A Reckoning in Israel Amidst US Repression: The Global Discourse on Gaza Shifts

 

While the Trump administration in the US escalates a retroactive campaign of punishment against those who protested Israel’s war in Gaza during 2023–2024—deporting students like Mahmoud Khalil and gutting university programs like Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) —an extraordinary reckoning is unfolding inside Israel itself. Outside the US, Western governments, media, and even prominent Israeli figures are openly condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocidal, using language that was unthinkable just months ago. The contrast between the US’s deepening crackdown and the global tide of accountability could not be starker.

 

Olmert’s Bombshell: “We Are Committing War Crimes”

 

On May 22, 2025, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert published a searing op-ed in Haaretz, translated and amplified by NYU Professor Monica Marks on X. Olmert’s words are nothing short of historic. He charged that Israel is “intentionally waging a war of annihilation: indiscriminate, unrestrained, brutal, and criminal killing of civilians,” driven not by battlefield mishaps but by a “policy dictated by the government, knowingly, intentionally, viciously, maliciously, recklessly.” “Yes, we are committing war crimes. YES,” Olmert wrote, implicating the highest levels of leadership, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he calls “the head of the gang.”

 

Olmert further detailed the deliberate starvation of Gaza: “Yes, we are depriving the residents of Gaza of food, medicine, and minimal means of subsistence as part of a declared policy... adopting a policy of starvation and humanitarian pressure whose outcome could be disastrous.” He also highlighted genocidal rhetoric within Israel, noting that Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan’s call to annihilate Palestinian villages amounts to a “declaration of genocide,” and that such acts are not isolated but widespread: “This is a lie. They are many.”

 

Yair Golan: “A Sane Country Does Not Make a Hobby of Killing Babies”

 

Olmert’s intervention came just days after Yair Golan, a former IDF general and current liberal opposition leader, broke Israeli political taboos with his own dramatic condemnation. In a public statement, Golan declared: “A rational nation does not engage in combat against civilians, does not kill infants as a pastime, and does not aim to expel an entire population.” His provocative phrase—“killing babies as a hobby”—drew fierce backlash from the Israeli right, but Golan stood firm, emphasizing that his critique targets the government’s policies, not the military rank and file. He warned that Israel risks becoming a pariah state if it continues down this path, a sentiment echoed by Olmert’s op-ed.

 

Israeli Genocide Scholars Break Ranks

 

The reckoning extends to Israel’s intellectual class. Shael Ben-Ephraim, a genocide scholar and host of Israel Explained, publicly reversed his earlier skepticism in an interview with Owen Jones on The Owen Jones Podcast. “I was wrong and Israel IS committing genocide,” Ben-Ephraim stated, citing mounting evidence of systematic atrocities. In a Substack post, he detailed whistleblower accounts from IDF insiders that corroborate these claims, including deliberate policies of starvation and civilian targeting. Ben-Ephraim joins a growing list of Israeli and Jewish genocide scholars—such as Omer Bartov, who by late spring 2024 concluded that Israel’s actions meet the definition of genocide—who can no longer defend Israel’s conduct in light of internal testimonies and undeniable evidence.

 

The West Responds: Governments and Media Shift

 

This wave of Israeli dissent is both fueling and being fueled by a dramatic shift in Western capitals and newsrooms:

•  
  Spain: Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared Israel a “genocidal state” and joined South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), supporting the application of the Genocide Convention to Israel’s actions.
• France, UK, Canada: These governments issued a joint statement condemning Israel’s conduct and warning of further measures if the war and restrictions on humanitarian aid do not end.
• Financial Times & The Economist: Both published rare, unsigned editorials condemning Israel’s campaign in Gaza and calling for an immediate end to the war.
• Media Figures: Piers Morgan, once a staunch defender of Israel, now agrees with Mehdi Hasan’s characterization of the war as genocidal, reflecting a broader shift in mainstream Western media.

Why Now? Whistleblowing, Legal

 

What explains this sudden and dramatic shift in discourse? The answer lies in a combination of factors, none of which are credibly linked to changes in Israel’s behavior in Gaza. Israel’s actions have long been characterized by collective punishment, forced starvation, deprivation of humanitarian assistance, and the systematic destruction of hospitals, universities, and infrastructure for water, energy, and medicine—policies that have remained consistent throughout the conflict, which escalated after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which killed 1,200 people and was widely-- and rightly-- condemned as an atrocity. Instead, the shift appears driven by other forces:

 

•  The growing wave of Israeli dissent is powerfully underscored by a landmark April 2025 report from Breaking the Silence, an Israeli human rights group comprised of IDF veterans. As reported in Common Dreams, the BTS report documents detailed, firsthand testimonies from Israeli officers and soldiers describing the systematic creation of a “kill zone” along Gaza’s border—an area where troops were ordered to destroy all structures and to use live fire to enforce a no-go zone, with civilians, including women and children, routinely targeted. These testimonies reveal orders for “widespread, deliberate destruction” and the indiscriminate killing of anyone entering the perimeter, regardless of noncombatant status. The specificity and gravity of these whistleblower accounts—corroborated by multiple soldiers and published by a respected Israeli NGO—mirror the timing and substance of genocide scholar Shael Ben-Ephraim’s public reversal. Ben-Ephraim, who had previously resisted labeling Israel’s actions as genocide,cited, in an interview with The Guardian's Owen Jones,mounting evidence of systematic atrocities and internal IDF testimony as one catalyst for his change of heart,a shift now echoed by the growing body of credible,detailed reports from within the Israeli military itself.
  
  
• Imminent International Legal Judgments: Anticipation of rulings from the ICJ and International Criminal Court (ICC), which may formally label Israel’s actions as genocide or crimes against humanity, is forcing Western governments and institutions to reposition themselves. Former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell’s May 9, 2025, statement in The Guardian, accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing, underscores this pressure.
• The Scale of Atrocities: The most recent siege, coupled with deliberate policies of starvation and forced displacement, has made continued denial impossible for many observers, as evidenced by the growing chorus of voices from within Israel and abroad. Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have long documented these war crimes, and their findings are now being echoed by establishment figures and scholars.

The US Stands Firm: A Crackdown Deepens

 

While the global discourse shifts toward accountability, the US under the Trump administration has doubled down on its repression of dissent. Students like Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University lead negotiator in pro-Palestinian protests, were deported—Khalil on March 14, 2025, with the White House tauntingly posting “SHALOM, MAHMOUD” on social media. Rümeysa Öztürk, a Fulbright scholar and Ph.D. student at Tufts University, faced arrest for writing an op-ed criticizing Israel in her school paper. Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University physician and professor with legal status, was deported despite a judge’s order after authorities found images of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on her phone without legal grounds. Universities have also been targeted: Columbia University lost $400 million in federal funds for alleged “deliberate indifference” toward Jewish students since October 7, 2023, as reported by The Guardian on May 23, 2025, despite DOJ concerns over the legality of such investigations. On May 22, Harvard’s SEVP was declared illegal by the DHS, blocking the enrollment of its 7,000 international students, with the DHS justifying the ban as addressing ‘antisemitism’ and ‘pro-terrorist conduct’—a tactic that exemplifies the administration’s equating of legitimate protest with terrorism. A federal judge temporarily blocked the ban on May 23, 2025, prompting a White House spokesperson to mock Harvard for ‘filing frivolous lawsuits’ instead of addressing ‘anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators.’ This response doubled down on the administration’s 'pro-terrorist' student protest groups narrative

 As Jason Stanley noted in The Guardian in March 2025, this crackdown often labels Jewish and non-Jewish protesters alike as “antisemites” or “Hamas supporters,” weaponizing a 2019 executive order—renewed and expanded by Trump on January 30, 2025—to target dissent. The administration’s broader agenda of rooting out “improper ideology” and “DEI” initiatives has further entrenched this repression, showing no signs of abating despite global shifts.

 

Conclusion: The Walls of Denial Are Crumbling

 

As Israeli leaders, scholars, and whistleblowers break their silence, and Western allies and media outlets abandon their previous caution, Israel and the US find themselves increasingly isolated in their categorical rejection of genocide allegations. Inside the US, the Trump administration’s crackdown on dissent—through deportations, arrests, and defunding—stands in stark contrast to the global shift toward accountability, a stance unlikely to change soon given the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC and the ADL, and Trump’s public dismissal of the ICJ as “a joke.” Yet, this growing isolation may erode the US’s moral authority on the global stage, as the world prepares for a historic reckoning—one that will be judged not only in courts of law but in the court of public conscience.

 

Endnotes

1. Monica Marks, X post, May 24, 2025.
   • Translation of Ehud Olmert’s op-ed originally published in Haaretz on May 22, 2025.
2. NPR, "These students protested the Gaza war.Trump's deportation threat didn't silence them," May 21, 2025
3. “Brown University physician deported over Hezbollah images,” PBS News, March 18, 2025

    

4.  

    
5. Shael Ben-Ephraim, interview on The Owen Jones Podcast, Acast, accessed May 24, 2025.
6.  Common Dreams report on BTS Report,Israeli Troops Blow Whistle on War Crimes In Gaza 'Kill Zone,' Common Dreams, April 7, 2025

   
   
7. Breaking The Silence,  The Perimiter: Soldiers Testimonies from the Gaza Buffer Zone: 2023-2024, released April 2025
8.  

   Haaretz, "Breaking The Silence is a Legitimate Outlet for Israeli Whistleblowers," March, 2016
9. Josep Borrell, “Israel committing genocide in Gaza, says EU’s former top diplomat,” The Guardian, May 9, 2025
10. “Palestinian Genocide Accusations,” Wikipedia entry, accessed May 24, 2025.
11. “Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Ban on Harvard Accepting International Students,” The Guardian, May 23, 2025.
    • Includes details on Columbia University’s $400 million funding cut and the Department of Health and Human Services’ citation for “deliberate indifference” toward Jewish students.
12. Jason Stanley, “Trump’s Crackdown on Universities Targets Pro-Palestinian Protesters,” The Guardian, March 2025.
13. “Trump Order Targets Pro-Palestinian Activists to ‘Combat Antisemitism’,” The Guardian, January 30, 2025.
14. “Palestine Legal: Trump’s Executive Order Aims to Punish Protests of Israel’s Genocide in Gaza,” Palestine Legal, February 20, 2025.
15. “Trump Calls ICJ ‘A Joke’ Amid Gaza Genocide Case,” The Times of Israel, January 2025.
16. United Nations, “Gaza Death Toll Surpasses 40,000 Amid Ongoing Conflict,” UN News, accessed May 24, 2025.
    
17. ACLU, "Writing an Op-Ed is Not Ground for Deportation," ACLU News & Commentary, April 14, 2025 
18. Dept. of Homeland Security, "Harvard University Loses Student and Exchange Visitor Program Certification for Pro-Terrorist Conduct, DHS Official Gov't Website, May 22, 2025 
     
    New York Times, 
19. "Brown University Professor is Deported Despite a Judge's Order," NYT, March 16, 2025
    

    
    

    
    
     
     
    

    
    

     

 

Urgent authoritarianism warning!: MAGA attacks the last bits of federal agency independence

CONTEXT

I cannot overstate how powerful and terrifyingly dangerous MAGA’s authoritarian legal strategy is, the UET (Unitary Executive Theory) (explained in this post). The six MAGA judges on the USSC have already relied implicitly on the UET excuse for authoritarianism to inflict enormous damage on the neutrality and professionalism of critically important federal agencies. Now, it looks like the one last major bulwark against a president having the power to politicize, corrupt and weaponize independent federal agencies is going to fall. In this 10-page USSC order, the MAGA judges signal their readiness to seriously expand djt’s power, while taking power from congress. 

Kagan and the three Dem judges dissented. This case will be likely decided in the next USSC term, with a decision probably coming in May or June of 2026.

In terms of bad impacts on American democracy and people’s everyday lives, this one is going to at least equal the horrors that have already flowed from MAGA judges getting rid of national abortion rights. 

The legal doctrine under attack in this case, Trump v. Wilcox, is called Humphrey’s Executor. That legal doctrine came from a major 1935 USSC case that said congress has the power to prevent a president from firing officials from independent regulatory agencies without good cause. 

An analysis

The following analysis assesses (1) the implications of getting rid of Humphrey’s Executor in the Trump v. Wilcox lawsuit, (2) the likelihood of getting rid of it, and (3) what will happen when the new power flows to djt and MAGA’s authoritarian-kleptocratic ideology. 

The demise of the legal doctrine Humphrey’s Executor, is highly likely under this authoritarian USSC. That will concentrate unprecedented power in the presidency. That directly aligns with the MAGA movement’s constitutional vision of an unrestrained president capable of inflicting profound damage to American democracy and civil liberties and protections. Affected federal agencies would be free to simply ignore inconvenient scientific evidence to advance partisan wealth and power agendas at the expense of the public interest. On top of that, congress’s ability to reign in executive branch authoritarianism and kleptocratic impulses would be mostly obliterated.

MAGA goals, e.g., as described like Project 2025, explicitly advocates for dismantling federal agency independence by overturning the Humphrey’s Executor precedent. This goal is explicit, not just implied. The 1935 USSC ruling upheld Congress’s authority to shield independent agencies from partisan subversion, corruption and weaponization. Loss of that shield will apply to 13 independent agencies, the CFPB, NLRB, FTC, SEC, FCC, CPSC, EEOC, MSPB, NCUA, NRC, OSC, NTSB, and NSF. Agency decisions now based on professionalism, expertise, the public interest and the rule of law will be based mostly on political loyalty, regardless of expertise or professionalism, any contrary public interest, or even legality. Project 2025 argues that Humphrey’s Executor violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. MAGA’s authoritarian UET ideology centralizes presidential control over independent agency regulations, labor rights, and consumer protections.

The current Supreme Court MAGA majority has signaled willingness to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have flat out called it “unconstitutional.” That is 3 out of the five votes needed. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh have increasingly deferred to presidential authority, making them another likely two votes. A Pxy analysis indicates that Barrett, apparently a Scalia-style originalist, would also probably vote to get rid of the Humphrey's Executor doctrine because originalist dogma supports the UET, i.e., an unrestrained president. 

So, the Court seems to be ready to fully overturn or at lest seriously limit the precedent by 2026. This would fulfill Project 2025’s goal of eliminating congressional checks on presidential power. That would lead to almost full establishment of an authoritarian UET with djt as the unrestrained president. Only federal courts would be left to stop djt and MAGA elites from widespread tyranny and deep corruption. Congress would be out of the game almost entirely, especially as long as MAGA controls either the House or the Senate.

If this turns out like it looks like it probably will, we will be in deadly serious trouble. No one and nothing will be there to protect consumers, workers, the environment and our civil liberties. We will be at the tender mercies of cruel MAGA elites and unrestrained, equally cruel billionaires and big corporations. In short, we will be royally screwed and powerless. 

John Q. Public

Huh? What just happened?

Rut roh!! Disqus is posting disgusting, revolting, insulting ads on my blog

 I got a shock when I fired up my blog a few minutes ago. Disqus started butting offensive, filthy, disgusting ads at the top of the comments section. The ads are heavy on childish sex and women's breasts. Here's some of the insulting stupidity and moral filth that Disqus put out on my blog:

Breaking news!!!!!! Melana (not Melania) shows

her huge boobs, and so does Sarah P.

I asked about this deep insult from AI, but not Pxy:

Q: How do I stop Disqus from showing ads on my blog?

A: To remove ads from Disqus on your blog, you'll need to upgrade to an ad-free subscription plan. The Basic version of Disqus is ad-supported, and ads are automatically placed on the comment section. You can manage which ad types appear through your Disqus settings, but to completely remove ads, a paid, ad-free plan is necessary.

I posted a sharp query about this at Discuss Disqus. The Disqus bot refused to post it and deleted it. In essence, Disqus told me to fuck off. Disqus said I violated their content guidelines. I checked their guidelines carefully. I violated none of them. 

This blog is hosted by Google under its "Blogger" platform.

Q: Does the Blogger comment platform allow anyone to comment?

A: Blogger's comment platform offers flexible settings that allow blog owners to control who can comment. By default, Blogger permits Anyone to comment, including anonymous users and those using a name/URL without an account.

Q1-2: Is it time for Dissident Politics to remove Disqus comments from my blog and return to Google's original Blogger comment platform where everyone could comment without any restriction? Or should I move to a substack, a Patreon site or some other more resilient, dissident-friendly form of online dissent reasoning and content?**

** For context: The NYT stopped posting most of my comments to NYT articles. I think that started about about two years ago. Recently, they stopped posting all of them. I am banned even at the allegedly open to criticism NYT. Right now, I am banned just about everywhere I still have access to. 

Q3: I take this as more evidence of freedom and free-thinking about hate of djt and cynical, corrupt, authoritarian MAGA and Republican Party politics and lies, but is that nuts, insane, delusional or crackpot? After all both sides do it, so both sides are the same, right?

Q4: Is Germaine about the last of a long line of old-fashioned, pro-democracy, pro-civil liberties and pro-inconvenient fact, truth and sound reasoning dinosaurs? Has my time and ideology have come and gone, assuming they ever existed (which they may never have)?

Q5: Does Germaine over-react to business as usual for most Americans, most of the time, about most things, including their own take-it or leave-it democracy? (after all, showing big boobs is very interesting but big deal, right?)

Another screen shot, proving

this garbage is on my blog

(note upper right)