Netanyahu, the State, and the Unanswered Crimes Surrounding Palestinian Bodies

For decades, the Israeli state has exercised control over Palestinian land, movement, and lives. What remains far less examined—but no less disturbing—is the power Israel has asserted over Palestinian bodies after death. Recent viral claims involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have reignited scrutiny of a long-documented history that Israeli officials themselves have acknowledged, yet never fully accounted for.

The latest controversy centers on a resurfaced document allegedly from the 1990s, attributed to then–Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he appears to entertain the legal feasibility of harvesting organs from deceased Palestinians for transplantation into Israelis. While the authenticity and full context of the document circulating online have not been independently verified, Netanyahu’s reported response is notable for what it does not contain: a rejection. Instead, the proposal was referred for legal examination—an act that, at minimum, signals willingness to explore whether such a policy could be sanctioned under Israeli law.

This episode does not exist in a vacuum. It intersects directly with confirmed admissions by Israeli authorities regarding systematic, unauthorized organ removal at Israel’s state forensic institution, the L. Greenberg National Institute of Forensic Medicine, commonly known as the Abu Kabir forensic institute.

Documented Admissions, Not Internet Rumors

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Israeli officials acknowledged that organs—including corneas, skin, heart valves, and bones—were removed during autopsies without the consent of families. The victims were not limited to one group; Palestinians, Israeli citizens, and foreign workers were all affected. However, Palestinians—often killed in circumstances involving state violence and military operations—were uniquely vulnerable, lacking both political power and legal recourse.

Israeli authorities later claimed the practice had ended. No comprehensive criminal accountability followed. No transparent, independent investigation was conducted. Families were not meaningfully compensated. The state effectively closed the file on itself.

To describe this merely as “unauthorized retention” is to sanitize what would be treated elsewhere as a grave violation of medical ethics, human dignity, and international law.

Control Beyond Death

Human rights organizations estimate that Israel continues to withhold the bodies of hundreds of Palestinians, using them as bargaining chips in political negotiations or as tools of collective punishment. Bodies are buried in numbered graves, stored indefinitely, or returned months later under restrictive conditions that deny families proper funerals or independent examinations.

Following Israel’s most recent military operations in Gaza, reports emerged of unidentified human remains returned in sealed bags—raising further questions about what occurred while those bodies were in Israeli custody. Israel has offered no credible, transparent accounting.

Anthropologist and surgical resident Mary Turfah has argued that this system reflects something deeper than isolated abuse. Writing on the political management of Palestinian bodies, she frames these practices as structural—an extension of occupation logic that does not end at death. The Palestinian body, in this framework, remains subject to Israeli state authority even when life has ended.

Within that context, past admissions of organ removal without consent take on new significance. They are not anomalies. They are symptoms.

Netanyahu’s Responsibility

Benjamin Netanyahu has spent decades at the center of Israeli power. He cannot plausibly claim ignorance of institutional practices that were later admitted by the state he led. Nor can he dismiss renewed scrutiny as antisemitic conspiracy when the foundational facts—unauthorized organ removal, body retention, and systematic dehumanization—are established by Israel’s own acknowledgments.

The unanswered question is not whether abuses occurred. They did. The real question is why no accountability followed—and why Israel continues to treat Palestinian bodies as property of the state rather than as human remains entitled to dignity, consent, and justice.

Until Israel opens its archives, permits independent investigations, and ends its policy of body retention, suspicion will persist. Not because of social media rumors, but because secrecy, denial, and impunity create the conditions in which the worst allegations thrive.

This is not about speculation. It is about power without oversight—and the dead who cannot testify.

Millions of Iranians Rally Nationwide as Calls Grow to Reject Foreign Regime-Change Pressure

Millions of Iranians filled streets, boulevards, and public squares across the country on Tuesday to commemorate the 47th anniversary of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, marking nearly five decades since the overthrow of the U.S.-backed monarchy and the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The mass mobilization unfolded amid heightened regional tensions and renewed warnings from Iranian officials against what they describe as escalating U.S. and Israeli efforts to provoke regime change through military pressure and economic warfare.

From Tehran’s Azadi Square to provincial capitals and smaller towns, crowds waved Iranian flags, carried banners emphasizing national independence, and chanted slogans rejecting foreign interference. The demonstrations were heavily attended by families, veterans, students, and civil servants, underscoring the continued resonance of the revolution’s central message: resistance to outside domination and preservation of Iranian sovereignty.

State television broadcast hours of live footage showing densely packed avenues and public speeches framing the anniversary as a reaffirmation of Iran’s right to determine its own political future without coercion from Washington or Jerusalem. Organizers described the turnout as a clear signal that attempts to destabilize the country through sanctions, covert operations, or threats of war have failed to fracture national unity.

The anniversary came as International Criminal Court war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu met again with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, reigniting fears in Tehran that Israel is pushing for a direct confrontation with Iran — potentially drawing the United States into another regional war. Iranian officials and analysts warn that such a conflict would mirror the catastrophic outcomes seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, where regime-change campaigns led to prolonged instability, mass civilian suffering, and the collapse of state institutions.

Speaking to the crowd in Tehran, President Masoud Pezeshkian emphasized that Iran does not seek war but will not submit to threats or intimidation. He reiterated that Iran remains open to diplomacy on the nuclear issue, while insisting that negotiations cannot occur under the shadow of sanctions or military pressure. “Iran’s future will be decided in Tehran, not Washington or Jerusalem,” he said, according to state media.

While Western governments frequently frame Iran as internally unstable, Tuesday’s nationwide rallies presented a counter-image of a country capable of mass political mobilization in defense of its sovereignty. Officials stressed that internal debates and political differences — which undeniably exist — must not be exploited as a pretext for foreign intervention, warning that external regime-change projects historically exacerbate repression and suffering rather than alleviate them.

The anniversary also served as a reminder of Iran’s historical memory. Many participants referenced the 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, as well as decades of sanctions and isolation that followed the revolution. These experiences continue to shape public skepticism toward Western claims of humanitarian concern.

Analysts note that the timing of the anniversary — coinciding with renewed military rhetoric from Israel and intensified U.S. sanctions enforcement — has heightened its political significance. Rather than weakening Iran, officials argue, external pressure has reinforced nationalist sentiment and hardened resistance to any form of imposed political change.

As the Middle East edges closer to another potential flashpoint, Iran’s leadership is using the symbolism of the revolution to send a clear message: regime change imposed from abroad is neither legitimate nor acceptable, and any attempt to force it risks regional catastrophe — particularly as International Criminal Court war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu continues to press Washington toward confrontation.

Whether Washington and Tel Aviv heed that warning remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that on the streets of Iran this week, millions made their position unmistakable — Iran’s future is not a bargaining chip, and war is not a solution.

FAA Lifts Temporary Closure of El Paso Airspace After Cartel Drone Incursion

El Paso, Texas — The Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday lifted a temporary closure of airspace over El Paso International Airport, just hours after halting flights in and out of the airport due to what officials described as a security threat involving cartel-operated drones.

The FAA initially announced the airspace would be closed for up to 10 days, citing “special security reasons.” U.S. officials later confirmed the disruption was caused by a breach of U.S. airspace by drones linked to Mexican drug cartels.

Administration officials told CBS News that the Department of Defense took action to disable the drones and that federal agencies subsequently determined there was no ongoing threat to commercial aviation.

“There is no threat to commercial aviation. All flights will resume as normal,” the FAA said in a statement after lifting the restriction.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy echoed that assessment, saying on social media that the FAA and the Department of Defense “acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion” and that the situation had been “normalized.” He added that there was no danger to commercial travel in the region.

During the brief closure, the FAA classified the area as “national defense airspace” and warned that the government could use deadly force against any aircraft deemed an imminent security threat. The restrictions applied to flights operating below 18,000 feet, allowing aircraft at cruising altitude to continue flying over the region.

Two airline sources said carriers were informed that the closure was implemented out of an abundance of caution, largely because officials could not reliably predict drone flight paths. U.S. military drones have been operating outside their usual corridors, using Biggs Army Airfield near El Paso International Airport as part of counter-drone operations.

Flights to and from El Paso were canceled early Wednesday after airlines learned of the closure through FAA postings. El Paso International Airport said the decision was made on short notice and advised travelers to contact their airlines for updates.

The FAA warned that pilots who failed to comply with the restrictions could face interception, detention, civil penalties, loss of licenses, or criminal charges.

Local and federal officials criticized the lack of advance notice. Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Democrat who represents El Paso, said she learned of the closure late Tuesday night through informal channels rather than directly from the FAA.

“This was an FAA decision and was done without any local consultation and without any local communication,” Escobar said during a news briefing. “That is not the way the federal government should operate.”

She described the move as “highly consequential” and “unprecedented,” noting it caused significant concern in the community.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, also said he was not notified in advance.

“In a major airport in a big city, we’d like to know what they’re doing and why,” Paul said on CBS Mornings.

El Paso International Airport typically sees about 55 daily departures across six major airlines, including Southwest Airlines and American Airlines. Normal flight operations resumed after the FAA lifted the restriction.

Report Raises Conflict Questions After Ambassador Bridge Owner Met With Trump Official Before Threat Against New Crossing

Detroit, MI — New reporting has intensified scrutiny around President Donald Trump’s recent threat to block the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, after it emerged that a senior Trump administration official met privately with the family that owns the competing Ambassador Bridge just hours before the president’s remarks.

According to The New York Times and reporting summarized by MLive, Matthew Moroun — whose family has controlled the Ambassador Bridge for decades — met in Washington with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick on Monday, Feb. 9. Shortly after that meeting, Lutnick reportedly spoke with President Trump. Soon thereafter, Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States should own “at least half” of the Gordie Howe International Bridge and suggested the project had been mishandled, despite years of prior agreements and construction.

The timing has raised serious questions about whether private commercial interests influenced presidential threats against a publicly funded, binational infrastructure project critical to U.S.–Canada trade.

A bridge with high economic stakes

The Gordie Howe International Bridge, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, is one of the largest infrastructure projects in North America. The crossing is designed to relieve congestion at the Ambassador Bridge, which currently handles a significant share of cross-border truck traffic and generates substantial toll revenue for its private owners.

Under the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement, the Gordie Howe Bridge is owned jointly by the U.S. and Canada, with Canada fronting the multibillion-dollar construction cost. Those costs are expected to be repaid through future toll revenues once the bridge opens later this year. U.S. taxpayers were not required to finance construction.

For the Moroun family, the bridge represents long-standing competition. The family has repeatedly challenged the project in court and, during Trump’s first term, ran television ads urging the administration to intervene and stop the crossing.

Trump’s reversal draws attention

Trump’s latest comments mark a sharp reversal from his own past public statements. In 2017, Trump and then–Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau jointly praised the Gordie Howe Bridge as a “vital economic link” between the two countries. No objections about ownership or fairness were raised at the time.

Now, however, Trump has framed the project as a symbol of broader grievances against Canada, mixing complaints about tariffs, trade with China, and past U.S. administrations — even though the legal framework for the bridge was negotiated and ratified years ago and reaffirmed throughout his first term.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney reportedly contacted Trump shortly after the comments, emphasizing that the United States already benefits from the project and that American steel, labor, and suppliers were used extensively during construction.

Conflict of interest concerns

While no evidence has been presented that laws were broken, ethics experts note that the sequence of events raises red flags. A private bridge owner meeting with a cabinet secretary, followed almost immediately by a presidential threat targeting a competing public bridge, invites questions about influence, access, and favoritism.

Michigan leaders across party lines have expressed alarm, warning that political interference at this late stage could undermine international agreements, disrupt trade, and damage U.S. credibility with Canada — America’s largest trading partner.

What happens next

The Gordie Howe International Bridge is nearing completion, with testing already underway. Any attempt by the U.S. government to block or delay its opening would almost certainly trigger legal challenges, diplomatic fallout, and potential retaliation from Canada.

For now, the administration has not clarified whether Trump’s remarks reflect an official policy position or a negotiating tactic. But the reported meeting between the Ambassador Bridge owner and a top Trump official has ensured that questions about whose interests are being served — public or private — will not fade quietly.

As the bridge’s opening approaches, the controversy underscores a larger issue: whether critical infrastructure decisions are being driven by national economic needs or by the influence of powerful private stakeholders behind closed doors.

When Catholic Conscience Becomes a Crime: The Carrie Prejean Boller Controversy

In a nation founded on religious liberty and free expression, it should not be controversial to state a simple truth: Americans are allowed to criticize political ideologies without being accused of hatred toward an entire people. Yet that is precisely the line Carrie Prejean Boller crossed—according to her critics—when she publicly rejected Zionism while affirming her Catholic faith.

Boller’s remarks, delivered during a hearing of the White House Religious Liberty Commission and reinforced in subsequent public statements, were neither violent nor discriminatory. They were theological, political, and constitutional. She stated clearly that she is Catholic, that Catholicism does not require adherence to Zionism, and that rejecting a political ideology does not equate to hatred of Jews.

That distinction matters. And it is one Americans are increasingly being told they are not allowed to make.

Catholic Teaching Is Not Political Extremism

The Catholic Church does not teach that modern nation-states fulfill biblical prophecy, nor does it require political allegiance to any foreign government. Catholic theology separates spiritual salvation from nationalist ideology. That position is not radical. It is centuries old.

To suggest that Catholics must embrace Zionism—or remain silent about it—to participate in public life is not religious tolerance. It is ideological coercion.

Boller did not attack Judaism. She did not demean Jewish people. She challenged an expansive political definition of antisemitism that increasingly treats criticism of Zionism or Israeli state policy as inherently hateful. That framework, most notably embodied in the IHRA definition, has been criticized by civil liberties groups, legal scholars, and even Jewish academics for being overly broad and dangerous to free speech.

Raising that concern is not bigotry. It is civic responsibility.

A Chilling Moment for Religious Liberty

The most alarming aspect of this controversy is not the backlash online—it is the implication that a government commission tasked with protecting religious freedom would consider disciplining or removing a commissioner for expressing her sincerely held religious beliefs.

If a Catholic can be punished for articulating Catholic doctrine, then the commission’s mission is already compromised.

Religious liberty does not mean protecting only approved religions, approved speech, or approved political positions. It means protecting the right to dissent—even when that dissent makes powerful interests uncomfortable.

Boller’s refusal to resign is not defiance. It is fidelity—to her faith, to the Constitution, and to the idea that Americans are not subjects required to pledge ideological loyalty to anyone.

Criticism Is Not Hatred

The deliberate conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is not only intellectually dishonest, it is dangerous. It cheapens the real and horrific history of antisemitism by turning the term into a political weapon rather than a moral warning.

One can oppose Zionism without opposing Jews.
One can criticize Israel without hating Jewish people.
One can be Catholic without being disloyal to America.

Those statements should not be controversial in a free society.

The Real Test

This moment is a test—not just for Carrie Prejean Boller, but for America.

Do we still believe that religious conviction deserves protection even when it challenges political orthodoxy?
Do we still believe free speech includes the right to say things powerful groups dislike?
Do we still believe faith is not a firing offense?

If the answer is yes, then Boller’s stance should be defended—not because everyone must agree with her, but because no one should be punished for speaking from conscience.

Religious liberty that only protects silence is not liberty at all.

The Puppy Propaganda Pipeline: How Mass Surveillance Is Being Soft-Sold to America

Did you see the cute missing puppy commercial during the Superbowl?  That commercial was actually sinister  

Mass surveillance in America is no longer introduced with soldiers, sirens, or emergency declarations. It is introduced with heartstrings. With puppies. With reassuring smiles and promises of safety wrapped in soft, comforting language.

That should concern everyone.

For decades, Americans were told that expanding surveillance powers was necessary to stop terrorists. When that justification grew thin, the focus shifted to pedophiles, violent criminals, and fugitives on the run. Each expansion was framed as temporary, targeted, and necessary. Each time, the tools remained long after the fear faded.

Now the latest justification is simpler and far more effective: compassion.

Surveillance Disguised as Neighborliness

Modern residential surveillance systems are no longer marketed as security devices. They are marketed as community tools. They promise connection, vigilance, and shared responsibility. In practice, they create privately owned surveillance networks that blanket entire neighborhoods with constant observation.

These systems do not merely record activity at a front door. They enable large-scale data collection, AI-assisted image recognition, pattern tracking, and information sharing across wide geographic areas. Once installed at scale, they transform residential neighborhoods into informal monitoring zones where everyone becomes both watcher and watched.

This is not security. It is infrastructure.

The Illusion of Consent

Supporters often argue that participation is voluntary. But consent becomes meaningless when surveillance is normalized to the point that opting out makes you the exception. When cameras are everywhere, privacy ceases to be a right and becomes suspicious behavior.

No law needs to change for this to happen. No warrant needs to be rewritten. Cultural pressure does the work instead.

When Surveillance Meets Bias

Surveillance systems do not exist in a vacuum. They inherit the biases of the society that deploys them. Tools that allow people to search, track, and monitor individuals inevitably invite abuse—especially against marginalized groups.

The risk is not theoretical. History has shown repeatedly that surveillance powers are disproportionately used against minorities, political dissidents, activists, and those who simply do not fit neatly into dominant social norms. When observation becomes frictionless and anonymous, restraint disappears.

Law Enforcement by Proxy

The integration of private surveillance systems with law enforcement fundamentally alters constitutional protections. When police rely on privately owned cameras, data requests, and third-party platforms, the traditional safeguards of the Fourth Amendment are quietly bypassed.

Searches that would once have required probable cause now occur through informal cooperation, community pressure, or automated systems. Oversight becomes murky. Accountability becomes diffuse. The line between private citizen and state actor blurs beyond recognition.

The Myth of Benevolent Power

Every expansion of surveillance is accompanied by the same reassurance: it will only be used for good purposes. That promise has never survived contact with reality.

Surveillance systems expand by design. Once the technology exists, its use inevitably grows. What begins as protection becomes prevention. What begins as prevention becomes control.

This is not cynicism. It is historical fact.

The Cost We Are Taught to Ignore

The greatest danger of mass surveillance is not that it watches criminals. It is that it conditions ordinary people to accept constant monitoring as normal. Over time, citizens internalize observation. Behavior changes. Speech softens. Dissent shrinks.

Freedom does not vanish overnight. It erodes quietly, politely, and with widespread public approval.

The Final Truth

Rights are rarely taken by force. They are traded away—one comforting justification at a time.

When surveillance is sold as safety, as kindness, as responsibility, resistance becomes socially unacceptable. And once a society learns to trade liberty for reassurance, it rarely notices what it has lost until there is nothing left to reclaim.

Mass surveillance does not make a society safer.

It makes it compliant.

And compliance, once normalized, is almost impossible to reverse.

FAA Temporarily Restricts Airspace Over El Paso and Parts of New Mexico

EL PASO, Texas — Feb. 11 — The Federal Aviation Administration has issued a notice temporarily restricting portions of airspace over El Paso, West Texas, and parts of New Mexico, according to a NOTAM (Notice to Air Missions) published early Tuesday morning.

The restriction, which is scheduled to remain in effect for up to 10 days, applies to civilian aviation within designated sectors. As of Tuesday morning, the FAA had not publicly disclosed the specific reason for the closure, prompting questions from pilots, airlines, and local officials.

Flight tracking data shows multiple commercial and private flights rerouted or grounded following the notice. Airport officials in the region confirmed disruptions but said they were provided limited guidance beyond the FAA directive.

Local and state authorities in Texas and New Mexico told media outlets they had not been briefed on the underlying cause of the restriction. No emergency declarations or public safety warnings have been issued at the state or municipal level.

The FAA periodically closes or restricts airspace for reasons that can include military training exercises, national security concerns, equipment testing, or safety-related issues. Such notices are sometimes issued with minimal public detail, particularly when tied to federal operations.

As of publication, the FAA has not issued a press release or further clarification. The agency is expected to update the NOTAM system if conditions change or additional information becomes available.

This is a developing story.