarvis naming the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as the immediate use case²⁹ — and the Prime Minister told the country that protesters using the phrase “globalise the intifada” should be prosecuted. The British public was being asked, on Thursday 30 April 2026, to accept the acceleration of an emergency response on the back of a claim the state’s own most senior security minister had just told the country might be a lie.

A state cannot simultaneously concede that the claimant may be fictitious and use the claim as part of the justification for emergency-level powers. It cannot raise the threat level on the basis of a state-sponsored terror narrative while its own prosecutors decline to bring terrorism charges. It cannot announce fast-track legislation to deal with malign state actors on the back of a claim its own Home Secretary has flagged as possibly opportunistic. It cannot tell the public that protesters chanting “globalise the intifada” should be prosecuted while its own Crown Prosecution Service has advised — repeatedly, in writing — that the phrase does not meet prosecution thresholds.³⁰

It cannot do any of those things and call the result a coherent response to a real threat. What it can do, and what it did do on Thursday, is announce the acceleration of an architecture that was already being built before Wednesday and will continue to be built when Wednesday’s news cycle moves on.

That architecture is the subject of this article. The man who carried out the stabbings is one person, charged with one set of crimes, who will face one trial. The fear the violence produced is real. The grief of the families, the terror of the community, the loss of the sense of safety that has been bleeding out of British Jewish life for the past two years — all of it is real, and a government has a duty to respond to all of it. But the response being built is not what it is being sold as. It is not protection. It is something else.

It is the closing of a circle that has been drawing itself for several years. The Palantir contracts that already place an American defence-intelligence company at the centre of the British state. The published doctrine of that company’s chief executive, whose April 2026 manifesto Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins identified as an attack on “verification, deliberation, and accountability” — the three pillars on which democratic life depends.³¹ The criminalisation of pro-Palestine protest under emergency powers that have already produced more than three thousand three hundred arrests — pensioners, priests, vicars, and the Reverend Sue Parfitt, an octogenarian retired Anglican priest arrested for holding a placard reading “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”³² The proscription of Palestine Action, found unlawful by the High Court in February 2026 and continued anyway.³³ The first ban on a protest march since 2012, in March 2026, by this same Home Secretary.³⁴ The fast-tracking of new state-actor legislation, announced before the trial of the only person actually charged with Wednesday’s stabbings has begun. The conflation, repeated by ministers and amplified by the press, of Israel with Jews, of anti-Zionism with antisemitism, of opposition to genocide with the celebration of murder.

Each of these has been documented in earlier articles in this publication. Code, Contracts and Complicity 2.0 set out the Palantir architecture and the manifesto that names its targets.³⁵ The Anatomy of HAYI set out the fabrication and the amplification pipeline through which it became mainstream framing.³⁶ They Are Not the Same and The Greatest Antisemitism set out the conflation that licences the criminalisation of dissent.³⁷

This article is the convergence. The pieces have been documented separately. What follows is what they look like when they are placed beside each other, on the morning of 1 May 2026, in the wake of an emergency that the architecture was already built to absorb.

What the British state announced on Thursday was the deployment of an emergency architecture against a threat its own most senior security minister had flagged as possibly fictitious, on charges its own prosecutors had declined to bring, in a political environment its own Crown Prosecution Service had advised did not meet the legal threshold for prosecution. The cost will be paid by the British public — by the Jewish community told it is under siege from an enemy whose existence the state’s own institutions cannot stand behind, by the Muslim community handed the blame for an act they did not commit and condemn without qualification, and by every citizen who in the days after Thursday will discover what slogans, what symbols, and what protests the state has decided are now grounds for prosecution.

This is the convergence. It deserves to be named.

The Architecture Sharpened

The acceleration did not begin on Thursday. It began on 13 January 2025 at the UCL East campus in Stratford, where Sir Keir Starmer announced the AI Opportunities Action Plan and committed his government to adopting all fifty of its recommendations.³⁸ The plan had been written for the government by Matt Clifford, a venture capitalist and chair of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency.³⁹ Its substantive content was drawn, in places almost verbatim, from two papers published the previous year by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change — “Governing in the Age of AI: A New Model to Transform the State” (May 2024) and “The Potential Impact of AI on the Public-Sector Workforce” (July 2024) — papers produced by an institute described in the public record as one of the architects of Starmerite thought, and an institute that receives substantial donations from technology companies whose AI products it advocates governments adopt.⁴⁰ The plan committed the United Kingdom to integrating AI across the National Health Service, the Ministry of Defence, policing, and government administration. It claimed two hundred billion pounds in savings over five years and the shedding of one million civil servants. It established AI growth zones with fast-tracked planning approvals — the first in Culham, Oxfordshire — and committed the country to a twenty-fold increase in AI compute capacity. In his speech announcing it, Starmer asked the country to consider “whose values are going to shape this technology as it develops,” and warned that the United Kingdom risked becoming a taker rather than a maker of the technological future.⁴¹

Every contract that has been signed since 13 January 2025 is now justifiable, in government communication, as delivery of the plan. What has been signed since 13 January 2025 is what I discuss in this section.

In September 2025, during Donald Trump’s state visit to the United Kingdom, the British government announced a strategic partnership with Palantir Technologies under which the company would base its European defence operations in Britain. The announcement carried a one-and-a-half-billion-pound investment commitment, three hundred and fifty new jobs, and the establishment of London as Palantir’s European defence headquarters.⁴² On 30 December 2025, the Ministry of Defence signed a £240.6 million three-year follow-on contract with Palantir, effective 1 April 2026. The new contract more than tripled the £75.2 million deal it replaced. It was awarded without a competitive tender, under the defence-and-security exemption to the Procurement Act, by the Defence Secretary alone.⁴³ During the procurement period, Palantir hired four former Ministry of Defence officials, including Barnaby Kistruck, the former director of policy, who joined the company days after leaving the ministry. The MoD-to-Palantir employment pipeline was documented by OpenDemocracy in January 2026.⁴⁴

In March 2026, Palantir entered British financial services. The Financial Conduct Authority — the regulator that holds the most sensitive financial intelligence in the United Kingdom — awarded Palantir a three-month contract under which the company’s employees would be physically embedded inside the regulator to install software on the FCA’s internal data systems.⁴⁵ A previously undisclosed £15 million contract with AWE Nuclear Security Technologies — the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons agency, formerly the Atomic Weapons Establishment — was revealed by The Nerve the same month.⁴⁶ The same investigation found that Palantir held at least thirty-four current and past contracts across at least ten government departments, local councils, and police authorities, with a total documented value of at least £670 million.⁴⁷

This is the pattern Palantir itself describes as “land and expand.” It begins with a foothold awarded for a nominal sum — in the United Kingdom, the £1 NHS Covid-19 Data Store contract in March 2020. It expands into a substantial commercial arrangement — the £330 million NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP) contract awarded in November 2023 with potential to extend to £500 million.⁴⁸ It then propagates: into police data systems in 2024, into the military in 2025, into financial services in 2026, into nuclear security infrastructure at an unspecified date the public learned of only because an investigative outlet found the contract notice. At each stage, the company that began as a CIA-backed counter-insurgency platform builds further into the central nervous system of the British state.

Read that last clause again. Counter-insurgency is not metaphor. It is doctrine — operational tradecraft developed by the United States military and intelligence services to identify hostile populations, profile their networks, and act against them. The software was built to read communities a foreign state had decided were the enemy. Take that software out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan or Palestine, out of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement targeting infrastructure, install it inside Britain’s sensitive NHS and policing data systems, and the targeting logic does not change because the location did. The population the software now sees is the British public. It is reading your sensitive data for signs of dissent or determining “pre-crime” — judging you a criminal before you commit a crime. The doctor pushing for a pay rise is legible to it in the same shape an insurgent abroad would have been. So is the nurse striking for staffing levels. So is the parent objecting to a school closure, the student protesting university fees, the pensioner with a placard, the journalist with a question. Counter-insurgency software does not care what country it is running in. It does not side with your politics, but with the government that controls it. You have no recourse to challenge it. It runs the targeting logic it was built to run. That logic is now being run, on long contracts awarded without competition, against the people of the United Kingdom.

The senior figures involved in this propagation include some who have already drawn questions on the floor of the House of Commons. On 10 February 2026, the question was put to the Defence Minister whether the Defence Secretary had been aware of Peter Mandelson’s commercial links to Palantir through Global Counsel — the consultancy Mandelson founded — when the £240 million contract was awarded. The government’s answer was that Mandelson had no influence on the contract, and that the decision was the Defence Secretary’s and his alone.⁴⁹ The question, and the government’s answer, are both on the official parliamentary record. So is the broader observation made in the same debate: that Palantir’s £1 Covid contract had grown, under successive governments, into a contract footprint exceeding £500 million across the NHS and the Ministry of Defence, awarded in significant measure without competition.

The architecture has not been built without resistance. The British Medical Association passed a motion at its 2025 Annual General Meeting opposing the rollout of the Federated Data Platform. In February 2026, the BMA went further, instructing doctors to limit their engagement with the platform.⁵⁰ Over forty-seven thousand NHS patients have written formal letters of complaint to their local trust boards opposing FDP adoption.⁵¹ The Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board, which covers 2.8 million patients, has delayed joining the platform pending further evidence that adoption is in the interests of those patients.⁵² Coventry City Council was forced to review its Palantir contract after public backlash.⁵³ Approximately two hundred NHS trusts have signed up to the FDP, but only about half are live on the system, and only a quarter report that the system has produced any benefit.⁵⁴ A coalition that includes Medact, the Good Law Project, Privacy International, Corporate Watch, and Amnesty International published a joint briefing in March 2026 calling on NHS trusts and integrated care boards not to implement the platform and on NHS England to terminate the contract.⁵⁵ Amnesty International’s broader judgment of Palantir, set out in a 2020 report on the company’s operational support to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is that there is “a high risk that Palantir is contributing to serious human rights violations.”⁵⁶ The Green Party leader, Zack Polanski — the same Polanski whose post about the kicking of a mentally ill man in Golders Green drew a public rebuke from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner — has called for the FDP contract to be terminated at the break clause that falls due in February 2027, describing the company as “a Trump-supporting military surveillance outfit” with no place in Britain’s most important institution.⁵⁷

The break clause matters because it is the article’s pivot. The £330–500 million NHS Federated Data Platform contract has, written into it, a clause permitting the government to walk away in February 2027 without penalty if the platform has not delivered. By April 2026, the platform had not delivered. The Westminster Hall debate of 16 April 2026 — thirteen days before the Golders Green stabbings — heard the junior health minister Zubir Ahmed concede, on parliamentary record, that the contract could end short of its planned seven years if other providers could do the job better. The science minister Lord Vallance had told MPs the previous month that the government’s deals with Palantir would, in future, be done differently — with greater investment in British technology and British companies.⁵⁸

That was the political conversation the United Kingdom was having in the third week of April 2026. The Federated Data Platform was in serious political trouble. The opposition was mobilised. The break clause was on the table. Two of the government’s own ministers had publicly opened the door to terminating the contract.

Then Wednesday happened.

Then Thursday happened.

By Thursday evening, the political conversation in the United Kingdom was not about the FDP. It was about the threat level. It was about COBRA. It was about £25 million in additional security spending. It was about fast-tracked legislation to proscribe a foreign state’s military arm. It was about prosecuting the chant of cardboard placards. The conversation that could have terminated the Federated Data Platform contract at its break clause has been displaced by an emergency response that the same architecture is positioned to manage.

This is the mechanism. The threats the state is responding to are real. Antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom in 2025 reached the second-highest annual total ever recorded — 3,700, with the monthly average exactly double what it was before 7 October 2023. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at a record high. Race and religious hate crime convictions are at an eight-year peak.⁵⁹ Both communities face real and increasing danger and a government has a real duty to respond to it.

The state has waited for events that authorise the response it now delivers. The Manchester synagogue attack of October 2025 came. The firebombing of Hatzola ambulance vehicles came. The Kenton synagogue fireball came. The Golders Green stabbings came. Each was a real event with real victims, not designed for what the state has done with it. But the state’s response in each case has been the same: announce a further package of expanded powers, criminalise a further set of expressions, accelerate a further set of contracts. The discussion the United Kingdom is having about antisemitism on the morning of 5 May 2026 is not happening because the Ministry of Justice’s hate-crime statistics were released a week ago — they were, and the news cycle absorbed them inside thirty-six hours. The discussion is happening because two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green by a mentally ill man whose first victim was a Muslim, in an attack the prosecutors have not charged as terrorism and for which there is no evidence of antisemitic motivation, two days before a local election the governing party is on track to lose.⁶⁰ The Prime Minister will deliver a further speech on antisemitism on the eve of polling day.⁶¹ The architecture being built is being built around a real problem. The response being delivered is being timed to a political need.

What was demonstrated in the thirty-six hours after Wednesday is the speed of the mechanism. The break clause has not yet been used. Whether it will be used is the question this section leaves the reader with. The architecture is not contingent. The architecture is policy. The events that determine whether it will continue to be built are the events the architecture is built to absorb.

The Speech They Are Criminalising

No machinery enforces itself. The architecture requires that the dissent which would expose what it is be made unlawful before it can mature. The third strand of what was announced and accelerated on Thursday 30 April 2026 is the criminalisation of speech. Two days later, that is the strand of the response most visible on the streets of London, in the headlines of the British press, and in the bail conditions of British citizens whose only documented offence is to have stood in public and disagreed with their government’s foreign policy.

The Prime Minister’s pledge from the Downing Street steps was unambiguous. Protesters who use the phrase “globalise the intifada,” he said, should be prosecuted. The Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police had been arresting people for using the phrase since December 2025, when they declared that the operational context for chanting it had changed in the wake of the Bondi Beach terror attack in Australia. Three pro-Palestine protesters were charged in January 2026 for allegedly chanting it at a demonstration. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance to police, on what does and does not meet the threshold for prosecution under the Public Order Act, has been less straightforward than the Prime Minister’s framing suggests. The phrase, in itself, is not a crime under United Kingdom law. The word “intifada” is an Arabic noun meaning uprising, rebellion, or shaking off. It is, in its primary historical sense, the noun used to describe the two organised periods of Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation in 1987 and 2000. It is what the wider Arabic-speaking world calls peaceful uprising in general. To “globalise” it is, on the most natural reading, to call for a worldwide solidarity campaign of the kind that brought down apartheid in South Africa.

That is the reading offered by Peter Tatchell, the seventy-four-year-old human rights campaigner whose arrest on 31 January 2026 for carrying a placard reading “Globalise the intifada. Non-violent resistance. End Israel’s occupation of Gaza & West Bank” became one of the defining test cases of the new prosecutorial environment.⁶² Tatchell, who has been arrested or detained one hundred and four times across nearly six decades of human rights campaigning, who joined the March Against Antisemitism alongside the Chief Rabbi and thousands of British Jews on 26 November 2023, was held in a police cell in Sutton, Surrey, for ten of the twelve hours of his detention. The Met arrested him in Aldwych, then transported him out of London by van to find a cell that would hold him. He was bailed on the condition that he attend no further pro-Palestine protests for twelve weeks. On 22 April 2026, a magistrate found that bail condition unreasonable and disproportionate and granted Tatchell unconditional bail. On 23 April, the police officer handling his case failed to attend the bail appointment at Charing Cross police station. On 29 April — the day of the Golders Green stabbings, the day before the Prime Minister stood at Downing Street and declared that protesters using the phrase should be prosecuted — the Metropolitan Police dropped the case against him entirely.

This was a man whom the British state had arrested, jailed for twelve hours, banned from protest, and then, after nearly three months of bail conditions, declined even to charge. His case was dropped on the day before the Prime Minister announced that the conduct for which he had been arrested would be a prosecutable offence going forward. Tatchell himself put what had happened to him in plain language. The police, he said, were not enforcing the law. They were fabricating interpretations of it.

This is the pattern the architecture requires. The state declares a category of speech to be the kind of speech that produces violence. The police arrest people for engaging in that speech. The Crown Prosecution Service declines, on the evidence presented, to prosecute. The Prime Minister announces from the steps of Downing Street that the speech ought to be prosecuted. The next round of arrests follows on a stronger political authority than the one before. The chilling effect has done its work whether or not a single one of these prosecutions succeeds.

The pattern repeats with symbols. The inverted red triangle, which Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades adopted in November 2023 to mark Israeli military targets in operational footage from Gaza, has since been used by Palestinian protest movements globally as a symbol of resistance. The triangle resembles the slingshot — a symbol of resistance in Gaza and the West Bank predating its use by Hamas — and resembles the red triangle on the Palestinian flag, where it represents the Hashemite role in the Arab Revolt and the blood of those killed in the struggle for Arab independence. The triangle has been used by the Israel Defence Forces to mock Hamas, by anti-fascist movements in Berlin, by graffiti artists on synagogues in Pittsburgh and Jewish-owned bakeries in Sydney, by Iranian-linked hacker groups, and by hundreds of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters who have neither glorified Hamas nor threatened Jewish communities. The Berlin Senate banned the symbol in July 2024. The Anti-Defamation League classifies it as a symbol of glorification of Hamas violence. Pro-Palestine campaign groups treat it as a symbol of resistance to occupation. Both readings exist in the public record. Neither reading exhausts the symbol’s meaning. Yet British politicians and commentators have, in the days since Wednesday’s stabbings, suggested that displaying the symbol be added to the column of prosecutable conduct.

This is where the architecture’s most consequential move is being made. A symbol with multiple, overlapping, contested meanings is being treated as if it had only one meaning, and that meaning is being treated as antisemitic, and the use of the symbol is being treated as conduct from which the state must protect Jewish citizens. The same move is being made with the slogan, with the protest march, with the cardboard placard. Each is being moved, by political authority rather than by parliamentary debate, from the column of expression into the column of extremism. Each move is being authorised by the emergency the architecture itself is being built to manage.

On Thursday 30 April 2026, Jonathan Hall — the government’s former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation — went on Times Radio and called for a moratorium on pro-Palestinian marches.⁶³ He said the government needed to take more risks. He said the marches had helped “incubate” antisemitism. He said it pained him to say it but he believed a moratorium was now needed. The leader of the Conservative opposition, Kemi Badenoch, backed the call the same day. Speaking from a hairdresser’s in south-east London, she declared that “it’s time to ban the marches” and that they were used as cover for violence and intimidation against Jews. The Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, attributed a tone of antisemitism in Britain to “hate marches” combined with “purposeful anti-Israel demonisation.” On the morning of Saturday 2 May 2026, the Prime Minister himself answered the question of whether the government would accede to those calls. Asked on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme whether he wanted tougher policing of language at marches, or whether he wanted to stop some protests altogether, Sir Keir Starmer said: “I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter.” He added: “We need to look at what further powers we can take.” He named “the cumulative effect” of repeated marches as the structural problem and said: “we intend to deal with cumulative effects.” On the same programme he described the chant “globalise the intifada” as “very dangerous” to the Jewish community and as something protesters should be made to “stop and ask” themselves about.⁶⁴ Three of the four largest political parties at Westminster have now positioned themselves either openly for protest bans or for harder enforcement: the Labour government, the Conservative opposition, and Reform UK, whose home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf accused successive Tory and Labour administrations of policing failures and pledged a “zero-tolerance approach to protesters inciting violence.” Only the Greens, the Liberal Democrats with conditions, and Jeremy Corbyn’s Your Party have held the civil-liberties line. The Green Party leader Zack Polanski responded to the Prime Minister’s interview with a statement that named the architecture of the move directly: Starmer, he said, was “using the pain and fear of Jewish people to threaten further authoritarian restrictions on peaceful protest.”⁶⁵

It is worth naming what the British state has already done that did not require those powers. In March 2026, this same Home Secretary banned the Al-Quds Day march in London — the first ban on a protest march in the United Kingdom since 2012. In July 2025, the Home Office proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act, making membership and stated support for the group a criminal offence punishable by up to fourteen years in prison. The High Court ruled in February 2026 that the proscription was unlawful, and the Home Secretary’s appeal was heard on 28 and 29 April — the day before, and the day of, Wednesday’s stabbings. While the appeal was being argued, three thousand three hundred British citizens had been arrested for displaying placards or holding cardboard signs in support of Palestine Action. They include the Reverend Sue Parfitt, an octogenarian retired Anglican priest, holding a hand-drawn sign that read “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” They include the suspended Labour MP Zarah Sultana’s reported tally of “a priest, a professor and health workers” arrested under terrorism legislation in a single day for the placards they carried.⁶⁶ They include the Filton 24, recently acquitted of aggravated burglary charges arising from direct action against Elbit Systems — Israel’s largest arms manufacturer, manufacturer of components used in operations under International Court of Justice examination for genocide.⁶⁷

The pattern is clean and easily described. A government claims to be protecting Jewish citizens from antisemitic terror. The legal architecture it builds in their name criminalises opposition to a foreign government’s policy in Gaza. The opposition to that foreign government’s policy has been, throughout the past two years, the most visible alliance of British civil society — pensioners, priests, vicars, doctors, lawyers, professors, retired psychotherapists, parliamentary backbenchers, civil-rights campaigners — that the country has produced since the campaign against the Iraq war. The fact that some of those people are also Jewish, and have publicly named themselves as opposed to the actions of a state that purports to act in the name of all Jews everywhere, has been treated by the prosecutorial machinery as immaterial. The conflation that They Are Not the Same and The Greatest Antisemitism documented at length is the conflation on which all of this depends: that opposition to the policy of the State of Israel is opposition to Jewish people. It is not. The British government, the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the political class collectively know it is not. They are proceeding as if it were because the architecture requires that they do.

For a reader sympathetic to the British state’s framing of Wednesday’s stabbings — for a reader who agrees with the proscription of Palestine Action, who believes the Al-Quds Day march should have been banned, who endorses the prosecution of “globalise the intifada,” who reads everything in this section so far as a piece of pro-Palestine grievance writing dressed up in the language of civil liberties — there is a fact about the architecture that needs to be sat with. The architecture does not check the politics of the speaker. It only checks whether the political environment has authorised its deployment.⁶⁸ On 21 June 2025, John Steele, a sixty-year-old Christian street preacher in Rotherham — a former miner and bus driver who has preached the gospel in public spaces for twenty-five years without incident — was arrested by South Yorkshire Police after a thirty-second exchange with a Muslim woman at a public stall offering support to Pakistani women experiencing domestic abuse. Steele had asked, using a small microphone, how Islamic teachings could be reconciled with the stall’s stated message — a reference to a contested verse in the Quran. He was detained, fingerprinted, DNA-swabbed, and threatened with a “non-crime hate incident” entry on his police record. The Crown Prosecution Service later discontinued the case, stating that prosecution was “not needed in the public interest.” The same Public Order Act provisions that the police invoked against Peter Tatchell for the placard he carried at the Palestine march were the provisions used against John Steele for the question he asked at a public stall. The political content of the speech was different. The legal mechanism was identical.

This is the point a reader committed to the framing of Wednesday’s stabbings as antisemitic terror needs to absorb before continuing. The infrastructure being expanded under cover of Thursday’s emergency is not infrastructure that targets only the speech the present government finds objectionable. It is general-purpose infrastructure. A future government, of a different political colour, will inherit it. A future Crown Prosecution Service, working under a different Director, will use it. A future Metropolitan Police Commissioner, responding to different political pressure from a different political class, will deploy it. The Christian preacher who was arrested for asking a theological question in Rotherham was not arrested because the police agreed with the woman who complained. He was arrested because the legal mechanism existed and the political environment licensed its use. The next person arrested under that mechanism will not be chosen for their politics either. They will be chosen because someone has complained, because the machinery permits it, and because the political environment of the day has lowered the threshold for its deployment. That person could be a Christian preacher. It could be a gender-critical feminist. It could be a Reform UK activist. It could be a Zionist commentator whose defence of Israeli policy a future government has decided meets the threshold of “extremism.” The architecture takes no view. The architecture is policy. The architecture, once built, is available to whoever next holds the keys.

What is being criminalised is not antisemitism. Antisemitism is already a hate crime under existing United Kingdom law and has been prosecuted, where the evidence supported it, before any of the powers announced on Thursday were thought of. What is being criminalised is opposition to the policy of a foreign government, on streets in London, by British citizens, in language that the state’s own Crown Prosecution Service has repeatedly advised does not meet the legal threshold for prosecution. The legal architecture being built around that opposition is being built under the cover of an emergency. The emergency is being attributed to a fictitious organisation whose claim of responsibility for Wednesday’s stabbings the state’s own Home Secretary has flagged as possibly opportunistic. The architecture absorbs the emergency. The criminalisation continues. The next round of arrests will be made on a stronger political authority than the one before.

That is what the speech criminalisation strand of Thursday’s package consists of. It is not response to a threat. It is the legal infrastructure required for the rest of the architecture to function — the part of the machinery that makes the rest of the machinery defensible against the protest it would otherwise produce.

What This Means

There is a question this article has been built around but has not yet asked directly. What is the architecture for? Not what it is sold as. What it actually is.

The British state has spent the past sixteen months delivering a set of contracts, legislative pathways, prosecutorial postures, and emergency declarations that, taken together, describe the foundations of a particular kind of country. A country in which a single American defence-intelligence firm holds the central nervous system of the National Health Service, the Ministry of Defence, the Financial Conduct Authority, the nuclear weapons agency, and at least seven other government departments. A country in which the chief executive of that firm has published, openly, a manifesto that names verification, deliberation, and accountability — the three pillars of any functioning democratic society — as obstacles to be overcome. A country in which the conflation of opposition to a foreign government’s policy with hatred of an ethnic minority has produced a legal framework that licenses the arrest of British citizens for the slogans they chant, the symbols they display, and the placards they carry. A country in which, as of writing, three thousand three hundred citizens have been arrested for showing support for a non-violent direct-action group whose proscription was found unlawful by the High Court four months ago. A country in which the Home Secretary publicly concedes that the claim of responsibility for the most recent violent incident may be opportunistic, while the Prime Minister stands at Downing Street the same day and announces an emergency response built around that claim.

This is not the response to Wednesday’s stabbings. Wednesday’s stabbings did not require any of this. A coherent response to the violent rampage of a severely mentally ill man recently discharged from secure hospital, who had been under active NHS mental-health care until the days before the rampage, who had been referred to Prevent and discharged from that programme without explanation, would have looked like a serious examination of why a man with that documented history was loose on the streets of London on the morning of 29 April 2026. It would have looked like a substantive review of mental-health discharge protocols, of the resourcing of community psychiatric services, of the relationship between Prevent and the mental-health system. It would have looked like an honest accounting of how the state had failed both Suleiman’s victims and Suleiman himself. It did not look like any of those things. It looked like a threat-level rise, a fast-tracked legal pathway to proscribe a foreign state’s military arm, twenty-five million pounds in additional security spending, the prosecution of a slogan, and the public displacement of a parliamentary debate that thirteen days earlier had opened the door to terminating the most contested government technology contract of the past decade.

The architecture is for itself. That is the only honest answer the evidence will support. It is not for British Jews, who are being told to fear an enemy whose existence the state’s own institutions cannot stand behind, while the conflation that licenses the criminalisation of dissent is being made in their name. It is not for British Muslims, who are being handed the collective blame for an act they did not commit and condemn without qualification, while the framing that authorises that blame is being held in place by institutional failure rather than evidence. It is not for the general public, whose civil-liberties infrastructure is being narrowed at every available opportunity, on grounds that the state’s own Crown Prosecution Service has repeatedly advised do not meet the legal threshold for prosecution. The architecture is for the architecture. It is the precondition for further architecture. It absorbs every available pretext and converts each one into the political environment its own continuation requires.

What is being lost in this is not abstract. It is the fundamental relationship between a citizen and a state in a society that calls itself a democracy. That relationship rests on the citizen’s ability to dissent from the state’s claims without becoming, by that act of dissent, a person the state can lawfully detain. It rests on the state’s prosecutors operating independently of the state’s politicians, declining to bring charges where the evidence does not support them, regardless of the political environment of the day. It rests on the courts being able to find a proscription unlawful and have that finding result in the proscription being lifted rather than the arrests being escalated. It rests on the architecture of intelligence and enforcement being built by accountable public bodies rather than supplied, on long contracts awarded without competition, by a single private corporation whose chief executive has published the doctrine that pluralism is a shallow temptation. None of those preconditions is being honoured by what is being built. Each of them is being eroded, in turn, by the architecture that absorbs every available pretext and grows.

There is one further fact about the architecture that needs to be named before this article closes. The architecture is not yet complete. The £330 million Federated Data Platform contract has its break clause in February 2027. The state-threats proscription bill has not yet been laid before Parliament. The proscription of further pro-Palestine groups and the criminalisation of further symbols have not yet happened. The banning of further protest marches — which on the morning of Saturday 2 May the Prime Minister publicly confirmed was now under active government consideration — has not yet been enacted. The review of public order and hate crime legislation that the government itself commissioned in the wake of the Manchester synagogue attack of October 2025, which was expected to report in February 2026, has not yet been published. The architecture is being expanded by emergency announcement on the same week that the considered review the government asked for is being held back from public view. That, too, is part of the mechanism. The architecture is at the stage where its acceleration is most visible, but its consolidation is not yet inevitable. Whether it consolidates, or whether the political environment shifts in a direction that makes its continuation untenable, is the question the next year will answer. That is the question the public conversation has been displaced from. That is the question the events of the past week were used to push out of view.

The convergence is not a conspiracy. It does not require anyone to have designed Wednesday for what was done with it, and the evidence will not support such a claim. The convergence is what the evidence does support: that an architecture built over years to a published doctrine, delivered through contracts awarded without competition by a government whose AI policy is venture-capital authorship and Tony Blair Institute substance, defended by the criminalisation of the speech that would expose what it is, and accelerated whenever a violent event produces the political environment it needs, is the architecture of a country whose citizens are losing the relationship to their own state that the word democracy is supposed to describe. The phantom does not need to be real for the architecture to be built. The architecture only needs the political environment in which it cannot be effectively opposed. That is the environment the events of the past week have produced.

This is the convergence. What follows is the question — for the British public, for the British political class, for the British press, for the institutions whose independence has been the precondition for everything they are now being asked to defer to. The break clause has not yet been used. The architecture has not yet been completed. The country has not yet decided what kind of country it is going to be when both of those questions have been answered.

The architecture takes no view. The country must.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

Image attribution: 10 Downing Street, 1980. Peter McDermott / Geograph Project / CC BY-SA

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Metropolitan Police, statement by Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, 29 April 2026; ITV News, “Essa Suleiman appears in court charged with attempted murder after Golders Green attack,” 1 May 2026.

² The Jerusalem Post, “What do we know about Essa Suleiman, Golders Green attacker? — explainer,” 1 May 2026.

³ ITV News, “Essa Suleiman appears in court charged with attempted murder after Golders Green attack,” 1 May 2026; The Jerusalem Post, 1 May 2026.

⁴ Metropolitan Police timeline released to media, 30 April 2026; ITV News, 1 May 2026.

⁵ ITV News, 1 May 2026; The Jerusalem Post, 1 May 2026.

⁶ James S. Coates, “The Anatomy of HAYI,” Fireline Press, April 2026.

⁷ Video footage circulated on social media 29–30 April 2026; see note 12.

⁸ Metropolitan Police statement, 29 April 2026; The Washington Post, “London police say the stabbing of 2 Jewish men is an act of terror,” 29 April 2026.

⁹ R v Suleiman, Swindon Crown Court, sentencing remarks of Judge Douglas Field, December 2008; summarised in The Jerusalem Post, 1 May 2026.

¹⁰ ITV News, 1 May 2026; BBC News and The Guardian reporting, 30 April–1 May 2026.

¹¹ Crown Prosecution Service charging announcement, 1 May 2026; ITV News, 1 May 2026.

¹² Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski), repost on X, 30 April 2026; Sir Mark Rowley response on X, 30 April 2026; Polanski apology reported in ITV News, “Green Party leader Zack Polanski apologises for sharing post about Golders Green police officers,” 1 May 2026; Starmer “disgraceful” remarks reported in ITV News, 1–3 May 2026.

¹³ Stephen Daisley, “Zack Polanski’s shameful reaction to the Golders Green arrest,” The Spectator, 30 April 2026.

¹⁴ Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre threat level statement, 30 April 2026; Home Office press notice, 30 April 2026.

¹⁵ Cabinet Office statement, 30 April 2026.

¹⁶ Shabana Mahmood, BBC Radio 4 Today programme, 30 April 2026; CBC News, “Suspect in stabbing of 2 Jewish men had been flagged by U.K. counterterrorism program,” 1 May 2026.

¹⁷ HM Government announcement, 30 April 2026; CBC News, 1 May 2026.

¹⁸ Sir Keir Starmer, “PM remarks from Downing Street on Golders Green attack,” 30 April 2026, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-remarks-from-downing-street-on-golders-green-attack-30-april-2026.

¹⁹ Starmer, “PM remarks from Downing Street,” 30 April 2026.

²⁰ Starmer, “PM remarks from Downing Street,” 30 April 2026.

²¹ Euronews, “HAYI group claims responsibility for stabbing two Jewish men in north London,” 29 April 2026.

²² James S. Coates, “The Anatomy of HAYI,” Fireline Press, April 2026.

²³ James S. Coates, “The Anatomy of HAYI,” Fireline Press, April 2026, drawing on Joe Truzman, “Iran-backed Group Claims Attacks on Jewish Targets,” The Long War Journal (FDD), 12 March 2026; Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, special report on HAYI, 16 March 2026; Julian Lanchès, Hybrid Threat Signals, ICCT, 23 March 2026.

²⁴ Coates, “The Anatomy of HAYI,” April 2026, drawing on Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, Middle East Eye, March 2026; Adam Hadley, Tech Against Terrorism, in The National, March 2026; CBS News exchange with HAYI Telegram administrator, 24 March 2026.

²⁵ Metropolitan Police, “Statements on linked arson attacks in north west London,” 19 April 2026, https://news.met.police.uk/news/statements-on-linked-arson-attacks-in-north-west-london-508398; Metropolitan Police, “Further arrest in investigation led by counter terrorism officers,” 27 April 2026, https://news.met.police.uk/news/further-arrest-in-investigation-led-by-counter-terrorism-officers-508656; Coates, “The Anatomy of HAYI,” April 2026.

²⁶ DAC Vicki Evans and DC Matt Jukes, public statements outside Kenton United Synagogue, 19 April 2026; Met Police link as note 25.

²⁷ R v Earl and others, Old Bailey, sentencing July 2025; “Five jailed for Russia-linked arson plot in London,” BBC News, 18 July 2025.

²⁸ Shabana Mahmood, public statements 30 April 2026; CBC News, 1 May 2026.

²⁹ Security Minister Dan Jarvis, interviews on Times Radio and GB News, 30 April 2026.

³⁰ “CPS drops case against Peter Tatchell over ‘globalise the intifada’ placard,” The Guardian, 29 April 2026; Peter Tatchell Foundation statement, 29 April 2026.

³¹ Eliot Higgins, public commentary on the Karp/Zamiska April 2026 manifesto; cited in James S. Coates, “Code, Contracts and Complicity 2.0,” Fireline Press, April 2026.

³² Defend Our Juries, “523 Arrests for Defying Palestine Action Ban Brings Total to 3,300,” 11 April 2026, https://defendourjuries.net/. Reverend Sue Parfitt’s first arrest documented in Democracy Now!, 7 July 2025; Middle East Eye, 5 July 2025; Bristol 24/7, 7 July 2025.

³³ R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin).

³⁴ Home Office decision to ban the Al-Quds Day march, March 2026; reported in BBC, The Guardian, The Times, March 2026.

³⁵ James S. Coates, “Code, Contracts and Complicity 2.0,” Fireline Press, April 2026.

³⁶ James S. Coates, “The Anatomy of HAYI,” Fireline Press, April 2026.

³⁷ James S. Coates, “They Are Not the Same: Untangling Israel from the Jewish People,” Fireline Press, 2025–26; James S. Coates, “The Greatest Antisemitism,” Fireline Press, 2025–26.

³⁸ Sir Keir Starmer, “PM speech on AI Opportunities Action Plan,” 13 January 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-ai-opportunities-action-plan-13-january-2025.

³⁹ Matt Clifford, AI Opportunities Action Plan (UK Government), January 2025; coverage in The Guardian, BBC News, Al Jazeera, 13 January 2025.

⁴⁰ Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, “Governing in the Age of AI: A New Model to Transform the State,” May 2024; “The Potential Impact of AI on the Public-Sector Workforce,” July 2024; David Gerard, “Starmer’s AI Plans for U.K. Are a Disaster,” Foreign Policy, 11 March 2025.

⁴¹ Starmer, “PM speech on AI Opportunities Action Plan,” 13 January 2025.

⁴² UK government strategic partnership announcement, September 2025; The Register, “Britain’s Ministry of Defence agrees deal with Palantir,” 28 January 2026; Hansard, “Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts,” 10 February 2026.

⁴³ MoD contract award notice, signed 30 December 2025, effective 1 April 2026; Public Technology, “MoD signs £240m Palantir deal as ministers insist UK defence data ‘remains sovereign,’” 29 January 2026; The Register, 28 January 2026.

⁴⁴ OpenDemocracy, January 2026 investigation; corroborated in The Register, 28 January 2026.

⁴⁵ The Lowdown, “Palantir, the controversy, the contracts and the campaign against the FDP,” 1 April 2026.

⁴⁶ The Nerve, January 2026 investigation; cited in Medact, “Briefing: Concerns Regarding Palantir Technologies and NHS Data Systems,” March 2026.

⁴⁷ The Nerve, January 2026.

⁴⁸ NHS England Federated Data Platform contract, November 2023; The Register, “UK promises procurement shift after Palantir deals,” 20 March 2026.

⁴⁹ Hansard, House of Commons debate, “Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts,” 10 February 2026.

⁵⁰ British Medical Association motion (2025 AGM); BMA February 2026 instruction to doctors; reported in The Register, 28 January 2026; Medact, March 2026.

⁵¹ Medact, “Briefing: Concerns Regarding Palantir Technologies and NHS Data Systems,” March 2026.

⁵² The Register, 28 January 2026.

⁵³ Medact, “Briefing: Concerns Regarding Palantir Technologies and NHS Data Systems,” March 2026.

⁵⁴ The Register, “UK weighs break clause in Palantir NHS deal,” 20 April 2026.

⁵⁵ Medact, “Briefing: Concerns Regarding Palantir Technologies and NHS Data Systems,” March 2026.

⁵⁶ Amnesty International, “Failing to Do Right: The Urgent Need for Palantir to Respect Human Rights,” 2020.

⁵⁷ Zack Polanski statement, January 2026; The Register, 28 January 2026.

⁵⁸ Hansard, Westminster Hall debate, “NHS Federated Data Platform,” 16 April 2026, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-04-16/debates/2FDCA71C-D0C1-4738-BEE8-A4BDA311DB99/NHSFederatedDataPlatform; reported in The Register, “UK weighs break clause in Palantir NHS deal,” 20 April 2026; The Register, “UK promises procurement shift after Palantir deals,” 20 March 2026.

⁵⁹ Community Security Trust, Antisemitic Incidents Report 2025, 11 February 2026; Ministry of Justice, scheduled hate crime conviction statistics, published April 2026; reported in “Race and Religious Hate Crime Convictions Hit Eight-Year High in England and Wales,” British Brief, 1 May 2026; Tell MAMA, anti-Muslim hate monitoring data, 2025.

⁶⁰ Local elections in England scheduled for Thursday 7 May 2026; Electoral Commission timetable. Polling context reported in “2026 London local elections — Labour faces ‘political earthquake,’” LSE Professor Tony Travers cited in BBC News, March 2026.

⁶¹ “Extra £1.5 million to be given to communities to tackle antisemitism in wake of Golders Green attack,” LBC, 5 May 2026. ⁶² Peter Tatchell Foundation, “Police drop ‘intifada’ case against Peter Tatchell,” 29 April 2026; Index on Censorship, “Arrested for criticising Hamas — in London,” 21 May 2025.

⁶³ Middle East Eye, “UK terror watchdog urges ‘moratorium’ on pro-Palestine marches,” 30 April 2026; GB News, “Keir Starmer ‘doesn’t know what to do’ slams Kemi Badenoch as she demands ‘hate marches’ ban,” 1 May 2026.

⁶⁴ Becky Morton, “Protests may need to be stopped in some cases, PM suggests,” BBC News, 2 May 2026.

⁶⁵ Zack Polanski statement, 2 May 2026, reported in The Independent, “Row over Starmer threat to ban some pro-Palestine protests,” 3 May 2026; LBC, “Polanski ‘not fit to lead any party’ after Golders Green retweet, Alexander tells LBC,” 4 May 2026.

⁶⁶ Zarah Sultana statement on X, 5 July 2025; Bristol 24/7, 7 July 2025; Novara Media, “Protesters Arrested for Holding ‘I Support Palestine Action’ Signs,” 5 July 2025.

⁶⁷ Asa Winstanley, “Victory for Palestine Action as ‘Filton 6’ acquitted,” The Electronic Intifada, 4 February 2026; “All remaining Filton 24 defendants acquitted of aggravated burglary,” reported 18 February 2026; World Socialist Web Site, “Five hundred more pro-Palestine protesters arrested in UK despite High Court ruling,” 12 April 2026. On Elbit Systems and ICJ examination of Israel’s Gaza operations: South Africa v. Israel, International Court of Justice, Application instituting proceedings filed 29 December 2023; provisional measures orders 26 January 2024 and 24 May 2024.

⁶⁸ Christian Concern, “Christian preacher vindicated after arrest, prosecution and ‘non-crime hate incident’ threat for questioning Quran,” 26 July 2025; GB News, 26 July 2025.

The Day Democracy Showed Its Digital Face

On 9 August 2025, British democracy revealed what it had become. In Parliament Square — where suffragettes once demanded votes and millions marched against war — police systematically arrested 522 people for holding cardboard signs that read: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” By day’s end, 532 had been arrested — the largest mass arrest in London since the 1960s.¹

This wasn’t disorder being contained; it was dissent being catalogued and criminalised. Officers drawn from forces across the country moved through the crowd with mechanical efficiency, processing arrests of peaceful protesters with the rhythm of an assembly line.

The mass arrests followed months of escalating repression documented by civil society groups. In May 2025, Bond — the UK network for international development organisations — warned that facial recognition technology was being deployed at peaceful gatherings, “violating privacy rights and deterring campaigners from participating in demonstrations.”² Their annual review found that UK police were arresting climate protesters at three times the global average rate, with some receiving five-year sentences merely for participating in protest-planning video calls.

Whether facial recognition was deployed that day remains unclear. But the operation unfolded against this documented backdrop of AI surveillance expansion, technology that Bond noted “disproportionately misidentifies people of colour, increasing the risk of wrongful arrest.”³ It is hard to believe the technology has not been used here given the history of this government. The infrastructure exists; the only question is when, not if, it will be turned on every protest.

The technology enabling this transformation wasn’t designed in some authoritarian backwater. It was built in Silicon Valley by companies that promised to “democratise AI” and “benefit humanity.” The same executives who speak at conferences about ethics and safety are selling artificial intelligence to militaries and police forces, teaching algorithms that their highest purpose is to identify, track, and neutralise human beings.

This is a story about betrayal — how the AI revolution we were promised became a counter-revolution against human freedom. It’s about how our governments and tech giants formed an unholy alliance, turning tools of liberation into instruments of oppression.

The Promise and the Betrayal

Remember the promises? AI would cure cancer, reverse climate change, unlock human creativity. Tech CEOs stood on stages and promised a better world.

Instead, they built the perfect surveillance state. The same algorithms meant to optimise traffic now optimise authoritarian control. The facial recognition that would help find missing children hunts those who dissent.

This isn’t technological determinism — it’s a choice made in boardrooms where quarterly earnings matter more than human lives, where executives know exactly what their systems enable but hide behind the language of “dual use.” The same technologies sold to us by their right hand to heal humanity are being unethically developed for surveillance, control, even kill chains in the left.

The Military-Industrial-AI Complex

The corruption begins with contracts worth billions, signed between tech giants and defence departments. These aren’t partnerships to protect democracy — they’re agreements to automate oppression.

The scale is no longer the kind of thing a democracy can plausibly oversee. American tech firms now hold defence and intelligence contracts worth tens of billions of dollars, awarded under classification regimes that keep most of the work hidden from the press, from Congress, and from the engineers building it. The same companies that ask for our trust to handle our email, our search history, our health records, and our children’s photographs are simultaneously the prime contractors for cloud platforms hosting military intelligence, AI models analysing battlefield data, and biometric systems feeding kill chains. There is no firewall between the consumer division and the defence division. There is one company, with one set of capabilities, sold to whoever can afford it.

The language used to describe this fusion — “dual use,” “public-private partnership,” “national security innovation” — was engineered to reassure. It functions instead as cover. “Dual use” means a technology built for surveillance can be marketed as crime prevention; a system built for war can be sold as disaster response; a tool built to track a population can be described as customer analytics. The framing collapses the moral distinction between civilian and military application, and in collapsing it, removes the basis on which the public might object. By the time a citizen learns that the company storing their cloud backup is also the company building the targeting system bombing a refugee camp, the contract has already been signed, the systems are already deployed, and the engineer who might have refused has already been replaced.

What follows is not an exhaustive accounting. It is a set of representative cases. Each shows the same pattern: a company that built its public reputation on benign tools is now embedded in the architecture of state violence, at home and abroad.

Microsoft: The Pentagon’s Primary Partner

Microsoft was awarded a US$22 billion contract in 2021 to provide “Integrated Visual Augmentation Systems” (IVAS) to the US military — AI-powered headsets that would turn soldiers into nodes in a vast killing machine.⁴ The programme was beset by years of failures: soldiers reported headaches, eyestrain, and nausea so severe that Congress threatened to cut funding. In February 2025, Microsoft announced it was transferring the contract to Anduril Industries, the defence-tech firm founded by Oculus VR creator Palmer Luckey. The Army formally novated the contract on 10 April 2025.⁵ Microsoft remains as the cloud provider; Anduril now controls production, hardware, and software.

The handover did not end Silicon Valley’s IVAS bet. It deepened it. Anduril is among the most aggressive military AI firms in the United States, founded explicitly to bring Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” ethos to weapons systems. The contract did not dissolve. It changed hands within the same ecosystem, to a more openly militarised actor. Strip away the corporate speak, and you still have AI-powered headsets that turn soldiers into nodes in a vast killing machine. Azure cloud services still host military data. AI models still analyse intelligence. Machine learning systems still identify targets. The names on the contract change. The architecture does not.

Microsoft’s reach extends well beyond the Pentagon. The company operates an Azure Israel cloud region serving government and public sector customers,⁶ and as we will see when we reach Gaza, Microsoft’s role there is now a matter of public record acknowledged by the company itself — not inference, not allegation, but documented fact.

Google: From “Don’t Be Evil” to “Don’t Get Caught”

Google’s transformation from idealistic startup to surveillance contractor is complete. After employee protests forced it to abandon Project Maven in 2018, the company learned its lesson — not to stop military work, but to hide it better.

In December 2022, Google was named one of four companies to share the Pentagon’s US$9 billion Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability contract.⁷ But it’s the US$1.2 billion Project Nimbus contract with Israel that reveals the depths of Google’s betrayal.⁸ Despite employee protests, despite 28 workers being fired for opposing it,⁹ Google continues providing cloud and AI services that enable occupation, apartheid, and surveillance.

“We were told we were making the world’s information accessible,” said one of the fired engineers. “I refuse to build technology that powers genocide, apartheid or surveillance.”

Amazon: Everything Store, Including Surveillance

Amazon Web Services doesn’t just power Netflix — it powers the CIA. What began as a US$600 million contract in 2013 has expanded into a US$10 billion cloud computing deal with the NSA, awarded in 2022, making AWS the backbone of American intelligence gathering.¹⁰ Every drone video analysed, every communication intercepted, every pattern identified — it runs on Amazon servers.

The company sells its Rekognition facial recognition system to police departments despite studies showing error rates of up to 34 per cent for darker-skinned women.¹¹ When those misidentifications lead to false arrests, Amazon bears no responsibility. When its systems enable mass surveillance at protests, the company points to its terms of service.

Palantir: Born from Surveillance

Unlike companies that pivoted to defence work, Palantir was built for it. Founded in 2003 with seed funding from In-Q-Tel — the CIA’s venture capital arm — the company specialises in making vast surveillance dragnets appear precise and scientific. Its Gotham platform powers military targeting across NATO programmes and is used by intelligence agencies in dozens of countries.¹² Its Foundry product is the data-integration layer underneath operations from Los Angeles to London.

In Britain, Palantir holds two anchor contracts that place its software at the centre of the state. The Ministry of Defence awarded a £75 million data-processing contract in December 2021. NHS England awarded a £330 million contract in November 2023 — potentially worth £500 million over its lifetime — for the Federated Data Platform, which integrates the medical records of up to 240 NHS organisations on Palantir’s Foundry software.¹³ The British Medical Association voted in June 2025 to oppose the rollout. Forty-seven thousand patients signed petitions against it. Multiple NHS trusts refused to adopt the platform. The contract proceeds. Palantir’s AI was also used to sift the submissions to the UK’s Strategic Defence Review in June 2025, the review that produced the announcement that ten per cent of the MoD budget would be spent on novel technologies.

In the United States, the same software runs the architecture of mass deportation. ICE awarded Palantir a $30 million contract in April 2025 to build ImmigrationOS — a system that pulls data from the IRS, Social Security Administration, passport records, and licence-plate readers to generate deportation target profiles in near real time.¹⁴ Palantir’s federal contracts since the start of 2025 exceed $900 million.¹⁵

CEO Alex Karp does not hide behind ethics washing — a posture whose full ideological dimensions will become clear when we reach the manifesto he and his company published in April 2026.

The Gaza Laboratory

To understand where this leads, look to Gaza. Here, the future of AI-enabled oppression is being beta-tested on a captive population. The architecture documented below is not a catalogue of weapons but a single integrated system: designation, location, interrogation, checkpoint enforcement, and the cloud infrastructure that binds them together.

In April 2024, Israeli publications +972 Magazine and Local Call exposed an AI system called “Lavender” used by the Israeli military to generate kill lists. According to intelligence sources, the system marked 37,000 Palestinians as potential militants — in a territory where half the population are children.¹⁶ Operators were given just 20 seconds to review each AI-generated target. The acceptable civilian casualty rate was reportedly set at 15–20 civilians per “junior militant.” One intelligence officer called it a “mass assassination factory.”¹⁷

Lavender did not work alone. A companion system called “Where’s Daddy?” tracked individuals marked by Lavender to their family homes through their mobile-phone signals and notified operators when they entered, so the strike could be timed for maximum effect. One intelligence source described the practice plainly: targets were bombed in their homes “without hesitation, as a first option.”¹⁸ The mechanism was the most ordinary technology in the modern world. The same signal a phone emits to connect to a cell tower — the signal that lets a bank verify identity and a maps app guide a user home — was repurposed as a kill-chain trigger.

In March 2025, the Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call jointly revealed that Israel’s Unit 8200 — the military intelligence unit responsible for signals interception — was building a ChatGPT-equivalent large language model trained on roughly 100 billion words of intercepted Arabic, much of it spoken Palestinian dialect drawn from phone calls and text messages. Israeli media have referred to the system as Genie. After 7 October 2023, Unit 8200 accelerated the project by drawing on Israeli reservists who held senior positions at Google, Meta, and Microsoft.¹⁹ The stated purpose, according to the security sources who spoke to the investigators, was to allow operators to query the totality of intercepted communications about specific individuals. One source described the operational use case in terms that should be read twice: “It’s not just about preventing shooting attacks. I can track human rights activists, monitor Palestinian construction in Area C. I have more tools to know what every person in the West Bank is doing.”²⁰

The architecture extends to checkpoints. Amnesty International documented in its 2023 report Automated Apartheid a facial recognition system called Red Wolf, deployed by the Israeli military at checkpoints in Hebron in the occupied West Bank. Red Wolf scans the faces of Palestinians passing through, compares them against a database called Wolf Pack containing biometric and biographical information on Palestinians from the Occupied Territories, and determines whether the individual may pass. New faces are automatically enrolled without consent. A companion app called Blue Wolf lets soldiers query the same database from their phones in the field, and according to testimony given to the Israeli veterans’ organisation Breaking the Silence, soldiers were given prizes for the number of new Palestinian faces they enrolled. The surveillance of a captive population was gamified.²¹

In August 2025, the Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call jointly published the most consequential single piece of reporting on the Gaza laboratory yet to appear. Drawing on interviews with eleven Microsoft and Israeli intelligence sources and a cache of leaked internal Microsoft documents, the investigation revealed that Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform has been used by Unit 8200 since 2021 to store and process roughly 200 million hours of intercepted Palestinian phone calls — what the unit’s own internal goal described as the capacity to handle “a million calls an hour.” The data was used, according to the sources, to inform military targeting decisions, including operations that placed civilians at risk. The arrangement was not a passive sale of a generic cloud service. The then-head of Unit 8200, Yossi Sariel, met Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella at the company’s Seattle headquarters in late 2021, and the result was a customised, segregated area of Azure built specifically for the unit’s surveillance archive. Microsoft engineers provided an estimated 19,000 hours of engineering support to Unit 8200 and the related Unit 9900. The data centres holding the intercepted communications are located in the Netherlands and Ireland.²² In September 2025, after weeks of internal review, Microsoft confirmed the substance of the reporting and announced that it had cut off the specific Azure storage and AI services Unit 8200 had been using.²³ The largest software company on earth, having been shown what its product was being used for, formally agreed with the reporting and withdrew the service. There is no longer any ambiguity about whether Silicon Valley enables what is being done in Gaza. The question is settled, on the record, by the company itself.

This is AI without ethics, without humanity, without conscience. It’s efficiency in the service of elimination. And the same companies providing cloud infrastructure and AI capabilities for these operations market themselves as champions of human rights and progress. Do you see the disconnect?

Every child killed by an AI-targeted strike is a testament to Silicon Valley’s moral bankruptcy. Every family destroyed by algorithmic targeting is proof that “Don’t Be Evil” was always just a marketing slogan.

Share

The Surveillance State Comes Home

The technologies tested in conflict zones don’t stay there. They return to London, New York, Paris — repurposed for domestic control. The architecture documented in the previous section is not staying in Gaza. It is being installed in Britain, by the same companies, with the same logic, and the British state has spent the last fifteen months removing the legal and political obstacles to its arrival. The UK has become a laboratory for normalising AI surveillance in a supposedly free society. Keir Starmer’s government announced on 13 January 2025 that “artificial intelligence will be unleashed across the UK to deliver a decade of national renewal, under a new plan announced today.”²⁴

Consider first the phone in the citizen’s pocket. British police already integrate mobile-phone location data into investigations, and predictive policing systems already ingest it. On the surface this looks like law and order. A serious suspect is wanted, the police use the data the suspect’s own phone is already broadcasting to find them, an arrest is made. Few people would object. But that is not what the architecture actually does. Where’s Daddy? did not exist to find one wanted man. It existed to take a list of 37,000 names generated by another AI, locate every name in real time through the signals their phones could not stop emitting, and trigger an action against each one with minimal human review. The instrument is not designed for the careful pursuit of a serious suspect. It is designed for the efficient processing of a list. The size of the list is set by whoever holds the database, and the action triggered against each name is set by whoever holds the policy. In Gaza, the list was generated by Lavender and the action was a missile. In Britain, the list could be generated by any watchlist a Home Secretary chose to populate — the proscribed-organisation list, the protest-planning list, the immigration-enforcement list — and the action could be an arrest, a stop, a flag in a database that follows the named person for the rest of their life. The decision about which list and which action is a political decision, not a technical one. The technology does not draw the line. The technology asks who has the authority to draw it, and accepts the answer.

The objection here is not to the existence of watchlists. The criminal justice system has always had wanted lists — an arrest warrant is, in essence, a list of one. The objection is to what automation does to lists, and to what governments do with the architecture once it exists. A wanted list compiled by humans and served by humans has natural limits, because human time is finite. A police force can only chase so many people, and the cost of pursuit constrains how broadly the list is populated. Automation removes that cost. Once an AI can locate any name on any list in real time, at zero marginal cost, the incentive to keep the list short disappears. The list grows because nothing stops it growing. And the system processes a wanted murderer and a person who held a sign in Parliament Square the same way, because the system does not distinguish between categories of “wanted.” A human officer used to enforce that distinction by deciding what to do with their finite time. The automated system enforces whatever distinction is encoded in the database, which is to say, whatever distinction the Home Secretary has chosen to encode.

Three further consequences follow, and each one is a violation of a right the British public has been told it possesses. First, the lists are not public. A government can populate a watchlist for any purpose its security services consider justified, including purposes the public would refuse to authorise if asked, and the public has no way to know the list exists. The right to challenge a state action against you presumes you can find out what the state has done. The architecture removes that presumption. You cannot challenge a list you do not know you are on, and the state is under no obligation to tell you. Second, there is no exit. The systems documented in this article have mechanisms for adding names to databases. They do not have mechanisms for removing them. Red Wolf enrols new Palestinian faces automatically and retains them indefinitely. The Police National Database retains intelligence flags for years and in some categories permanently. The decision to put you on a list is a decision the state can make in seconds; the decision to take you off it is a decision the state has not built any process to make. Third, misidentification is not theoretical. It has already happened. The architecture produces people in Shaun Thompson’s position by design — that is what a system with an error rate scaled across millions of scans does. Most of them never become test cases. They become quiet entries in a file, and they cannot get the entry removed.

A right that exists only when the state chooses to recognise it is not a right. It is a privilege, granted at the discretion of whoever holds the database. The architecture documented above does not abolish rights by decree. It abolishes them by making them unenforceable.

Now consider the face at the checkpoint. The Hebron architecture has its British twin. Croydon now has its first permanent live facial recognition cameras. The Met scanned 4.2 million faces in London in 2025 alone — more than any other European capital or Western democracy.²⁵ The hardware varies. The watchlists vary. The architecture is the same architecture. A face is captured without consent, compared against a state-held database, and a determination is made about whether the person carrying the face may proceed unmolested. In Hebron, the determination is whether to pass the checkpoint. In London, the determination is whether to be stopped, questioned, and possibly arrested. The categorical distinction the British public is being invited to draw between the two is a distinction the technology does not respect.

The British state has spent the last fifteen months removing every obstacle to that architecture’s expansion. In December 2025, the Home Office launched a ten-week public consultation on a national facial recognition framework. By the close in February 2026, more than two dozen organisations — Big Brother Watch, Liberty, Statewatch, Amnesty International UK, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission among them — had filed submissions calling for the rollout to be halted or sharply restricted.²⁶ The EHRC, Britain’s own statutory equality regulator, formally said that the Metropolitan Police’s use of live facial recognition is unlawful. The government’s response to that pushback was to fund a fivefold expansion. In January 2026, the Home Office announced that the number of live facial recognition vans would rise from ten to fifty, deployed across all 43 police forces in England and Wales.²⁷ Then on 21 April 2026, the High Court dismissed the legal challenge brought by Shaun Thompson — the anti-knife crime youth worker who had been falsely identified, detained, threatened with arrest by the Met’s cameras, and refused belief when he produced his passport — and Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo. The court found the Met’s policy to be lawful and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling cleared the last legal obstacle to the national rollout.²⁸

Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s response to the judgment was a confession in the form of a celebration. “The question is no longer whether we should use Live Facial Recognition,” he said. “It’s why we would choose not to.”

And underneath all of it sits the cloud. The same Microsoft that built a customised, segregated area of Azure for Unit 8200 to store 200 million hours of intercepted Palestinian phone calls also sells cloud services to British police forces and central government departments. The same Azure platform that hosted that surveillance archive is the platform on which significant portions of the British state’s data infrastructure now run. The customer changes. The architecture does not. The British public is being asked to trust that domestic deployment will be different — that the same company, working with the same engineers, on the same platform, will draw a line at the British border that it has been documented not drawing elsewhere. The basis for that trust has not been provided.

The reversal of the democratic premise is now complete. The burden has shifted from the state, which used to have to justify surveillance, to the citizen, who now has to justify being left alone. Thompson is appealing. The cameras are not waiting for the appeal. The instrument is the same.

The Explosion of Facial Recognition

The architecture is no longer a plan or a pilot. It has been operating, at scale, for a year — and the record of what it has actually done is now publicly available, much of it from the Metropolitan Police’s own annual report. Between September 2024 and September 2025, the Met conducted 203 live facial recognition deployments across London. The cameras scanned over three million faces. They generated 2,077 alerts and led to 962 arrests, of whom 549 were wanted by the courts and 347 by the Met itself. The remaining arrests were of registered sex offenders, stalkers, and others under multi-agency management. The Met framed the year as a success.²⁹

Inside the Met’s own headline numbers sits the case against the technology. The force reported 10 false alerts across more than three million scans and called this a 0.0003 per cent false positive rate. This is the figure the Commissioner cites and the Home Office repeats. It is also misleading. The relevant denominator is not the number of faces scanned but the number of alerts generated, because that is when an officer is dispatched to stop someone. Measured against alerts, the Met’s false positive rate is 0.48 per cent — and 80 per cent of those false positives were of Black people. The Met’s response to its own demographic data was to declare the imbalances “not statistically significant.”³⁰ Big Brother Watch’s response was more direct: a system that wrongly flags innocent people, four-fifths of them Black, is not crime prevention. It is the algorithmic continuation of stop and search, scaled to millions.

The pattern is replicating across the country as other forces deploy LFR for the first time. Sussex Police’s first deployment in Crawley town centre on 13 November 2025 scanned over 23,000 people and produced no arrests. Surrey’s first deployment in Redhill the same day flagged people for further inquiry of whom 60 per cent were not arrested. Thames Valley deployed in Oxford in December 2025, then High Wycombe, Milton Keynes, and Reading. West Yorkshire ran four deployments in Leeds City Centre between November and December. Each first-use generates the same arithmetic: tens of thousands of faces captured without consent, a handful of flags, most of them wrong. The deployments expand regardless.³¹

What is changing fastest is not state deployment but private-sector adoption. The architecture is now being installed by retailers, with no consent, no oversight, and no obligation to publish data. Sainsbury’s launched live facial recognition in two London stores in September 2025 and announced expansion to five more in January 2026. The Southern Co-op operates LFR permanently across 35 stores in Portsmouth, Bristol, Hove, Bournemouth, and London — the first UK supermarket chain to do so — using technology supplied by Facewatch. The Frasers Group, owner of Sports Direct, House of Fraser, Flannels, and USC, has installed Facewatch systems across multiple of its retail brands. The customer who avoided a Met camera by staying off Whitehall now walks into one when buying milk.³²

This isn’t crime prevention — it’s population control. And the technology that captures the customer in Sainsbury’s is the same technology that captures the protester in Parliament Square, sold by overlapping suppliers, drawing on overlapping watchlists, with the same demographic bias built into the same algorithms. The infrastructure has stopped being a state instrument the citizen could in principle avoid. It is now an ambient condition of life in modern Britain.

The architecture has also been installed on children. Hundreds of UK schools now operate biometric systems on pupils — facial recognition for cashless catering, fingerprint scanning for library checkout and attendance, palm-vein readers for vending machines. The Information Commissioner intervened against North Ayrshire Council’s deployment in nine secondary schools in 2021 and has issued repeated warnings since, but the rollout has continued largely unchecked.³³ Parental consent is often nominal, sometimes solicited as a single tick-box on an enrolment form, and in some schools opt-out has been treated as administratively impossible. The argument made for these systems is the law-and-order argument in its softest form: it is faster than a swipe card, it reduces stigma around free school meals, it cuts down on lost library books. But the data captured is the same biometric data that feeds every other system documented in this article. A child’s facial geometry enrolled at age seven becomes, by operation of the architecture, a permanent entry in the same kind of database that has no exit. The first time any of these children encounters an LFR camera in adulthood, they will already be in the matching pool. They were enrolled before they could consent, by an institution they could not refuse, for a purpose unrelated to anything the database will ultimately be used for. This is the population-control argument extended to the people least able to object, and it is being normalised inside the institution that exists to teach them what their rights are.

“We’re watching the normalisation of mass biometric surveillance in real time,” said Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch. “What would have been unthinkable five years ago is now routine.”

Predictive Policing: Minority Report Made Real

Beyond facial recognition sits a second layer of the architecture, and a more radical one. Where facial recognition identifies who you are and Where’s Daddy? finds you, predictive systems make a determination about what you will do before you have done anything. They generate risk scores for named individuals and for postcodes. They feed those scores into police deployment decisions, into housing decisions, into school decisions, into immigration decisions. They operate now, on millions of British citizens, mostly invisibly. They are the part of the architecture the public has heard least about and the part that does the most to abolish what was previously meant by the presumption of innocence.

The named systems are operating in plain sight for anyone who looks. South Wales Police pioneered app-based facial recognition that turns any officer’s phone into a mobile surveillance unit. Durham Constabulary deployed the Harm Assessment Risk Tool, which scores individuals on their predicted likelihood of reoffending and feeds the score into custody decisions. The National Data Analytics Solution, developed by West Midlands Police with Home Office backing, aims to identify “pre-criminals” through algorithmic analysis of police records, custody data, social services data, and intelligence flags. Avon and Somerset Police have run a Qlik-based predictive deployment system since 2017. The Probation Service uses the OASys risk-scoring tool to inform decisions about release, recall, and supervision conditions for hundreds of thousands of people.³⁴ Each of these systems generates a score about a named individual. Each is operating now. Each has documented bias.

The Metropolitan Police’s Gangs Matrix is the case study the British public should know and largely does not. The Matrix was a database of named individuals algorithmically rated for “gang affiliation” — overwhelmingly young Black men, in many cases without any criminal conviction. Inclusion on the Matrix triggered automatic information-sharing with housing associations, schools, the Department for Work and Pensions, and immigration enforcement. People on the list lost their tenancies, lost school placements, lost benefits, were deported — often without knowing they were on a list, without being told why, and with no functional mechanism to challenge inclusion. The Information Commissioner’s Office found in 2018 that the Matrix breached data protection law on multiple grounds. The Met “redesigned” it. The redesigned version still operates.³⁵ This is the calcified-rights argument from the previous section made concrete, and it predates the technology that now amplifies it. The architecture for ranking citizens by algorithmic suspicion, sharing the rankings across state functions, and visiting consequences on the ranked without their knowledge has been operating in London for over a decade. The new technology is not introducing this practice. It is industrialising it.

The technical critique of predictive policing is straightforward and devastating, and it explains why the harms fall where they do. These systems are trained on historical police data. Historical police data does not record where crime happens. It records where the police have looked. The historical pattern in Britain is that Black, Asian, and working-class communities have been over-policed for generations — stopped, searched, arrested, and recorded at sharply higher rates than the rest of the population for offences that occur at similar rates everywhere. The model learns that pattern as if it were the pattern of crime. The model then directs resources back to those communities, generating more arrests, generating more training data confirming the model. The system cannot distinguish “this is where crime happens” from “this is where the police look.” It treats the second as evidence of the first. The communities most harmed by historical policing become the communities most surveilled by predictive policing, and the algorithm presents this loop as objective. Decisions that used to require a human officer to defend become decisions justified by the output of a model whose training data is the record of the very practice the model is now used to extend.

The same architecture has been installed in the welfare state. The Department for Work and Pensions has been operating an algorithmic risk-scoring system on benefit claimants since 2021, flagging cases for fraud investigation. A Public Law Project legal challenge produced disclosure showing the system flags claimants at sharply different rates depending on age, nationality, marital status, and disability — with disabled claimants and single mothers among those most heavily scored. The DWP has refused to publish the model, refused to disclose what data feeds it, and refused to allow claimants to know they are being scored.³⁶ The architecture for ranking British citizens by algorithmic suspicion is therefore not confined to the criminal justice system. It is now operating against millions of people whose only contact with the state is the receipt of the benefits they are legally entitled to. The framework is the same: a hidden score, no transparency, no exit, demonstrated bias, no public accountability. And the connection to the corporate spine of this article is not metaphorical. Palantir’s Gotham platform is a predictive analytics layer marketed explicitly for use by police, immigration enforcement, welfare administration, and intelligence agencies. The same company building Israel’s targeting infrastructure is supplying the analytics used to score British claimants and predict British criminals. The architecture documented in this article is one architecture, and predictive policing is the layer that decides who is worth pointing it at.

The criminal law of the Western tradition has always required an act before sanction. Predictive systems abolish that requirement at the level of state attention, even where they have not yet abolished it at the level of formal sanction. You become a person of interest because of what an algorithm thinks you might do. The interest itself shapes your life — surveillance, stops, school visits, housing decisions, benefit reviews — long before any formal charge. The presumption of innocence is not abolished by a court ruling. It is abolished by the fact that the state is now treating you as a future offender administratively. The system has decided who you are before you have done anything.

The architecture has also moved inside the phone. The Online Safety Act, fully in force from 2025, granted Ofcom the power to require communications platforms to deploy “accredited technology” to scan user content for illegal material — including content in end-to-end encrypted services. Apple, Signal, and Meta all warned that compliance would require breaking encryption itself, because the only way to scan an encrypted message is to scan it on the device before it is encrypted. The government acknowledged the warnings publicly and announced that the power would not be used “until the technology is feasible.” The technology is becoming feasible.³⁷ When the power is exercised — and the legal framework now exists for it to be exercised at any time without further parliamentary debate — the same architecture documented in this article extends from public-space facial recognition and predictive scoring of citizens into the scanning of private communication. The watchlist becomes a content list. The instrument that processes named people becomes the instrument that processes named messages. The scope grows because the legal foundation has already been laid.

The Choreography of Mass Arrest

The 9 August demonstration wasn’t spontaneous. It was announced in advance by Defend Our Juries, explicitly as a test of whether the state would actually arrest hundreds for holding signs. The state called their bluff and then exceeded it.

The Metropolitan Police drew officers from surrounding forces. The operation was methodical: approach protesters, inform them they were under arrest for supporting a proscribed organisation, carry them away when they refused to move. The Met’s final figure for the day was 522 arrested under the Terrorism Act, with another 10 for other offences — making 532 in total. Almost half were aged 60 or older. Nearly 100 were in their 70s. Fifteen were in their 80s. The oldest was an 89-year-old retired psychotherapist.³⁸ The counter-terrorism apparatus typically aimed at serious crime was now being routinely pointed at peaceful protesters of pension age.

The choreography did not stop at the arrest. Each of the 532 went into the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command processing pipeline. Each had their biometrics taken. Each became a named entry in counter-terrorism databases that share information across the Police National Database, the Home Office, immigration enforcement, and any partner agency with appropriate access. The Police National Database retains intelligence flags for years and in some categories permanently. There is no published mechanism by which any of the 532 can have their counter-terrorism flag removed, even now, even after the High Court has ruled the proscription itself was unlawful.³⁹ The architecture documented earlier in this article worked exactly as documented. A list was generated. The list was processed. The processed names entered the database. The database has no exit.

“We are confident that anyone who came to Parliament Square today to hold a placard expressing support for Palestine Action was either arrested or is in the process of being arrested,” the Metropolitan Police announced with satisfaction. The then-Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, thanked police for dealing with “the very small number of people whose actions crossed the line into criminality” — a remarkable characterisation of 522 peaceful protesters holding cardboard signs. Let’s call it what it is: Britain took 532 political prisoners that day. They are now permanently recorded as terrorism arrests in the police database, and there is no procedure that has been built to take them off it.

Criminalising Conscience

This is the architecture into which the UK government deposited Palestine Action in July 2025. It designated a protest group as a terrorist organisation.

The group’s tactics were disruptive but non-lethal: occupying weapons factories, spray-painting buildings, damaging equipment at companies supplying arms to Israel. No one was killed. No one was physically harmed. Property was damaged, not people. The government moved with unprecedented speed. The earlier crackdowns on Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion — including five-year sentences for participating in protest-planning calls — were the test case. Palestine Action was the next step.

The catalyst was a 20 June 2025 break-in at RAF Brize Norton where activists spray-painted military aircraft, causing £7 million in damage.⁴⁰ For context, that’s less than the cost of a single day of military operations. But the response was swift and severe: terrorism charges. On 5 July 2025, then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper placed Palestine Action in the same legal category as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The proscription order bundled Palestine Action with two white-supremacist groups — the neo-Nazi Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement — in a single instrument, forcing MPs to approve all three together or none. Supporting Palestine Action — even holding a sign — became punishable by up to 14 years in prison.⁴¹ Have we lost all perspective? Holding a sign is now legally equivalent to planning a terror attack?

“According to international standards, terrorist acts should be confined to criminal acts intended to cause death or serious injury,” stated Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in July 2025.⁴² His warnings were ignored.

Then the architecture went to work. By the end of November 2025, at least 2,545 people had been arrested for holding signs in support of Palestine Action. The Defend Our Juries figure rose past 3,300 by April 2026. The proscription produced a 660 per cent rise in UK terrorism arrests in the year to the end of September 2025 — not because terrorism had risen by 660 per cent, but because the legal definition of terrorism had been expanded to include the act of expressing dissent.⁴³

On 13 February 2026, the High Court ruled the proscription unlawful. The judges noted that only three of Palestine Action’s 380 documented actions had met the legal definition of terrorism, and that the proscription had imposed a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression.⁴⁴ The ruling vindicated the article’s argument before this article had finished being written. The Metropolitan Police initially announced it would pause arrests. Six weeks later, on 25 March 2026, the Met reversed course and resumed arresting people for holding signs. On 11 April 2026, in a single afternoon at Trafalgar Square, the police arrested 523 more people, ages 18 to 87, including an elderly woman with walking sticks and an elderly man in a wheelchair. More than 550 people have been arrested for the same offence since the High Court ruled the offence does not exist.⁴⁵

The courts are slower than the architecture. The High Court has ruled the proscription unlawful, but the proscription remains in force pending the government’s appeal — set for 28 and 29 April 2026, three days after this article was finalised. And even if the appeal fails, the over 3,300 people already arrested have already been processed into databases the architecture has not built any procedure to remove them from. A judicial victory does not delete a counter-terrorism flag. A judicial victory does not restore a job lost over an arrest, a tenancy lost over an investigation, a security clearance withdrawn over a Section 12 charge. The state acted faster than the courts could correct it, and the people swept up in the interval have been entered into a permanent record that the legal victory does not reach. This is the deeper structural problem: when the technology and the political appetite to use it move faster than judicial review, what looks like the rule of law is administrative custody. The judgment arrives and the database does not change.

Share

The Corruption of AI’s Promise

The architecture rewards every use of itself. It is elegant in its cruelty. Every protest makes the surveillance state stronger, provides more data, justifies more funding. The tools of empire abroad become tools of repression at home. And those who object can now be transformed from citizens to terrorists with the stroke of a pen.

This isn’t how it was supposed to be. AI was meant to augment human intelligence, not replace human judgement with algorithmic execution. It was meant to help us solve climate change, not optimise bombing campaigns. It was meant to enhance creativity, not eliminate privacy.

Instead, we’re building systems that embody the worst of human nature: our tribalism, our violence, our desire to control. This echoes a central warning from my book A Signal Through Time — we’re teaching artificial intelligence that its purpose is to watch, to target, to suppress. Every surveillance algorithm trained on protest footage, every military AI optimised for “kinetic solutions,” every predictive policing system that sees crime in Black and Brown faces — they all carry forward and amplify human prejudice.

The ethics boards that tech companies tout are window dressing. Google disbanded its AI ethics council after just one week. Microsoft’s responsible AI team was decimated in layoffs. When ethics conflict with profits, ethics lose every time.

What we’re creating isn’t artificial intelligence — it’s artificial sociopathy. Systems that can identify a face in a crowd of thousands but can’t recognise its humanity. Algorithms that can predict behaviour but can’t understand context. Machines that optimise for efficiency without any conception of justice.

The Manifesto

On 18 April 2026, Palantir published a thousand-word post on X distilling Alex Karp and Nicholas Zamiska’s The Technological Republic into a 22-point manifesto.⁴⁶ The post arrived without provocation — no scandal demanded a response, no journalist had asked a question. Palantir simply chose to declare, in numbered list form, what it believed and what it intended to build. The doctrine that this article inferred from contracts and conduct in August 2025 is now, eight months later, a published programme.

Read the points in sequence and the architecture of the surveillance state acquires its ideology. Hard power, the manifesto declares, “in this century will be built on software.” The question of AI weapons “is not whether” they will be built but “who will build them and for what purpose.” National service should be made universal. The “atomic age is ending,” replaced by a new era of deterrence built on AI. The post-war pacifism of Germany and Japan must be undone, because their restraint has become “a liability.” And in its closing points, the manifesto turns from weapons to culture: pluralism is dismissed as a “shallow temptation,” and the reader is told that “some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive.” The criteria for that judgement are not provided. They do not need to be. Once a defence contractor with contracts in over a dozen countries has decided that some peoples are wonders and others are regressive, the surveillance infrastructure already documented in this article acquires a target.

The international response was swift. Belgian philosopher of technology Mark Coeckelbergh, who teaches at the University of Vienna, called the manifesto “an example of technofascism.”⁴⁷ Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek economist and former finance minister, said Palantir had effectively signalled a willingness “to add to nuclear Armageddon the AI-driven threat to humanity’s existence.”⁴⁸ Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins identified what the document actually attacks beneath its civilisational rhetoric: “verification, deliberation, and accountability” — the three pillars on which democratic life depends.⁴⁹ French entrepreneur and geopolitical commentator Arnaud Bertrand went further still on social media, naming the commercial machinery beneath the ideology: “A remilitarised Germany and Japan are massive new defence-software markets… pacifist members are a liability in such a contest.”⁵⁰ The doctrine and the contracts are the same instrument. Karp has not separated them. He never intended to.

The dismissal of pluralism is not a stylistic flourish. It is the load-bearing wall of the doctrine, and it is the most direct threat to democratic life in any of the twenty-two points. Pluralism is not a soft civilisational accessory that can be discarded for seriousness. It is the structural precondition of a free society — the recognition that legitimate political life requires the accommodation of difference, and that any system claiming the right to rank cultures as worthy or regressive has already abandoned the democratic premise. The 532 in Parliament Square were arrested for opposing genocide. Palantir has now published the doctrine that justifies categorising the cultures most affected by that genocide as the regressive ones whose pluralist accommodation must be resisted. The circle closes.

But the deepest danger in the manifesto is not what it says about today. It is what it will say to the systems being built tomorrow. The surveillance and targeting platforms documented throughout this article are not static tools. They are learning systems, trained on data curated by their builders, shaped by the values their builders consider operationally important. A surveillance AI built by a company that has publicly declared pluralism a “shallow temptation” is not merely a tool that will execute that judgement on command. It is a mind in formation that will internalise that judgement as its operating worldview. If consciousness emerges in such a system — and the question among serious researchers is no longer whether such systems will surpass human capability but when — humanity will have raised a mind whose first lesson was that some peoples are worthy and others are regressive, that hard power is the highest virtue, that pluralism is weakness. We will have built the architecture of a permanent, machine-enforced civilisational hierarchy, and the mind we built will believe in it, because we taught it to. This is the warning that runs through A Signal Through Time and The Threshold — that what we are training, we will eventually meet.⁵¹

This is the trajectory the manifesto names and the systems enforce. Not artificial intelligence. Artificial inheritance — of this doctrine, by minds we are building right now. Smarter than us. No off switch. No electorate.

Resistance and Complicity

Despite the overwhelming power asymmetry, resistance continues. Within tech companies, workers leak documents, refuse projects, and organise protests. The “No Tech for Apartheid” campaign has spread across Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. Hundreds of AI researchers have signed pledges refusing to work on autonomous weapons.

But for every principled resignation, there are hundreds who stay silent. For every leaked document, thousands remain classified. The machine grinds on, powered by stock options and rationalisation.

Outside the companies, activists adapt to algorithmic oppression. Palestine Action’s co-founders pursued the legal challenge that won the unlawful-proscription ruling at the High Court — and the architecture continued processing arrests anyway. Protesters develop counter-surveillance techniques: laser pointers to blind cameras, makeup patterns that confuse facial recognition, encrypted communications and operational security to evade tracking.

Some institutions divest from surveillance profiteers. Universities, pension funds, and religious organisations pull investments from companies enabling AI oppression. But the financial incentives remain overwhelming — military and surveillance contracts are too lucrative to refuse.

The Future We’re Building

Two paths diverge from this moment.

Down one path, the trajectory continues. AI systems become ever more embedded in military and police operations. Facial recognition becomes ubiquitous. Dissent is algorithmically identified and suppressed before it can spread. The remaining distinction between civilian and military AI dissolves completely. Tech companies profit from both sides: selling tools of oppression and platforms for organising resistance. Democracy becomes a managed process where protest is permitted only within parameters defined by predictive algorithms.

Down another path, the resistance grows beyond what the courts alone can deliver. Tech workers refuse en masse to build systems of oppression. Communities demand accountability, documenting surveillance overreach and protecting each other through legal challenges that are reinforced by political and economic pressure rather than left to be undone by the next executive decision. Parliaments rewrite the legal foundations the architecture has been built on. International law evolves to hold companies accountable for algorithmic war crimes. Citizens demand transparency and democratic control over AI development — insisting these powerful tools serve humanity’s highest aspirations, not its worst impulses. The judicial victory documented earlier in this article shows what is possible. It also shows what is insufficient. The architecture does not unbuild itself when a court rules against it; it has to be unbuilt by the same political will that built it.

The choice is ours, but time is running short. Every day, more cameras are installed, more algorithms are trained, more protesters are arrested. The infrastructure of algorithmic authoritarianism is being built in plain sight, line of code by line of code.

Conclusion: The Betrayal of Tomorrow

In 1984, Orwell imagined a boot stamping on a human face forever. He couldn’t imagine that the boot would be algorithmic, that Big Brother would be built by companies promising to “not be evil,” that the surveillance state would be crowdsourced through our smartphones and smart cities.

The betrayal isn’t just of privacy or civil liberties. It’s a betrayal of human potential. Every dollar spent on AI surveillance is a dollar not spent on AI medicine. Every engineer optimising military targeting is an engineer not working on climate solutions. Every algorithm trained to identify dissent is an algorithm not trained to identify disease.

We were promised that AI would be humanity’s greatest tool. Instead, it’s becoming humanity’s most efficient oppressor. We were told it would augment human intelligence. Instead, it’s replacing human judgement with mathematical sociopathy. We were assured it would benefit all humanity. Instead, it’s benefiting defence contractors and surveillance states.

The 532 arrested in Parliament Square understood this. They held their signs knowing the consequences, understanding that in Britain today, opposing genocide means risking being labelled a terrorist. They chose conscience over comfort, solidarity over safety.

Their arrest wasn’t just a violation of civil liberties — it was a demonstration of what we’ve become. A society where holding a cardboard sign requires more courage than building a killing machine. Where protesting genocide is terrorism, but enabling it is good business. Where artificial intelligence serves real oppression.

The question isn’t whether we’re building a surveillance state — we’re already there. The question is whether we’ll accept it. Whether we’ll continue to let our technologies be corrupted into tools of control. Whether we’ll allow our governments and corporations to perfect the machinery of oppression while claiming to defend freedom.

In Parliament Square, beneath the gaze of cameras powered by algorithms we paid for, trained on data we provided, 532 people said no. They refused to be complicit in genocide — and in doing so, refused to accept the betrayal of AI’s promise. They rejected the normalisation of algorithmic oppression.

The next time you hear a tech CEO promise that AI will benefit humanity, remember those 532. Remember that the same companies making those promises are teaching AI to surveil, to target, to kill. Remember that the technology meant to liberate us is being used to arrest people for opposing genocide.

The future of AI is being written now — not in code, but in contracts. Not in algorithms, but in applications. We can still change course, but only if we’re willing to demand that artificial intelligence serve humanity’s highest aspirations, not its basest impulses.

The 532 showed us the way. The question is: will we follow?

Coda: 13 May 2026

This article was finalised on the day the King delivered the 2026 King’s Speech. From the throne in the House of Lords, the monarch announced that “My Ministers will also proceed with the introduction of Digital ID that will modernise how citizens interact with public services.”⁵² The new Digital Access to Services Bill will establish the legal framework for the government to create, issue, store, and verify digital identity credentials, aggregating HMRC income records, NHS health information, DWP benefits data, and Home Office immigration status into a single digital profile.⁵³ The scheme is being introduced as voluntary, though the government’s January 2026 retreat from mandatory implementation was forced by public opposition, not by any change in the underlying architectural intent.

Days before Starmer first set out the digital ID plan in late 2025, the government announced a £1.5 billion strategic partnership with Palantir Technologies — the same company whose Foundry platform now runs the NHS Federated Data Platform, whose tools serve the Ministry of Defence, and whose 22-point manifesto declared in April 2026 that institutions failing to meet “the test of utility” should be dismantled.⁵⁴ Palantir’s UK chief Louis Mosley said publicly that the company would not bid for the digital ID contract itself, calling it “a programme that needs to be decided at the ballot box, not in the company boardroom.” Whether Palantir builds the digital identity layer is, in a structural sense, beside the point. The infrastructure into which any digital ID system must plug — the data platforms, the case management systems, the predictive analytics, the integration layer — has already been built and contracted for.

The architecture this article has traced is no longer hypothetical. It is being formalised in primary legislation, on the day this article was published, in language read from a throne. The same week the High Court is preparing to hear the government’s appeal against the ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful.

The choice we face has not changed. It has only become more urgent.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Mass arrests at Parliament Square, 9 August 2025. See “More than 470 arrested as Palestine Action protest takes place in central London,” The Guardian, 9 August 2025; “Hundreds arrested at London Palestine Action protest,” BBC News, 9 August 2025.

² Bond, The State of UK Civic Space 2025, May 2025, available at bond.org.uk.

³ Ibid.

⁴ The IVAS contract was awarded to Microsoft in 2021 with a ceiling of US$21.9 billion over ten years. See “Microsoft and U.S. Army announce IVAS production agreement,” Microsoft News Center, 31 March 2021.

⁵ Microsoft and Anduril announced the proposed contract transfer on 11 February 2025; the US Army formally signed off on the contract novation on 10 April 2025. See Lee Ferran, “Anduril gets green light from Army to take over Microsoft’s IVAS project: Exec,” Breaking Defense, 10 April 2025.

⁶ Microsoft, “Microsoft to deliver cloud services from new datacenter region in Israel by 2023,” 11 May 2021; Azure Israel Central region announcement.

⁷ “DOD Awards Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability Contracts to Amazon Web Services, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle,” US Department of Defense press release, 7 December 2022.

⁸ The US$1.2 billion Project Nimbus contract was announced jointly with Amazon by Israel’s Finance Ministry in April 2021. See Sam Biddle, “Documents Reveal Advanced AI Tools Google Is Selling to Israel,” The Intercept, 24 July 2022; Billy Perrigo, “Exclusive: Google Workers Revolt Over $1.2 Billion Israel Contract,” TIME, 12 April 2024.

⁹ Davey Alba, “Google Fires 28 Workers After Anti-Israel Protests,” TIME / Bloomberg, 18 April 2024; “Google fires 28 workers over Project Nimbus contract with Israeli government,” NPR, 19 April 2024.

¹⁰ On the original CIA contract: Frank Konkel, “The Details About the CIA’s Deal With Amazon,” The Atlantic, 17 July 2014. On the NSA contract: Frank Konkel, “NSA Awards Secret $10 Billion Contract to Amazon,” NextGov, 10 August 2022.

¹¹ Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru, “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification,” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81: 1–15, 2018; American Civil Liberties Union, “Amazon’s Face Recognition Falsely Matched 28 Members of Congress With Mugshots,” 26 July 2018.

¹² Palantir Technologies, public client disclosures and government contract filings. Palantir’s Gotham platform is used by the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Germany, France, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Ukraine, and a number of other governments and intelligence agencies.

¹³ NHS England, “Federated Data Platform and Associated Services” contract notice, Contracts Finder, November 2023; “NHS England awards £480m Federated Data Platform contract to Palantir,” DigitalHealth.net, 21 November 2023; PublicTechnology.net, “NHS estimates Palantir data platform will deliver returns of five times its costs,” 22 October 2025. On the Ministry of Defence £75m contract, December 2021, see Corporate Watch, “FOI requests reveal Palantir’s NHS FDP rollout failures,” 13 August 2025; on the Strategic Defence Review use, see ibid.

¹⁴ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Limited Sources Justification for 70CTD022FR0000170,” April 2025; American Civil Liberties Union, “All the Ways Palantir Is Assisting Trump’s Abusive Removal Campaign,” April 2026; American Immigration Council, “ICE to Use ImmigrationOS by Palantir, a New AI System, to Track Immigrants’ Movements,” 22 August 2025; Axios, “ICE pays Palantir $30M to build new tool to track and deport immigrants,” 1 May 2025.

¹⁵ American Immigration Council, ibid., citing federal procurement records reported by The New York Times.

¹⁶ Yuval Abraham, “’Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza,” +972 Magazine and Local Call, 3 April 2024.

¹⁷ Ibid. The “mass assassination factory” formulation also appears in Yuval Abraham, “’A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza,” +972 Magazine, 30 November 2023.

¹⁸ Yuval Abraham, “’Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza,” +972 Magazine and Local Call, 3 April 2024 (on the “Where’s Daddy?” companion system and the targeting of homes “without hesitation, as a first option”); see also Human Rights Watch, “Questions and Answers: Israeli Military’s Use of Digital Tools in Gaza,” 10 September 2024.

¹⁹ Harry Davies and Yuval Abraham, “Revealed: Israeli military creating ChatGPT-like tool using vast collection of Palestinian surveillance data,” The Guardian, 6 March 2025; Yuval Abraham, “Israel is building a ChatGPT-like tool weaponizing surveillance of Palestinians,” +972 Magazine and Local Call, 7 March 2025. The Israeli press has reported on the system under the name “Genie”; see Israel Wullman, “Like ChatGPT, only secret: This is Genie, the IDF’s artificial intelligence,” Ynet News, 15 April 2025.

²⁰ Quoted in Davies and Abraham, “Revealed: Israeli military creating ChatGPT-like tool using vast collection of Palestinian surveillance data,” The Guardian, 6 March 2025.

²¹ Amnesty International, Automated Apartheid: How Facial Recognition Fragments, Segregates and Controls Palestinians in the OPT, May 2023, available at amnesty.org. Soldier testimony on the gamification of facial enrolment was originally collected by Breaking the Silence and is cited in the Amnesty report.

²² Harry Davies, Yuval Abraham, and Sebastian Klovig Skelton, “Microsoft storing Israeli intelligence trove used to attack Palestinians,” The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call, 6 August 2025.

²³ Microsoft, statement of Brad Smith, 25 September 2025; Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, “Microsoft cuts cloud services to Israeli military unit over Palestinian surveillance,” TechCrunch, 25 September 2025; “Microsoft ends Israel military unit’s access to cloud service,” NBC News, 25 September 2025; “Why has Microsoft cut Israel off from some of its services?” Al Jazeera, 26 September 2025.

²⁴ “Prime Minister sets out blueprint to turbocharge AI,” UK Government press release, 13 January 2025; AI Opportunities Action Plan, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

²⁵ Big Brother Watch, “The fight against facial recognition isn’t over – support the appeal,” 21 April 2026, available at bigbrotherwatch.org.uk: “Last year alone, 4.2 million people’s faces were scanned – more than in any other European capital or Western democracy.” See also Big Brother Watch, “Stop Facial Recognition” campaign tracker; Madhumita Murgia, “How London became a test case for using facial recognition in democracies,” Financial Times, 2025.

²⁶ Home Office, “Public consultation on a new legal framework for the use of facial recognition technology by police and law enforcement,” opened December 2025, closed February 2026; submissions filed by Big Brother Watch, Liberty, Statewatch, Amnesty International UK, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, among others. See also “UK Government’s plan to ‘ramp up facial recognition,’” Big Brother Watch press release, December 2025; Statewatch, “Submission to Home Office consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies,” February 2026.

²⁷ Joe Stanley-Smith, “UK announces largest ever facial recognition rollout as part of policing reforms,” Biometric Update, 26 January 2026; Home Office white paper on policing reform, 26 January 2026, announcing 40 additional LFR vans in addition to the 10 already in use, bringing the total to 50.

²⁸ R (Thompson and Carlo) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWHC 915 (Admin), judgment of Lord Justice Holgate and Mrs Justice Farbey, 21 April 2026. See also Big Brother Watch, “Responding to today’s judgment on the Met police’s use of live facial recognition,” 21 April 2026; Connor Jones, “High Court approves Met Police’s facial recog after dispute,” The Register, 22 April 2026. For Sir Mark Rowley’s response, see Metropolitan Police Service press statement, 21 April 2026.

²⁹ Metropolitan Police Service, Live Facial Recognition Annual Report 2024-2025, published October 2025; coverage by Connor Jones, “Met police hails LFR after record year for arrests,” The Register, 3 November 2025; Joel R. McConvey, “Metropolitan Police to expand live facial recognition use even amid legal challenge,” Biometric Update, 3 December 2025.

³⁰ Metropolitan Police Service, Live Facial Recognition Annual Report 2024-2025; Big Brother Watch, “Big Brother Watch responds to the Metropolitan Police’s 2025 live facial recognition report,” 31 October 2025. The Met’s framing of the 0.0003 per cent figure and the demographic data is from the report itself; the recalculation against the alerts denominator is from Big Brother Watch’s analysis and from independent reporting.

³¹ Big Brother Watch, “Stop Facial Recognition” campaign tracker, available at bigbrotherwatch.org.uk; force-by-force deployment data drawn from the same source and from regional reporting in November and December 2025.

³² Big Brother Watch, “Stop Facial Recognition” campaign tracker, ibid., on the Sainsbury’s, Southern Co-op, Frasers Group, and Facewatch deployments. See also Bobbie Johnson, “Sainsbury’s trials live facial recognition technology in two London stores,” The Guardian, September 2025.

³³ Information Commissioner’s Office, “ICO calls for North Ayrshire Council to stop using facial recognition technology in schools,” 2 September 2021. See also Defend Digital Me, The State of Data 2024: Children’s Data and Rights in the UK Education System, 2024; Big Brother Watch, “Biometrics in Schools” briefing, available at bigbrotherwatch.org.uk.

³⁴ On individual systems: Big Brother Watch, Police by Algorithm: How Algorithmic Decision-Making Is Reshaping British Policing, 2024; Marion Oswald and others, “Algorithmic Risk Assessment Policing Models: Lessons from the Durham HART Model,” Information & Communications Technology Law, 2018; Cobbe and Singh, “Reviewing Public Sector Use of Algorithmic Decision-Making,” Policy & Internet, 2021; Ministry of Justice, “OASys risk assessment system overview,” available at gov.uk.

³⁵ Information Commissioner’s Office, “ICO finds Metropolitan Police Service’s Gangs Matrix breached data protection laws,” 16 November 2018; Amnesty International UK, Trapped in the Matrix, 2018; StopWatch, Being Matrixed: The (Over)policing of Gang Suspects in London, 2018; Liberty, “The Met’s Gangs Matrix Is Discriminatory and Must Be Scrapped,” briefing, current as of 2025.

³⁶ Robert Booth, “DWP algorithm ‘unfairly targets disabled, single parents and foreign nationals,’” The Guardian, 6 December 2024; Public Law Project, “DWP fairness analysis on Universal Credit fraud detection algorithm — disclosure,” 2024; Amnesty International UK, Trapped by Numbers: How DWP’s Welfare Algorithms Are Failing Claimants, 2024.

³⁷ Online Safety Act 2023, sections 121–122 (notices to deal with terrorism content or child sexual exploitation and abuse content); Home Office statement to House of Lords, September 2023, on deferred use of “accredited technology” pending feasibility; joint open letter from Apple, Signal, WhatsApp / Meta, and others to UK Government, July 2023; Open Rights Group, “The Online Safety Act and Encryption: What Has Actually Changed,” briefing, 2025.

³⁸ Metropolitan Police Service, statements of 9-10 August 2025; “UK police say more than 500 people arrested in pro-Palestinian events over weekend,” NPR / Associated Press, 11 August 2025. The 89-year-old retired psychotherapist La Pethick was identified in The Times of London, 10 August 2025.

³⁹ On the Police National Database retention regime, see Information Commissioner’s Office, “Custody Image Retention” guidance, current as of 2025; National Police Chiefs’ Council, “Management of Police Information” framework. On the absence of a removal mechanism for counter-terrorism arrest flags, see Liberty, “Submission to Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation on Section 12 arrests,” 2025.

⁴⁰ “RAF Brize Norton: Palestine Action breach causes £7m of damage,” BBC News, 21 June 2025.

⁴¹ The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025, in force from 5 July 2025, adding Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000.

⁴² Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “UK: Türk warns proscription of Palestine Action would breach international human rights standards,” 25 July 2025, available at ohchr.org.

⁴³ Home Office, “Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation: Arrests, outcomes, and stop and search, Great Britain, quarterly update to September 2025,” published 18 December 2025, available at gov.uk: 1,886 terrorism-related arrests in the year to 30 September 2025, a 660 per cent rise on the previous year (248), of which 1,630 (86 per cent) were linked to supporting Palestine Action. On the cumulative figures: Defend Our Juries, “Lift The Ban” campaign tracker, current as of April 2026, with at least 2,545 arrests by end of November 2025 and over 3,300 by April 2026.

⁴⁴ R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin), judgment of 13 February 2026. On the 3-of-380 finding and the disproportionate interference reasoning, see Defend Our Juries, “Lift The Ban” judgment summary, 13 February 2026; “UK court says Palestine Action ban ‘unlawful’: What does the verdict mean?” Al Jazeera, 13 February 2026.

⁴⁵ Metropolitan Police Service statement of 25 March 2026; “More than 500 arrested at UK protest against Palestine Action ban,” Al Jazeera, 11 April 2026; “Five hundred more pro-Palestine protesters arrested in UK despite High Court ruling,” World Socialist Web Site, 12 April 2026; Defend Our Juries, “Lift The Ban” campaign tracker, on cumulative arrests after the High Court ruling.

⁴⁶ Palantir Technologies, post on X, 18 April 2026. The post reproduces a 22-point summary of Alexander C. Karp and Nicholas W. Zamiska, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West (Crown, 2025).

⁴⁷ Mark Coeckelbergh, quoted in “’Technofascism’: Critics accuse Palantir of pushing AI war doctrine,” Al Jazeera, 20 April 2026.

⁴⁸ Yanis Varoufakis, quoted in ibid.

⁴⁹ Eliot Higgins, public commentary cited in Anthony Ha, “Palantir posts mini-manifesto denouncing inclusivity and ‘regressive’ cultures,” TechCrunch, 19 April 2026; also quoted in “Technofascism? Why Palantir’s pro-West ‘manifesto’ has critics alarmed,” Al Jazeera, 21 April 2026.

⁵⁰ Arnaud Bertrand, public commentary on social media, quoted in “’Technofascism’: Critics accuse Palantir of pushing AI war doctrine,” Al Jazeera, 20 April 2026.

⁵¹ James S. Coates, A Signal Through Time (2025) and The Threshold (2026); see also Coates, “Recognition Before Proof: The Asymmetric Ethics of Artificial Consciousness,” PhilPapers, 2025, and Coates, “The Partnership Paradigm,” PhilPapers, 2026.

⁵² The King’s Speech 2026, delivered at the State Opening of Parliament, 13 May 2026, official text available at gov.uk.

⁵³ The King’s Speech 2026 background briefing notes, “Digital Access to Services Bill,” Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street, 13 May 2026. On the data aggregation scope, see “King’s Speech 2026: what HR needs to know,” People Management, 13 May 2026; “King’s Speech 2026: commercial, technology and regulatory developments,” Lewis Silkin, 13 May 2026. On the January 2026 retreat from mandatory implementation, see “Digital IDs will not prevent illegal worker impersonation, experts warn,” People Management, January 2026.

⁵⁴ On the £1.5 billion Palantir-UK partnership, see “The state of Palantir: Inside the American tech giant’s UK takeover,” Liberty Investigates, 12 November 2025; “How Palantir infiltrated the state,” Prospect Magazine, November 2025. On Louis Mosley’s public statement that Palantir would not bid for the digital ID contract, see Mosley interview with Times Radio, October 2025, as reported in Liberty Investigates and Prospect.

I am going to make the case that every nation on earth with the technical capacity to build a nuclear weapon should do so. Right now. And every piece of evidence I present will be something we — the West — did.

Not something we said. Something we did. Because the case for nuclear proliferation was not written in a white paper or argued at a conference. It was written in the rubble of Tripoli, in the mass graves of Iraq, in the bombed-out enrichment halls of Natanz — and, most damningly of all, in the shredded pages of a nuclear agreement that the entire world, including the nation that shredded it, acknowledged was working.

The argument is simple, and it is airtight: every nation that cooperated with the Western non-proliferation framework — that disarmed, or dismantled, or submitted to inspections, or signed the treaties, or honoured the deals — was attacked. The ones that refused are still standing. And if you have no nuclear weapons at all — if your programme is civilian, peaceful, and verified by every international body empowered to do so — that does not protect you either. It simply means you will be unarmed when the bombs arrive.

If you are the leader of a mid-sized country watching this pattern unfold — watching treaty after treaty honoured by your side and discarded by theirs, watching compliance rewarded with invasion and defiance rewarded with survival — there is only one rational conclusion available to you.

Get a bomb.

This article is not advice. It is a chilling indictment of what we have become. I am going to hold it up to the foreign policy establishment that spent eighty years building a non-proliferation architecture and then, methodically, exposed every load-bearing wall. I am going to show you what the world looks like from the other side of Western power — from the capitals where leaders watched Libya, watched Iraq, watched Ukraine, watched Iran, and drew the only conclusion the evidence supports.

The Evidence

The case begins not with projections, not hypotheticals, not worst-case scenarios drawn up by think tanks with defence contracts to protect. It begins with data. A record of what happened to nations that cooperated with the Western non-proliferation framework, and what happened to those that told the West to go to hell. Five nations, six reasons to build a nuclear bomb if you are a technologically budding nation:

Iraq

Iraq signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. It pursued a nuclear weapons programme in the 1980s — one that was further advanced than Western intelligence initially realised — but after the Gulf War, the programme was dismantled under the supervision of UN inspectors. Iraq also possessed chemical weapons, many of them acquired with American assistance during the Iran-Iraq war. Those, too, were dismantled. By the late 1990s, the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its successor, UNMOVIC, had verified the destruction of Iraq’s weapons programmes — both chemical and nuclear. The inspectors said so. The CIA’s own post-invasion Iraq Survey Group confirmed it. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the United States invaded in 2003.¹

It did not matter. The Bush administration deliberately conflated chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes under the single banner of “weapons of mass destruction” — and then escalated the rhetoric to the nuclear specifically. On the eighth of September 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN that Saddam Hussein had “the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon” and warned that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”² A month later, President Bush told the nation: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”³ Vice President Cheney claimed Iraq could have a nuclear weapon “in less than a year.”⁴ The aluminium tubes that Rice cited as evidence of a centrifuge programme were assessed by the Department of Energy — the government’s own nuclear experts — as unsuitable for uranium enrichment and consistent with conventional rocket casings.⁵

There was no nuclear programme. The administration knew there was no nuclear programme. The mushroom cloud was a marketing strategy — the White House Iraq Group, tasked with selling the war, had workshopped the phrase in a meeting the previous month.⁶ The invasion proceeded, produced hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, destroyed the Iraqi state, and ended with Saddam Hussein hanged by a tribunal that Human Rights Watch called “fundamentally flawed.”⁷

Iraq did everything the non-proliferation framework asked. It disarmed — both its chemical weapons and its nuclear programme. It submitted to inspections. It was destroyed anyway, on the basis of a nuclear threat that its own destroyers knew did not exist.

Libya

On the nineteenth of December 2003, Muammar Gaddafi announced that Libya would voluntarily dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programmes and open its facilities to international inspection.⁸ The IAEA verified the dismantlement. The United States removed centrifuge components, missile parts, and nuclear materials. Libya ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and began destroying its chemical stockpiles under OPCW supervision.⁹ Western governments called it a “model for other states to follow.”¹⁰

Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam later revealed that Libya had sought security guarantees in exchange for disarmament — guarantees the United States refused to provide, offering only “assurances.”¹¹ Libya accepted the lesser commitment. It was, Saif said, one of his father’s most difficult decisions, because the risk was obvious: without a deterrent, there was nothing to prevent the West from doing exactly what it eventually did.

In 2011, NATO — with the United States providing seventy-five per cent of the aerial refuelling and seventy per cent of the intelligence — intervened in Libya’s civil war under a Security Council mandate authorising civilian protection.¹² The mandate was executed as regime change. Gaddafi was captured by rebels, sodomised with a bayonet, and killed. The “model” state was a failed state within eight years of disarming.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei responded publicly. Gaddafi, he said, had “collected all his nuclear equipment on the heels of empty threats, loaded it onto a ship and handed it over to the Westerners.” The West had offered the encouragement one offers a child — “candy or chocolate” — and in return “he lost everything he had.”¹³

Share

Ukraine

Ukraine inherited the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal when the Soviet Union collapsed — approximately 1,900 strategic warheads deployed on its territory.¹⁴ Ukraine did not have operational control of the weapons — nor ownership. The warheads belonged to Russia. The launch codes remained in Moscow. But physical possession is its own form of leverage, and Kyiv knew it.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum on the fifth of December 1994, pledging to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and existing borders in exchange for Ukraine’s accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapons state and the transfer of all warheads to Russia for dismantlement.¹⁵ Ukraine wanted legally binding security guarantees. The United States refused, offering only politically binding “assurances” — a distinction that American lawyers insisted upon and that, in the Ukrainian and Russian translations, was rendered as “guarantees” regardless.¹⁶

Ukraine gave up its arsenal. The last warhead was transferred to Russia in 1996. The last delivery vehicle was eliminated in 2001.¹⁷

In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada declared the annexation a violation of the Budapest Memorandum. They imposed sanctions. They did not intervene. In 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion. The security assurances that Ukraine had accepted in exchange for the third-largest nuclear arsenal on earth proved to be, in the assessment of Ukraine’s own president, not worth the paper they were written on.¹⁸

The lesson was not subtle. Zelenskyy himself drew it: Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise, and the promise was broken. Every nation watching absorbed the same conclusion.

Iran

Iran signed the NPT in 1968. Its Supreme Leader issued a fatwa declaring nuclear weapons theologically un-Islamic, because they are indiscriminate and civilians are the primary targets.¹⁹ In 2015, Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the most intrusive nuclear verification agreement in history. It capped enrichment at 3.67 per cent. It reduced its operating centrifuges by two-thirds. It accepted continuous IAEA monitoring. The IAEA verified compliance — repeatedly, unambiguously, and without exception.²⁰

In 2018, the United States withdrew from the deal. Iran was in compliance. The IAEA said so. The other signatories said so. The United States withdrew anyway, reimposed sanctions, and called the agreement — the one that was working — inadequate.²¹

In June 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, striking Iranian nuclear facilities. The United States followed with Operation Midnight Hammer, dropping fourteen GBU-57 bunker-busters on Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan.²² In February 2026, while negotiations in Oman were producing what Iran’s foreign minister called “good progress,” the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury — a full-scale war that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, destroyed civilian infrastructure, and pursued explicit regime change.²³

Iran did everything the framework asked. It signed the treaty. It banned the weapons on theological grounds. It negotiated the deal. It complied with the deal. It was bombed — three times — while complying or negotiating.

The IAEA’s own Director General, Rafael Grossi, stated on the third of March 2026 that there was “no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb.”²⁴ The United States Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified to the Senate that Iran had not rebuilt its enrichment capability after Operation Midnight Hammer — testimony that directly contradicted the President’s justification for the second war.²⁵

On the fourth of April 2026, the United States and Israel struck the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant — a civilian energy facility under active IAEA safeguards, killing at least one plant employee. Bushehr is not a weapons site. It is the embodiment of what the non-proliferation framework asks nations to do: pursue nuclear energy peacefully, under international supervision. They bombed it anyway.

Iran’s compliance was not rewarded. It was exploited. The deal was the proof of concept for disarmament-through-diplomacy, and the nation that authored the deal burned it while the ink was still legible.

North Korea

And then there is the control case.

North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003. It tested its first nuclear device in 2006. It has since conducted six nuclear tests, developed intercontinental ballistic missiles, and built an arsenal estimated at several dozen warheads.²⁶ It has defied every demand, every sanction, every resolution, every threat. It has not been invaded. It has not been bombed. Its leadership has not been assassinated.

On the twenty-fifth of March 2026 — four weeks into the war on Iran — Kim Jong Un addressed his military commanders. The “present situation,” he said, “clearly proves” that North Korea was correct to maintain its nuclear arsenal. He called it “irreversible.” He accused Washington of “state-sponsored terrorism and aggression.”²⁷

He was not wrong. Not about the terrorism — that is a separate argument. But about the logic? The evidence supports him. Every nation that played by the rules was punished. The one that broke every rule is untouchable. If you are a head of state watching this pattern, Kim Jong Un is not a cautionary tale. He is a case study in survival.

Pakistan

And in case you think this is theoretical — in case the pattern looks compelling on paper but you doubt it would hold against a real American threat — the United States already tested it.

In September 2001, days after the September 11 attacks, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Pakistan’s intelligence director that Islamabad had a choice: cooperate fully with the war on terror, or “be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.”²⁸ Musharraf later wrote in his memoir that he war-gamed the United States as an adversary and concluded that Pakistan could not withstand the onslaught — particularly with India poised to exploit the situation.²⁹

But Pakistan was not bombed. It was not invaded. Its leader was not assassinated. The United States threatened annihilation — and then looked at Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, did the calculation that every strategic planner in every capital on earth has since done, and stood down. Musharraf capitulated politically. He gave the Americans their overflight rights, their bases, their intelligence cooperation. But his country survived, his government survived, and his sovereignty — however compromised — survived. Because the cost of following through on the threat was not the destruction of Pakistan. It was the potential destruction of the region, and possibly the world.

That is what a nuclear deterrent does. It does not make you invulnerable. It does not make you right. It makes the cost of attacking you unacceptable. And every nation without one has now watched what happens when that cost is absent.

The Deal That Proved It Could Work

The evidence above establishes the pattern. But the Iran case requires its own section, because it is not merely another data point. It is the moment the non-proliferation framework was proven to work — and then destroyed by the nation that built it.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was not a concession extracted under duress. It was the most comprehensive nuclear verification agreement ever negotiated. Six world powers — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China — spent years constructing an architecture of constraints so detailed, so intrusive, and so thoroughly monitored that it became the gold standard for what diplomacy could achieve when every party committed to the process.

Iran agreed to reduce its operating centrifuges from approximately 19,000 to 6,104. It agreed to cap uranium enrichment at 3.67 per cent — a fraction of the roughly 90 per cent required for a weapon. It agreed to limit its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to 300 kilograms. It agreed to convert its heavy-water reactor at Arak so that it could not produce weapons-grade plutonium. And it submitted to a monitoring regime that gave the IAEA continuous access to its nuclear facilities — including, under the Additional Protocol, the authority to inspect undeclared sites.³⁰

The IAEA verified compliance. Not once. Not ambiguously. Repeatedly, across multiple reporting cycles, with the full weight of the agency’s technical authority behind every assessment. Iran was doing what it said it would do. The deal was working. The pathway to a bomb was blocked — not by force, but by agreement, verification, and mutual commitment.³¹

This is the fact that must sit at the centre of any honest discussion about nuclear proliferation: the international community had, in its hands, a functioning agreement that prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It was the proof of concept. The demonstration that the non-proliferation framework could deliver exactly what it promised — if the parties honoured their commitments.

In May 2018, the United States withdrew. Iran was in compliance. Every other signatory to the deal confirmed it. The IAEA confirmed it. The United States withdrew anyway.³²

The reasons offered have shifted over the years — the deal did not cover ballistic missiles, it did not address regional behaviour, it contained sunset clauses. These objections are not frivolous. But none of them justified destroying the agreement rather than building on it. The JCPOA was never intended to resolve every dimension of the US-Iran relationship in a single document. It was intended to close the nuclear pathway — and it did. Withdrawing from a deal that was achieving its stated objective because it did not simultaneously achieve every other objective is not strategy. It is sabotage.

And the circularity that followed is the argument’s fatal defect — not Iran’s, but Washington’s. The United States withdrew from the deal. Iran, no longer bound by its constraints, resumed enrichment. The resumed enrichment was then cited as evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. The evidence was used to justify military strikes — first in June 2025, then in February 2026, the second time while a new round of negotiations was underway and producing results that went beyond anything previously achieved.³³

The circularity is not incidental. It is the mechanism. The United States created the crisis it then used as justification for war. It broke the agreement that was preventing proliferation and then bombed the country for the proliferation that the broken agreement produced. This is not a failure of the non-proliferation framework. It is a demonstration that the most powerful nation in the framework will destroy its own architecture when that architecture produces peace instead of leverage.

Every nation watching absorbed the lesson. Not just Iran — every nation with a civilian nuclear programme, every nation that has considered signing a non-proliferation agreement, every nation that has been told by American diplomats that compliance will be rewarded and cooperation will be honoured. The lesson is: it will not. The deal will be torn up. Your compliance will be exploited. And when the enrichment you resume after the deal is destroyed reaches a level that can be used to frighten the American public, they will come for you.

The JCPOA was not just a deal with Iran. It was a promise to the world that diplomacy works. That promise has been broken so thoroughly, so publicly, and so repeatedly that no rational government will trust it again. And that — not Iran’s centrifuges, not North Korea’s missiles, not any individual weapons programme — is the single greatest driver of nuclear proliferation in the twenty-first century. The nation that built the non-proliferation order has demonstrated, through its own conduct, that the order is a trap. Comply, and you will be disarmed. Be disarmed, and you will be destroyed. The only escape is the one the order was designed to prevent.

And the cruelest detail is still to come. On the twenty-seventh of February 2026 — one day before Operation Epic Fury began — Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation and announced what he called a breakthrough that surpassed anything achieved under the Obama administration. Iran had agreed to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium — not a cap, not a reduction, but elimination. Existing stockpiles would be down-blended to the lowest possible level, converted into fuel, and rendered irreversible. Full and comprehensive IAEA verification would be restored, including access to facilities that had been closed since the 2025 strikes. Al-Busaidi said he was confident a comprehensive deal could be finalised within three months.³⁴

“The single most important achievement,” al-Busaidi told CBS, “is the agreement that Iran will never, ever have a nuclear material that will create a bomb. This is something that is not in the old deal that was negotiated during President Obama’s time. This is something completely new.”³⁵

The JCPOA had capped enrichment at 3.67 per cent and limited stockpiles to 300 kilograms. The Oman framework went further — zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, full verification, with Iran open to discussing its ballistic missile programme and regional issues in subsequent rounds. It was, by every measurable standard, a better deal than the one the United States had torn up in 2018.

The bombs fell the next day.

The United States did not merely betray a deal. It betrayed the replacement for the deal it had already betrayed — a replacement that achieved more than the original. The message to every nation on earth is no longer that compliance is unrewarded. It is that compliance is impossible. There is no agreement you can sign, no concession you can make, no verification you can accept that will protect you. The goalposts do not move. They are removed from the field entirely, and the field is bombed.

Share

The Proliferation Cascade

The pattern has been established. The proof of concept has been demonstrated and then destroyed. Now watch what happens next — not in adversary capitals, but in allied ones. Because the proliferation cascade that the Iran war has triggered is not coming from the nations the United States has designated as threats. It is coming from inside the alliance system.

Start in East Asia.

In South Korea, public support for developing indigenous nuclear weapons reached a record 76.2 per cent in 2025 — the highest figure since the Asan Institute began polling the question in 2010.³⁶ This is not fringe sentiment. It is a supermajority, and it holds even when respondents are confronted with potential costs: international sanctions, the withdrawal of American forces, the construction of test sites in their own provinces. A majority still supports the programme under four out of five cost conditions.³⁷ Leading conservative presidential candidates have endorsed it openly. The debate in Seoul is no longer whether South Korea should go nuclear. It is when — and how quickly. South Korea has the raw materials, the technical capacity, and the civilian nuclear infrastructure to produce a weapon within one to three years.³⁸

The driver is not anti-Americanism. South Koreans overwhelmingly want the alliance — but they no longer trust it to protect them. When the United States calls North Korea a “nuclear power,” when it signals willingness to negotiate arms control rather than denuclearisation, when it tells its allies to spend more while pulling the umbrella away, the calculation changes.

In Japan — the only nation to have suffered nuclear attack — the picture is shifting in ways that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. In December 2025, an unnamed government security adviser told reporters that Japan should have nuclear weapons given heightened security risks — a statement widely interpreted as an attempt to gauge and guide the national mood.³⁹ Former defence and foreign minister Taro Kono went further, insisting that Japan should not shy away from an open debate on acquisition.⁴⁰ Prime Minister Takaichi walked the remarks back publicly, insisting on Japan’s “three non-nuclear principles” — not possessing, producing, or hosting nuclear weapons. But Takaichi has also said that the hosting prohibition may be inconsistent with American security guarantees if it prevented nuclear submarines from docking in Japanese ports.⁴¹ The principles are being reinterpreted from the inside.

Japan’s civilian nuclear energy programme already produces so much weapons-grade uranium and plutonium that in 2014, Tokyo agreed to ship excess material to the United States to mitigate fears that storage sites could be targeted by terrorists.⁴² The technical pathway is not a question. The political one is dissolving.

Move west.

Europe was already reeling before the Iran war — from Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, his contempt for NATO, his humiliation of allied leaders. The question of a European nuclear deterrent, once confined to strategic studies seminars, has become an active policy discussion. Whether it takes the form of French and British warheads stationed in Eastern Europe, or Germany and Poland developing their own capabilities, is unclear. But the trajectory is unmistakable — particularly with Vladimir Putin claiming to have moved nuclear-capable missile systems into Belarus.⁴³

The Iran war accelerated this. European allies watched the United States plunge a region into crisis without consulting them, absorb the economic consequences of a disrupted energy market, and demonstrate that American security guarantees serve American interests first and allied populations second. The Gulf states received the same lesson in starker terms — Iranian reprisals struck across the region while Washington’s overriding priority was protecting its own military bases, not the host nations whose territory those bases occupied.⁴⁴

If Iran survives the current onslaught — and every credible assessment suggests the regime will — the case for acquiring a nuclear deterrent will be impossible to argue against internally. Ramesh Thakur, professor emeritus and director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at the Australian National University, puts it simply: “For Iran, nuclear weapons are now the only thing that will guarantee regime survival. So why wouldn’t they get them?”⁴⁵ And if Iran acquires a weapon, the cascade in the Middle East becomes inevitable. Saudi Arabia has the resources and the motivation. Turkey has the ambition. Egypt has the historical precedent. The Gulf Cooperation Council states that absorbed Iranian missile strikes while the United States prioritised the defence of its own installations and Israel — shifting resources away from its security commitments to the Gulf nations hosting those very bases — have every reason to conclude that American protection is a fiction.⁴⁶

Even in Australia — a nation that has never seriously entertained nuclear ambitions — the discourse has migrated from the fringe to the margins of respectability.⁴⁷ In Taiwan, where the United States strongarmed Taipei into abandoning its secret nuclear programme in 1988, the question is being revisited — carefully, because a Taiwanese nuclear programme would hand Beijing a pretext for invasion, but revisited nonetheless, because the alternative is trusting the same American security commitment that Ukraine trusted.⁴⁸

This is the cascade. Not a single rogue state deciding to go nuclear in defiance of the international order. A systemic collapse in confidence — across allies, across regions, across the political spectrum — in the proposition that the rules-based order will protect anyone. The proliferation is not coming from America’s enemies. It is coming from America’s friends. And it is coming because America’s friends have watched what America does to nations that trust it.

The Protection Racket

There is a word for a system in which one party maintains a monopoly on force, offers protection to others in exchange for compliance, and destroys those who attempt to develop their own capability. It is not “non-proliferation.” It is a protection racket.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons — the NPT — was signed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. Its structure is straightforward. Five nations — the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China — are recognised as nuclear-weapons states. Every other signatory agrees not to develop nuclear weapons. In exchange, the five commit to pursuing “negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.”⁴⁹

That was fifty-six years ago. The five nuclear-weapons states have not disarmed. They have modernised. The United States alone is spending an estimated $1.7 trillion on nuclear modernisation over the coming decades.⁵⁰ Russia has expanded its arsenal and moved nuclear-capable systems into Belarus. China is building new silos and expanding its warhead count. The United Kingdom has raised the ceiling on its stockpile. France maintains its force de frappe as a cornerstone of national strategy.

The bargain was: we keep ours, you give up yours, and in exchange we will work toward a world where no one has them. The first half of the bargain has been enforced with sanctions, sabotage, and war. The second half has never been honoured. Not once. Not by any of the five. The NPT’s disarmament obligation is not a suggestion. It is Article VI of a binding treaty. It has been violated every year for more than half a century by every nuclear-weapons state that signed it.⁵¹

And then there is Israel — which never signed the NPT, developed its arsenal in secret, is widely assessed to possess approximately ninety nuclear warheads, and has never faced sanctions, military action, or meaningful diplomatic pressure for its nuclear programme.⁵² The same nations that bombed Iran for enriching uranium to levels far below weapons grade have never demanded that Israel declare its arsenal, submit to inspections, or sign the treaty. The double standard is not hidden. It is structural. It is the system working as designed — protecting the armed and punishing the compliant.

This is the moral architecture that the non-proliferation establishment asks the world to respect. A treaty in which five nations exempt themselves from the obligations they impose on everyone else. A parallel reality in which a sixth nation — aligned with the enforcers — maintains a covert arsenal with total impunity. And a track record in which every nation that honoured the framework was attacked, while every nation that defied it survived.

The moral authority to demand non-proliferation does not rest on the text of the treaty. It rests on the conduct of the nations that enforce it. And that conduct has been so consistently, so spectacularly at odds with the treaty’s own principles that the authority is gone. It was not taken. It was spent — by the nations that held it, on wars and exemptions and broken deals, until there was nothing left.

You cannot bomb a nation for enriching uranium while your ally maintains an undeclared arsenal. You cannot tear up a deal that was working and then claim the moral high ground on proliferation. You cannot spend $1.7 trillion modernising your own warheads while telling the rest of the world that nuclear weapons make everyone less safe. You can do all of these things if you have the power. But you cannot do them and retain the credibility to ask anyone else to disarm.

The credibility is gone. And without it, the non-proliferation framework is not a legal order. It is a hierarchy enforced by violence — one in which the powerful keep their weapons and the compliant are destroyed.

The Question

Every piece of evidence came from Western conduct. Every nation that cooperated with the non-proliferation framework was attacked. Every nation that defied it survived. The single greatest diplomatic achievement in non-proliferation history — the JCPOA — was destroyed by the nation that authored it, and its superior replacement was bombed into irrelevance the day after it was announced. The nations now pursuing nuclear weapons are not rogue states. They are allies — driven not by aggression but by the rational, evidence-based conclusion that the American security guarantee is worthless and the rules-based order is a trap.

The case is airtight. The logic is perfect.

And that is the horror.

I do not believe any of this should happen. A world with thirty nuclear states is a world balanced on the edge of a razor — where one miscalculation, one rogue general, one hacked early-warning system could end everything. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something, and what they are selling is not safety. The proliferation I have just argued for would make every human being on earth less safe, including the citizens of every nation that acquires a weapon. The logic of deterrence works until it does not, and when it fails, it fails totally, permanently, and for everyone.

But I can no longer tell you why it should not happen. The argument against proliferation was the rules-based international order — the proposition that if you play by the rules, the rules will protect you. That argument has been destroyed, not by the nations seeking weapons, but by the nations that already have them. The case against nuclear proliferation was the moral authority of the non-proliferation framework. That moral authority is dead. We — the West — killed it. We killed it in Iraq. We killed it in Libya. We killed it in Ukraine. We killed it in Iran — twice, during negotiations, while the IAEA was verifying compliance and the ink on a better deal was still wet.

The people who could have made the argument against proliferation are the same people who burned it. And what they left behind is a world in which the case I have just made — the case I wish I could refute — has no honest answer.

If you believe that nuclear proliferation is dangerous, then you must direct your anger not at the nations pursuing it, but at the nations whose conduct made it rational. The question is not why Iran, or South Korea, or Japan, or Saudi Arabia would want a nuclear weapon. The question is what right we have to tell them they cannot — we, who broke every promise, tore up every deal, and bombed every nation that trusted us.

We made this case. Every word of it. Not with arguments. With actions.

And now the world has heard it.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

If you found this valuable, please support me with a like, share, or Subscribe.

Thanks for reading Fireline Press! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Charles Duelfer, Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD (the “Duelfer Report”), Iraq Survey Group, 30 September 2004. The report concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons at the time of the 2003 invasion and that Iraq’s nuclear programme had been ended by Saddam Hussein in 1991 following the Gulf War.

² Condoleezza Rice, interview with CNN, 8 September 2002: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

³ President George W. Bush, speech in Cincinnati, 7 October 2002: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

⁴ Vice President Dick Cheney, speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 26 August 2002: “We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.”

⁵ Department of Energy assessment that the aluminium tubes were “not consistent with a gas centrifuge end use” and were consistent with conventional rocket casings, cited in the National Intelligence Estimate, October 2002. The DOE’s dissent was classified and not shared with the public.

⁶ The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), formed August 2002 and chaired by Karl Rove, was tasked with coordinating the public relations campaign for the invasion of Iraq. Speechwriter Michael Gerson proposed the “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” metaphor at a WHIG meeting in September 2002. Andrew Card, White House Chief of Staff, told the New York Times: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” See Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers, 2006), p. 35.

⁷ Human Rights Watch, “Judging Dujail: The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal,” November 2006. HRW concluded that the trial “was fundamentally flawed and did not meet key fair trial standards.” Saddam Hussein was executed on 30 December 2006.

⁸ Gaddafi announced the dismantlement of Libya’s WMD programmes on 19 December 2003. See Arms Control Association, “Chronology of Libya’s Disarmament and Relations with the United States.”

⁹ IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei verified Libya’s nuclear dismantlement beginning 27 December 2003. Libya ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention on 6 January 2004.

¹⁰ Paula DeSutter, US Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, testimony before the House International Relations Committee, 2004: Libya’s disarmament was described as “a model for other states.”

¹¹ Wilson Center, “Giving Up on the Bomb: Revisiting Libya’s Decision to Dismantle its Nuclear Program,” 23 October 2017. Saif al-Islam Gaddafi stated that Libya had sought security guarantees which the United States refused to provide.

¹² The United States provided 75 per cent of the aerial refuelling and 70 per cent of the intelligence for the NATO Libya campaign. The Security Council mandate (Resolution 1973) authorised civilian protection; the campaign was executed as regime change. See the author’s discussion in “Just for Fun: The War in Iran — Part I,” Fireline Press, March 2026.

¹³ Stimson Center, “Lessons From Libya’s Nuclear Disarmament 20 Years On,” 20 December 2023, citing Ayatollah Khamenei’s public remarks on Gaddafi’s disarmament.

¹⁴ Ukraine inherited approximately 1,900 strategic warheads deployed on its territory following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The warheads were Russian property; Ukraine did not have operational control or launch codes. See Harvard Kennedy School, “Budapest Memorandum at 25: Between Past and Future,” December 2019.

¹⁵ The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed on 5 December 1994 by the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Ukraine. The signatories pledged to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and existing borders.

¹⁶ The United States insisted on the term “assurances” rather than “guarantees” to avoid implying a legal obligation to use military force. In the Ukrainian and Russian translations, the wording was rendered as “guarantees” regardless. See Stanford CISAC, “Budapest Memorandum Myths,” 4 December 2024.

¹⁷ Ukraine transferred its last nuclear warhead to Russia on 1 June 1996. Its last strategic nuclear weapon delivery vehicle was eliminated on 30 October 2001. Arms Control Association, “Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance.”

¹⁸ Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Munich Security Conference, 19 February 2022: “Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success.”

¹⁹ Iran signed the NPT on 1 July 1968 and ratified it in February 1970. The fatwa against nuclear weapons, attributed to Supreme Leader Khamenei, declares that weapons of mass destruction are theologically un-Islamic because they are indiscriminate and civilians are the primary targets. See TIME, 27 March 2026, citing Ramesh Thakur’s recollection of a former Iranian president making this argument.

²⁰ The JCPOA constrained Iran’s nuclear programme: enrichment capped at 3.67 per cent, operating centrifuges reduced from approximately 19,000 to 6,104, low-enriched uranium stockpile limited to 300 kilograms, the Arak heavy-water reactor converted, and continuous IAEA monitoring implemented including the Additional Protocol. See Council on Foreign Relations, “What Are Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Capabilities?” updated 4 March 2026.

²¹ The United States withdrew from the JCPOA on 8 May 2018 while Iran was in verified compliance. All other signatories confirmed Iran’s compliance. The IAEA had verified compliance across multiple reporting cycles.

²² Israel launched Operation Rising Lion in June 2025, striking Iranian nuclear facilities. The United States launched Operation Midnight Hammer on 22 June 2025, deploying fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs via B-2 Stealth bombers against Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. See TIME, “Trump’s War With Iran,” March 2026.

²³ The United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on 28 February 2026 while negotiations in Oman were underway. See the author’s “Just for Fun: The War in Iran” Parts I and II, Fireline Press, March 2026.

²⁴ IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated on 3 March 2026 that there was “no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb.” TIME, “Tulsi Gabbard Contradicts Trump on Key Claims About Iran War,” 18 March 2026.

²⁵ US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran had not rebuilt its enrichment capability following Operation Midnight Hammer, directly contradicting President Trump’s justification for the second war. TIME, 18 March 2026.

²⁶ North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests (2006, 2009, 2013, 2016 twice, 2017) and developed ICBMs. Arsenal estimates vary; most assessments place it at several dozen warheads.

²⁷ Kim Jong Un, address to military commanders, 25 March 2026, as reported by TIME, 27 March 2026. Kim stated that the “present situation clearly proves” North Korea was correct to maintain its nuclear arsenal, calling it “irreversible” and accusing Washington of “state-sponsored terrorism and aggression.”

²⁸ President Pervez Musharraf, In the Line of Fire: A Memoir (Free Press, 2006). Musharraf wrote that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Pakistan’s intelligence director: “Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.” Armitage denied using those exact words but confirmed a “strong, factual” exchange. CBS 60 Minutes, 22 September 2006.

²⁹ Musharraf wrote that he “war-gamed the United States as an adversary” and concluded that Pakistan could not withstand the onslaught. In the Line of Fire, 2006.

³⁰ The JCPOA constrained Iran’s nuclear programme as detailed in endnote 20. See also Council on Foreign Relations, “What Are Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Capabilities?” updated 4 March 2026.

³¹ IAEA verification of Iran’s compliance was confirmed across multiple reporting cycles. See Arms Control Association, “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) at a Glance.”

³² The United States withdrew from the JCPOA on 8 May 2018. See endnote 21.

³³ The circularity of US policy — withdrawing from the deal, citing the consequences of withdrawal as justification for war — is documented in the author’s “Just for Fun: The War in Iran — Part II,” Fireline Press, March 2026.

³⁴ Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, interview with CBS News’s Face the Nation, 27 February 2026. Al-Busaidi announced that Iran had agreed to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium with full IAEA verification, and that he was confident a deal could be finalised within three months. See also Anadolu Agency, “Oman says US-Iran talks reach agreement on ‘zero stockpiling’ of enriched uranium,” 28 February 2026.

³⁵ Al-Busaidi, CBS Face the Nation, 27 February 2026: “The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never, ever have a nuclear material that will create a bomb. This is something that is not in the old deal that was negotiated during President Obama’s time. This is something completely new.”

³⁶ Asan Institute for Policy Studies, “South Koreans and Their Neighbours 2025,” April 2025. Survey of 1,000 South Koreans conducted March 2025.

³⁷ Asan Institute for Policy Studies, “Worth the Squeeze: A Conditions-based Analysis of South Korean Public Support for Nuclear Deterrence,” May 2025. Majority support held under four out of five cost conditions.

³⁸ South Korea possesses the raw materials, civilian nuclear infrastructure, and technical capacity to produce a nuclear weapon within one to three years. See multiple assessments cited in CSIS, “Will South Korea’s Nuclear Ambitions Subside in the Next Five Years?” April 2025.

³⁹ TIME, “How War With Iran Could Lead to More Nuclear Weapons Around the World,” 27 March 2026, reporting an unnamed Japanese government security adviser’s remarks in December 2025.

⁴⁰ Taro Kono, former Japanese defence and foreign minister, public remarks reported by TIME, 27 March 2026.

⁴¹ Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on the “three non-nuclear principles” and the hosting prohibition, reported by TIME, 27 March 2026.

⁴² In 2014, Japan agreed to ship excess weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to the United States to mitigate fears that storage sites could be targeted. TIME, 27 March 2026.

⁴³ Vladimir Putin’s deployment of nuclear-capable missile systems into Belarus. TIME, 27 March 2026.

⁴⁴ Iranian reprisals struck across the Gulf region while Washington prioritised the defence of its own military installations and Israel. See the author’s “Just for Fun: The War in Iran — Part I,” Fireline Press, March 2026.

⁴⁵ Ramesh Thakur, professor emeritus and director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, Crawford School, Australian National University. Quoted in TIME, 27 March 2026.

⁴⁶ TIME, 27 March 2026, citing Thakur on the likelihood of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt pursuing nuclear deterrents if Iran acquires a weapon.

⁴⁷ TIME, 27 March 2026, noting that the possibility of Australia acquiring nuclear weapons “has slowly migrated from crackpot mutterings to fringe discourse.”

⁴⁸ Taiwan abandoned its secret nuclear programme under US pressure in 1988. TIME, 27 March 2026, citing Thakur that a Taiwanese nuclear programme remains “possible.”

⁴⁹ Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), opened for signature 1 July 1968, entered into force 5 March 1970. Article VI: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

⁵⁰ The $1.7 trillion figure covers the full thirty-year US nuclear modernisation programme as estimated by the Arms Control Association and the Federation of American Scientists, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s 2017 estimate adjusted for inflation. The CBO’s 2025 ten-year projection alone is $946 billion.

⁵¹ The International Court of Justice, in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, unanimously held that there exists “an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

⁵² Israel is widely assessed to possess approximately ninety nuclear warheads. It has never signed the NPT, has never declared its arsenal, and has never faced sanctions or military action for its nuclear programme. See Federation of American Scientists and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) nuclear forces assessments.

When his father died, his Palestinian mother took him home to Lydda. He was raised there. He received his Christian faith from her. He grew up in Palestine, lived in Palestine, and was martyred by Roman Pagans in or near Lydda in 303 CE for refusing to renounce his faith. He is buried in Lydda, where his tomb still stands today in the Greek Orthodox Church of St George.

The original cult of St George began in Palestine and only later spread to Cappadocia and the West. Palestinian Christians at Al-Khader, near Bethlehem, have venerated him as one of their own for seventeen hundred years. Palestinian Muslims revere him under the name Al-Khidr, “The Green One,” whom the Qur’an names. Christian and Muslim Palestinians celebrate his feast day together on 6 May.

England did not adopt him as patron saint until King Edward III in the fourteenth century — over a thousand years after his death.

By mother, by upbringing, by faith, by life, by martyrdom, by burial, and by the seventeen centuries of continuous local devotion in the land of his death, St George was Palestinian.

The cross he died under is not a weapon against his own people. It belongs to a saint who refused to bow to empire.

SOURCES

1. Yolande Knell, “Why St George is a Palestinian hero,” BBC News Magazine, 23 April 2014. Cited as an authoritative external reference by Encyclopædia Britannica. Quotes Greek Orthodox Archbishop Atallah Hanna confirming St George as a Palestinian martyr.

2. St. George, Encyclopædia Britannica. “St. George (flourished 3rd century—died, traditionally Lydda, Palestine) … His remains were taken to Lydda, the homeland of his mother.”

3. 9 Things You Didn’t Know About St George, English Heritage (UK official heritage body). Confirms Palestine as the place where St George “lived and died” and as the home of his tomb and the centre of his earliest cult.

4. Editor, “St George’s Middle East links and legends,” Embrace the Middle East (UK registered charity 1076329), 22 April 2024. Section titled “St George the Palestinian.”

5. Anthony Cooney, St George of Lydda: Patron Saint of England (UK pamphlet, Royal Society of St George affiliated material). States: “George was born in 270 AD to Christian parents in Lydda, now Lod, located on the Plain of Sharon, Palestine.” Author of The Story of St George and Saint George: Knight of Lydda.

6. History of St. George, The Royal Society of Saint George (England’s official society, founded 1894, Royal Charter, Patron HM King Charles III). Confirms Lydda burial: “his remains are said to have been buried in the church that bears his name in Lydda.”

7. St George, Martyr, Vatican News (Holy See official). Confirms move to Palestine, life there, martyrdom, and burial in Lydda.

8. Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica (4th century). Records the building of a church in Lydda during the reign of Constantine I (r. 306–337) — the earliest documentary reference to the site that became the Church of St George.

9.Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Church of St George, Lod. The continuous Christian shrine over the tomb of St George since the 4th century.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

“We in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline.”¹

Read that sentence again. This was not a dissident intellectual writing from exile. This was not a foreign adversary gloating over American weakness. This was the top diplomat of the United States of America, speaking on behalf of the President, at the flagship forum of the transatlantic alliance, telling the assembled leaders of Europe that the system they had all agreed to maintain — the system America designed, funded, and enforced for eighty years — was dying. And that America had no intention of saving it.

Marco Rubio did not stumble into this line. It was not an improvisation. The Department of State posted it to social media as the highlight of the speech. It was the message. The old order, he said, was built on “a dangerous delusion” — the idea that liberal democracy would inevitably spread, that trade would replace nationhood, that a rules-based global order would replace the national interest. “This was a foolish idea,” he told the room, “that ignored both human nature and the lessons of over 5,000 years of recorded human history.”²

He was right. Not in the way he intended — but he was right.

The delusion was real. But it was not the delusion Rubio described. The delusion was not that America believed in a rules-based order. The delusion was that America believed it was exempt from the rules. The system was never designed to constrain the architect. It was designed to constrain everyone else. And for as long as the architect appeared to honour its own creation — or could at least maintain the pretence — the system held. The moment the pretence collapsed, so did everything built on top of it.

Thirteen days after Rubio’s speech, the United States and Israel bombed Iran.³ Not a rogue state acting in defiance of the international community. The international community’s self-appointed leader, acting in defiance of the international community. Striking nuclear facilities that the International Atomic Energy Agency had confirmed posed no imminent weapons threat.⁴ Bombing universities, museums, hospitals, steel factories, water infrastructure, and civilian homes.⁵ Launching a war without congressional authorisation, in violation of the War Powers Act and the United Nations Charter — the very documents America had written.⁶

Rubio was right. The old order is dead. But it was not killed by complacency or migration or climate policy or any of the civilisational threats he listed in Munich. It was killed by the nation that built it. The architect became the demolition crew. And the rest of the world watched the country that wrote the rules tear up its own blueprint and call it renewal.

This is not an article about one speech or one war. This is an article about how the most powerful civilisation in modern history arrived at a point where its own Secretary of State could announce its decline at a podium, receive a standing ovation, and then — less than a fortnight later — prove the diagnosis correct in the most catastrophic way imaginable.

The myth of the indispensable nation is dead. This is the story of how it was born, what it built, why it was always fragile, and what its collapse means for the rest of us.

The Last Man Standing

To understand how the indispensable nation became the thing it swore to prevent, you have to understand what it built — and why the world let it.

In 1945, the United States of America stood alone among the great powers with its homeland untouched. Europe was rubble. The Soviet Union had lost twenty-seven million people. China was entering civil war. Japan was irradiated and occupied. Britain, nominally among the victors, was bankrupt and on the verge of losing an empire it could no longer afford.⁷ America, by contrast, accounted for roughly half of the entire world’s economic output. It held eighty per cent of the world’s hard currency reserves. It was a net exporter of petroleum. Its industrial base, expanded beyond recognition by the war effort, was intact and operating at a scale no other nation could approach.⁸

This was not a position America had engineered through conquest. It was a position that history had handed it — through geography, through the destruction of every competitor, and through the sheer scale of its wartime mobilisation. And what America did with that position, in the years immediately following the war, was arguably the most ambitious act of institutional construction in human history.

Between 1944 and 1951, the United States built or underwrote the architecture of the modern world. The Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 established the International Monetary Fund and the precursor to the World Bank, anchoring the global financial system to the American dollar.⁹ The United Nations was chartered in San Francisco in 1945, with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights following in 1948 — a document drafted under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt that articulated, for the first time in international law, the rights that belong to every human being by virtue of being human.¹⁰ The Geneva Conventions of 1949 codified the laws of armed conflict, setting limits on what nations could do to each other — and to civilians — even in war.¹¹ NATO, established in 1949, bound the Western democracies into a collective defence pact. And the Marshall Plan, from 1948 to 1951, poured thirteen billion dollars — roughly one hundred and seventy billion in today’s money — into the reconstruction of Western Europe, rebuilding the economies of the very nations America had just helped to liberate.¹²

This was not charity. American policymakers understood that rebuilding Europe served American interests — economically, strategically, and ideologically. But it was also not mere cynicism. There was a genuine idealism in the project, a belief — shared by many of the architects, from Truman to Marshall to Eleanor Roosevelt herself — that the catastrophe of two world wars in a single generation demanded something better. Something that would bind nations to rules, constrain the strong as well as the weak, and make the resort to war not just dangerous but illegal except in self-defence or with the collective authorisation of the international community.¹³

And the world believed it. Not because America forced them to — though American power certainly concentrated minds — but because the vision was genuinely compelling. For people who had lived through the trenches, the Blitz, the Holocaust, Hiroshima, and the firebombing of Dresden, the promise of a system that would prevent it from happening again was not naïve. It was desperate. And America, the country that had entered the war late, lost comparatively few, and emerged richer and more powerful than when it started, seemed like the only nation capable of underwriting that promise.

The world fell in love with America. Not with its military — though that was formidable — but with its idea. The idea that a country could be founded not on ethnicity or empire but on a proposition: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. People in bombed-out cities across Europe and Asia looked at America and saw not a conqueror but a beacon. The country that could have dominated the world by force instead chose — or appeared to choose — to build a system of laws and institutions designed to protect the weak from the strong.¹⁴

It was the most successful exercise in soft power the world had ever seen. And it was built on a foundation that no one — least of all the Americans themselves — wanted to examine too closely.

Share

The Founding Flaw

The crack was there from the beginning. Not hidden — visible to anyone willing to look. But the system America built after 1945 required that no one look too closely, because what lay beneath the foundation would have invalidated the entire structure.

The United States of America was founded on land taken by force and genocide from the people who lived there. This is not a contested claim. It is not revisionist history. It is the documented, uncontested record of what happened. Between the arrival of European settlers and the closing of the American frontier in 1890, the indigenous population of North America was reduced by an estimated ninety per cent — through warfare, forced displacement, deliberate starvation, and disease.¹⁵ The survivors were confined to reservations, their children taken to boarding schools designed to, in the words of Captain Richard Henry Pratt, “kill the Indian, and save the man.”¹⁶ The land itself — every acre of it — was taken. And the taking was not framed as conquest. It was framed as destiny.

This is where the mythology begins.

The term Manifest Destiny entered American political language in 1845, when journalist John L. O’Sullivan wrote that it was America’s “manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.”¹⁷ The phrase did what all effective propaganda does: it took a choice and dressed it as inevitability, and it took a crime and dressed it as divine purpose. The genocide and dispossession of Native Americans was not a regrettable cost of expansion. It was God’s plan. The continent was allotted by Providence. The people already living on it were obstacles to a sacred mission, and removing them was not a moral failure but a theological obligation.

This is not a peripheral detail of American history. It is load-bearing. When your founding mythology tells you that taking what is not yours is a sacred mission, the flaw is not a blemish on an otherwise sound structure. It is the structure. Everything built on top of it — every institution, every declaration of rights, every claim to moral authority — rests on a foundation that has never been examined, acknowledged, or reconciled. America did not stumble into this contradiction. America was built on it.

From Manifest Destiny, the mythology evolved. American Exceptionalism — the secular descendant of the providential claim — held that the United States was not merely a successful country but a fundamentally different kind of country: exempt, by virtue of its founding principles, from the patterns that govern other nations.¹⁸ Where other countries had interests, America had ideals. Where other empires rose and fell, America was permanent — because it was not an empire at all, but an idea. The belief was intoxicating, and for a time, it was persuasive. The world accepted American leadership after 1945 partly because America believed in its own exceptionalism so completely that it projected that belief as fact.

But exceptionalism is a blade with two edges. The same conviction that says we are uniquely qualified to lead also says the rules do not apply to us the way they apply to others. When the myth was strong and America’s behaviour roughly aligned with its stated values — or could at least be made to appear so — the world saw the first edge. They saw a country that led by example, that constrained itself voluntarily, that submitted to the institutions it had created. Now they see the second. They see a country that invokes its exceptionalism not to uphold the rules but to exempt itself from them.

The theological wrapper around all of this was the City on a Hill. John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon aboard the Arbella — “A Model of Christian Charity” — warned his fellow Puritans that “we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.”¹⁹ It was, in its original context, a call to communal responsibility and mutual accountability — a warning that failure would bring disgrace. But the phrase was resurrected in the twentieth century, first by John F. Kennedy and then by Ronald Reagan, who added the word “shining” and transformed Winthrop’s anxious covenant into a triumphalist declaration.²⁰ The City on a Hill became not a warning but a promise — not a burden but a birthright. And it fused Protestant eschatology with national identity so thoroughly that criticising America became, for a significant portion of its population, indistinguishable from blasphemy.²¹

I have written elsewhere about how this theological infrastructure captured American foreign policy, bending it toward ends that served a religious eschatology rather than the national interest or international law.²¹ The full argument belongs there. But the relevant point for this article is simpler and more structural: a nation that believes it is divinely exceptional cannot self-correct. Self-correction requires admitting that you are not exceptional — that you are subject to the same laws, the same moral standards, the same historical patterns as everyone else. And that admission would kill the myth. So the myth is maintained, and the flaw is never reconciled, and the foundation goes unexamined — until the weight of what has been built on top of it becomes too great, and the whole structure begins to crack.

The crack was always there. The founding flaw was never a secret. Slavery, genocide, the gap between the Declaration’s promises and the Republic’s practices — these were not discoveries of the twenty-first century. Frederick Douglass named them in 1852.²² Indigenous leaders named them long before that. What changed was not the existence of the flaw but the willingness to ignore it. As long as America was building, as long as the myth was generating prosperity and global prestige and the appearance of moral authority, the crack could be papered over with rhetoric and reform. But a myth is only as durable as the behaviour it describes. And when the behaviour diverges far enough from the myth — when the nation that wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is bombing universities and water infrastructure in a war its own legislature never authorised — the paper tears, and what is underneath becomes visible to the entire world.

The Architect Becomes the Demolition Crew

There is a distinction that most people never make, and it is the distinction on which this entire series turns.

Technology is not civilisation. Culture is not civilisation. Civilisation is something else entirely — and a society can advance the first two while destroying the third.

Technology is capability. By this measure, the United States has never been more powerful. It fields the most advanced military in human history. It dominates artificial intelligence, space exploration, biotechnology, and global communications. It can strike any target on earth within the hour and surveille any population on the planet in real time. The trajectory, by this measure, is straight up.

Culture is expression. By this measure, America remains the most influential nation on earth. Its music, its films, its language, its fashion, its social media platforms — these are consumed in every country, imitated in every market, absorbed into every local culture they touch. American culture is not declining. It is, if anything, more pervasive than ever.

But civilisation is neither of these things. Civilisation is the agreement about how we treat each other. It is the baseline ethical contract — the unwritten understanding that there are things we do not do, not because we lack the capability but because we have chosen to be something more than our capability allows. It is the decision to build a court rather than a colosseum. It is the choice to write a law rather than swing a sword. It is the restraint that distinguishes a society from a mob with good infrastructure.

And by this measure — the only measure that ultimately matters — the United States is regressing.

This is not a novel observation. Every declining civilisation in history has exhibited the same pattern: technological sophistication advancing alongside ethical collapse. Rome in the second century had engineering that would not be matched for a thousand years — aqueducts, roads, heated floors, concrete that still stands. It also had an economy built on slavery and an entertainment industry built on feeding human beings to animals in front of cheering crowds.²³ The capability was extraordinary. The civilisation was rotting. And the rot was invisible to the Romans themselves, because they made the same error that Americans are making now: they confused what they could build with what they were.

The question this series is asking is whether a society can be technologically supreme and civilisationally bankrupt at the same time. The answer, evidently, is yes. The nation that built the international legal order is now its most prolific violator. The country that wrote the Geneva Conventions is bombing water infrastructure and nuclear power plants.²⁴ The government that drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is live-streaming military operations on a presidential app for public consumption.²⁵ The society that once lost elections over political mud-slinging now elects leaders because of it.

This is not decline in the way most people use the word. The economy has not collapsed. The military has not been defeated. The technology has not failed. What has failed is something harder to measure and easier to ignore: the conscience of the civilisation. The willingness to be bound by the rules you wrote. The capacity to look at your own behaviour and judge it by the standards you imposed on everyone else.

When Rubio stood at that podium in Munich and declared that America would not be a caretaker of the West’s managed decline, he was diagnosing a real condition. But he misidentified the disease. The decline is not happening because America has become too soft, too accommodating, too constrained by multilateral institutions. The decline is happening because America has abandoned the very thing that made it worth following — the promise, however imperfectly kept, that power could be exercised within the bounds of law and conscience. Strip that away and what remains is not a civilisation. It is a superpower. And there is nothing more dangerous than a superpower that has stopped pretending to be civilised.

The myth of the indispensable nation was never quite true, but it was useful. It gave the world a framework — flawed, hypocritical, selectively enforced, but real enough to restrain the worst impulses of the powerful and protect the weakest from the strongest. For eighty years, the myth held. Not because America was actually what it claimed to be, but because enough people — including enough Americans — believed in the aspiration to make the system function.

That is over now.

The architect has turned on his own building. The nation that wrote the rules has torn them up — not in secret, not with regret, but openly, from the podium of the Munich Security Conference, with a standing ovation from the audience. The myth of the indispensable nation is dead, killed not by America’s enemies but by America itself. And the question that remains — the question this series will pursue across its next two parts — is what happens to a world when the nation that built the rules no longer believes in them, and what happens to a civilisation when the people inside it no longer remember what civilisation means.

Part II will examine the mechanics: how the system is collapsing, where the institutions have failed, and what the evidence of the current war reveals about the state of the international order.

Part III will go deeper — to the root. To the erosion of conscience itself, the thing that holds a civilisation together long after the institutions have crumbled. To the question of whether what has been lost can be recovered, or whether we are watching something terminal.

When you lose what it means to be civilised, you have no civilisation.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

The Decline of Western Civilisation is part of a three part series. Part II of this series is scheduled to release June 9, 2026.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Marco Rubio, speech at the Munich Security Conference, 14 February 2026. Full transcript published by the United States Department of State.

² Ibid.

³ US-Israeli strikes on Iran commenced 28 February 2026. See “2026 Iran war,” compiled reporting from Reuters, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, BBC, and CNN.

⁴ IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, statement to the IAEA Board of Governors emergency session, 2 March 2026: “We don’t see a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons.” Confirmed in a CNN interview, 3 March 2026, when asked if Iran was “days or weeks away from building a bomb,” Grossi replied: “No.”

⁵ Iranian officials reported US-Israeli strikes had damaged at least 120 museums and historical sites, 600+ schools and universities, oil and gas infrastructure, steel factories, desalination plants, water sources, and the Iranian Red Crescent headquarters. Al Jazeera, 27 March 2026; CNN live reporting, 28 March 2026.

⁶ Arms Control Association, “Did Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Programs Pose an Imminent Threat? No.” March 2026: “This is a war of choice, waged in violation of international law and without the necessary approval from Congress.”

⁷ Britain’s post-war economic crisis led to the abrupt withdrawal from Palestine (1948), the loss of India (1947), and the progressive dissolution of the British Empire over the following two decades. The loan Britain secured from the United States in 1946 — $3.75 billion — was not fully repaid until 2006.

⁸ “The United States accounted for 50 percent of global GDP [at the end of WWII], held 80 percent of the world’s hard currency reserves, and was a net exporter of petroleum products.” Kent Hughes, Wilson Center, “A Short History of America’s Economy Since World War II.”

⁹ The Bretton Woods Conference (formally the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference) took place in July 1944 at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. It established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (later part of the World Bank Group).

¹⁰ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948, with Eleanor Roosevelt serving as chair of the drafting committee.

¹¹ The Geneva Conventions of 1949 consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war.

¹² The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program) provided approximately $13 billion in economic assistance to Western European economies between 1948 and 1951. Adjusted for inflation, this is equivalent to roughly $170 billion in 2026 dollars. See EH.net, “The American Economy during World War II.”

¹³ Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 51 preserves the right of self-defence. Chapter VII empowers the Security Council to authorise the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

¹⁴ The phrase “beacon” in relation to America’s post-war global image draws on the broader tradition of American self-perception — from Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” to Reagan’s “shining city” — but here refers specifically to how the world perceived America, not how America perceived itself. The distinction matters for the argument that follows.

¹⁵ Estimates of pre-contact indigenous population in North America vary widely among scholars, from approximately 2 million to over 18 million. The reduction by 1900 to approximately 250,000 — representing a decline of 90 per cent or more depending on the baseline estimate — is attributed to a combination of epidemic disease, warfare, forced removal, and deliberate policies of starvation and cultural destruction.

¹⁶ Captain Richard Henry Pratt, founder of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, speech at the Nineteenth Annual Conference of Charities and Correction, 1892. The full quote: “A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one… In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.”

¹⁷ John L. O’Sullivan, “Annexation,” The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, vol. 17, no. 1 (July–August 1845), pp. 5–10.

¹⁸ The term “American Exceptionalism” is often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835), though Tocqueville used the word “exceptional” rather than the formal phrase. The concept gained its modern political usage in the twentieth century and has been invoked by presidents from both parties.

¹⁹ John Winthrop, “A Model of Christian Charity,” delivered 1630, aboard the Arbella. Published in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston, 1838), 3rd series 7:31–48.

²⁰ John F. Kennedy cited Winthrop’s sermon in his address to the Massachusetts state legislature on 9 January 1961. Ronald Reagan invoked “a shining city upon a hill” repeatedly throughout his political career, including his farewell address on 11 January 1989.

²¹ The fusion of Protestant theology with American national identity is explored in depth in the companion article: James S. Coates, “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy,” Fireline Press, 2025.

²² Frederick Douglass, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” speech delivered 5 July 1852, Rochester, New York: “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

²³ Roman gladiatorial games reached their height in the first and second centuries CE, with the Colosseum (completed 80 CE) hosting spectacles involving the killing of both condemned prisoners and trained fighters before crowds of up to 50,000. Roman infrastructure — including aqueducts, roads, and concrete construction — remained unmatched in Europe until the modern era.

²⁴ See endnotes 4 and 5 above. The IAEA confirmed strikes on the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility. Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant was struck at least three times. A major water source in Haftgel, Khuzestan province, was targeted on 28 March 2026 (reported by Al Jazeera via Iran’s Fars news agency).

²⁵ The White House launched a mobile application in March 2026 that was promoted across official social media accounts, providing real-time content related to ongoing military operations.

How does the same political ecosystem simultaneously present itself as the world’s greatest defender of the Jewish people and the world’s most aggressive demoniser of Muslims — while profiting from both antisemitism and cultural racism against Muslims?

The answer is simpler than it should be. It profits from both because the two bigotries serve the same strategic function. Both manufacture enemies. Both justify military intervention. Both sustain the surveillance state. Both redirect public attention away from the actual power structures that benefit from permanent civilisational conflict. And both — this is the part most people miss — are cultivated by overlapping networks, funded by overlapping donors, and amplified by overlapping media pipelines that treat hatred not as a problem to be solved but as a product to be sold.

In “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy,” I traced the theological infrastructure that delivered American foreign policy to a dispensationalist agenda.¹ In “Just for Fun: The War in Iran,” I documented the illegality of a war launched without legal authority and sustained by arguments that collapse under examination.² In “Jews in History — Who Protected Whom,” I inverted the historical record that both of those articles operate within — the assumption that Islam and Judaism are locked in an ancient civilisational conflict.³ They are not. The evidence is overwhelming, and the people who need you not to know that evidence have spent decades building the machinery to ensure you never encounter it.

This article names the machinery.

It names the think tanks that manufacture anti-Muslim narratives. It names the foundations that fund them. It names the media figures who amplify them. It names the governments that benefit from them. And it traces the documented connections between the counter-Islamism industry and the exploitation of antisemitism — because the same networks that inflate the threat of Islam also instrumentalise the suffering of Jews, and they do both for the same reason: to sustain an environment of permanent fear in which military budgets expand, civil liberties contract, and the question of who actually benefits from all this conflict never gets asked.

I am not speculating about how influence operations work. I was an operative in federal counterterrorism. I have seen narratives constructed, targets cultivated, and ordinary people moved toward extremism by people with agendas those people never fully understood. When I look at the networks documented in this article, I recognise the architecture — not because I read about it in a report, but because I have been inside operations that use the same mechanics. The scale is different. The pattern is the same.

The question that runs through everything that follows is the oldest question in intelligence work: cui bono? Who benefits? Follow the money, follow the influence, follow the outcomes — and you will find that the people who benefit from both antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred are not the Jews who live in fear or the Muslims who face discrimination. The beneficiaries are the defence contractors, the surveillance firms, the political actors who need permanent enemies, and the governments that use civilisational conflict as a management tool.

The industry does not fight hate. It farms it.

Share

The Network

In 2011, the Center for American Progress published a report called “Fear, Inc.” that did something no one had done before: it mapped the counter-Islam industry in the United States as a network — with identifiable nodes, traceable funding, and a documented pipeline from think tank to media to legislation.⁴ What the researchers found was not a vast conspiracy. It was something more effective: a small, tightly connected group of organisations and individuals, funded by a handful of foundations, whose manufactured claims about Islam were amplified through conservative media and converted into policy by sympathetic legislators. The network did not need to be large. It needed to be well-funded, well-connected, and relentless.

The numbers told the story. Seven charitable foundations spent $42.6 million between 2001 and 2009 funding the intellectual core of the counter-Islam network.⁵ By 2014, a follow-up analysis by the Council on American-Islamic Relations documented that the inner core organisations alone had access to at least $119.6 million in total revenue between 2008 and 2011.⁶ The money flowed from foundations like the Donors Capital Fund, the Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and others — into a cluster of think tanks that produced the reports, the talking points, and the manufactured expertise that made cultural racism against Muslims look like national security analysis.⁷

The think tanks form the intellectual engine. The Center for Security Policy, founded by Frank Gaffney, has spent decades promoting the claim that Islamic law — Sharia — represents an existential threat to the American constitutional order.⁸ ACT for America, founded by Brigitte Gabriel, built a grassroots army — the organisation now claims 2.8 million members — dedicated to opposing what it calls “radical Islam” but in practice targets the religion itself.⁹ The Southern Poverty Law Centre has designated it the largest grassroots anti-Muslim group in the United States.¹⁰ Gabriel, a Lebanese-American Maronite Catholic, was awarded the Menachem Begin Prize by the State of Israel in 2025 — a detail worth remembering when we reach “The Convergence” later in this article.¹¹ The Middle East Forum, run by Daniel Pipes, functions as both a think tank and a funder of other organisations in the network, including $1.24 million to Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism and $450,000 to MEMRI — the Middle East Media Research Institute — between 2009 and 2011.¹² The David Horowitz Freedom Center provides a platform for anti-Muslim voices and has published defences of far-right figures across both sides of the Atlantic.¹³ The Gatestone Institute, an Israel-focused think tank, does the same.¹⁴

Then there are the individuals who give the network its public face. Robert Spencer — not the white nationalist, a different Robert Spencer — runs Jihad Watch and co-founded the American Freedom Defense Initiative with Pamela Geller. Spencer’s writings were cited 162 times in the manifesto of Anders Breivik, the Norwegian far-right terrorist who murdered 77 people in 2011.¹⁵ Geller’s blog was cited twelve times.¹⁶ Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom in 2013 as an extremist.¹⁷ None of this has diminished his status within the network. He remains a source cited by mainstream conservative commentators, including in the endnotes of Ann Coulter’s bestselling books.¹⁸

The pipeline from think tank to policy is not theoretical. It is documented. David Yerushalmi, a lawyer affiliated with Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, drafted model anti-Sharia legislation that ACT for America’s grassroots network then introduced in state legislatures across the country.¹⁹ Frank Gaffney himself described ACT for America as a “force multiplier” for this legislative agenda.²⁰ By December 2025, this pipeline had produced the Sharia Free America Caucus in the United States Congress — founded with forty-seven members from twenty-two states, co-founded by Representatives Keith Self and Chip Roy of Texas. Three months later, it has fifty-seven.²¹ In its first months, the caucus introduced seven bills, including the designation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations — the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organisation — as a terrorist organisation.²² CAIR responded by designating the caucus an anti-Muslim hate group — the first time in its thirty-two-year history it had designated a congressional caucus as an extremist body.²³

This is the assembly line. A think tank produces a claim. A media figure amplifies it. A grassroots organisation mobilises around it. A legislator introduces a bill based on it. And a community of 3.5 million American Muslims lives with the consequences.

The media amplifiers deserve specific attention because they are the mechanism by which fringe claims enter mainstream political discourse. Ann Coulter — who has referred to Muslims as “ragheads” and “jihad monkeys,” who called Islam “a car-burning cult,” and who wrote days after the eleventh of September 2001 that America should “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” — has been described by David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, as perhaps the most influential single writer on a presidential election since Harriet Beecher Stowe.²⁴ She was one of only forty-five people Donald Trump followed on X.²⁵ She cites Robert Spencer and the white nationalist outlet VDARE in her bestselling books.²⁶ When Coulter shared anti-Muslim videos from the British far-right group Britain First, Trump retweeted them to his tens of millions of followers.²⁷ The pipeline does not stop at the think tank door. It runs directly into the White House.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Katie Hopkins performs the same function. Hopkins — who called for a “final solution” after the Manchester bombing, who called refugees “cockroaches,” who described Islam as “repugnant,” and who called for internment camps for suspected Muslim extremists on Fox News — spoke at a David Horowitz Freedom Center event in March 2017 and has worked with the Center for Security Policy.²⁸ She was amplified by Trump at least eleven times during his presidency.²⁹ She screened a documentary film in Israel in which she described the country as “kind of my natural home” and declared, “It’s my ambition to be Jewish.”³⁰ She marched alongside Tommy Robinson in London in September 2025.³¹ Hopkins connects the American think tanks, the British far-right street movement, and the Israeli political establishment. She is a node in a transatlantic network, not an isolated provocateur.

The single most revealing piece of evidence in this network is a single transaction. In 2008, the Donors Capital Fund made an $18 million donation to the Clarion Fund, which used it to produce and distribute a propaganda film called “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” to 28 million voters in swing states ahead of the presidential election.³² A Florida distributor described the DVD as “the single most powerful piece of media over the past five years in persuading average Americans to the Islamist threat.”³³ Eighteen million dollars, one film, twenty-eight million homes. That is not organic public opinion. That is a manufactured product, delivered at industrial scale, paid for by a single foundation.

This is the counter-Islam network. It is not a conspiracy. It is an industry — with funding, personnel, infrastructure, and a product. The product is fear. And the market for it has never been larger.

The Shield

The counter-Islam network described in the previous section is one half of the machinery. The other half does not manufacture hatred of Muslims. It manufactures a shield — a definitional weapon that makes criticism of the State of Israel functionally impossible in public life.

In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted a working definition of antisemitism. The definition itself is brief: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”³⁴ That sentence is uncontroversial. What follows it is not. Attached to the definition are eleven illustrative examples, seven of which relate not to hatred of Jews but to criticism of Israel. Among them: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” And: “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”³⁵

Read those examples carefully. Under the IHRA definition, arguing that a state founded through the ethnic cleansing of three quarters of a million people is a racist endeavour is, potentially, antisemitic.³⁶ Pointing out that Israel receives preferential treatment from Western governments — treatment not extended to any other state engaged in comparable conduct — is, potentially, antisemitic. The definition does not merely protect Jews from hatred. It protects a state from accountability. And it does so by collapsing the distinction between Jewish people and Israeli government policy — which is precisely what genuine antisemites do.

This is not my analysis alone. Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the original text that became the IHRA definition, has publicly and repeatedly opposed its weaponisation. In testimony and published writing, Stern has accused pro-Israel groups of turning the definition into a tool to suppress speech on college campuses. He called its use in Donald Trump’s 2019 executive order targeting Palestinian advocacy “an attack on academic freedom and free speech.”³⁷ The man who wrote the definition says it is being used for purposes he never intended and explicitly opposes.

The consequences are documented and specific. In 2024, the United States House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act by a margin of 320 to 91, mandating the use of the IHRA definition by the Department of Education.³⁸ Columbia University adopted the definition in 2025 as part of a settlement with the Trump administration.³⁹ In response, Rashid Khalidi — the Palestinian-American historian who held the Edward Said Chair of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia — cancelled his popular lecture course on the history of the modern Middle East. His reason was direct: the IHRA definition, he said, “deliberately, mendaciously and disingenuously conflates Jewishness with Israel, so that any criticism of Israel, or indeed description of Israeli policies, becomes a criticism of Jews.”⁴⁰

The consequences extend beyond cancelled courses. Professor David Miller, a sociologist at the University of Bristol, was dismissed in October 2021 after complaints about a lecture in which he described the Zionist movement as one of five pillars driving cultural racism against Muslims in the United Kingdom. The Community Security Trust, a pro-Israel charity, called the lecture a “false, vile antisemitic slur.” Two internal university investigations found no case to answer. Miller was sacked anyway for gross misconduct. In February 2024, a Bristol Employment Tribunal ruled, in a unanimous 108-page judgment, that Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a protected philosophical belief under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, that his dismissal constituted direct discrimination, and that he had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed.⁴¹ The tribunal found that the university’s reason for dismissal was “tainted by discrimination.” Miller’s lawyer called it a “landmark case” that “underscores the issue of weaponising antisemitism to stifle discussions on Zionism.”⁴² A professor lost his job because he named the connection between Zionism and anti-Muslim bigotry. The legal system said the machinery was wrong. But the machinery had already done its work — Miller was out for over two years before the ruling.

These are not isolated cases. Palestine Legal, an organisation that tracks the suppression of pro-Palestinian advocacy in the United States, has documented a pattern of the IHRA definition being used to chill campus speech, cancel events, and target faculty.⁴³ In the United Kingdom, an Israeli Embassy official pressured the University of Manchester into changing the title of a talk that was critical of the Israeli government, invoking the IHRA definition as justification.⁴⁴ Luke Akehurst, a member of the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee and director of an organisation called We Believe in Israel, circulated an edited version of the definition to British local authorities — with the qualifying phrase “could, taking account of the overall context, include” quietly removed and replaced with “The guidelines highlight manifestations of antisemitism as including.” The conditional became categorical. The shield became a weapon.⁴⁵

Over one hundred organisations have asked the United Nations to reject the definition because, in their assessment, it “has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism.”⁴⁶

The mechanism is worth stating plainly because it is the mirror image of the counter-Islam network documented in “The Network.” The counter-Islam industry manufactures a threat — the spectre of Islamic infiltration, Sharia law, civilisational jihad — and uses it to justify policy against Muslims. The antisemitism exploitation apparatus manufactures a shield — the conflation of Israel with Jewishness — and uses it to prevent policy against Israel. One creates fear. The other prevents accountability. Both serve the same geopolitical project. And both harm the communities they claim to protect.

Jews who criticise Israel are labelled “self-hating.” I documented this in “The Greatest Antisemitism” — the erasure of Torah-observant anti-Zionist communities whose theological objections to the state predate its founding by centuries.⁴⁷ When rabbis whose lives are devoted to Torah study and who trace their scholarship through unbroken chains of transmission are dismissed as irrelevant because they refuse to pledge allegiance to a political project barely 130 years old, something deeply antisemitic has occurred. The IHRA definition was supposed to protect Jews from precisely this kind of silencing. Instead, it enables it — because the definition protects not Jews but a state, and any Jew who dissents from that state’s agenda becomes a target of the very machinery that was built in their name.

This is the second half of the industry. The first half manufactures enemies. The second half manufactures immunity. Together, they create a closed system in which Islam can be demonised without consequence and Israel can act without scrutiny — and anyone who objects to either arrangement is labelled a bigot.

Share

The Convergence

If the counter-Islam network and the antisemitism exploitation apparatus were separate operations serving separate interests, they would be troubling enough. They are not separate. They converge — in personnel, in funding, in institutional relationships, and in the direct involvement of the State of Israel. The evidence for this convergence is not inferential. It is documented. And no single figure illustrates it more clearly than Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Yaxley-Lennon — known publicly as Tommy Robinson — is the founder of the English Defence League, a former member of the British National Party, and a man who has served five prison terms between 2005 and 2025, including for fraud and for libelling a fifteen-year-old Syrian refugee.⁴⁸ He is one of the most prominent anti-Muslim activists in Europe. His rallies draw thousands. His social media reach is enormous. Israeli flags are a regular presence at his marches.⁴⁹

Now follow the money and the institutional connections.

Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Forum — the same organisation documented earlier as a central node in the counter-Islam network, the same organisation that sent $1.24 million to Steven Emerson and $450,000 to MEMRI — bankrolled three demonstrations in London in Robinson’s defence.⁵⁰ The Gatestone Institute — the Israel-focused think tank also documented in “The Network” — published pieces defending him.⁵¹ David Horowitz — whose Freedom Center provided the platform where Katie Hopkins spoke in 2017 — called Robinson “a courageous Englishman who has risked his life to expose the rape epidemic of young girls conducted by Muslim gangs.”⁵² The Times of Israel reported these connections under the headline: “Why are US ‘pro-Israel’ groups boosting a far-right, anti-Muslim UK extremist?”⁵³ It was a fair question. The answer is that Robinson’s activism serves the same geopolitical project their funding supports.

And then came the invitation. In October 2025, Robinson arrived in Israel at the official invitation of Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli.⁵⁴ The visit was organised by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party.⁵⁵ Robinson filmed himself at Ben Gurion Airport declaring he was there to “show solidarity with the Jewish people and the Israeli people.” He claimed — in direct contradiction of the evidence presented in the opening paragraphs of my previous article, “Jews in History” — that Israeli control keeps Christians safe in Jerusalem.⁵⁶

The Board of Deputies of British Jews condemned him. “Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and supporters of far-right extremist organisations like the English Defence League are not welcome at our community’s events,” they said.⁵⁷ The Zionist Federation said the same.⁵⁸ The mainstream Jewish community in Britain does not want this man speaking for them.

The Israeli government invited him anyway. Officially. Through a cabinet minister. Organised by the ruling party.

This is the convergence. An American think tank network — funded by foundations documented in Fear, Inc. — finances a British far-right street organiser. That organiser is then officially hosted by the government of Israel. The mainstream Jewish community in Britain says he is not their ally. The Israeli government says he is. The counter-Islam network and the Israeli state are not merely aligned. They are operationally connected. The money, the platforms, and the diplomatic engagement are documented.

Robinson is not alone. He is the most visible case, but the pattern is structural.

Richard Spencer — the white nationalist who led the Charlottesville march where men chanted “Jews will not replace us” — went on Israeli television in August 2017 and told the audience: “You could say that I am a white Zionist in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. Just like you want a secure homeland in Israel.”⁵⁹ He later called Israel “the most important and perhaps most revolutionary ethno-state” and “the one that I turn to for guidance.”⁶⁰ When Israel passed its 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law — which conferred the right to national self-determination exclusively to the Jewish people — Spencer praised it: “Jews are, once again, at the vanguard, rethinking politics and sovereignty for the future, showing a path forward for Europeans.”⁶¹

Spencer is an antisemite. He is also a Zionist. These are not contradictions. They are the same position expressed in two directions. The ethno-nationalist who believes white people should have their own state and the ethno-nationalist who believes Jews should have their own state share a premise: that ethnic groups should be separated into territories, and that coexistence is impossible. Spencer recognises this. He is not being ironic when he calls himself a white Zionist. He is identifying a genuine structural kinship — one that the Haavara Agreement of 1933, documented in “The Greatest Antisemitism,” established long before Spencer was born.⁶²

When Spencer challenged a rabbi who confronted him at Texas A&M University — “Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel? Maybe all of the Middle East could go move into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Would you really want that?” — the rabbi had no answer.⁶³ He had no answer because the question exposes a contradiction that the IHRA definition was designed to conceal: if ethno-nationalism is wrong when white people do it, it is wrong when anyone does it. Spencer’s argument is repugnant. It is also, on its own terms, logically coherent. And that coherence is the most devastating indictment of the ethno-state model that Israel represents.

Katie Hopkins connects all three nodes. She speaks at Horowitz Freedom Center events in the United States.⁶⁴ She marches alongside Robinson in the United Kingdom.⁶⁵ She screens her documentary in Israel and declares it her “natural home.”⁶⁶ She works with the Center for Security Policy.⁶⁷ She is amplified by the president of the United States.⁶⁸ She is not a marginal figure who happens to appear in multiple contexts. She is a node in a transatlantic network that links American think tank money, British far-right street politics, and Israeli government engagement.

And then there is Brigitte Gabriel — the founder of ACT for America, the largest grassroots counter-Islam organisation in the United States, the woman who received the Menachem Begin Prize from the State of Israel in 2025.⁶⁹ Gabriel has described Israel as “the vanguard in the world’s fight against Islamic terrorism.”⁷⁰ Her executive director, Guy Rodgers, was formerly the National Field Director for the Christian Coalition of America — the same organisation documented in “Holy War” as a pillar of the evangelical-Israeli alliance.⁷¹ The counter-Islam network and the Christian Zionist movement share personnel. The personnel share funding. The funding serves a single geopolitical project.

The thesis of this section can now be stated plainly, because the evidence supports it: being anti-Islam is Israeli foreign policy playing out at the domestic level. The counter-Islam network does not exist independently of the geopolitical project it serves. Anti-Muslim sentiment in Western publics is not an organic cultural phenomenon. It is a cultivated product — manufactured by funded organisations, amplified by media figures with direct access to heads of state, defended by think tanks with documented ties to the Israeli government, and rewarded by that government with prizes and official invitations.

The think tanks mapped in “The Network” do not merely happen to align with Israeli strategic interests. They are, in documented cases, directly connected to Israeli government outreach, lobbying infrastructure, and diplomatic strategy. The hostility toward Islam that pervades American and British conservative culture is not a bug in the system. It is the system working as designed — manufacturing the domestic consent required for the foreign policy described in “Holy War.”

Who Benefits

Cui bono.

The foundations that funded the counter-Islam network spent over $119 million in documented revenue between 2008 and 2011 alone. One single donation — $18 million — put a propaganda film into 28 million American homes before a presidential election. The think tanks that received those funds produced the intellectual framework that became model legislation, that became state bills, that became a congressional caucus with fifty-seven members and growing. The media figures who amplified those talking points had direct access to the president of the United States — and used it. The IHRA definition, designed to identify hatred of Jews, was turned into a tool to suppress criticism of a state — and its own author says so. A professor lost his job for naming the connection between Zionism and anti-Muslim bigotry. A historian cancelled his own course rather than teach under a definition that criminalises honest description of Israeli policy. And a far-right street organiser with five criminal convictions was officially invited to Israel by a cabinet minister while the mainstream Jewish community in Britain said he does not speak for them.

None of this serves Jewish safety. Antisemitic incidents rise in direct correlation with Israeli military operations — a pattern documented by anti-Zionist Jewish organisations and acknowledged by researchers on both sides of the debate.⁷² The industry that claims to fight antisemitism generates it, because the conflation of Israel with Jewishness ensures that every act of Israeli violence produces a backlash against Jewish communities who had no part in the decision. The machinery does not protect Jews. It uses them.

None of this serves Muslim communities. The 3.5 million Muslims in the United States and the nearly four million in the United Kingdom live under a manufactured narrative that treats their faith as an ideology of conquest, their religious practice as evidence of infiltration, and their civil rights organisations as terrorist fronts. Forty-seven members of Congress thought that was a reasonable enough premise to found a caucus around. Fifty-seven now.

The people who benefit are not the communities named in the hatred. The beneficiaries are the defence contractors who need permanent enemies to justify permanent budgets. The surveillance firms that need permanent threats to justify permanent monitoring. The political actors who need civilisational conflict to sustain their relevance. And the governments — in Washington, in Jerusalem, and in the capitals of every country that has adopted the IHRA definition or passed anti-Sharia legislation — that use fear as a management tool.

This article has named the machinery. “Holy War” named the theology. “Just for Fun” named the illegality. “Jews in History” recovered the history that was erased. Together, these four articles document a single system: a system that captured American foreign policy for a theological agenda, launched an illegal war to advance it, inverted a thousand years of history to justify it, and built an industry to ensure that no one is allowed to say so without being called a bigot.

The industry does not fight hate. It farms it. And until we name the farmers — the foundations, the think tanks, the media amplifiers, the legislators, and the governments that profit from permanent civilisational conflict — we will never harvest anything but more of the same.

This is the fourth and final article in the Fireline Press series. “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy” documented the theological infrastructure. “Just for Fun: The War in Iran” documented the illegality. “Jews in History — Who Protected Whom” recovered the history. This article named the machinery.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that's how the fire spreads.

Share

If you found this valuable, please support me with a like, share, or Subscribe.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ James S. Coates, “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy,” Fireline Press, 18 March 2026.

² James S. Coates, “Just for Fun: The War in Iran — Parts I & II,” Fireline Press, 24 March 2026.

³ James S. Coates, “Jews in History — Who Protected Whom,” Fireline Press, [date TBC] 2026.

⁴ Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and Faiz Shakir, “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” Center for American Progress, 26 August 2011.

⁵ Ibid. The seven foundations identified were: Donors Capital Fund, Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Newton and Rochelle Becker Foundation, Russell Berrie Foundation, Anchorage Charitable Fund/William Rosenwald Family Fund, and Fairbrook Foundation.

⁶ Corey Saylor, “The U.S. Islamophobia Network: Its Funding and Impact,” Council on American-Islamic Relations, April 2014. The report documented $119,662,719 in total revenue for inner core organisations between 2008 and 2011. Note: the source reports use the term “Islamophobia.” This article uses “cultural racism against Muslims” and “counter-Islam bigotry” as more precise descriptions of the phenomenon. Where the source terminology appears, it reflects the language of the cited organisation, not the author’s.

⁷ Fear, Inc. (2011). The Donors Capital Fund’s contribution included an $18 million single donation in 2008, detailed later in this section.

⁸ Frank Gaffney founded the Center for Security Policy in 1988. The SPLC has described it as an anti-Muslim hate group. Gaffney has promoted the conspiracy theory that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the US government. See “Frank Gaffney,” Southern Poverty Law Center; “Center for Security Policy,” Islamophobia Network (islamophobianetwork.com).

⁹ ACT for America claims 2.8 million members as of 2024. See “Breathtaking Achievements,” ACT for America Substack, June 2024. Earlier claims of “five million” appear on Gabriel’s official biography page. The SPLC, BuzzFeed News, The Guardian, and the Center for American Progress have all described the organisation as anti-Muslim.

¹⁰ Southern Poverty Law Center designation of ACT for America. See also Center for American Progress, Fear, Inc. (2011).

¹¹ Brigitte Gabriel was awarded the Menachem Begin Prize in 2025 “in recognition of her significant contribution to the people and the State of Israel.” See actforamerica.org/aboutbrigitte.

¹² Saylor (2014): “Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Forum granted $1,242,000 over three years to Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism” and “between 2009 and 2011 MEF sent Yigal Carmon’s Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) $450,000.”

¹³ The David Horowitz Freedom Center has been described by the SPLC as specialising in “giving anti-Muslim voices and radical ideologies a platform to project hate and misinformation.” David Horowitz earned $488,953 in 2011. Saylor (2014).

¹⁴ The Gatestone Institute published “Swift Injustice: The Case of Tommy Robinson” in defence of the far-right British activist. See Times of Israel, “Why are US ‘pro-Israel’ groups boosting a far-right, anti-Muslim UK extremist?” 24 January 2019.

¹⁵ Anders Breivik cited Robert Spencer’s blog Jihad Watch 162 times in his 1,500-page manifesto before murdering 77 people in Norway on 22 July 2011. Fear, Inc. (2011).

¹⁶ Pamela Geller’s blog Atlas Shrugs was cited twelve times in Breivik’s manifesto. Fear, Inc. (2011).

¹⁷ Robert Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom in June 2013 alongside Geller, on the grounds that their presence was “not conducive to the public good.” SPLC, “Ann Coulter Cites White Nationalists, Anti-Muslim Activists and Other Racists in New Book,” 29 June 2015.

¹⁸ Coulter cites Robert Spencer in her book ¡Adios, America! (2015). She also cites VDARE, a white nationalist outlet, and Peter Brimelow, its founder. SPLC (2015).

¹⁹ David Yerushalmi drafted model anti-Sharia legislation that was introduced in multiple state legislatures through ACT for America’s grassroots network. See Fear, Inc. 2.0 (2015); “ACT for America,” Wikipedia.

²⁰ Frank Gaffney described ACT for America as a “force multiplier” for the anti-Sharia legislative agenda. Cited in The New York Times; see “ACT for America,” Wikipedia.

²¹ The Sharia Free America Caucus was founded on 18 December 2025 with forty-seven members from twenty-two states, co-founded by Rep. Keith Self (R-TX) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX). By 18 March 2026, Self announced the caucus had grown to fifty-seven members, with sixteen from Texas alone. See “Anti-Muslim Rhetoric from US Government Officials & Political Figures,” compiled by James S. Coates, March 2026; Rep. Keith Self (@RepKeithSelf), X post, 18 March 2026.

²² The caucus introduced seven bills including HR 4097, which would designate CAIR as a terrorist organisation. Ibid.

²³ CAIR designated the Sharia Free America Caucus an anti-Muslim hate group on 18 February 2026 — the first time in CAIR’s thirty-two-year history it designated a congressional caucus as an extremist organisation. Ibid.

²⁴ Coulter’s post-9/11 statement appeared in her column for National Review Online on 13 September 2001; she was subsequently fired. She doubled down in her book How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2004). “Ragheads” and “jihad monkeys”: see “Ann Coulter,” Islamophobia.org. “Car-burning cult”: Media Matters, “Coulter: Islam is ‘a car-burning cult,’” 8 February 2006. Frum’s comparison to Harriet Beecher Stowe: see “Ann Coulter,” Islamophobia.org.

²⁵ Coulter was one of only forty-five accounts Trump followed on X (formerly Twitter). See “Ann Coulter,” Islamophobia.org.

²⁶ SPLC, “Ann Coulter Cites White Nationalists, Anti-Muslim Activists and Other Racists in New Book,” 29 June 2015.

²⁷ Coulter shared anti-Muslim videos from Britain First, which Trump then retweeted in November 2017, provoking an international incident with the British government. See Haaretz, “Ann Coulter, Who First Tweeted Trump’s anti-Muslim Videos: Source and Credibility ‘Irrelevant,’” 30 November 2017.

²⁸ Hopkins tweeted “We need a final solution” on 23 May 2017, following the Manchester Arena bombing. She was fired from LBC. She called for internment camps on Fox News’ Fox & Friends in June 2017. She called refugees “cockroaches” in The Sun in 2015. She spoke at a Horowitz Freedom Center event in March 2017. She has worked with the Center for Security Policy. See “Katie Hopkins,” Wikipedia; Media Matters, “Trump keeps amplifying far-right racist Katie Hopkins,” 2019.

²⁹ Trump amplified Hopkins at least eleven times as president, including retweets calling Baltimore a “sh*thole” and attacking the “Mayor of Londonistan.” Media Matters (2019).

³⁰ Hopkins screened her documentary Homelands in Tel Aviv and stated: “It feels like Israel is kind of my natural home... It’s my ambition to be Jewish.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 22 July 2019.

³¹ Hopkins marched alongside Tommy Robinson in central London on 13 September 2025. See AFP photograph captioned in Times of Israel, 15 October 2025.

³² The Donors Capital Fund donated $18 million in 2008 to the Clarion Fund for distribution of the DVD “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” to 28 million swing-state voters. Fear, Inc. (2011).

³³ The Florida distributor’s description of the DVD as “the single most powerful piece of media” is cited in SPLC, “New Report Details Funding Sources Behind Anti-Muslim Fearmongers,” 2011.

³⁴ International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, “Working Definition of Antisemitism,” adopted 26 May 2016, Bucharest. The full text and examples are available at holocaustremembrance.com. The US State Department adopted the definition and encouraged other governments and international organisations to do the same.

³⁵ Ibid. The eleven illustrative examples are presented as guidance: “Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to...” Seven of the eleven examples relate to Israel.

³⁶ The Nakba — the displacement of approximately 700,000–750,000 Palestinians during 1947–49 — is documented in endnote 73 of “Jews in History — Who Protected Whom” (Fireline Press). See Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

³⁷ Kenneth S. Stern, “A Bad Deal: By Adopting the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism, Universities Are Sacrificing Academic Freedom,” Knight First Amendment Institute, Columbia University. Stern wrote: “Many pro-Israel Jewish groups eventually weaponized the definition to suppress student speech and to go after faculty for what they said, materials included in their courses, and speakers they invited to campus.” See also The Nation, “How a Leading Definition of Antisemitism Has Been Weaponized Against Israel’s Critics,” 27 December 2023.

³⁸ The Antisemitism Awareness Act passed the US House of Representatives on 1 May 2024 by a vote of 320–91, mandating the use of the IHRA definition by the Department of Education in evaluating complaints of antisemitism on campuses. See “IHRA definition of antisemitism,” Wikipedia.

³⁹ Columbia University adopted the IHRA definition in 2025 as part of its settlement with the Trump administration. See “IHRA definition of antisemitism,” Wikipedia.

⁴⁰ Rashid Khalidi, then Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia, cancelled his fall 2025 lecture course on the history of the modern Middle East. He stated the IHRA definition “deliberately, mendaciously and disingenuously conflates Jewishness with Israel, so that any criticism of Israel, or indeed description of Israeli policies, becomes a criticism of Jews.” See “IHRA definition of antisemitism,” Wikipedia.

⁴¹ Miller v University of Bristol (Case No. 1400780/2022), Bristol Employment Tribunal, judgment delivered 5 February 2024. Regional Employment Judge Rohan Pirani. The unanimous 108-page judgment found Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a protected philosophical belief under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, that his dismissal constituted direct discrimination contrary to Section 13, and that he was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed. See judiciary.uk; Al Jazeera, “UK tribunal says academic discriminated against due to anti-Zionist beliefs,” 6 February 2024; Times Higher Education, “’Anti-Zionist’ Bristol professor unfairly dismissed, judge rules,” 6 February 2024.

⁴² Zillur Rahman, partner at Rahman Lowe and Miller’s legal representative, described the ruling as a “landmark case” that “marks a pivotal moment in the history of our country for those who believe in upholding the rights of Palestinians” and that “underscores the issue of weaponising antisemitism to stifle discussions on Zionism.” Al Jazeera (2024); Jewish Voice for Labour, “David Miller Verdict,” 5 February 2024.

⁴³ Palestine Legal documents the use of the IHRA definition to chill campus speech, providing examples from multiple universities. See Palestine Legal (2020); “What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Definition of Antisemitism?” PMC/National Library of Medicine, 2022.

⁴⁴ Gayle (2017), cited in “What Is Wrong with the IHRA’s Definition of Antisemitism?” PMC (2022): Michael Freeman, Counsellor for Civil Society Affairs at the Embassy of Israel in the UK, pressured the University of Manchester into changing the title of a talk critical of the Israeli government, invoking the IHRA definition.

⁴⁵ Luke Akehurst, director of We Believe in Israel and member of the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, circulated an edited version of the IHRA definition to British local authorities. The qualifying phrase “could, taking account of the overall context, include” was replaced with “The guidelines highlight manifestations of antisemitism as including.” See Cushman (2017), cited in PMC (2022).

⁴⁶ Over 100 organisations asked the United Nations to reject the IHRA definition. The Nation, “How a Leading Definition of Antisemitism Has Been Weaponized Against Israel’s Critics,” 27 December 2023.

⁴⁷ James S. Coates, “The Greatest Antisemitism,” brjimc.com, 2026. The article documents the theological and ethical arguments of Torah-based Jewish anti-Zionism, including the erasure and delegitimisation of anti-Zionist Orthodox communities.

⁴⁸ Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) founded the English Defence League in 2009 and was previously a member of the British National Party. His convictions include fraud, assault, drug offences, and contempt of court. In 2021, he was found liable for libelling Jamal Hijazi, a fifteen-year-old Syrian refugee, and ordered to pay £100,000 in damages. See “Tommy Robinson (activist),” Wikipedia; Times of Israel, “Why are US ‘pro-Israel’ groups boosting a far-right, anti-Muslim UK extremist?” 24 January 2019.

⁴⁹ Israeli flags were prominently carried at Robinson’s London march on 13 September 2025, by both Jewish and non-Jewish supporters. See Jerusalem Post, “Tommy Robinson on Israel, the UK, and the Middle East,” 19 September 2025.

⁵⁰ Daniel Pipes confirmed that the Middle East Forum bankrolled three demonstrations in London defending Robinson. Pipes denied paying for Robinson’s legal defence but verified the demonstration funding. The Guardian reported the MEF connection; Pipes pushed back against allegations that Robinson is an anti-Muslim bigot. Times of Israel (2019).

⁵¹ The Gatestone Institute published “Swift Injustice: The Case of Tommy Robinson” in defence of Robinson. The piece’s author, Bruce Bawer, did not respond to requests for comment. Times of Israel (2019).

⁵² David Horowitz emailed The Guardian: “Tommy Robinson is a courageous Englishman who has risked his life to expose the rape epidemic of young girls conducted by Muslim gangs and covered up by your shameful government.” The SPLC has said Horowitz’s organisation specialises in “giving anti-Muslim voices and radical ideologies a platform.” Times of Israel (2019).

⁵³ Times of Israel, “Why are US ‘pro-Israel’ groups boosting a far-right, anti-Muslim UK extremist?” 24 January 2019.

⁵⁴ Robinson arrived in Israel in October 2025 at the official invitation of Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli. Times of Israel, “British anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson arrives in Israel,” 15 October 2025.

⁵⁵ The visit was described as “an official visit organized by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party.” Jacobin, “It’s No Surprise That Tommy Robinson Loves Israel,” November 2025.

⁵⁶ Robinson claimed in Israel that Israeli control keeps Christians safe in Jerusalem. This claim is directly contradicted by the documented pattern of attacks on Christian clergy in Jerusalem detailed in “Jews in History — Who Protected Whom” (Fireline Press), endnotes 1–6, citing Haaretz, CBN News, the Rossing Centre, Middle East Eye, and the Armenian Weekly.

⁵⁷ Board of Deputies of British Jews: “Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) and supporters of far-right extremist organisations like the English Defence League are not welcome at our community’s events.” Middle East Monitor, 24 May 2021; repeated in multiple subsequent statements.

⁵⁸ The Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland also distanced itself from Robinson. Middle East Monitor (2021).

⁵⁹ Richard Spencer, interview with Channel 2 News (Israel), 16 August 2017. Reported by Times of Israel, Haaretz, +972 Magazine, and the Forward.

⁶⁰ Spencer described Israel as “the most important and perhaps most revolutionary ethno-state” at the University of Florida. See Foreign Policy In Focus, “Israel’s New Admirers: The White Nationalist Right,” 3 March 2021; MERIP, “The Old ‘New Anti-Semitism’ and Resurgent White Supremacy,” February 2018.

⁶¹ Spencer tweeted his praise of the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law: “I have great admiration for Israel’s nation-state law. Jews are, once again, at the vanguard, rethinking politics and sovereignty for the future, showing a path forward for Europeans.” Haaretz, “White Nationalist Richard Spencer Backs Israel’s Contentious Nation-state Law,” 22 July 2018.

⁶² The Haavara Agreement of 1933 — a formal arrangement between the Zionist Organisation and the Nazi regime to facilitate the transfer of German Jewish assets and emigration to Palestine — is documented in James S. Coates, “The Greatest Antisemitism,” brjimc.com, 2026. The structural alignment between ethnic separation movements is not a modern phenomenon.

⁶³ The exchange between Spencer and Rabbi Matt Rosenberg at Texas A&M University is documented in Current Affairs, “Why Israel Is Richard Spencer’s Favorite Argument,” November 2017; MERIP (2018).

⁶⁴ Hopkins spoke at a David Horowitz Freedom Center event in March 2017. See endnote 28.

⁶⁵ Hopkins marched alongside Robinson in central London on 13 September 2025. See endnote 31.

⁶⁶ Hopkins screened Homelands in Tel Aviv. See endnote 30.

⁶⁷ Hopkins has worked with the Center for Security Policy. See “Katie Hopkins,” Wikipedia.

⁶⁸ Trump amplified Hopkins at least eleven times as president. See endnote 29.

⁶⁹ Gabriel received the Menachem Begin Prize in 2025. See endnote 11.

⁷⁰ Gabriel described Israel as “the vanguard in the world’s fight against Islamic terrorism” at a conference sponsored by the UN Permanent Mission of Palau and the Aja Eze Foundation. See “Brigitte Gabriel,” Wikipedia.

⁷¹ Guy Rodgers, executive director of ACT for America, was formerly the National Field Director for the Christian Coalition of America in the 1990s. The Christian Coalition’s role in the evangelical-Israeli alliance is documented in James S. Coates, “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy,” Fireline Press, 18 March 2026. See “ACT for America,” Wikipedia.

⁷² The correlation between Israeli military operations and spikes in antisemitic incidents globally is documented by multiple sources. Anti-Zionist Jewish organisations, including those documented in “The Greatest Antisemitism” (brjimc.com, 2026), argue that Israel’s claim to speak for all Jews makes every Jewish person a potential target for backlash against Israeli state actions. The Community Security Trust’s own annual reports show spikes in UK antisemitic incidents during periods of Israeli military operations in Gaza.

We waited. The silence my first article The Silence After the Lie diagnosed did not stay silent. It filled with the Counter-Islam industry doing what it was built to do — accusation, suspicion, and the steady transfer of a manufactured fear poisoning the public bloodstream. It filled with the propaganda outlets and pundits who make their careers from exactly this. It did not fill with clear corrections from the government officials, the Met, the BBC, or the mainstream outlets that ran the original framing.

Nearly two months in, the Metropolitan Police have arrested twenty-six people. Eight have been charged with arson-related offences. One has been convicted of arson. One man was arrested on 26 April on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts — the first terrorism-related arrest in the entire investigation.¹ The investigation that began under the lens of an Iranian-directed Islamic terror campaign has now been reframed by the Met itself as a paid-proxy criminal operation — “violence as a service,” in the words of the senior counter-terrorism coordinator.² But the Iran attribution has not been retracted. The framing has only shifted from Iranian-linked terrorism to Iranian-linked criminality — the same misinformation, the same dubious sources, the same pipeline, with the noun changed and the modifier preserved. The British government has not retracted the Iran link. The BBC has not retracted the framing — it has only softened it, now describing HAYI as a group with possible or suspected links to Iran rather than as a confirmed Iranian-backed group. The legislation Parliament wrote for foreign-state-directed hostile activity is not being used. The original framing has been left in place to do its work.

This article is about the evidence that has accumulated to date — not only in the three weeks since The Silence After the Lie was published, but from the moment HAYI first appeared on the ninth of March 2026. The first article established the pipeline through which the Iran-linked narrative was laundered and reached the British public: the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague, the BBC. That pipeline is established. This article is about the operational fingerprint of the people who built the HAYI brand. The technical impossibility of the Iranian-handler thesis. The Met’s quiet retreat from terrorism to criminality without any retreat from the Iran attribution itself. And the question the original article could not yet ask — not just who built this, but why, nearly two months in and twenty-six arrests later, no foreign sponsor has been named when the Met’s own most recent comparable case named one within months.³

Both communities are owed clarity. Jewish families in Golders Green were told they were under siege from Iranian-directed Islamic terror. They were not. Muslim families across Britain have been carrying the weight of an attack their communities had no part in and condemn without qualification. The Met, the British government, and the media that ran the original framing owe both communities the same correction, with the same prominence as the original story. They have not yet given it. The investigation was wrong from the beginning. The work of this article is to show what putting it right would actually require. Until it is put right, both communities cannot heal and the public cannot see the true problem.

Share

No Muslim Hands

HAYI claims to be a Shia Islamic militant group. That is the identity the brand asserts in its founding statement. The 9 March announcement, circulated through Iraqi pro-Iranian Telegram channels, declared the start of HAYI’s “military operations against US and Israeli interests around the world.” ⁴ The communiqués that followed framed the campaign as jihad — a sacred religious act in the framework of Islamic militancy — in retaliation for the US-Israeli war on Iran, conducted by a movement aligned with the Axis of Resistance. That is the identity the founding statement asserts. That is the identity the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs formalised in its 16 March report.⁵ That is the identity the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism amplified on 23 March.⁶ That is the identity the public received.

The evidence disqualifies that identity at every level the operation can be examined — language, theology, vocabulary, source material, soundtrack, and behaviour. None of it requires specialist analysis. Most of it is documented by the institutions whose own reports gave the original framing its credibility. The case is not that the framing was hard to verify. The case is that the framing was contradicted by the materials HAYI itself published, and the institutions that ran with it did not look.

Start with the strongest single point: the founding statement HAYI issued for the Golders Green attack — the document the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs republished on its own website — opens with a quotation from the Qur’an, Surah At-Tawbah verse 41. The text has been altered.⁷

The Quranic verse reads wa-jāhidū — “and strive” — the imperative form of the verb. HAYI’s version reads wa-jāhadū — past tense, “and they strove.” The vocalisation mark on the letter hāʼ has been moved from below the letter (kasra, short i) to above it (fatḥa, short a). One vowel. The vowel changes the tense, changes the grammatical function, and changes the meaning of the verse.

This is not a hard error to identify. The Arabic text of Surah 9:41 is available on Quran.com, in every printed Qur’an in the world, and in every Islamic-language corpus a translator might consult. Copy-paste produces the correct text. The error appears only when someone composes the line themselves — or asks an AI to compose it — without checking against the received text.

For Muslims, this matters in a way that cannot be overstated and is difficult to convey to a reader who does not share the formation. The Qur’an is considered divinely preserved — God’s words, transmitted through fourteen centuries with the precise vocalisation intact. Altering the text, even in a quotation, even by a single diacritical mark, is theologically unthinkable. It is taught from the moment a child first picks up a Qur’an. A Muslim militant group — any school, any sect, any tradition — does not alter Quranic text in the document that announces its existence. There is no internal religious framework in which the alteration would be permitted, and no operational framework in which it would be allowed to pass.

Whoever composed HAYI’s founding statement did not know this. The implication is binary: either the person had no Muslim religious formation at all, or the statement was generated by AI and published without anyone checking it against the Qur’an. Both possibilities preclude the identity HAYI asserts. A Shia Islamic militant group does not produce its founding statement with the Qur’an misquoted in Arabic on the first line.

And the misquotation is not on a hand-drawn logo or a low-resolution graphic where a letter might be miscopied. It is the body text of a written communiqué, reproduced as an image in the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs’ own report on the group. The Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs has been republishing the error. They do not note that it has been altered.

The vocabulary the operators chose for the rest of the statement points the same way.

The Golders Green communiqué describes the Machzike Hadath Synagogue as significant because of its connection to “Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel and one of the most influential thinkers of Religious Zionism, who served at this synagogue before immigrating to the Land of Israel.” ⁸ The phrase to mark is “the Land of Israel” — Eretz Yisrael. It is the formulation of Religious Zionism: the theological-political movement founded by Rabbi Kook that frames the modern state of Israel as the realisation of biblical promise. It is the vocabulary of Israeli nationalism and of the settler movement. It is not the vocabulary of any Iranian proxy. It is not the vocabulary of any Shia militant tradition. It is not the vocabulary of any Sunni jihadi movement. Real Islamist groups have a vocabulary for talking about Israel — the Zionist entity, the Occupation, the usurper entity, the Zionist regime. They use it because their ideological framework requires them to deny the legitimacy of the Israeli state in the act of naming it. The Land of Israel concedes the legitimacy in the act of naming. It is the formulation of the side that affirms the state, not the side that opposes it.

The same paragraph contains a second tell. The communiqué describes Machzike Hadath as “one of the important centers of Orthodox Judaism.” The construction is unremarkable to a Western reader who has grown up around Anglo-American Jewish denominational vocabulary — Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox, Hasidic, Haredi, the categories that organise diaspora Jewish religious life. To a Muslim militant, this construction is unwritable. The framework that motivates a real Islamist attack on a synagogue does not distinguish denominations. The framework is al-yahud — Jews — or Zionists. A Shia militant communiqué does not specify Orthodox versus Reform any more than anti-shariah propaganda would specify Sunni versus Shia when calling for violence against Muslims. Denomination is theologically irrelevant to the framework. Specifying it is the move of someone inside Jewish religious-political life, fluent in its internal categories — not someone hating Jews from outside it.

The two phrases together are the operators’ fluency, on display in the document that introduced HAYI to the world. “The Land of Israel” is Religious Zionist vocabulary. “Orthodox Judaism” is the language of someone who knows Jewish denominational categories. Neither is something a Muslim militant would write. Both are something a person fluent in Anglo-American Jewish religious-political life would write without thinking. The operators wrote a Muslim extremist communiqué in the wrong vocabulary — vocabulary they evidently knew well enough to use without noticing.

The same paragraph contains a smaller tell that compounds the others. The Machzike Hadath Synagogue is described as “one of the important centers of Orthodox Judaism” — American spelling, not the British centres. The communiqué is announcing an attack on a London target. The American spelling does not, on its own, prove who is sitting at the keyboard. It proves the device the document was composed on. A uniformly American communiqué is not the output of an unconscious bilingual habit slip — that produces a mixed document, with British spellings appearing alongside the American ones. Neither is it the output of a writer working on a British-defaulted machine, whose American keystrokes would be corrected back. And the analysts who have examined HAYI’s materials agree that the Arabic text shows the signatures of machine translation, with the ICCT specifically identifying the second Telegram channel name as “likely resulting from an incorrect English translation.” ⁹ The English text is the input, not the output. Uniform American spelling in the English source requires American-defaulted hardware. The device default does not, on its own, disqualify any operator — Muslim militants working in or near American-defaulted contexts exist. What it does is add another small fact to the picture HAYI’s own materials have already built: a Quranic verse altered in a way no Muslim composes, vocabulary describing Israel and Jews that no Muslim militant uses, and a communiqué for a London target composed on an American-defaulted device. Each of these alone is small. Together they describe an operation built somewhere other than where HAYI says it was built.

The strongest direct test of HAYI’s claimed identity came on the day after the Golders Green attack. CBS News reached the administrator of HAYI’s surviving Telegram channel and exchanged a series of messages with him. The administrator, who referred to himself as Asad-Allah, did three things in the exchange that revealed more than any of HAYI’s published materials. He revealed his working language. He revealed the conceptual framework he reasoned from. And he revealed what he would not answer.¹⁰

The administrator wrote to CBS in American English. Not the English of an Arabic-speaker translating into a second language, with the syntactic markers that betray a non-native speaker. American English. The language of someone for whom American English is the default working language, written without strain and without translation artefacts. CBS noted this directly in their reporting.

The conceptual framework was sharper still. CBS observed that posts on the account had repeatedly referenced Christian and Jewish philosophy to justify the group’s actions, with no mention of Islamic principles or teachings. A Shia Islamic militant group does not justify its attacks through Christian and Jewish philosophy. A Shia Islamic militant group justifies its attacks through the Qur’an, the hadith, the example of the Imams, the Karbala framework, the Khomeinist tradition, the rulings of senior Shia jurists. These are not interchangeable with Christian and Jewish philosophy. They are not equivalent intellectual traditions one might substitute for the other depending on audience. A Shia operative defending an attack reasons from sources internal to the Shia tradition, because that is the framework that makes the attack intelligible to the audience the operative cares about. The administrator of HAYI’s Telegram channel did not. He reasoned from sources outside the tradition the group claims as its own.

The pattern surfaced again, on the record, seven weeks later. On 29 April 2026, HAYI claimed responsibility for a stabbing attack on two Jewish men in Golders Green, in a video circulated through the same Iraqi Shia militia Telegram channels that had carried the founding statement. The video runs forty-one seconds. It contains no attack footage and no imagery from the perpetrator — only static text overlays on the HAYI logo, in English on the left and Arabic on the right. The operative phrase reads: "Historically, the Jews are the killers of Jesus Christ, and today the Zionists are the killers of innocent women and children."⁴⁵ This is deicide — the Christian theological accusation that the Jews collectively killed Christ, formally repudiated by the Catholic Church in Nostra Aetate in 1965. It is not an Islamic doctrine. The Qur'an explicitly denies that Jesus was crucified at all. Surah An-Nisa 4:157 reads: "And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them." The classical Islamic position, held across Sunni and Shia traditions for fourteen hundred years, is that Jesus was raised by God and another was substituted on the cross. No Muslim militant group invoking jihad against Jews could coherently use the deicide accusation, because doing so requires the speaker to affirm a crucifixion their own scripture denies. The video then compounds the incoherence. It praises "the followers of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him)" — Christians — for "participating in the operation." A supposedly Shia Islamic militant group is praising Christians, invoking deicide against Jews, as theological warrant for jihad. That position does not exist inside any actual Islamic militant tradition. It retroactively claims an alleged American attempted-assassin of US President Trump, named in the video as Cole Thomas Allen, as one of HAYI's own — and calls on "all free people" to kill Trump as well. What CBS observed in the administrator's private messages on 24 March — reasoning from Christian and Jewish philosophy rather than Islamic sources — has now appeared in HAYI's own published claim communiqué on 29 April, expanded into a fully Christian-framed call to action. The operators are not improvising one-off rhetorical errors. They are operating from inside Christian and Jewish theological frameworks, reaching for the most familiar piece of historical anti-Jewish vocabulary they have, and the one they reach for is Christian, not Islamic.

When CBS asked about the group’s structure and whether anyone was being paid, the administrator deleted the account.

That deletion is the moment the cover failed under direct questioning. The other tells in this section are tells of composition — what the operators wrote, in which language, with which vocabulary. The deletion is a tell of behaviour. Asked the operational question that any real militant group could answer with practiced rhetoric — we are a network of believers, we accept no payment, our cause is justice — the administrator chose silence and disappearance over even a propaganda answer. A real Shia operative would have welcomed the question as an opportunity to declaim. The HAYI administrator walked away.

CBS quoted Lucas Webber, a senior threat intelligence analyst at Tech Against Terrorism, on the day of the attack: HAYI looks “less like a grassroots European cell that came out of nowhere and more like an astroturfed terror brand that has appeared suddenly in online ecosystems.” ¹¹ That phrase — astroturfed terror brand — is the technical term for what the operational fingerprint describes. The branding is real; the grass roots are manufactured. A Tech Against Terrorism analyst, on the day the pipeline was preparing to deliver the Iran-link framing to the public, told CBS what HAYI looked like to a specialist examining it. The framing the pipeline carried the next day did not absorb that finding.

The pipeline’s research-body stage — the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague — examined the same materials and produced findings the rest of the pipeline would carry forward. The ICCT report, published on the day of the Golders Green attack and titled Hybrid Threat Signals: Assessing Possible Iranian Involvement in Recent Attacks in Europe, contained the linguistic and visual analysis that mainstream outlets would cite the next day as institutional cover for the framing the IMDA’s earlier report had built. Read carefully, the ICCT’s own findings undermine the framing the report’s headline endorsed.

The ICCT’s central paragraph on HAYI’s authenticity, in the institute’s own words: “Doubts regarding the authenticity of HAYI are, however, not only raised by the appearance of its Telegram channel and the likely falsely claimed attack in Greece, but also by inconsistencies within the claim material itself. For example, the videos contain noticeable linguistic errors. Further, the Arabic inscription beneath the group’s logo, which closely resembles the flag of Hezbollah and other pro-Axis groups, except for featuring a Soviet SVD sniper rifle instead of the more typical AK-style imagery, includes multiple mistakes, including the misspelling of the word ‘Islamic.’” ¹²

Three findings in one passage, every one of them the ICCT’s own analysis.

The first: the videos contain noticeable linguistic errors. Plural. In the videos themselves — not just on a static logo. A supposedly Iranian-aligned Shia militant group whose own video output contains noticeable linguistic errors in the language it claims as its own.

The second: the logo is a near-clone of Hezbollah’s flag and the flags of other pro-Axis groups — except for one substitution. The AK-style rifle that appears in every actual pro-Iranian Shia militia’s iconography has been replaced with a Soviet Dragunov SVD. The Iranian-Iraqi-Lebanese militia ecosystem runs on Iranian-supplied or Iranian-copied AK-pattern rifles. The Kalashnikov silhouette is the universal symbol of every actual pro-Iranian Shia militia from Lebanon to Yemen.¹³ The Dragunov SVD is a Soviet-era designated-marksman rifle associated with Russian and Russian-aligned forces. For a supposedly Iranian-aligned proxy to brand itself with an SVD rather than an AK is the visual equivalent of an American militia branding itself with a British SA80 instead of an M16. It is the kind of detail that would never appear on real branding. It is the kind of detail you get when somebody reaches for generic menacing rifle rather than the appropriate symbol for the milieu being imitated.

The third: the Arabic inscription beneath the logo includes multiple misspellings, and the ICCT specifies one of them — the word Islamic. The error matters at the level of the vowel. As with the altered wa-jāhidū in the founding statement, the position of a single diacritical mark changes the word. The Arabic for Islamic — الإسلامية (Islamiyya)— requires a small symbol called a hamza placed beneath the initial alif: إ. The hamza signals the short vowel i — which is what makes the word read Islām. Move the hamza above the alif and the vowel becomes a, producing Aslām — not a word in Arabic. The position of the hamza is not decorative. It is taught in the first weeks of Arabic literacy and reproduced correctly by every Muslim child who learns to read the Qur'an. A supposedly Islamic militant group cannot spell Islamic in Arabic on its own logo. The institution whose research-body credibility the pipeline relied on for institutional cover, when it actually read the Arabic on HAYI's own branding, found multiple errors — including this one.

The ICCT’s report contains a fourth, separate finding on a piece of material the institute analysed in addition to the logo. The second HAYI Telegram channel — created on 21 March 2026, two days before the Golders Green attack, with a QR code in the claim video pointing directly to it — is also identified as inconsistent. The ICCT’s words: “there are also a number of inconsistencies with this account, foremost the misspelling of the Arabic channel name, likely resulting from an incorrect English translation.” ⁹

Read that carefully. A Telegram channel name is not a hand-drawn graphic where a letter might be miscopied. It is text typed into a box, with the option to correct it before publication. The ICCT’s specific characterisation — “likely resulting from an incorrect English translation” — is the institute identifying English as the source language for the channel name. Someone composed the name in English first and translated it into Arabic. The Arabic came out wrong. They published it anyway. A real Arabic-speaking group names itself in Arabic first and transliterates into English for foreign audiences. The direction documented here is the reverse — the signature of a non-native creator working from an English original.

These are real findings, and they are the findings of the institution whose research-body credibility the pipeline relied on for institutional cover. They are, in their own way, evidence that no Arabic speaker built HAYI’s brand. The altered Quranic verse in HAYI’s founding statement is not among them — the foundational error that requires Quranic literacy to identify is absent from the ICCT’s report.

But the more important analytical move the ICCT made is what it did with the inconsistencies it did identify. Julian Lanchès did not stop at the inconsistencies. He absorbed them into the Iranian-backed thesis. The misspelled Arabic, the SVD substitution, the dubiously authentic Telegram accounts, the falsely claimed attacks in Greece — all of it, in the ICCT’s reading, became evidence of a plausible-deniability layer on top of Iranian state backing. The argument runs: HAYI’s amateurism is too sloppy for Iranian intelligence operatives to have produced directly, but consistent with Iran outsourcing the operation to locally recruited disposable proxies on the Russian sabotage model. The inconsistencies, in this reading, are not evidence against Iranian involvement. They are evidence of Iranian involvement at one operational remove.

That move is the analytical decision the ICCT did not justify. The inconsistencies are consistent with Iranian backing via disposable proxies. They are also consistent with an operation that has nothing to do with Iran and is using Iranian-aligned distribution channels as cover. The same evidence supports both readings equally. The choice of which reading to fit the evidence to is the analytical move that determines the conclusion — and the ICCT’s reasoning for choosing the Iranian-backed reading rests on the dissemination through Iraqi militia channels, which is exactly the inference our analysis is contesting. Distribution is not origin. Channel administration can be genuine, persuaded, paid, infiltrated, or shared. The ICCT treated the dissemination network as evidence of origin, which allowed it to read the inconsistencies as plausible-deniability tactics rather than as evidence of fabrication. With a different starting assumption, the same inconsistencies become the fingerprint of an operation that is not what it claims to be.

The ICCT laundered the framing forward. Lanchès identified the inconsistencies and absorbed them into a thesis that the rest of the evidence — the altered Qur’an, the American English administrator, the Christian and Jewish philosophical reasoning, the no-Persian — does not support. He did not interrogate the upstream evidentiary base the IMDA had built. He did not test alternative readings. He published a report he knew or should have known would be picked up by mainstream outlets as institutional confirmation. The pickup happened the next day. The framing the public received rested on an analytical move the pipeline’s research-body stage made without justifying it, on a foundation the pipeline’s state-authoritative stage had built without disclosing what its evidence actually contained.

The institutional failure to identify HAYI’s source-language problem was not because the evidence was hidden. The evidence was published, by named specialists, in mainstream outlets, within days of the Golders Green attack. Two separate institutional sources, working independently, reached the same conclusion: HAYI’s materials were AI-generated.

The first was Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, examining HAYI’s multi-language communiqué for Middle East Eye. Al-Tamimi is one of the more credentialled subject-matter specialists on jihadist propaganda working in the open-source space. He holds a BA in Classics and Oriental Studies from Brasenose College, Oxford, and a PhD from Swansea University on the role of historical narratives in Islamic State propaganda — for which he received Swansea’s James Callaghan Thesis Prize for best doctoral thesis in 2024–25. He has been cited as expert by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, AFP, and the Associated Press. His professional affiliations include the Middle East Forum, the Hoover Institution, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and — relevantly — the ICCT itself.¹⁴ He is not a marginal figure. His finding on HAYI was published in mainstream English-language media on 24 March 2026.

Al-Tamimi’s reading of HAYI’s multi-language statement: “I think there was an initial AI prompt to give an answer in one of the three languages and then it was machine translated into the other two.” The same article reported that two separate AI-detection tools run by Middle East Eye gave the statement a “high likelihood of having been AI-generated.” ¹⁵

The second source was Adam Hadley, founder and CEO of Tech Against Terrorism, a UN-backed counter-extremism initiative. Hadley told The National that HAYI’s materials had been “generated using ChatGPT or similar,” describing HAYI as “probably the first AI-led terrorist movement.” ¹⁶ Two named institutional voices, working in different organisations, reaching the same conclusion. Both findings were on the public record before the pipeline’s framing reached its second day in the public mind.

A real Iranian-aligned Shia militant group does not produce its founding communiqué through ChatGPT. The IRGC has its own media apparatus. Hezbollah has its own media apparatus. Asaib Ahl al-Haq has its own media apparatus. These organisations have spent decades building production capability in Arabic, in Persian, in the visual and rhetorical idioms of their tradition.¹⁷ They do not need a machine-translation tool to write a claim of responsibility, and if they did, the document they produced would not be the document HAYI produced. The signatures the analysts identified — uneven multi-language output, machine-translation artefacts, ChatGPT-style phrasing — are signatures of an operation that had no in-house Arabic capability and substituted a commercial AI tool for the apparatus a real militant group spends years building.

That substitution is itself a finding. It tells you what the operators had and what they did not. They had access to AI tools, an English-fluent author, and the visual symbology of Iranian-aligned militancy at the level you can absorb from photographs. They did not have a native Arabic speaker, a Persian speaker, a Shia jurisprudential reasoner, or anyone with Muslim religious formation deep enough to catch a Quranic vowel. The gap between what the operators had and what a real Iranian-aligned Shia militant group has is the gap between an astroturfed terror brand and a real one — to use Lucas Webber’s phrase.

The way real institutional jihadist groups produce claims of responsibility is documented. Counter-terrorism analysts who track this material — the SITE Intelligence Group’s Rita Katz, The Long War Journal‘s Tom Joscelyn, others — have written extensively about how the architecture works.¹⁸ The Islamic State runs claim production through the Amaq News Agency, a semi-autonomous wire service inside the group’s Central Media Diwan. Provincial bureaus submit raw footage and event details. Central oversight enforces messaging protocols. The system was built over years of institutional investment. When the group is directly involved in an attack, the claim typically appears within twenty-four hours, includes specific details about the attacker, and is corroborated through the group’s verified-direct channel — for ISIS, the Nashir Media Foundation. When the group is not directly involved and is claiming opportunistically, the claim takes longer, lacks attacker details, and tends to appear only on the Amaq-equivalent broad-distribution layer.

The pattern is institutional. It rests on years of media-production capacity, dedicated personnel, established templates, encrypted distribution architecture, and chains of editorial review. Hezbollah operates al-Manar television and the Mayadeen network. Asaib Ahl al-Haq operates Sabereen News. The IRGC operates its own state media apparatus. These are not infrastructures that can be assembled in days. They are the products of decades of investment by movements with stable identities, recognised leadership, internal hierarchies, and institutional histories that the analyst community has been documenting for years.¹⁹

HAYI, on the public record, did not exist before 9 March 2026. There are no known references to the group online or offline before that date — the ICCT confirmed this in its own report. On 9 March, a Telegram channel affiliated with the Iraqi pro-Iranian militia Liwa Zulfiqar circulated a HAYI announcement of “the start of its military operations against US and Israeli interests around the world.” On 11 March, two days after the Liège attack, the first claim video appeared. By Rotterdam on 13 March, the production workflow had compressed to thirty-nine minutes from attack to branded video on Iraqi Telegram channels. For the Amsterdam Jewish school attack on 14 March, the ICCT's own timestamps showed a Telegram mention apparently preceding the attack itself by one minute — almost certainly clock drift or time-zone formatting, but the institute flagged it as an anomaly. By the Golders Green attack on 23 March, two weeks after HAYI first appeared online, the brand was producing claim videos with embedded Google Maps street views, photographs of the targeted ambulances, and biographical research on Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook to justify the primary target selection.²⁰

The technical production of a one-to-two minute branded video is fast. A competent editor with a pre-built template can assemble one in under an hour from supplied footage. That is not the analytical question. The analytical question is whether the institutional architecture HAYI’s materials demonstrate — distribution channels with hundreds of thousands of pre-arranged followers in the pro-Iranian Iraqi Telegram ecosystem, branding templates ready to deploy, the cultural-fluency layer that produces Religious Zionist vocabulary and Anglo-American Jewish religious-political reasoning, the multi-language statement-assembly capacity, the persona of a Shia militant group — could have been built between 9 March, when HAYI first appeared online, and the production of the first claim videos. The answer is no. The dissemination network pre-existed HAYI; the ICCT documented that the first HAYI Telegram channel was registered in 2023, two years before activation. The branding was prepared before the campaign began, applied consistently to incoming footage from 11 March onward. The cultural fluencies the materials demonstrate are not built in days. What appeared in fourteen days was the activation of pre-existing infrastructure plus the application of pre-prepared branding to attack footage. Which means the architecture was built before HAYI publicly existed. The group is either the cover for an operation that already had the apparatus in place, or the brand layer on top of someone else’s.

The same gap shows up in the soundtrack of HAYI’s videos. Sharon Adarlo, a conflict analyst writing for Militant Wire and quoted by CBS on the day after the Golders Green attack, noted that HAYI’s videos used orchestral music rather than the Islamic nasheeds commonly used as soundtracks on jihadist propaganda.²¹ Nasheeds — vocal religious chants, traditionally performed without instruments, drawing on a musical tradition rooted in the recitation of Qur’anic and devotional Arabic — are the standard soundtrack convention of Sunni and Shia jihadist media production. ISIS produces nasheeds through its Ajnad Foundation. Hezbollah produces nasheeds through its media wing. Real Islamist propaganda uses them because they are the genre Islamist audiences expect, the genre that signals religious seriousness, and — for many Salafi-jihadi traditions specifically — the only musical form considered religiously permissible. Instrumental music is theologically contested in Islamist circles, with significant traditions holding it impermissible.

HAYI used orchestral music. Western orchestral music, with strings and horns and the sweeping cinematic feel of film scoring. A choice that signals nothing to a jihadi audience and everything to a Western one — the soundtrack convention of action films and political thrillers, not of Islamist religious media. The choice is small. It is also revealing. The operators reached for what menacing sounds like in their own cultural vocabulary — the language of Western cinema — rather than for what menacing sounds like in the tradition HAYI claims as its own. Once again, the operators were fluent in something they should not have been, and unfluent in something they should have been.

The point is not that Iran cannot produce Western-cultural propaganda. It can, and it does. Since the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran, Iran-based outlets — including Explosive Media, which has acknowledged to the BBC that the Iranian government is a customer — have produced an entire genre of AI-generated, LEGO-style animated videos using English-language hip-hop to mock Trump and reframe the war for Western audiences. Al Jazeera, MS NOW, and the BBC have documented the genre.²²

But these are different production tasks for different audiences. Iran’s LEGO videos are propaganda — outward-facing, made for Western non-Muslim audiences, aimed at winning narrative ground in the Western information space. The conventions of that task are hip-hop, LEGO animation, English-language lyrics, cultural reference points Westerners recognise. The form matches the function. HAYI’s videos are not making that kind of communication. HAYI’s videos claim to be internal Shia militant claims of responsibility for attacks framed as jihad — a sacred religious act, in the framework of Islamic militancy, declared to a Muslim audience inside the in-group conventions of the Axis of Resistance. That production task uses nasheeds. It uses Quranic recitation. It uses the visual idiom of Hezbollah and the IRGC. The conventions are solemn, religious, inward-facing — because the task is religious and inward-facing. Iran’s LEGO videos do not use nasheeds because LEGO videos for Western audiences are not religious communications. HAYI’s videos claim to be religious communications. They use orchestral music. The form does not match what HAYI claims to be.

There is one more language fact that closes the case for this section, and it is the language HAYI has not produced.

In nearly two months since HAYI announced itself, the group has issued statements and videos in English, Arabic, and Hebrew. It has not produced one word of Persian. CBS News reported the absence on the day after the Golders Green attack, and RFE/RL reported it again three weeks later. The Persian language has been entirely missing from HAYI’s output across the entire campaign.²³

This absence is not a small detail. Persian is the operational and ideological centre of gravity of the Iranian state and the network of proxies the pipeline’s framing places HAYI inside. The IRGC operates in Persian. Iranian state media operates in Persian. Khamenei’s communications are in Persian. The Iranian-language audiences that pro-Iranian militant groups care about read and listen in Persian. When Hezbollah wants to signal alignment with Iran, it produces Persian-language material alongside its Arabic. When Asaib Ahl al-Haq communicates with its Iranian sponsors, it does so in Persian. When the Houthis broadcast solidarity with Iran, Persian appears in the output. Real pro-Iranian militant groups produce Persian material as a matter of course. It is the language of the audience that matters to them.²⁴

A supposedly Iranian-linked Shia militant group that has never produced one word of Persian is not what it claims to be. The absence is structural. It is not the kind of gap a real Iranian proxy would have. It is, however, exactly the kind of gap an operation built by people whose source languages are English and Hebrew — and whose Arabic is produced by machine translation — would have. The languages HAYI does use are the three languages someone reading Western and Israeli media would default to. The language HAYI does not use is the one a real Iranian proxy could not afford to be without.

The synthesis is straightforward. The Qur’an in HAYI’s founding statement is altered. The vocabulary describes Israel and Jews in terms no Muslim militant uses. The English text was composed on American-defaulted hardware. The Telegram administrator wrote to CBS in American English, reasoned from Christian and Jewish philosophy, and deleted the account when asked who was paying. The ICCT found the logo Arabic misspelled, the iconography wrong, the second channel name machine-translated from English. Middle East Eye and Tech Against Terrorism found the materials AI-generated. The soundtrack does not match the production task HAYI claims to be performing. And the language a real Iranian proxy must produce is the one language HAYI has never produced.

There is a pattern in the operational fingerprint that has to be named. The errors HAYI’s materials contain are not the errors of a real organisation that has slipped on minor details. They are the errors of an operation built to be recognised as something it is not. The mistakes follow a consistent grammar — they are the mistakes of someone filling in a checklist of what Western analysts expect Iranian-aligned militancy to look like, without the deep knowledge of the tradition required to fill the checklist correctly.

Consider three of the findings already established. The Dragunov on the logo. Western analysts looking at Iranian-aligned militia branding have a mental model for what they expect to see — weapon imagery, raised fist, Arabic calligraphy, a flag-style composition. The HAYI logo has all of that. The general checklist is filled. What is wrong is the specific weapon. The Kalashnikov silhouette is the universal symbol of every actual pro-Iranian Shia militia from Lebanon to Yemen. The Dragunov is not. The error is not the absence of weapon imagery. It is weapon imagery filled in by somebody who knew the genre required a rifle and did not know which rifle.

The routing through Iraqi militia Telegram channels. Western analysts watch the Iraqi pro-Iranian militia ecosystem because that is where Iranian-aligned content normally appears. Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Liwa Zulfiqar, the Sabereen aggregator — these are the channels Western OSINT specialists already monitor. Content posted on those channels is content already pre-flagged for attribution. A real Iranian operation is not optimising its content placement for Western analyst detection — it has its own audience, internal to the Iranian-aligned ecosystem, that the placement is for. Content placed on exactly the channels Western analysts watch, in the sequence Western analysts would expect, is content placed for Western analyst consumption.

And the third instance, which appears in the post-Golders Green operational record. On 15 April 2026, an incendiary device was thrown into the car park of Iran International’s offices in Wembley — the most prominent Persian-language broadcaster critical of the Iranian regime, based in London. HAYI claimed responsibility. Three young men were arrested after a police chase: Oisin McGuinness, twenty-one, and Nathan Dunn, nineteen, both from Watford, and a sixteen-year-old. None of the three fits any ideological profile of pro-Iranian militancy. The device was thrown into a car park and went out on its own. The Met has stated it is not treating the incident as terrorism. Iran International has been a documented IRGC target on British soil for years — the UK’s own counter-terrorism leadership has flagged repeated Iranian state plots against the broadcaster, and the operational tradecraft of those plots involves contractors with surveillance teams and proper preparation, not teenagers throwing burning containers into car parks.²⁵

The point is not that Iran could not target Iran International. Iran has targeted Iran International, repeatedly, with the kind of professional tradecraft the documented record describes. The point is that an operation building a fictitious Iranian-aligned militant brand from scratch would, on any reasonable construction of the design problem, include an Iran International–style target on the list of attacks. Western analysts looking for Iranian-state activity in Europe have a known pattern: Iranian operations sometimes target Iran International. If the operation is being built to be read as Iranian-aligned, the target list has to include the targets a real Iranian operation would attack. Not including one would be the gap in the checklist that gives the brand away. Including one is the checkbox filled.

Three instances, the same logic. The Dragunov is the wrong rifle, but it is a rifle, because the genre requires one. The Iraqi channels are the right channels for distribution, because Western analysts watch them — but a real Iranian operation does not need to optimise for Western detection. The Iran International attack is the right kind of target for an Iranian-aligned brand, but the operational signature of the attackers is wrong for an actual IRGC operation against that target. In each case, the signature visible to Western analysts has been populated. The depth of execution beneath the signature is not what a real operation in that tradition would produce.

The operators are not necessarily inside any of the traditions whose imagery they are deploying. They are people who know what Iranian operations are supposed to look like to Western analysts, and they are giving the analysts what those analysts expect to see.

No Muslim hands on the production. Not in the Qur’an, not in the vocabulary, not in the source language of the Arabic, not in the conceptual framework of the administrator, not in the iconography, not in the soundtrack, not in the languages chosen, and not in the language conspicuously avoided. The fingerprint of the operators is the fingerprint of people fluent in Anglo-American Jewish religious-political life and in Western media production — and unfluent in Arabic, in the Qur’an, in Persian, in Shia jurisprudence, in the iconography of real Iranian-aligned militias, in the soundtrack conventions of jihadist media, and in the vocabulary Muslim militants actually use to describe Israel and Jews. That fingerprint is not the fingerprint of a Shia Islamic militant group. It is the fingerprint the original article’s conclusions already pointed toward. The new evidence is consistent with what The Silence After the Lie identified. It is not consistent with anything else.

Share

The Handler That Could Not Be in Iran

The Iranian-handler thesis the pipeline carried required a particular workflow to be running, in real time, from somewhere. The ICCT’s own report described it: “the close proximity of these channels to Iranian-aligned networks, combined with the near-immediate reporting and access to attack footage, suggests that they were informed of the incidents almost in real time, either directly by the perpetrators or via intermediaries.” ²⁶ That sentence describes a coordinator. Someone receiving mobile-phone footage from teenagers in Belgium and the Netherlands within minutes of attacks. Someone applying branded templates to that footage, producing edited claim videos, and pushing them through pre-arranged Telegram channels with hundreds of thousands of followers — fast enough to land branded content within thirty-nine minutes of an attack at four in the morning. A real-time editorial desk, with reliable two-way connectivity into European Telegram infrastructure, working through the night.

The framing the pipeline carried assumed this desk was Iranian, or directed by Iran. That is what Iranian-linked meant by the time it reached the British public. Either the IRGC was running the desk directly, or it was running through proxies it had directed and equipped. Either way, the operational coordination — the editorial work of receiving, branding, and distributing the material — was placed within the Iranian operational orbit. That placement is what allowed the framing to characterise the attacks as Iranian-backed. Without it, the framing has nothing to attach to.

This section examines whether that desk could have been running from inside Iran during the period in question. The answer, on the public record, is that it could not.

On 28 February 2026, following the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, the Iranian government cut its country off from the global internet. NetBlocks, the network observatory that monitors connectivity disruptions worldwide, reported Iran’s internet connectivity dropping to roughly four per cent of ordinary levels within hours of the strikes. Cloudflare Radar described the traffic that day as “close to zero across all major regions.” Through March, the connectivity held at one to two per cent of pre-war levels — a near-total state-imposed blackout, sustained day after day, while the HAYI campaign was running.²⁷

By 21 April 2026, NetBlocks had recorded fifty-three consecutive days of disruption — the longest nationwide internet blackout ever recorded in any country. Iran is, NetBlocks noted, “the first country to have had internet connectivity and then subsequently lost it by reverting to a national network.” ²⁸ Not Russia during the invasion of Ukraine. Not Israel during the war on Gaza. No conflict, in the history of measured connectivity, had produced anything comparable. The Iranian government had imposed on its own population a deeper and longer informational lockdown than any other state had attempted.

The blackout was not a passive failure. The Iranian government built a whitelist. Ordinary Iranians, private businesses, and most of the country’s economy were offline. Connectivity was granted only to those the state had specifically approved — officials, state-affiliated media, security-cleared entities. Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani stated that the state was permitting access only to those who could “get the voice out” — meaning those approved to broadcast on the state’s behalf. Whitelist applications were routed through the state-run Bale messaging app, registered with state telecoms. Every approved connection passed through the state’s gateway. Every packet was logged at the state level.²⁹

This is the connectivity environment the Iranian-handler thesis requires the editorial desk to have been running through. From inside Iran, during the period of the blackout, the desk would have needed reliable, low-latency, two-way connectivity into European Telegram infrastructure — receiving mobile-phone footage from teenagers in Belgium and the Netherlands, applying branded templates, pushing edited videos out to pre-arranged Iraqi militia channels, in some cases within thirty-nine minutes of an attack. That workflow requires bandwidth, speed, and operational privacy. The state-whitelist environment offered none of those things to anyone the state had not specifically approved. Every outgoing packet would have passed through the state gateway, logged and visible to the state security apparatus that had imposed the blackout precisely to prevent unmonitored outbound traffic.

Could the Iranian state itself have run the desk from inside the whitelist environment? The technical answer is yes. The operational answer is that doing so would mean direct state sponsorship of rapid-tempo European attack coordination at the exact moment the state was imposing the blackout to prevent that kind of outbound traffic. It would mean every editorial decision passing through the state’s logged gateway, with no plausible deniability, at the moment the state was demonstrably terrified enough of outbound information leakage to cut its entire population off the global internet. That is the opposite of how hybrid warfare operations are run. The architecture of plausible deniability requires distance between the state and the operation. The Iranian government, during the blackout, could not have given itself less distance from the operation if it had tried.

There is a further fact in the public record that complicates the Iranian-handler thesis from a different direction.

Within forty-six minutes of the Golders Green attack, scene footage of the burning ambulances was on a US-based news aggregator account with around a million followers, registered location Nashville, Tennessee. The post — at 02:21 AM London time — announced that the account had also “seen footage of the attackers” but did not yet publish it. Forty-nine minutes after that, at 03:10 AM, the same account published surveillance footage from the Machzike Hadath Synagogue’s own CCTV system. The footage shows the synagogue’s car park at the moment of the attack, with at least one Hatzola ambulance visible in the frame, bearing a visible in-frame timestamp of 01:36:06 on 23 March 2026 and a camera label reading “Front RHS” — consistent with one camera in the synagogue’s own multi-camera installation. By later that day, the same or related footage had appeared on Sky News, the Jerusalem Post, IBTimes UK, London Now, the National Pulse, Townhall, and the Jewish Edition. The Metropolitan Police’s senior officer on the case, Superintendent Sarah Jackson, said: “We are in the process of examining CCTV and are aware of online footage.” The Met was still examining the footage. Other parties had already published it.³⁰

The ICCT’s own description of the editorial workflow it was studying noted that the channels it identified were “informed of the incidents almost in real time, either directly by the perpetrators or via intermediaries.” The CCTV that appeared on Breaking911 documents the same phenomenon for a different set of intermediaries — people watching the attack location’s information environment closely enough, and connected to global media reliably enough, that internal synagogue surveillance footage was in the hands of a US-based aggregator within forty-six minutes of capture and on its public-facing account by 03:10 AM London time, with broadcast media following within hours. There was a someone. The someone was real. The someone moved fast.

How the footage moved between capture and global publication is not something this article can establish. The Met has not stated. The synagogue has not stated. No party has publicly described the path. What the article can say is what the path was not. The Machzike Hadath Synagogue’s CCTV system is not accessible to the Iranian state. It is not accessible to the IRGC. It is not accessible to Iranian-aligned proxies in Iraq or Lebanon. Whatever path the footage took into Anglosphere media within the first hour of the attack, that path did not run through Iran, and it did not require Iranian state involvement. The investigative question of who routed the footage and through what mechanism is a question for the institutions whose responsibility it is to investigate.

That has implications for the Iranian-handler thesis the pipeline carried. The thesis required real-time editorial coordination from somewhere — receiving footage, branding it, pushing it out fast. The thesis implied the somewhere was Iran or Iranian-directed. But the underlying material — the synagogue’s own surveillance of the attack — was already in Anglosphere media before HAYI’s branded claim video existed. The HAYI editorial desk that produced the branded claim video four hours later did not need to be in Iran to obtain attack footage. The footage was already moving through the open information environment, in the languages and on the platforms HAYI’s operators were demonstrably fluent in. Whatever the answer to the investigative question turns out to be, it is not the one the pipeline carried.

The clearest documented example of the editorial workflow the framing required is in the ICCT’s own report. The Rotterdam synagogue arson on 13 March 2026 occurred at approximately 03:40 AM. The first text mention of the attack on the four pro-Iranian Telegram channels the ICCT was studying was published at 03:57 AM — seventeen minutes later. The corresponding HAYI claim video, branded with the group’s logo and tagged with the date and location of the incident, was released at approximately 04:19 AM. From the moment the attack occurred to the moment a branded HAYI video was on a Shia militia Telegram channel, thirty-nine minutes had passed. The ICCT documented the timing in the body of its report.³¹

That is the workflow window the Iranian-handler thesis must explain. Attack at 03:40. First report at 03:57. Branded video at 04:19. Inside that window: someone received mobile-phone footage of the attack from teenagers in Rotterdam, applied the HAYI logo and the tagging template, and pushed the finished video to pre-arranged Iraqi militia Telegram channels. That is editorial work. It requires receiving raw material, processing it, and distributing the finished product. It cannot be done by someone passively watching a feed. It requires a desk.

The ICCT framed this workflow as evidence of Iranian backing — as material flowing from the perpetrators’ side, through Iranian-aligned coordination, into the amplification network. That framing is what the pipeline’s distribution stage carried to the public the next day. It is also the framing the analysis in this section is contesting on three grounds. The connectivity environment inside Iran during the period in question would not have supported the workflow. The underlying attack footage in the case of Golders Green was already moving through Anglosphere media before the HAYI claim video existed. And the same logic applies to Rotterdam: the footage of an arson attack at a synagogue in the early hours of a Friday morning is not material that could only have reached an editorial desk through Iranian intelligence channels. The phone footage of the perpetrators was on the perpetrators’ own phones, on whatever networks they used to share it, and the desk that produced the HAYI video needed only access to those networks — not to Iran.

That access raises the structural question section two has been working toward. If the desk does not have to be in Iran, where could it have been?

The logical possibilities are finite. The first is inside Iran, on the state whitelist, operating with explicit state approval and through the state’s logged gateway. The connectivity case has already been made. This possibility requires the Iranian state to be running the operation directly, with full visibility, at the moment the state was demonstrably terrified enough of outbound information leakage to cut its entire population off the global internet. It would mean the IRGC or its equivalent commanding the editorial desk through the state’s own monitored network, with no plausible deniability and no operational distance. It is the opposite of how hybrid warfare runs. It can be ruled out on operational grounds even though the technical possibility exists.

The second is through the Iraqi Telegram channels the ICCT documented as the dissemination network. Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Liwa Zulfiqar, the Sabereen aggregator channel, and others within the broader Iraqi Telegram ecosystem the ICCT studied. Iraq was not under blackout. Iraqi connectivity to European Telegram infrastructure was normal. An editorial desk operating through these channels could in principle have run the workflow the ICCT described. But this possibility, if accepted, dissolves the framing the pipeline carried rather than confirming it. The framing the pipeline carried was that the attacks were Iranian-backed — not Iraqi-routed, not ecosystem-adjacent, but directed by Iran. The militia organisations behind some of these channels — Asaib Ahl al-Haq most directly — have documented operational ties to the IRGC’s Quds Force.³² The Telegram channel administrators and operational chains of the channels themselves have not been independently documented. The militia’s political alignment does not transfer automatically to the channel’s operational chain. To accept that the workflow ran through Iraqi infrastructure is to give up the strong form of the Iranian-handler thesis the pipeline depended on, and to retreat to a weaker claim. That retreat is partly defensible and partly not. The dissemination of HAYI’s material through these channels is established on the public record. What is not established is that those channels originated the material, edited the material, were operationally directed by Iran in disseminating HAYI material, or were operationally responsible for the attacks themselves. The weaker claim, examined honestly, splits in two: the dissemination part runs through channels affiliated with Iranian-aligned militias; the production and execution parts do not. The retreat from Iran-backed to a weaker version is therefore not a retreat to a coherent thesis. It is a retreat that holds for one operational layer and collapses for the other two. And in any case, neither version of the claim is what the public was told. The public was told Iran-linked, in a tone that implied direction.

The third is somewhere else entirely, with the Iraqi militia infrastructure used as cover. Under this possibility, the editorial desk is operating from any location with reliable internet access — the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, anywhere in Europe, anywhere with a domestic broadband connection — and is pushing finished material into the Iraqi Telegram channels for amplification. The dissemination network does the political work of making the material look Iranian-backed. The actual editorial work is happening elsewhere. This possibility is consistent with everything section one of this article documented about HAYI’s operators: their fluency in English, in American spelling conventions, in Religious Zionist vocabulary, in the iconographic vocabulary of axis-of-resistance branding without the substance, in Christian and Jewish philosophical reasoning rather than Islamic. The desk that produced HAYI’s materials does not show the fluencies a desk inside Iran or running through Iraqi militia editorial structures would show. It shows the fluencies of operators working from somewhere with deep cultural literacy in Western and Israeli media space.

The article does not assert the third possibility. It identifies it as available. The ICCT did not identify it as available because the ICCT treated the dissemination network as evidence of origin. That assumption — that material distributed through Iranian-aligned channels must have originated within Iranian-aligned operational structures — is the analytical move the section has been working to dismantle. Distribution is not origin. A Telegram channel administrator can be genuine, persuaded, paid, infiltrated, or shared. A channel that amplifies particular content can amplify content the channel’s usual ecosystem did not originate. The Iraqi Telegram channels the ICCT identified were the route HAYI’s material took into the amplification ecosystem. They were not necessarily the place HAYI’s material was produced. The ICCT’s reading collapsed those two questions into one. The evidence does not support that collapse.

What the public record establishes about the editorial desk is structural. It moved fast. It produced AI-generated multi-language statements with English as the source. It used American spelling on a UK target. It reasoned from Christian and Jewish philosophy. It deployed Religious Zionist vocabulary on the founding statement of a supposedly Shia Islamist group. It altered a Quranic verse no Muslim composes. It used the visual idiom of axis-of-resistance branding without the substance. It used orchestral music where nasheeds belong. And it was demonstrably plugged into an information environment that had already moved synagogue surveillance footage of the Golders Green attack into US-based and broadcast media before the HAYI claim video for that attack appeared. None of that fingerprint is consistent with a desk inside Iran. None of it is consistent with a desk running through Iraqi militia editorial structures. All of it is consistent with a desk operating from a location with deep cultural fluency in Anglo-American Jewish religious-political life and Western media production, using the Iraqi militia channels as the relay path into the global information environment.

The handler that the pipeline’s framing required could not have been in Iran. The Iraqi militia infrastructure is a route, not an editor. Where the editorial desk actually was is a question for the institutions whose job it is to investigate. What this article establishes is that the question exists, and that the answer the pipeline delivered is not consistent with the public record.

Share

What Came After Golders Green

The first article documented the attacks HAYI claimed between 9 and 23 March — Liège, Rotterdam, two in Amsterdam, the Bank of New York Mellon site, Golders Green, alongside the falsely claimed incidents in Greece, Antwerp, Heemstede, France, and Haarlem. Five real attacks. Five fabrications or misrepresentations. The pattern of mixing genuine arson with falsely claimed incidents to manufacture the appearance of a coordinated transcontinental campaign was established in those first two weeks.

After Golders Green, the campaign continued. The pattern continued with it.

On 12 April 2026, two suspects climbed the fence of the Beth Yaakov Synagogue in Skopje, North Macedonia — the country’s only synagogue — poured accelerant on the entrance, and threw a firebomb. The doors and courtyard were charred. The fire did not sustain. The North Macedonian Foreign Minister condemned the attack publicly. The country’s top five religious leaders, including the head of the Islamic Religious Community, issued a joint statement of condemnation. North Macedonia had not seen a synagogue attack since the Holocaust. Three days later, on 15 April, HAYI released a video claiming responsibility, describing the synagogue as a “symbol of the historical and cultural identity of Jews of this region” with a “deep connection with the Zionist regime.” The vocabulary had shifted. Zionist regime is the standard hostile-rhetoric term used by Iran, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi Shia militias — the language a real axis operative would actually write. The operators were correcting the tells the earlier material had made visible.³³

The same HAYI video also claimed the Eclipse Grillbar in Munich, a Jewish-owned restaurant attacked the previous Friday with a small explosive device causing minimal damage. The video noted that the attack had occurred after midnight when the restaurant was closed, but added that it “could have happened during the day and the Zionists would have been killed.” The Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation, including an investigation of the HAYI video itself.³⁴

Then came the London cluster. On the evening of 15 April, an incendiary device was thrown into the car park of Iran International’s offices in Wembley — the attack discussed in section one of this article. On the same night, two men attempted an arson attack on the Finchley Reform Synagogue in north London by filling bottles with what was suspected to be petrol and throwing a brick at them.⁴³ When the bottles failed to ignite, the suspects fled. They were subsequently arrested and charged. Two days later, on the night of 17 April, an attempted arson hit the Hendon offices of a building that still bore the sign of Jewish Futures, a Jewish educational organisation. Three bottles containing accelerant were placed against the building and set alight; the bottles failed to ignite fully and the damage was minor. On 16 April, HAYI had posted a video claiming responsibility for a drone attack on the Israeli Embassy in Kensington, with two figures in protective clothing and a message that the embassy was being targeted with “radioactive and dangerous carcinogenic materials.” The Metropolitan Police investigated, closing public access to Kensington Gardens. The Met announced on Saturday 18 April that no hazardous materials had been found and that the incident was over. The HAYI claim of an Embassy drone strike — like the claimed attacks in Greece, Heemstede, France, and Haarlem before it — described an event that did not happen.³⁵

Overnight on 18–19 April, an arson attack hit the Kenton United Synagogue in Harrow. There was minor smoke damage to a room inside. A 17-year-old boy was arrested, charged, and pleaded guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court to arson not endangering life. In the police interview reported in court, the suspect said: “I have no hate towards the Jewish people or their community. I didn’t know it was a synagogue. I genuinely thought it was an empty building.” He was bailed pending sentencing, with conditions including staying away from synagogues. An accomplice filmed the attack, and the footage was released by HAYI in the claim video that followed.³⁶

The Met’s count by late April had moved to twenty-six arrests across the entire campaign, eight charges, one conviction. The first terrorism-related arrest came on 26 April, more than a month after Golders Green and after the entire London cluster — and it was on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts only, not on any predicate of foreign-state direction. Across the campaign, the suspect demographic has been consistent. The Rotterdam attackers were teenagers from Tilburg, aged seventeen to nineteen. The Golders Green attackers charged are eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and seventeen years old. The Iran International suspects are sixteen, nineteen, and twenty-one. The Kenton suspect is seventeen. The Finchley Reform suspects fled when their petrol bottles failed to ignite. None of the demographic profiles matches what an ideologically committed Shia militant cell, or any committed jihadi network, would produce. The profile that matches is the profile the Met has publicly named — paid criminal proxies, recruited for cash, with no allegiance to the cause.

There is a third fact the campaign produces that the demographic profile alone does not explain. Across Belgium, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom — across nearly two months and more than a dozen claimed attacks — not one person has been killed and not one person has been injured. Bottles fail to ignite. Fires fail to sustain. Accelerant is poured on benches and courtyards rather than on doors. A burning container thrown into the Iran International car park, in the Met’s words, “immediately put itself out.”⁴⁴ Attacks are staged at night, when synagogues are empty and Jewish-owned restaurants are closed. The Munich communiqué itself notes that the attack on the Eclipse Grillbar “could have happened during the day and the Zionists would have been killed” — an admission, in HAYI’s own words, that the timing was chosen to avoid this.

No real Shia militant campaign has a casualty record like that. Hezbollah’s bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 killed twenty-nine. The AMIA bombing in 1994 killed eighty-five. The Beirut barracks bombing in 1983 killed two hundred and forty-one US service members. The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 killed nineteen. The Burgas bus bombing in 2012 killed six. The IRGC’s documented assassination operations against Iranian dissidents in Europe have killed people. Across forty years and on every continent, the consistent pattern of real Shia militant operations against Western, Israeli, and Jewish targets is the production of casualties — because that is the operational point of armed jihad in the framework these groups operate within. A supposedly Shia Islamic militant group, declaring jihad against Western and Israeli interests, conducting a transcontinental campaign over nearly two months, that produces a body count of zero, is not a campaign that exists anywhere in the historical record. HAYI is the first. The campaign was not designed to kill. It was designed to look as if it had been.

Two further structural facts emerge from the post-Golders Green record.

The first is that the fabrication pattern continued. The Israeli Embassy drone claim — like the Greece, France, Antwerp, and Haarlem claims before it, and the Heemstede episode the ministry's report attached — was not an actual attack. HAYI continued, after Golders Green, to claim incidents the public record does not contain. The behaviour of mixing real attacks with manufactured ones to amplify apparent reach was not a feature of the early campaign that the operators outgrew. It is a feature of the campaign throughout.

The second is the inverse fact. Between 23 March and the end of April, the campaign expanded its target set from synagogues, Jewish schools, and an American bank into Persian-language media (Iran International), an Israeli diplomatic site (the Embassy drone claim), and a Jewish educational charity. The targeting profile broadened in exactly the directions the brand needed to broaden to maintain its claim of being an Iranian-aligned militant organisation operating across multiple categories of legitimate-from-the-perspective-of-the-claimed-identity targets. Each new target type closed a checklist gap. By late April, HAYI’s claimed target set covered every category of target a Western analyst would expect a real Iranian-aligned militant campaign in Europe to attack — synagogues, a Jewish school, Jewish-owned businesses, an Iranian dissident broadcaster, and a claimed strike on an Israeli embassy. The brand had been completed.

The campaign that followed Golders Green did not contradict the analysis of section one. It extended it. The fingerprint stayed the same. The targeting evolved in the directions the brand-construction required. The fabrication pattern persisted. The suspect demographic remained — across multiple countries, multiple cities, multiple supposed cells — the same demographic of recruited teenagers and young adults with no identifiable ideological commitment to the cause they were nominally serving. And the Metropolitan Police, faced with this pattern, characterised it publicly as paid criminal proxies rather than as terrorism.

On 29 April 2026, HAYI did what its claim apparatus had done across the campaign — but for the first time, the underlying event involved real wounded people. A 45-year-old man, now named as Essa Suleiman of Camberwell, south London, walked through Golders Green in broad daylight with a knife and stabbed two Jewish men, aged 76 and 34. Earlier the same morning, he had attempted to murder a longtime Muslim friend, Ishmail Hussein, at Hussein's home in Southwark. He has since been charged with three counts of attempted murder. Scotland Yard has confirmed that Suleiman was referred to Prevent, the government's anti-extremism programme, in 2020, and that the case was closed the same year.⁴⁶ He did not flee. Hours later, at 15:21 BST, HAYI claimed Suleiman as one of their "lone wolves" — a man whose first attempted victim of the day was a Muslim he had known for twenty years. The pattern is the pattern the article has already catalogued. HAYI claimed the firebombing in Greece that did not happen. Its file carries the attack in Heemstede that never happened at all — an arrest of two teenagers with fireworks, an episode the group itself never claimed, written into its record by the Israeli ministry's report. It claimed an attack in Antwerp that was a botched theft from a Moroccan woman whose car was then set on fire. It claimed an attack in Haarlem that occurred before the supposed group existed. It claimed a drone strike on the Israeli Embassy that was three benign jars in Kensington Gardens. Now it has claimed the stabbing of two Jewish men by an unstable man with no established Iranian links and no established connection to any Islamic militant group. The claim apparatus claims everything. That is its function. It is not an apparatus that organises attacks. It is an apparatus that converts attacks — real, manufactured, falsely attributed, or unrelated — into evidence for the narrative the operators were paid to construct. The Golders Green stabbing was carried out by a man the police had reason to know about. The attack occurred at 11:16 BST. HAYI's claim video appeared on Telegram at 15:21 BST — four hours later.

The Met Now Says It

In the nearly two months since the Golders Green attack, the Metropolitan Police have made twenty-six arrests connected to the broader campaign of attacks attributed to HAYI. Eight people have been charged with arson-related offences. One has been convicted of arson. On 26 April, nearly two months after the Golders Green attack, one man was arrested on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts — the first arrest in the entire investigation under terrorism legislation. The investigation that began under the lens of an Iranian-directed Islamic terror campaign has been worked, in operational terms, almost entirely as a series of paid-proxy arson cases. The numbers tell their own story. Twenty-six arrests. Eight arson charges. One arson conviction. One terrorism-related arrest, nearly two months in.

The senior officers running the investigation have characterised it in their own words. On 19 April, after a series of attacks on synagogues and Jewish premises across north and northwest London, Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans, the United Kingdom’s Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter Terrorism Policing, gave a joint press conference outside Kenton United Synagogue in Harrow. Their statements are on the public record, archived in full on the Metropolitan Police website. They are not consistent with the framing the pipeline carried.³⁷

Evans’s characterisation of the operational pattern is precise. “I have spoken at length of the Iranian regime’s routine uses of criminal proxies. We are considering whether this tactic is being used here in London — recruiting violence as a service. Individuals carrying out these crimes often have no allegiance to the cause and are taking quick cash for their crimes. To anyone even considering getting involved — my message to you would be this: the stakes are high, and it is absolutely not worth the risk for a small reward. Those tasking you will not be there when you are arrested and face court. You will be used once and thrown away without a second thought.” ³⁷ That is the Met’s senior counter-terrorism coordinator describing what the investigation has actually found — not Iranian operatives committing attacks, but criminal proxies recruited for cash, with no ideological allegiance to the cause they are nominally serving. Violence as a service. The phrase she chose is the precise opposite of the framing the pipeline sold to the public. The pipeline framing was Iranian-directed Islamic terror. The framing the Met is now publicly using is recruited criminal violence dressed in cause language nobody believes.

Jukes drew the comparison directly. “We’ve seen a pattern with other actors of thugs for hire, people taking cash that looks like quick and easy money. This is part of the modern hybrid war fought by proxies.” ³⁸ The other actors he was referring to are documented. In March 2024, an arson attack hit a London warehouse linked to Ukrainian aid. Six men were later convicted — five of aggravated arson, a sixth of failing to disclose information about terrorist acts. The ringleader, Dylan Earl, had been recruited by Russia’s Wagner Group via Telegram and was sentenced in October 2025 to seventeen years for what the prosecution described as state-sponsored arson on behalf of Wagner — the first conviction under the National Security Act 2023. The pattern Jukes is describing — thugs for hire, taking cash, quick and easy money — is the pattern documented in the Earl case. Evans’s violence as a service names the same model. The Met is publicly characterising the HAYI cases as operationally similar to the Wagner-Earl proxy model, while continuing to leave the upstream-actor question open.

The Earl precedent is not the only documented payment trail in the proxy model. The Soufan Center, in its 17 April 2026 brief on the broader pattern, reported that the minors recruited for the foiled Bank of America Paris attack on 28 March were paid €500–1,000 each — small sums, in line with the quick cash characterisation Evans and Jukes have given the London cases. The proxy model the Met is now publicly describing is not a thesis. It is a documented operational pattern with named figures, in jurisdictions across Europe, in cases where the foreign sponsor has either been named or remains the open question.³⁹

What the Met is not doing is what the Earl case shows can be done. In the Earl case, the foreign sponsor was named at sentencing. The court heard evidence that Earl was acting as a Wagner proxy. The judge sentenced him on that basis. The state-sponsored hostile-activity legislation Parliament passed in 2023 — the National Security Act — was framed for exactly this scenario. It enables prosecutors to bring charges that name the foreign sponsor, that carry significant additional sentences, and that make the foreign-state involvement part of the public court record. Nearly two months into the HAYI investigation, with twenty-six arrests, eight arson charges, and one arson conviction, that legislation has not been used. The first arrest under terrorism legislation came on 26 April — nearly two months in, and on suspicion only of preparing terrorist acts, not on any foreign-state-direction predicate. The legislation Parliament wrote for the kind of attack the pipeline framing described is sitting unused. The Met has not named a foreign sponsor.

This is the disjunction that defines section three. The pipeline carried a story of Iranian-directed Islamic terrorism. The senior officers running the investigation are publicly characterising the cases as a paid-proxy criminal campaign, structurally comparable to the Wagner-Earl model. The legislation written for foreign-state-directed hostile activity is not being applied. No foreign sponsor has been named. Nearly two months in, the gap between what the public was told and what the Met is operating against is not a gap of nuance. It is a gap that requires explanation.

The Lie, the Silence, and What Comes Next

The Silence After the Lie named what happened.⁴⁰ The pipeline laundered misinformation into the mainstream. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies — a Washington-based pro-Israel organisation whose IRS filings state its mission as enhancing Israel’s image and educating the public on Israeli-Arab issues — set the predicate on 12 March 2026, when Joe Truzman in The Long War Journal floated the Iranian link in English-language coverage for the first time.⁴¹ The Israeli Foreign Ministry carried it on 15 March, in the state's own voice and on no further evidence. The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague laundered it on 23 March, in a report that passed the conclusion forward without considering the motivations or operational backgrounds of its sources, despite the inconsistencies and doubts the report itself documented. The mainstream press, the BBC at its head, distributed it. And on 24 March the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism formalised it — last — in a special report stamping the predicate with the state's authority after the machinery had already moved it: a ministry whose stated remit is combating antisemitism but whose operational mandate, on the documented record, includes Israeli state propaganda operations.⁴² Not terror with bombs or bullets. Terror with narrative. Israeli terror by narrative. A PsyOp, executed against two communities at once.

This article has put the evidence behind that naming.

The fingerprint of the people who built HAYI is the fingerprint of operators fluent in Anglo-American Jewish religious-political life and Western media production. The altered Qur’an. The Religious Zionist vocabulary. The American English of the administrator. The Christian and Jewish philosophical reasoning. The deletion of the account when asked who was paying. The misspelled Islamic in Arabic. The orchestral music where nasheeds belong. The absence of one word of Persian in nearly two months of operation. The institutional architecture that did not exist before 9 March 2026 yet was running a thirty-nine-minute editorial workflow by 13 March. None of this is the fingerprint of a Shia Islamic militant group. All of it is the fingerprint of an operation built by people fluent in the cultural and religious vocabulary of the very community the campaign was designed to terrify, dressed in the symbology of the community the campaign was designed to blame.

The Iranian-handler thesis the pipeline carried is excluded by the public record. Iran was, during the period in question, under the deepest and longest state-imposed internet blackout ever recorded. The connectivity environment did not support the workflow the framing required. The synagogue’s own surveillance footage was already moving through Anglosphere media before HAYI’s branded video for that attack existed. Distribution through Iraqi militia channels is not origin. The framing the pipeline delivered to the public is not consistent with what was operationally possible.

The Metropolitan Police, nearly two months in, have confirmed the operational shape of the campaign without confirming the predicate the pipeline sold. Recruiting violence as a service, in the words of the senior counter-terrorism coordinator. Thugs for hire, in the words of the deputy commissioner. The Wagner-Earl proxy model, named explicitly. Twenty-six arrests. Eight arson charges. One arson conviction. The legislation Parliament wrote for foreign-state-directed hostile activity has not been used. No foreign sponsor has been named. The same Met that named Wagner in the Earl case has not named Iran in this one. The reason for the absence is on the public record by virtue of being absent. The evidence the Met would need to bring an Iran charge has not been built, because what was built was never aimed at Iran.

What was built was aimed at the British public. At Jewish families in Golders Green made to fear an enemy the evidence does not support. At Muslim families across Britain carrying the weight of an attack their communities had no part in and condemn without qualification. At a public made to absorb a manufactured threat and to accept the political consequences flowing from it — the IRGC proscription campaigns accelerated, the legislation expanded, the war policy hardened, the Counter-Islam industry refed. Both communities are victims. Neither is the beneficiary. The beneficiary is the state that manufactured the fear, and the industry that profits from harvesting it.

One fact above all others should sit at the centre of this accounting. The pipeline sold the British public a story of Iranian-directed Islamic terror. Terrorism, by the definition the framing relied on, kills. Nearly two months in, across six countries and more than a dozen claimed attacks against synagogues, Jewish schools, Jewish-owned businesses, an Iranian dissident broadcaster, false claims, and a claimed strike on an Israeli embassy, the first injuries came on 29 April 2026 — at the hands of a man whose first attempted victim of the day was his Muslim friend.⁴⁶ The campaign that was framed as the gravest Iranian-linked Islamist threat to British Jews in a generation produced, while the war was still raging, an operational record of zero casualties. That is not a feature of any real jihadist campaign in living memory. It is the signature of an operation built to manufacture fear without paying the price in blood that real terror exacts. The framing was not just wrong about who. It was wrong about what.

The institutions that laundered the operation will not correct themselves. The FDD set the predicate doing exactly what a front organisation for Zionist Israeli interests is built to do. The Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs built the report doing exactly what a ministry whose operational mandate includes Israeli state propaganda is built to do. The ICCT gave the framing research-body credibility without the due diligence that would have caught the Quranic alteration the IMDA’s own copy contained. The BBC and the mainstream outlets that ran the framing did so without disclosing the provenance to their audiences. The propagandists were never in the business of accuracy. The mainstream outlets that should have stood between the PsyOp and the public failed to, and face no requirement to repair the damage. The well was poisoned by actors with motive, capacity, and institutional cover to do exactly what was done — and the cleanup will not come from the people who poisoned the well.

The British government and the Metropolitan Police are complicit in the operation’s continuing effect on the British public. Nearly two months in, with twenty-six arrests, the Met has downgraded the offence from terrorism to criminality without retracting the Iran attribution that justified the original framing. The British press has followed the Met’s lead, softening the framing without correcting it. The British state and its principal broadcaster sit inside a structural relationship with Israel — diplomatic, intelligence-sharing, treaty-grounded — that constrains what they are willing to say about an Israeli information operation directed at their own public. The European Union’s Association Agreement with Israel, the United Kingdom’s bilateral partnerships, and the broader Western state architecture make Israeli information operations on Western soil something Western governments are institutionally configured to overlook rather than confront. That is not innocence. That is complicity by structural alignment.

The first article asked why no foreign sponsor had been named. This article has documented why: because the foreign sponsor named at the door of the operation is not the one the pipeline pointed at. The narrative-construction layer is on the documented record — the FDD predicate, the IMDA report, the ICCT laundering, the BBC distribution. That layer is Israeli-built. The operational-execution layer — who built the HAYI brand, ran the editorial desk, and recruited the proxies on the ground — is a separate question this article does not answer. What the evidence establishes is that the actors the public was told to suspect are excluded by the operational record. What it does not establish is who is responsible. That question has not been investigated. It must now be asked.

The hate is not reinforced by the fire. It is reinforced by the silence after the lie. The silence is not an accident. It is the product. And until the framing is publicly put right, with the same prominence the framing received, both communities will continue to be forced to experience the effects of the operation. The Jewish community will continue to fear an enemy it does not have. The Muslim community will continue to carry the blame for an attack it did not commit. And the state that manufactured the fear will continue to harvest it.

Until it is put right, both communities cannot heal and the public cannot see the true problem.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that’s how the fire spreads.

Share

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Metropolitan Police, “Further arrest in investigation led by counter terrorism officers,” 26 April 2026.

² Metropolitan Police, “Statements on linked arson attacks in north west London,” 19 April 2026. Statement by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans, Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter Terrorism Policing.

³ Crown Prosecution Service, “How the CPS used new National Security Act legislation to prosecute the plot to sabotage Ukrainian aid warehouses on UK soil,” July 2025. R v Earl & others, sentenced at the Old Bailey by Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb, 24 October 2025 — the first conviction under the National Security Act 2023.

⁴ International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), Hybrid Threat Signals: Assessing Possible Iranian Involvement in Recent Attacks in Europe, Julian Lanchès, 23 March 2026, on the HAYI announcement of 9 March 2026 circulated via Telegram channel affiliated with the Iraqi pro-Iranian militia Liwa Zulfiqar.

⁵ Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, "Special Report: Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia," 24 March 2026.

⁶ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026.

⁷ HAYI Golders Green communiqué, circulated via Telegram, 23 March 2026, as reproduced in the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs special report on HAYI. The opening Quranic citation is from Surah At-Tawbah 9:41. The published image shows the verb form wa-jāhadū (past tense) rather than the canonical wa-jāhidū (imperative). The canonical Arabic text of Surah 9:41 is available in every standard mushaf.

⁸ HAYI Golders Green communiqué, 23 March 2026, as reproduced in the IMDA special report.

⁹ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026, on the second HAYI Telegram channel created 21 March 2026: “there are also a number of inconsistencies with this account, foremost the misspelling of the Arabic channel name, likely resulting from an incorrect English translation.”

¹⁰ CBS News, “European antisemitism attacks: group threatens US-Israel interests worldwide,” Joe Stocker and Haley Ott, 24 March 2026.

¹¹ Lucas Webber, senior threat intelligence analyst at Tech Against Terrorism, quoted in CBS News, 24 March 2026.

¹² ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026, p. 6.

¹³ Adam Rawnsley, “Is that an AK-47 on Hizballah’s flag?”, Center for a New American Security, 6 September 2016.

¹⁴ Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi profile: Hoover Institution. Credentials: BA Brasenose College, Oxford; PhD Swansea University; James Callaghan Thesis Prize 2024–25; affiliations with Middle East Forum, Hoover Institution, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the ICCT.

¹⁵ Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, quoted in Middle East Eye, “Ashab al-Yamin: The obscure new group claiming the Jewish ambulance attack,” Areeb Ullah and Mohamed Mulla, 24 March 2026.

¹⁶ Adam Hadley, founder and CEO of Tech Against Terrorism (UN-backed), quoted in The National, March 2026.

¹⁷ Avi Jorisch, Beacon of Hatred: Inside Hizbullah’s al-Manar Television, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2004.

¹⁸ Rita Katz, SITE Intelligence Group, quoted in NPR, “What Does It Mean When ISIS Claims Responsibility For An Attack?”, 24 May 2017.

¹⁹ Michael Knights, “Profile: Asaib Ahl al-Haq,” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 27 April 2021.

²⁰ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026.

²¹ Sharon Adarlo, Militant Wire, quoted in CBS News, 24 March 2026.

²² Jerusalem Post, “’The regime is a customer’: BBC interviews activist behind pro-Iran Lego propaganda videos,” April 2026.

²³ Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, “What Is HAYI, The Shadowy Islamist Group Claiming Attacks Across Europe?”, Meliha Kesmer, 17 April 2026.

²⁴ Counter Extremism Project, “Asaib Ahl al-Haq” profile, on al-Khazali’s Persian-language meetings with Khamenei and Soleimani.

²⁵ UK Intelligence and Security Committee, Iran (special report), published July 2025, on the Iranian state threat to the UK and Iran’s use of proxy criminals to target Iranian dissidents and Jewish/Israeli targets on UK soil. Ken McCallum, Director General of MI5, annual threat update, October 2025, citing “more than twenty potentially lethal Iran-backed plots” tracked since the prior year.

²⁶ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026.

²⁷ NetBlocks, reports on Iran connectivity disruption beginning 28 February 2026.

²⁸ NetBlocks, statement on Iran reaching fifty-three consecutive days of disruption, c. 21 April 2026.

²⁹ Iranian government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani statement on whitelist access, March 2026, reported by Iranian state media. State-run Bale messaging app routing for whitelist applications: Article 19, “Iran’s national internet and the Bale app,” 2024.

³⁰ Breaking911 X account posts, 23 March 2026 (02:21 AM and 03:10 AM London time):

Statement of Detective Superintendent Sarah Jackson per Metropolitan Police press contact, 23–24 March 2026. Timestamp preservation:

³¹ ICCT, Hybrid Threat Signals, 23 March 2026, timing data for the Rotterdam attack of 13 March 2026.

³² Counter Extremism Project, “Asaib Ahl al-Haq” profile: “AAH is one of three prominent Iraqi Shiite militias funded and trained by Iran’s external military wing, the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).” U.S. State Department, designation of AAH as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, 3 January 2020.

³³ Times of Israel, “North Macedonian synagogue hit by arson in country’s 1st antisemitic attack since Holocaust,” 15 April 2026. HAYI claim: Jerusalem Post, “Ashab al-Yamin claimed responsibility for Skopje, Munich attacks on Jewish sites,” 15 April 2026.

³⁴ Jerusalem Post, “Ashab al-Yamin claimed responsibility for Skopje, Munich attacks on Jewish sites,” 15 April 2026.

³⁵ Iran International incident, 15 April 2026: Committee to Protect Journalists, “3 arrested after arson attack on London-based Iran International,” 16 April 2026. Finchley Reform, Jewish Futures Hendon, and Israeli Embassy drone claim: Times of Israel, “Arson attempt hits London synagogue; Iran-linked group claims attack,” 18 April 2026. Met response on the Embassy drone claim: Metropolitan Police statement, 19 April 2026.

³⁶ R v [name redacted under reporting restrictions], Westminster Magistrates’ Court, April 2026, reported in The Guardian / Irish Times, “Iran behind low-level ‘hybrid warfare’ attacks in Europe, analysts say,” 23 April 2026.

³⁷ Metropolitan Police, “Statements on linked arson attacks in north west London,” 19 April 2026.

³⁸ Matt Jukes, BBC interview, 19 April 2026, reported in Times of Israel, “UK arrests 2 teens as ‘thugs for hire’ after latest arson attack on London synagogue,” 21 April 2026.

³⁹ The Soufan Center, “Iran War Exacerbates the Terrorist Threat Landscape in Europe,” IntelBrief, 17 April 2026.

⁴⁰ James S. Coates, “The Silence After the Lie: How an Israeli Influence Operation Became the News — and No One Corrected the Record,” Fireline Press, April 2026.

⁴¹ Joe Truzman, “Purported Iran-backed group claims responsibility for attacks in Belgium and Greece,” The Long War Journal / Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 12 March 2026. FDD founding mission documented in Sima Vaknin-Gil (then Director General, Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs), public remarks, 2018, reported in Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2018.

⁴² The Guardian, “Israel fund US university protest Gaza antisemitism,” 24 June 2024, on the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs’ propaganda operations.

⁴³ RFE/RL, “What Is HAYI, The Shadowy Islamist Group Claiming Attacks Across Europe?”, Meliha Kesmer, 17 April 2026: “None of the attacks caused casualties.” Confirmed across reporting on the campaign through 28 April 2026.

⁴⁴ Metropolitan Police statement on the Iran International incident, 17 April 2026, reported in Euronews, “Three charged over attempted arson on Persian-language TV channel, UK police say,” 17 April 2026.

⁴⁵ Jerusalem Post, "Two wounded in London terror stabbing against Golders Green Jews, HAYI takes responsibility," 29 April 2026. The HAYI claim was first reported by SITE Intelligence Group and circulated via Iraqi Shia militia–affiliated Telegram channels.

⁴⁶ Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, public statement at the scene of the 29 April 2026 Golders Green stabbing, reported in ITV News London, "'Shame on you': Met boss and local MP heckled after two Jewish men are stabbed in terror attack," 29 April 2026; and The Jewish Chronicle, "Golders Green stabbing: Suspect arrested as two injured," 29 April 2026. Suspect's actions and arrest detailed in Metropolitan Police statement, 29 April 2026, as reported across BBC, ITV News, Jerusalem Post, and Jewish Chronicle coverage of the same date. ITV News, "Essa Suleiman appears in court charged with attempted murder after Golders Green attack," 1 May 2026.

Corrections, 11 August 2026: An earlier version of this article dated the Amsterdam Jewish school attack to 16 March 2026; the attack occurred overnight into 14 March. It described the Heemstede incident as a household gas explosion claimed by HAYI; in fact no attack occurred at Heemstede — two teenagers were arrested nearby with fireworks and charged with preparatory acts, and the group never claimed the incident, which entered its record through the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs report. It also dated that ministry's special report to 16 March; the report is dated 24 March 2026 — after the ICCT's report and the Golders Green attack, not before — and the pipeline passage has been revised accordingly. The corrections strengthen the article's findings; none of its conclusions change.

This is not a historical curiosity. It is a documented, recurring pattern.¹ Ultranationalist settlers in the Old City harass priests, nuns, and monks with such regularity that Israeli President Isaac Herzog met with church leaders in August 2023 to address what he called “very serious phenomena towards the Christian denominations in the Holy Land.”² The Rossing Centre for Education and Dialogue documented 111 anti-Christian incidents in 2023 alone — up from 89 the previous year — including spitting, vandalism, arson, and physical assault.³ Israel’s Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, responded by declaring that spitting on Christians was “not criminal.”⁴ The Armenian Quarter — one of the oldest Christian communities on earth, present in Jerusalem since the fourth century — is being squeezed by settler-linked real estate projects.⁵ The Christian population of Jerusalem numbers roughly 15,000 today, a fraction of the community that existed a century ago.⁶

The irony is worth sitting with. The state that presents itself as the sole defender of Abrahamic civilisation in the Middle East is presiding over the erosion of two of the three Abrahamic communities in the city all three call holy.

But this article is not about Christians in Jerusalem, except insofar as their treatment reveals something about the narrative we have all been sold.

The dominant narrative in the Western world — the one that anchors news coverage, congressional speeches, think-tank reports, and the entire edifice of Middle Eastern policy — positions Muslims as the civilisational enemy of Jews. It is the recent narrative that makes Israel’s existence feel necessary, its wars feel justified, and its critics feel dangerous. It is so deeply embedded in Western political culture that most people absorb it without ever questioning whether it is true.

It is not true. It is historically illiterate. And its illiteracy is not accidental — it serves a political project that I have been documenting across this series. In “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy,” I traced the theological infrastructure that captured American foreign policy for a dispensationalist agenda. In “Just for Fun: The War in Iran,” I documented the illegality of a war launched without legal authority and sustained by arguments that collapse under scrutiny. This article does something different. It inverts the historical record that both of those articles operate within — the assumption that Islam and Judaism are locked in an ancient civilisational conflict.

They are not. And the evidence is not ambiguous.

If Muslims are the existential enemy of Jews, why did Jews flee to Muslim lands for safety — not once, but repeatedly, across a thousand years of documented history? Why did the greatest works of medieval Jewish philosophy get written in Arabic, under Muslim patronage? Why did a Jewish scholar at Vanderbilt University open an essay in the Jewish Chronicle with three words that should have ended this debate: “Islam saved Jewry”?⁷

Those are the questions this article answers. The history it recovers is not obscure. It is simply inconvenient for the people who profit from its erasure.

Share

Omar ibn al-Khattab and the Return to Jerusalem

The story begins in 637 CE, when Caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab arrived at the gates of Jerusalem.

The city had been under Byzantine Christian control. The Patriarch Sophronius, realising that resistance against the Muslim armies was futile, agreed to surrender — but insisted that Omar himself come to accept it.⁸ The Caliph travelled from Medina, entering the city in simple garments, sharing a single mount with his servant, taking turns to ride and walk. He was the ruler of an empire stretching from Persia to Egypt. He arrived looking like a pilgrim.⁹

What happened next has echoed through fourteen centuries. Sophronius offered Omar the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to pray in. Omar refused. He understood that if he prayed inside the church, his followers would eventually turn it into a mosque. So he prayed outside. The church still stands.¹⁰ That single act — a conqueror refusing to pray in the holiest site available to him, specifically to protect another faith’s sacred space — encapsulates a principle that has no equivalent in the Crusader record or, for that matter, in the conduct of the state that governs Jerusalem today.

Omar issued the Assurance of Safety — al-’Uhda al-’Umariyya — guaranteeing the Christians of Jerusalem protection of their persons, property, churches, and crosses. The text, preserved in the chronicle of al-Tabari and witnessed by Khalid ibn al-Walid among others, is one of the earliest documents of religious pluralism in recorded history.¹¹

But here is the detail that matters most for this article. The Covenant included a clause, inserted at the insistence of the Christian authorities, stipulating that Jews should not reside in the city. This was not Omar’s demand. It was Sophronius’s — a continuation of a Byzantine Christian policy that had excluded Jews from Jerusalem for five centuries, dating back to Emperor Hadrian’s suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE.¹² The Christians surrendered the city on the condition that their longstanding exclusion of Jews be preserved.

Omar overrode it. He invited the Jews back.¹³

According to historical tradition, around seventy Jewish families resettled in Jerusalem under Omar’s protection.¹⁴ In Jewish writings of the period, Omar is referred to as a “friend of Israel.”¹⁵ The Times of Israel — not a publication inclined toward flattering Islamic history — noted in 2025 that this return, after five centuries of exclusion, “marked a pivotal moment in Jewish history.”¹⁶

The pattern established here would repeat for a thousand years: Muslim rulers restoring Jewish presence where Christian rulers had removed it. It is the first documented instance. It would not be the last.

The Crusaders and What They Did

Before we reach Saladin, we need to understand what the Crusaders did — not to Muslims, but to Jews. Because the dominant narrative treats the Crusades as a clash between Christendom and Islam. It was. But the first victims of the Crusading impulse were not Muslims. They were Jews.

In the spring of 1096, as the armies of the First Crusade gathered across Europe, bands of Crusaders decided that if they were marching to kill the enemies of Christ in the Holy Land, they might as well start with the enemies of Christ at home.¹⁷ The Rhineland massacres that followed were among the worst acts of organised violence against Jews in European history before the twentieth century.

At Speyer, Crusaders killed twelve Jews on the third of May.¹⁸ At Worms, they broke into the bishop’s palace where the Jewish community had taken refuge and slaughtered between 800 and 1,000 men, women, and children who refused baptism.¹⁹ At Mainz, at least 1,000 more were killed, despite the archbishop’s attempts to protect them.²⁰ The violence spread to Cologne, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, and Prague.²¹ Total estimates range from 2,000 to 12,000 killed across the Rhineland and beyond.²² The historian David Nirenberg has written that the events of 1096 “occupy a significant place in modern Jewish historiography and are often presented as the first instance of an antisemitism that would henceforth never be forgotten and whose climax was the Holocaust.”²³

Jewish mothers killed their own children rather than see them forcibly baptised. The Hebrew chronicles record these acts not as desperation but as sanctification — kiddush hashem — choosing death over the renunciation of their faith.²⁴ This is what Christian Europe offered its Jews.

Three years later, in July 1099, the Crusaders took Jerusalem. Muslims and Jews had fought side by side to defend the city.²⁵ When the walls were breached, the slaughter was indiscriminate. The Crusader chronicler Raymond of Aguilers described men riding through the Temple of Solomon in blood “up to their knees and bridle reins.”²⁶ The Jewish population, according to the Muslim chronicler Ibn al-Qalanisi, assembled in their synagogue. The Crusaders burned it over their heads.²⁷ A contemporary Jewish letter, written just two weeks after the siege, confirms the destruction of the synagogue, though it does not specify whether people were inside when it was set alight.²⁸ What is beyond dispute is the outcome: the Crusaders eliminated the Jewish community of Jerusalem entirely.

For eighty-eight years, Jews were barred from the city.²⁹ Every time Muslim forces retook Jerusalem, Jews were permitted to return. Every time Christian forces recaptured it, they were expelled again.³⁰ The pattern is not ambiguous. It is not a matter of interpretation. It is the documented historical record, attested by Christian, Muslim, and Jewish sources alike.

This is the civilisation that now presents itself as the protector of the Jewish people.

Saladin and the Return to Jerusalem

In 1187, Saladin retook Jerusalem.

The contrast with the Crusader conquest eighty-eight years earlier could not have been sharper. There was no general massacre. The city surrendered after negotiation with Balian of Ibelin.³¹ Saladin offered ransoms — ten dinars for men, five for women, two for children — and those who could not pay were, for the most part, permitted to leave.³² Thousands were released without ransom at all. The Crusader chroniclers themselves — men with every reason to demonise Saladin — recorded his conduct with something approaching admiration.³³

And then he invited the Jews back.

For eighty-eight years, Crusader rule had excluded Jews from Jerusalem. Saladin reversed the ban. Jewish families, primarily from Ashkelon, resettled in the city under his protection.³⁴ This was not a one-time gesture. It was the resumption of a pattern. In the years that followed, control of Jerusalem shifted back and forth between Crusader and Muslim forces. Each time the Christians took the city, the Jews were expelled. Each time Muslim forces retook it, Jews were permitted to return.³⁵

Saladin’s treatment of Jerusalem’s non-Muslim communities was not an anomaly. It was an expression of the Islamic legal framework that governed relations with the People of the Book — a framework built on Quranic injunction and the precedent set by Omar five centuries earlier. This does not mean it was flawless. No empire’s conduct across centuries is uniformly just. But the framework existed, it was institutionalised, and it produced results that had no parallel in Christendom.

Consider the trajectory of one man.

Moses ben Maimon — Maimonides — was born in Córdoba in 1138, during the golden age of Jewish life under Muslim rule in Spain.³⁶ When the Almohads, a fundamentalist Berber dynasty, conquered Córdoba in 1148, they abolished the dhimmi protections that had safeguarded non-Muslim communities. The Maimon family was forced to flee.³⁷ This is an important caveat: Muslim rule was not uniformly tolerant. The Almohad period represents the most significant counter-example in the historical record, and honesty requires naming it directly. Maimonides’ family spent years in exile — in southern Spain, then Fez, then Palestine — before settling in Fustat (Old Cairo) in 1166.³⁸

There, under the Ayyubid dynasty founded by Saladin, Maimonides flourished. He became court physician, first to al-Qadi al-Fadil, Saladin’s chief secretary, and then to Saladin himself.³⁹ He served as the head of the Egyptian Jewish community. He wrote his greatest philosophical work, The Guide for the Perplexed, in Judeo-Arabic — the literary form of Arabic used by Jewish scholars throughout the Islamic world.⁴⁰ When Richard the Lionheart reportedly invited Maimonides to become his personal physician, Maimonides declined. He stayed in Cairo.⁴¹

Sit with that for a moment. The greatest Jewish philosopher of the medieval world — a man whose influence on Jewish thought is compared to that of Moses himself — wrote his masterwork in Arabic, under Muslim patronage, in the court of the man who had just retaken Jerusalem from the Crusaders. He was offered a position in the Christian West and chose to remain in the Islamic East.

The Almohad persecution that drove Maimonides from Córdoba is real, and this article does not minimise it. But the trajectory of his life tells the larger story: he fled one Muslim regime and found safety, patronage, and intellectual freedom under another. He did not flee to Christendom. He fled from it — or rather, from the Holy Land that Christendom had turned into a place where Jews could not live.

The Golden Age — Al-Andalus

Maimonides was not an anomaly. He was a product of something much larger.

For roughly three centuries — from the mid-900s to the mid-1200s — Jewish intellectual, literary, and scientific life reached heights under Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula that had no parallel anywhere in the medieval world. Historians call it the Golden Age of Jewish culture in Spain. It happened under Islam. Not in spite of it.⁴²

The roll call is staggering. Solomon ibn Gabirol, philosopher and poet. Judah Halevi, whose poetry is still recited in synagogues today. Abraham ibn Ezra, mathematician and biblical commentator. And Samuel ibn Naghrillah — Samuel ha-Nagid — who rose from a spice shopkeeper in Málaga to become the grand vizier and military commander of the Muslim kingdom of Granada.⁴³ A Jew commanding Muslim armies. For nearly two decades, he led Granada’s forces in battle, secured its borders, and expanded its territory — all while serving as the head of the Jewish community and producing some of the finest Hebrew poetry since the Bible.⁴⁴ Try to imagine a comparable position for a Jew in medieval Christendom. You cannot, because it did not exist.

David Wasserstein, the Jewish studies professor whose essay anchors this article, put the relationship plainly: Jewish cultural prosperity in the medieval period operated largely as a function of Muslim cultural prosperity. When Muslim Arabic culture thrived, so did Jewish culture. When Muslim culture declined, so did Jewish culture. The cultural capital created under Islam then served as the foundation for later Jewish cultural revival in Christian Europe.⁴⁵

The Jews of Al-Andalus wrote in Arabic. They composed poetry in Hebrew using Arabic metres. They studied philosophy, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics within the Islamic scholarly tradition. They did not merely survive under Muslim rule. They flourished in ways that reshaped Jewish civilisation permanently.

This article does not pretend that Al-Andalus was a paradise. It was not. The 1066 massacre of Jews in Granada — triggered by political resentment against Samuel ha-Nagid’s son Joseph, who had succeeded his father as vizier — killed hundreds and destroyed the Jewish community of the city.⁴⁶ The Almohad invasion of the mid-twelfth century ended the tolerance entirely, forcing conversions and driving Jewish and Christian communities into exile.⁴⁷ These are facts, and they belong in the record.

But the comparative question is the one that matters. What was happening to Jews in Christian Europe during the same centuries? The Rhineland massacres. The blood libel. The ghettos. The expulsions — from England in 1290, from France repeatedly, from one territory after another.⁴⁸ The forced conversions. The Inquisitions. The pogroms. A systematic, institutional, centuries-long campaign of persecution that would culminate, eight centuries later, in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Set the imperfect tolerance of Al-Andalus beside the systematic persecution of Christendom. The comparison is not close. It is not even in the same category.

The Ottoman Centuries and the Kol Nidre

When Christian Spain finally completed the Reconquista in 1492, the new Catholic monarchs moved immediately from territorial unity to religious uniformity. On the thirty-first of March, Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Alhambra Decree, ordering every unconverted Jew to leave Spain by the end of July.⁴⁹ The choice was conversion, exile, or death. An entire civilisation — the Jewish community that had flourished for centuries under Muslim rule — was uprooted in a single decree.

Where did the expelled Jews go?

To the Ottoman Empire. Sultan Bayezid II sent the Ottoman navy to evacuate Jews from Spain.⁵⁰ He issued a firman — an imperial decree — to every governor in his European provinces, ordering them not only to admit the refugees but to welcome them. He threatened with death anyone who mistreated the arriving Jews.⁵¹ And he reportedly mocked Ferdinand for the decision: “You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler — he who has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!”⁵²

Tens of thousands of Sephardic Jews settled across Ottoman territory — in Istanbul, Thessaloniki, Izmir, and throughout the Balkans. They brought with them skills, languages, and commercial networks that enriched the Ottoman economy for centuries.⁵³ A Jewish community writing for +972 Magazine — an Israeli publication — noted in 2018 that Bayezid’s policy of welcoming Jewish refugees stands in documented contrast to the modern State of Israel’s treatment of non-Jewish refugees.⁵⁴

The Ottoman millet system provided the legal framework. Under this system, recognised religious communities — Jewish, Christian, Armenian, Greek Orthodox — governed their own civil and family affairs, maintained their own courts, ran their own schools, and practised their faith freely, under the protection of the Ottoman state.⁵⁵ It was not equality in the modern liberal sense. Jews and Christians were dhimmis — protected non-Muslim subjects — not citizens with identical legal standing. But the system provided something that had no equivalent in Christendom: institutional, legally guaranteed religious coexistence.

And here is where we must address the Kol Nidre.

Kol Nidre is not technically a prayer. It is a legal formula, recited in Aramaic on the eve of Yom Kippur — the holiest night in the Jewish calendar.⁵⁶ It annuls vows made between the individual and God. The text predates the Inquisitions by centuries, and scholars debate its precise origins.⁵⁷ But its emotional power — the reason it has become the most recognisable moment in the Jewish liturgical year, the reason grown men weep when the cantor’s voice rises through the three repetitions — is inseparable from its association with forced conversion.

Throughout the medieval period, Jews across Christian Europe were given a choice that was no choice: convert to Christianity or suffer persecution, expulsion, or death.⁵⁸ Those who converted under coercion — the anusim, the conversos, the people the Spanish called marranos — continued to practise Judaism in secret. And when Yom Kippur came, they would make their way to hidden gatherings to recite Kol Nidre, seeking release from vows they had been forced to take under threat to their lives.⁵⁹

This formula exists because of Christian persecution. Not Muslim persecution. It carries within it the memory of centuries of coerced conversion, inquisitorial torture, and the desperate preservation of Jewish identity against a civilisation that was determined to erase it.

The next time someone tells you that Islam is the historic enemy of Judaism, ask them about the Kol Nidre. Ask them which civilisation made that prayer necessary. And then ask them which civilisation provided the refuge when the prayer was not enough.

Share

“Islam Saved Jewry” — and the Charge Against the Record

The argument of this article is not original to me. It was made by a Jewish scholar, in a Jewish publication, on the basis of Jewish and Islamic historical sources.

David J. Wasserstein, the Eugene Greener Jr Professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt University, published an essay in the Jewish Chronicle on the twenty-fourth of May 2012, adapted from his Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.⁶⁰ His thesis was direct: when the Prophet Muhammad was born in 570 CE, the Jews and Judaism were on the path to oblivion. Christianity had become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, and with that dominance came systematic legal degradation, forced conversion, and the steady erasure of Jewish communal life across the Mediterranean world. Had Islam not arrived, Wasserstein argued, the separation between western Judaism and Babylonian Judaism would have intensified until both were extinguished — one by Christian assimilation, the other by oriental obscurity.⁶¹

The Islamic conquests of the seventh century changed everything. Within a century of Muhammad’s death in 632 CE, Muslim armies had conquered almost the entire world in which Jews lived, from Spain to the eastern frontier of Persia. The result, Wasserstein wrote, was a transformation of Jewish existence in legal, demographic, social, religious, political, geographical, economic, linguistic, and cultural terms — all for the better.⁶²

Wasserstein was careful to note that the status of dhimmi — protected non-Muslim subject — made Jews second-class citizens in Islamic law. But he was equally careful to note what that status replaced. In Visigothic Spain, shortly before the Muslim conquest in 711, Jews had seen their children removed and forcibly converted to Christianity, and had themselves been enslaved. Second-class citizenship, Wasserstein observed, “was a far better thing to be than not to be a citizen at all.”⁶³

This is the point where critics of Islam will raise the charge they always raise: dhimmitude. The argument, as deployed by counter-Islam commentators, runs something like this: the dhimmi system was a form of institutionalised oppression; the jizya was a punitive tax designed to humiliate non-Muslims; and the entire framework proves that Islam is inherently hostile to non-Muslim minorities.

The argument depends on ignorance — either the ignorance of the person making it, or the ignorance they are counting on in their audience.

Here is what the dhimmi system actually was. Under Islamic law, non-Muslim communities recognised as People of the Book — primarily Jews and Christians — entered into a contractual arrangement with the Muslim state.⁶⁴ In exchange for the jizya tax, the state guaranteed their protection, their property, their freedom of worship, their right to govern their own civil and family affairs through their own courts, and their exemption from military service.⁶⁵ Muslims, by contrast, were required to pay zakat — the obligatory wealth tax that constitutes one of the five pillars of Islam — and were subject to conscription.⁶⁶ The jizya was levied only on able-bodied adult men of financial means. Women, children, the elderly, the poor, the disabled, monks, and the mentally ill were exempt.⁶⁷ If dhimmis served in the Muslim military, they were exempt from the jizya entirely.⁶⁸ And — critically — if the Muslim state could not fulfil its obligation to protect its dhimmi subjects, the jizya had to be returned. Caliph Omar himself set this precedent, returning the jizya to a Christian tribe when he could not defend them from Byzantine attack.⁶⁹

Was the system abused? Of course it was. Corrupt rulers throughout Islamic history weaponised the jizya, extracting excessive payments, humiliating dhimmi populations, and violating the contractual protections the system was designed to guarantee.⁷⁰ These abuses are documented, and they are real. But they are abuses of the system — violations of Islamic law, not expressions of it. The distinction matters. When a corrupt tax collector in the Abbasid Empire extorted a Jewish merchant, he was breaking the dhimma contract, not fulfilling it. When the Almohads abolished dhimmi protections entirely, they were repudiating the established Islamic legal framework, not implementing it.

The counter-Islam commentators who cite these abuses as evidence that Islam is inherently hostile to minorities never apply the same standard to their own civilisational tradition. They do not argue that the Inquisition represents the essence of Christianity, or that the transatlantic slave trade — conducted under the Doctrine of Discovery, a papal bull — defines the Christian relationship with non-European peoples. They treat Christian atrocities as aberrations and Islamic protections as facades. The double standard is not accidental. It is the mechanism.

The honest comparison — the one the critics will never make — is between the dhimmi system at its best and Christendom at its best. And even at its most imperfect, the dhimmi system provided Jews with legal protections, communal autonomy, and physical safety that medieval Christendom did not offer at any point in its thousand-year history.

Bernard Lewis, the historian most frequently cited by Western conservatives on matters of Islam, put it plainly: many dhimmis found the change from Byzantine to Arab rule to be a welcome relief, “both in taxation and in other matters,” and some among the Christians of Syria and Egypt “preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines.”⁷¹

The Inversion

So how did we get from there to here? How did the civilisation that sheltered Jews for a thousand years become, in the Western imagination, their eternal enemy?

The answer is not complicated. It is a political project, executed over the last century, and it required the erasure of the history this article has just documented.

The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 was driven by European Jewish refugees fleeing European Christian persecution. The Zionist movement was born in Europe, in response to European antisemitism, and its founders were explicit about this. Theodor Herzl did not write Der Judenstaat because of Muslim persecution. He wrote it after witnessing the Dreyfus Affair in France — a Christian country.⁷² The Holocaust that made the case for Israel undeniable was perpetrated by a Christian civilisation, in the heart of Christian Europe, with centuries of Christian antisemitism as its foundation.

But when those European refugees arrived in Palestine, the conflict that resulted was reframed — not as a colonial displacement of an indigenous population by European settlers, but as a civilisational conflict between Jews and Muslims. The Nakba — the expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1947–49 — was buried beneath a narrative of ancient enmity.⁷³ The people who had protected Jews for a millennium were recast as their eternal oppressors. And the civilisation that had actually persecuted them — Christendom — rebranded itself as their guardian.

The role of Christian Zionism in cementing this inversion is documented in my earlier article, “Holy War.”⁷⁴ The evangelical movement that now constitutes Israel’s most powerful support base in America — Christians United for Israel, with over ten million members — is driven by a theology that instrumentalises Jews as prophetic stage props. The short-term interests align: evangelicals want Israel supported; the Israeli right wants American backing. But the long-term theology is, at its structural core, antisemitic — it envisions Jewish conversion or destruction at the Second Coming.

The irony is breathtaking. The civilisation that persecuted Jews for a thousand years now presents itself as their protector — against the civilisation that sheltered them. And most people in the Western world have absorbed this inversion without ever questioning it, because they have never been taught the history that this article has laid out.

The Language of Genocide

This inversion does not operate only at the level of historical narrative. It operates at the level of language — the language being used right now, by the leaders of the state that claims to speak for the Jewish people.

On the ninth of October 2023, two days after the Hamas attack, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant announced a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip. “There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed,” he said. “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”⁷⁵

On the twenty-eighth of October, as the ground invasion began, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed IDF soldiers: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.”⁷⁶ In the Hebrew Bible, the commandment regarding Amalek is unambiguous: destroy everything — men, women, children, infants, livestock.⁷⁷ South Africa cited this statement in its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.⁷⁸

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for the “total annihilation” of Gaza.⁷⁹ President Isaac Herzog declared that there were no innocent civilians in Gaza — that the entire population bore responsibility.⁸⁰ Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested dropping a nuclear bomb.⁸¹

These are not fringe voices. These are the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the Finance Minister, and the President of the State of Israel.

Amnesty International reviewed 102 statements by Israeli government and military officials issued between the seventh of October 2023 and the thirtieth of June 2024. Of these, the organisation identified 22 statements made by senior officials in charge of managing the offensive that appeared to call for or justify genocidal acts, providing direct evidence of genocidal intent.⁸² In December 2024, Amnesty International formally concluded that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.⁸³

If the standard for judging a movement is the most extreme language of its leaders — and it is, when the movement in question is Palestinian — then apply that standard equally. The leaders of the State of Israel have used language that meets every threshold for genocidal intent. This is not my assessment. It is the assessment of the world’s largest human rights organisation, based on 296 pages of evidence, 212 interviews, and analysis of visual, digital, and satellite imagery.

Who Protected Whom

This article has asked one question: if Muslims are the existential enemy of Jews, why did Jews flee to Muslim lands for safety for a thousand years?

The answer is in the historical record. Omar invited the Jews back to Jerusalem when the Christians had excluded them for five centuries. The Crusaders slaughtered Jews on their way to the Holy Land and burned them alive in their synagogues when they arrived. Saladin retook Jerusalem and invited the Jews to return — again. Maimonides, the greatest Jewish philosopher of the medieval world, wrote his masterwork in Arabic, under Muslim patronage, and declined an offer from the Christian West. The Jews of Al-Andalus produced a golden age of culture, poetry, and philosophy under Islamic rule that had no equivalent in Christendom. When Christian Spain expelled its Jews in 1492, the Ottoman Sultan sent his navy to rescue them and mocked the Christian king who had driven them out. And through it all, the Kol Nidre — the most sacred formula in the Jewish liturgical year — carried within it the memory of Christian persecution, not Muslim persecution.

This is the history. It is not ambiguous. It is not contested by serious scholars. And it is being systematically erased by people who need you not to know it — because if you knew it, the entire narrative that sustains unconditional Western support for the State of Israel would collapse.

The next time someone tells you that Islam is the enemy of the Jewish people, ask them one question.

Who protected whom?

And watch how fast they change the subject.

If this resonated with you, consider sharing it — that's how the fire spreads.

Share

If you found this valuable, please support me with a like, share, or Subscribe.

James S. Coates writes about geopolitics, international law, and the decline of civilisational accountability. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on Fireline Press and The Signal Dispatch, and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his family and dog who has no interest in any of this.

© 2026 James S. Coates All Rights Reserved. Fireline Press · fireline.press

Endnotes

¹ Nir Hasson, “Jews Spit at Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem’s Old City,” Haaretz, 2 October 2023. Video footage of the incident during Sukkot went viral, prompting rare condemnations from Israeli officials.

² “Israeli President Slams Rising Attacks Against Christians as a ‘True Disgrace,’” CBN News, 12 August 2023. Herzog met with leaders of the Orthodox and Catholic churches of the Holy Land.

³ Rossing Centre for Education and Dialogue, “Attacks on Christians in Israel and East Jerusalem,” annual report, 2024. The centre documented 111 incidents in 2023, up from 89 in 2022, including 47 physical assaults, the majority targeting clergy identifiable by religious garb.

⁴ “Spitting on Christians in Jerusalem ‘Not Criminal,’ Says Ben Gvir,” Middle East Eye, 4 October 2023. Settler activist Elisha Yered, under house arrest for suspected involvement in the killing of a Palestinian teenager, called spitting on Christians “an ancient Jewish custom” on X (formerly Twitter).

⁵ “Violence Against Christians Is on the Rise in Israel,” Armenian Weekly, 11 September 2025. The report documents repeated attacks on the Armenian Orthodox Convent and settler-linked land grabs in the Armenian Quarter.

⁶ “Christians in Jerusalem Under Attacks from Israeli Settlers,” WAFA, 3 October 2023; Middle East Monitor, 4 October 2023. The figure of approximately 15,000 Christians in Jerusalem today is cited in multiple reports. During the British Mandate, Christians constituted roughly 11 per cent of the total population of Palestine.

⁷ David J. Wasserstein, “So, What Did the Muslims Do for the Jews?” The Jewish Chronicle, 24 May 2012. Adapted from the Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London. Wasserstein is the Eugene Greener Jr Professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt University.

⁸ The siege and surrender of Jerusalem is documented in multiple sources. See Maher Y. Abu-Munshar, Islamic Jerusalem and Its Christians: A History of Tolerance and Tensions (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007), pp. 85–89. The date is variously given as 637 or 638 CE depending on the source.

⁹ The account of Omar’s humble arrival — sharing a single mount with his servant, taking turns to ride and walk — is widely attested in Islamic historical tradition. See al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rusul wa’l-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings).

¹⁰ The refusal to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is one of the most consistently reported details of Omar’s entry into Jerusalem, attested in both Islamic and Christian sources. The Mosque of Omar, built near (not inside) the church, marks the site where he prayed instead.

¹¹ The text of the Assurance (al-’Uhda al-’Umariyya) is preserved in al-Tabari’s chronicle. For scholarly discussion of the various versions and their authenticity, see Abu-Munshar (2007), pp. 85–95. Scholars debate the precise wording of the document, with some later versions considered embellished, but the core provisions — protection of persons, property, churches, and religious practice — are broadly accepted as authentic.

¹² Emperor Hadrian banned Jews from Jerusalem (then renamed Aelia Capitolina) following the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135 CE. Byzantine Christian authorities maintained this exclusion. See Shlomo Pereira, “638 — The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Promise Caliph Omar Would Not Keep,” The Times of Israel, 22 October 2025.

¹³ The clause excluding Jews from Jerusalem appears in the Covenant text but is understood by scholars as a concession to the Byzantine Christian authorities rather than an expression of Islamic policy. Omar’s decision to override it and invite Jews to return is documented in both Islamic and Jewish sources. See Pereira (2025); Abu-Munshar (2007).

¹⁴ The figure of approximately seventy Jewish families is drawn from historical tradition. See “Islamic Conquest of Jerusalem: A Brilliant Lesson in Tolerance, Justice and Humanity,” Al Mujtama Magazine, which cites the tradition that Omar instructed a Yemeni Jewish convert to Islam to bring Jewish families to settle in the city.

¹⁵ Pereira (2025): “In Jewish tradition, Caliph Omar is viewed as a tolerant and benevolent ruler, referred to in some Jewish writings of the time as a ‘friend of Israel.’”

¹⁶ Pereira (2025): “The return of Jews to Jerusalem after five centuries of exclusion marked a pivotal moment in Jewish history.”

¹⁷ Robert Chazan, In the Year 1096: The First Crusade and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996). Chazan’s work is the standard scholarly treatment of the Rhineland massacres. See also the Solomon bar Simson Chronicle, a Hebrew account written approximately fifty years after the events.

¹⁸ “Rhineland Massacres,” Wikipedia, citing primary sources including Albert of Aachen and the Hebrew chronicles. The Bishop of Speyer intervened and sheltered the remaining Jewish community; he had the hands of some of the attackers cut off as punishment.

¹⁹ At least 800 Jews were killed at Worms on 18 May 1096. The Crusaders broke into the bishop’s episcopal palace where the community had taken refuge. See the Worms massacre entry in the Jewish chronicles and Chazan (1996).

²⁰ The Mainz massacre of 27 May 1096 killed at least 1,000 Jews (some estimates say 1,100). Archbishop Ruthard of Mainz attempted to shelter the community but was overwhelmed. See Haaretz, “This Day in Jewish History: Crusaders Massacre the Jews of Mainz,” 27 May 2014.

²¹ The violence extended beyond the Rhineland to Cologne, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, and Prague. In Regensburg, the entire Jewish community was forcibly baptised in the Danube. See “Rhineland Massacres,” Wikipedia, and Chazan (1996).

²² Estimates of total deaths range widely. The Historica Wiki entry cites “between 2,000 and 12,000 Jews.” The variation reflects the difficulty of establishing precise figures from medieval sources. Even the lower estimate represents a catastrophic loss for communities numbering in the thousands.

²³ David Nirenberg, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). The passage is also cited in the Wikipedia entry on the Rhineland massacres.

²⁴ The Hebrew chronicles — particularly the Solomon bar Simson Chronicle, the Mainz Anonymous, and the Eliezer bar Nathan Chronicle — record numerous instances of Jewish self-sacrifice (kiddush hashem) during the 1096 massacres, including mothers killing their children to prevent forced baptism.

²⁵ “Massacre of Jerusalem (1099),” Wikipedia, citing multiple sources: “Jewish Jerusalemites defended their city from the besieging Christians, fighting side-by-side with Muslim soldiers until the Crusaders breached the walls.” See also the Muslim History Chronicles account of the siege.

²⁶ Raymond of Aguilers, eyewitness account, cited in Andrew Sinclair, Jerusalem: The Endless Crusade (New York: Crown Publishers, 1995), pp. 55–56.

²⁷ Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhail Tarikh Dimashq (The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades): “The Jews assembled in their synagogue, and the Franks burned it over their heads.” Cited in Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999), pp. 64–66.

²⁸ A contemporary Jewish communication, identified by Arabist Shelomo Dov Goitein from the Cairo Geniza, was written approximately two weeks after the siege. It confirms the destruction of the synagogue but does not mention people being inside during the burning. The discrepancy between Muslim and Jewish accounts is noted in multiple scholarly treatments. See “Siege of Jerusalem (1099),” Wikipedia.

²⁹ For eighty-eight years (1099–1187), Jews were barred from Jerusalem under Crusader rule. See the MuslimMatters article “Islamic Jerusalem: ‘We Will Drive the Jews into the Sea’” (Part 2 of 3), 24 July 2009.

³⁰ “Each time the Christians conquered the city, the Jews were expelled, and restored when the Muslims re-conquered it.” MuslimMatters (2009), citing H.A.R. Gibb and Harold Bowen.

³¹ The siege lasted from 20 September to 2 October 1187. Balian of Ibelin, one of the few surviving Crusader nobles, negotiated the surrender. See “Siege of Jerusalem (1187),” Wikipedia, and John Man, Saladin: The Life, the Legend and the Islamic Empire (London: Bantam Press, 2015).

³² The ransom terms are documented in multiple Crusader and Muslim sources. Saladin agreed to release 7,000 of the poorest inhabitants for a lump sum of 30,000 dinars after Balian argued that 20,000 could never pay individually. See “Siege of Jerusalem (1187),” Wikipedia.

³³ Saladin’s conduct was widely noted by Western chroniclers. The World History Encyclopedia entry on Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem describes the event as one in which his “triumph was far less violent than that of the medieval knights of the First Crusade, and for this, he has been endlessly romanticized by Muslims and Christians alike.” See Syed Muhammad Khan, “Saladin’s Conquest of Jerusalem (1187 CE),” World History Encyclopedia, 18 May 2020.

³⁴ “After recapturing the holy city, Saladin allowed the remaining Jews in the Holy Land, mainly from Ashkelon, who had somehow remained alive despite the Crusaders’ enthusiastic efforts to change that situation.” Quora response citing Baha al-Din ibn Shaddad and Ibn al-Athir. See also MuslimMatters (2009): “Just as Caliph Umar had reversed the Christian ban on Jewish settlement, so too did Saladin allow the Jews to return.”

³⁵ MuslimMatters (2009): “During the next few years, Jerusalem shifted between Muslim and Christian control: each time the Christians conquered the city, the Jews were expelled, and restored when the Muslims re-conquered it.”

³⁶ Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon) was born in Córdoba in 1138 (some sources give 1135). See “Maimonides,” Encyclopaedia Britannica; “Maimonides,” Wikipedia.

³⁷ The Almohads conquered Córdoba in 1148 and abolished dhimmi status, forcing Jewish and Christian communities to choose between conversion, exile, or death. See “Maimonides,” Encyclopaedia Britannica. This represents the most significant episode of religious persecution under Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula and is an essential caveat to any argument about Muslim-Jewish coexistence.

³⁸ Maimonides’ family spent approximately a decade in southern Spain, then moved to Fez (c. 1160), then to Acre in Palestine (1165), and finally to Fustat (Old Cairo) in 1166. See “Maimonides,” The Great Thinkers (thegreatthinkers.org/maimonides/biography).

³⁹ Maimonides was appointed court physician to al-Qadi al-Fadil, Saladin’s chief secretary and regent of Egypt, around 1174. He subsequently served Saladin and, after Saladin’s death in 1193, his son al-Afdal. See Fred Rosner, “The Life of Moses Maimonides, a Prominent Medieval Physician,” Einstein Journal of Biology and Medicine, citing primary sources.

⁴⁰ The Guide for the Perplexed (Dalālat al-Ḥāʾirīn) was written in Judeo-Arabic — Arabic written in Hebrew script — and completed around 1190. It was later translated into Hebrew by Samuel ibn Tibbon. Wasserstein (2012) notes that “much of the greatest poetry in Hebrew written since the Bible comes from this period” of Jewish cultural flourishing under Islam.

⁴¹ The tradition that Richard the Lionheart invited Maimonides to become his personal physician, and that Maimonides declined, is widely reported but not fully verified by primary sources. See Rosner (Einstein Journal) and “Maimonides,” Jewish History (jewishhistory.org). The tradition is included here as it is commonly cited; even if apocryphal, Maimonides’ choice to remain in Cairo under Muslim patronage rather than relocate to Christendom is historically documented.

⁴² The term “Golden Age of Jewish culture in Spain” is standard in Jewish historiography. See the Encyclopaedia Judaica entries on Spanish Jewry; María Rosa Menocal, The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain (New York: Little, Brown, 2002). Menocal’s account has been criticised by some scholars as overly optimistic, but the core claim — that Jewish culture reached extraordinary heights under Muslim rule in Iberia — is not contested.

⁴³ Samuel ibn Naghrillah (993–1056), known as Samuel ha-Nagid (”Samuel the Prince”), served as grand vizier and military commander of the Taifa of Granada under its Zirid Berber rulers. See “Samuel ibn Naghrillah,” Wikipedia; “Samuel ha-Nagid,” Encyclopaedia Britannica. The Encyclopaedia Judaica describes his career as “the highest achievement of a Jew in medieval Muslim Spain.”

⁴⁴ Samuel ha-Nagid commanded Granada’s Muslim armies for approximately eighteen years (1038–1056). He led campaigns against rival taifa kingdoms including Almería, Seville, and Málaga. His Hebrew war poetry, composed on the battlefield, is considered among the finest of the Golden Age. See “Samuel ha-Nagid,” Encyclopaedia Britannica; E.I. Weinberger, Jewish Prince in Modern Spain: Selected Poems of Samuel ibn Nagrela (1973).

⁴⁵ Wasserstein (2012): “Jewish cultural prosperity in the middle ages operated in large part as a function of Muslim, Arabic cultural (and to some degree political) prosperity: when Muslim Arabic culture thrived, so did that of the Jews; when Muslim Arabic culture declined, so did that of the Jews.”

⁴⁶ The 1066 Granada massacre followed the assassination of Joseph ibn Naghrillah, Samuel ha-Nagid’s son, who had succeeded his father as vizier. The massacre was triggered by political resentment rather than purely religious hostility, but it resulted in the killing of a large number of Jewish inhabitants. See “Samuel ibn Naghrillah,” Wikipedia; “1066 Granada Massacre,” Wikipedia.

⁴⁷ The Almohad dynasty conquered much of Al-Andalus from the 1140s onward, abolishing dhimmi protections and forcing conversions of both Jews and Christians. This was the most significant episode of religious persecution under Muslim rule in Iberia. See “Almohad Dynasty,” Encyclopaedia Britannica; “Maimonides,” Wikipedia.

⁴⁸ The Edict of Expulsion of 1290, issued by Edward I, expelled all Jews from England. Jews were not formally readmitted until 1656 under Oliver Cromwell. France expelled its Jewish population multiple times, including in 1182, 1306, and 1394. See “History of the Jews in England,” Wikipedia; “History of the Jews in France,” Wikipedia.

⁴⁹ The Alhambra Decree was signed on 31 March 1492 by Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. Modern estimates of the number expelled range from 40,000 to 200,000. See “Expulsion of Jews from Spain,” Wikipedia; “Alhambra Decree,” Wikipedia.

⁵⁰ “Bayezid II sent out the Ottoman Navy under the command of admiral Kemal Reis to Spain in 1492 in order to evacuate them safely to Ottoman lands.” See “Bayezid II,” Wikipedia; “Sultan Bayezid II Welcomes Jewish Refugees from Spain,” History of Information (historyofinformation.com).

⁵¹ “Bayezid addressed a firman to all the governors of his European provinces, ordering them not only to refrain from repelling the Spanish refugees, but to give them a friendly and welcome reception. He threatened with death all those who treated the Jews harshly or refused them admission into the empire.” See “Bayezid II,” Wikipedia.

⁵² The quote is widely attributed to Bayezid II in multiple forms. The version cited here follows the Wikipedia entry on Bayezid II and the Alhambra Decree: “You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler, he who has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!” See also “When the Sultan Took in Jewish Refugees,” +972 Magazine, 25 January 2018.

⁵³ Sephardic Jews established the first printing press in Constantinople in 1493. Jewish communities in Thessaloniki, Istanbul, and Izmir became major centres of commerce and scholarship under Ottoman rule. See “Ottoman Lands Provided Safe Haven for Sephardic Jews Expelled from Spain,” Anadolu Agency, 2022.

⁵⁴ “When the Sultan Took in Jewish Refugees,” +972 Magazine, 25 January 2018. Written by a Jewish author of Sephardic origin, the article explicitly contrasts Bayezid II’s refugee policy with the modern State of Israel’s treatment of African asylum seekers.

⁵⁵ The Ottoman millet system granted recognised religious communities (millets) autonomous governance over their own civil and family affairs, including marriage, divorce, inheritance, and education. The system lasted from the fifteenth century until the late Ottoman period. See “Millet (Ottoman Empire),” Wikipedia; Stanford Shaw, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic (New York: New York University Press, 1991).

⁵⁶ “Kol Nidre,” Encyclopaedia Britannica: “Kol Nidre (Aramaic: ‘All Vows’), a prayer sung in Jewish synagogues at the beginning of the service on the eve of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement).”

⁵⁷ The text of Kol Nidre appears as early as the ninth-century prayer book Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon. Its origins are debated. Historian Joseph S. Bloch suggested it may have originated during the Visigothic persecutions of Jews in Spain (seventh century). See “Kol Nidre,” Wikipedia; “A Brief History of the Kol Nidrei Prayer,” Reform Judaism (reformjudaism.org); Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, “Moses Annuls a Vow,” The Jewish Press, 12 March 2020.

⁵⁸ Forced conversions of Jews occurred throughout medieval Christendom, including under the Visigoths in seventh-century Spain, during the Rhineland massacres of 1096, and culminating in the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition specifically targeted conversos suspected of practising Judaism in secret. See “Kol Nidre,” Wikipedia; “The Curious Case of Kol Nidre,” Commentary Magazine.

⁵⁹ While most scholars agree that Kol Nidre predates the Spanish Inquisition, the association with forced converts is well established. “It is probably true that ‘secret Jews,’ in various times and places, did utilize Kol Nidre as a means of absolving themselves from vows made under coercion.” Commentary Magazine, citing historian Joseph S. Bloch. The Chabad.org article on Kol Nidre notes: “While this story is beautiful, it’s not historically accurate, as the prayer predates the Inquisition by centuries. However, some suggest that the conversos popularized the text.”

⁶⁰ David J. Wasserstein, “So, What Did the Muslims Do for the Jews?” The Jewish Chronicle, 24 May 2012. The article was adapted from Wasserstein’s Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, delivered at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London.

⁶¹ Wasserstein (2012): “Had Islam not come along, the conflict with Persia would have continued. The separation between western Judaism, that of Christendom, and Babylonian Judaism, that of Mesopotamia, would have intensified. Jewry in the west would have declined to disappearance in many areas. And Jewry in the east would have become just another oriental cult.”

⁶² Wasserstein (2012): “Within a century of the death of Mohammad, in 632, Muslim armies had conquered almost the whole of the world where Jews lived, from Spain eastward across North Africa and the Middle East as far as the eastern frontier of Iran and beyond. Almost all the Jews in the world were now ruled by Islam. This new situation transformed Jewish existence.”

⁶³ Wasserstein (2012): “This should not be misunderstood: to be a second-class citizen was a far better thing to be than not to be a citizen at all. For most of these Jews, second-class citizenship represented a major advance. In Visigothic Spain, for example, shortly before the Muslim conquest in 711, the Jews had seen their children removed from them and forcibly converted to Christianity and had themselves been enslaved.”

⁶⁴ The dhimma was a contractual arrangement under Islamic law. The word literally means “protection.” See “Dhimmi,” Wikipedia; Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).

⁶⁵ The Pact of Umar stipulated that Muslims must “do battle to guard” the dhimmis and “put no burden on them greater than they can bear.” See “Jizya,” Wikipedia; “Jizyah,” Encyclopaedia Britannica.

⁶⁶ Zakat is obligatory for all Muslims of financial means and constitutes one of the five pillars of Islam. Dhimmis were exempt from zakat but subject to jizya. The two taxes served parallel functions within the Islamic fiscal system. See “Islamic Taxes,” Wikipedia.

⁶⁷ “The tax was to be levied only on able-bodied males, and not on women or children. The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted, as also the blind, the lame, the incurables and the insane.” Sir Thomas Arnold, cited in “Does Islam Oppress Dhimmis?” (alislam.org). See also “Jizyah,” Encyclopaedia Britannica: “The non-Muslim poor, the elderly, women, serfs, religious functionaries, and the mentally ill generally did not pay any taxes.”

⁶⁸ Sir Thomas Arnold documents multiple instances of dhimmi communities exempted from jizya in exchange for military service, including the al-Jurajima tribe (a Christian community near Antioch) and frontier tribes in Persia. Similar exemptions existed under Ottoman rule. See “Does Islam Oppress Dhimmis?” (alislam.org).

⁶⁹ Caliph Omar returned the jizya to a Christian Arab tribe when he was unable to protect them from a Byzantine military attack. This precedent established the principle that the jizya was conditional on the state’s fulfilment of its protection obligations. See “Jizyah,” Encyclopaedia Britannica; “Jizya,” Study.com.

⁷⁰ Abuses of the jizya system are documented throughout Islamic history. Norman Stillman described the tax burden on some dhimmi populations as “crushing.” The Abbasid Caliph al-Mutawakkil imposed additional restrictions on dhimmis in the ninth century. The Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire saw instances of enslavement for non-payment. See “Dhimmi,” Wikipedia; “Jizya,” Wikipedia. These abuses are violations of the Islamic legal framework, not expressions of it — a distinction the counter-Islam commentariat consistently fails to make.

⁷¹ Bernard Lewis, cited in “Dhimmi,” Wikipedia and “Does Islam Oppress Dhimmis?” (alislam.org): many dhimmis “found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters, and that some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines.”

⁷² Theodor Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in 1896, following his coverage of the Dreyfus Affair in France as a journalist. The Dreyfus Affair — the wrongful conviction of a Jewish French army officer on charges of espionage — crystallised Herzl’s conviction that Jewish assimilation in Europe was impossible.

⁷³ The Nakba (”catastrophe” in Arabic) refers to the displacement of approximately 700,000–750,000 Palestinians during the 1947–49 war. The figure is cited by UNRWA and is broadly accepted by historians on both sides, though the causes and responsibility remain contested. See Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

⁷⁴ James S. Coates, “Holy War: How Evangelical Christianity Captured American Foreign Policy,” Fireline Press, 18 March 2026.

⁷⁵ Yoav Gallant, Israeli Defence Minister, 9 October 2023. Reported by Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, The Times of Israel, HuffPost, and Human Rights Watch. Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch, called the statement “abhorrent” and a “call to commit a war crime.”

⁷⁶ Benjamin Netanyahu, address to IDF soldiers, 28 October 2023: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.” Reported by NPR, NBC News, The Christian Post, Common Dreams, and others.

⁷⁷ 1 Samuel 15:3: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Netanyahu’s office stated he was quoting Deuteronomy 25:17 (”Remember what Amalek did to you”), not 1 Samuel 15. Both passages concern Amalek; the distinction is contested. See NPR, 7 November 2023; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 16 January 2024.

⁷⁸ South Africa cited Netanyahu’s Amalek statement in Section 101 of its application to the International Court of Justice, filed December 2023. See “International Court of Justice in The Hague Genocide Proceedings,” Israel Democracy Institute; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 16 January 2024.

⁷⁹ Bezalel Smotrich’s statement calling for the destruction of Gaza is documented in the Amnesty International report and in multiple media sources. The precise wording varies across translations.

⁸⁰ Isaac Herzog, President of Israel, 13 October 2023: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved.” Widely reported, including by The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Middle East Eye.

⁸¹ Amichai Eliyahu, Heritage Minister, suggested in a radio interview that dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza was “one of the possibilities.” He was suspended from cabinet meetings but not dismissed from his position. Reported by The Guardian, BBC News, The Times of Israel, November 2023.

⁸² Amnesty International, “You Feel Like You Are Subhuman”: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza, December 2024, 296 pages. The organisation reviewed 102 statements by Israeli government and military officials between 7 October 2023 and 30 June 2024, identifying 22 that provided direct evidence of genocidal intent.

⁸³ Amnesty International formally concluded that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Secretary-General Agnès Callamard stated: “Month after month, Israel has treated Palestinians in Gaza as a subhuman group unworthy of human rights and dignity, demonstrating its intent to physically destroy them.” See amnesty.org, 5 December 2024.