Category: Uncategorized

by PETER SCHWARZ

Nearly two years of carpet bombing, mass murder and a starvation blockade of the Gaza Strip have turned Israel into a pariah state, despised and hated throughout the world. Nevertheless, the German government stands steadfastly behind the Israeli government, surpassed in this only by the Trump administration.

In the face of growing outrage, Berlin’s official position has shifted slightly. In mid-June, Chancellor Friedrich Merz had attested that the Zionist state was “doing the dirty work for all of us;” now he urges greater humanitarian consideration and will no longer approve weapons for use in Gaza. Yet, in practical terms, nothing has changed. Germany continues to support Israel politically and militarily, opposes all sanctions, and prosecutes opponents of the genocide as alleged “antisemites.”

This is supposedly justified by Germany’s special responsibility for the Holocaust. In 2008, Chancellor Angela Merkel declared Israel’s security to be a German “Staatsräson” (matter of state policy), the same formulation found in the current government’s coalition agreement. Three months ago, in a speech marking the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations, Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier celebrated the “miracle of reconciliation after the civilizational rupture of the Shoah.” At that time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had long been sought on an international arrest warrant for crimes against humanity.

To justify the Israeli army’s war crimes by citing reparations for the Shoah is disgusting and repulsive. Responsibility for the genocide of the Jews does not obligate Germany to support another genocide. Historically, this justification is based on a myth devoid of any factual basis.

The close collaboration between Germany and Israel never had anything to do with “reparations,” atonement for the Shoah, or anything comparable. It was a reciprocal deal: Germany supplied the beleaguered Zionist state with weapons, economic aid and financial assistance; in return, the Israeli government turned a blind eye to the continued presence of Nazi elites in the state and economy of the Federal Republic of Germany and helped it gain international standing.

WSWS for more

by RAYMOND GEUSS

Ancient Roman historians often told the story of how a small, rather undistinguished city-state in central Italy became a huge empire exclusively by fighting defensive wars. At school everyone used to read of how Caesar conquered all of Gallia (Gaul) by doing nothing more than responding with moderation to intolerable provocations by tribelets in what we now call France, Switzerland, Germany and the Low Countries. But for his heroic intervention, Caesar claimed, those tribesmen would soon have been howling and screaming for blood around the sacred pomerium of the City of Rome, 1,500 kilometres away and on the other side of the Alps. Plutarch claims that Caesar killed a million Gauls and enslaved a further million. Even if this is an exaggeration, it is agreed that the scale of the destruction was enormous. How odd that the other side always initiated the war, that they usually suffered the most casualties, and that the conflict usually ended with Rome snipping off another piece of someone else’s territory.

Every pupil used also to read, in Virgil’s Aeneid, the story of a band of defeated wanderers from the ruined city of Troy, who were driven into exile ‘by fate’, but were also promised great things by the god Jupiter: that they would one day become a mighty nation if they returned to their ‘ancient mother’, the homeland from which their ancestors sprang, namely Italy. Virgil recounts the enormous difficulties the exiled Trojans had in establishing themselves in Italy, including the long and bloody war they had to fight against the tribes who were already there.

Is there a contemporary parallel to any of this? Does one come spontaneously to mind?

Since 1948, Israel has conducted wars and military operations against virtually all of its neighbours (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Qatar; have I left any out?), while pursuing a relentless, murderous campaign against the Palestinians. In the midst of all this, those Zionists who also wish to be thought of as liberals are perennially fervent in their calls for a peaceful resolution. Peacefully resolving conflict, through negotiation and discussion, is indeed a laudable liberal virtue, provided, of course, that it is not a Tacitean peace: ‘they devastate the place and call that peace’ (ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant), Tacitus writes, referring to the Romans’ conduct in Britain. Making peace can be very difficult, especially when one side insists on assassinating or imprisoning the adversary’s potential negotiators (see yesterday’s airstrike on the Hamas negotiating team in Qatar, to cite only the most recent instance).

In view of Israel’s track record – and daily conduct – its protestations of peaceful intent and promises to negotiate in good faith ring hollow. Netanyahu and his supporters claim that they want a peace which could be immediately realised if Hamas released its hostages, but also state that they fully intend to fight on even if the hostages are released. Netanyahu and the other hardline Zionists in his cabinet argue: ‘They attacked us first, so we have a right to do whatever we want. We propose to take as much land as we can by force, and just you try to stop us.’ On the softer end of the Zionist spectrum, liberal Zionists reiterate the usual claims that Israel is concerned only with peace and security in the region: ‘Why do they always threaten us? Why won’t they ever give us the peace and security which is all we really want?’ The ‘security’ which former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, appearing on Piers Morgan Uncensored last week, said he wants Israelis to enjoy means in the first instance unchallenged occupation of land, most of which was appropriated, mostly very violently, from Palestinians within human memory, and which he, naturally, proposes to keep. Bennett went on to appeal to Hamas to surrender and disarm voluntarily, and to place its trust in Israel to end the war. Imagine Lucius Gellius or Marcus Crassus making a similar offer to Spartacus. Can we imagine Spartacus accepting it?

As far as the prospects for the future are concerned, hardline Zionists want a Greater Israel (maximally from the Nile to the Euphrates), while many liberal Zionists still nominally support a two-state solution. Thus the Israeli historian Fania Oz-Salzberger, a commentator with impeccable liberal Zionist credentials, wrote in the Financial Times recently, ‘We need Israel and Palestine to share the land, either by partition or by a creative confederate structure enabling sovereignty and self-rule for both nations. Israel must be democratic, peaceful and secure; Palestine at the very least stable and unsupportive of terror.’

SideC Car – New Left Review for more

by JAWED NAQVI

By habit, the choreographed Indian crowd began to chant “Modi Modi” at an event for the Indian prime minister’s two-day visit to China. The Chinese hosts, on the other hand, greeted him with a knowledgeable display of Indian classical music, something Indians would struggle to reciprocate if it ever came to that. There’s a trade deficit, and there’s evidently a cultural deficit too. Three sari-clad Chinese women performed Vande Mataram, an Indian nationalist favourite, in Rag Desh on the sitar and santoor as the third kept rhythm on the tabla. But there are more urgent reasons than China’s showcasing its soft power to woo a pro-America Narendra Modi, on an emotional rebound, to make a compelling case for BRICS. Dumping the Western capitalist model that has spawned wars and exploitative sanctions is a need that preceded the dismantling of the USSR.

Western perfidy targets friend and foe alike if business interests clash. The malaise is older than Donald Trump. Among my early observations in this regard was the West’s betrayal of Kuwait before Saddam Hussein was hustled into completing the job. The story goes back to the 1987 stock market crash when the Thatcher government was in the process of selling its remaining 31.5 per cent stake in BP. The crash threatened to derail this massive sale, potentially costing the treasury billions. The Kuwait Investment Office, the investment arm of the Kuwaiti sovereign wealth fund, stepped in to bail out the UK. It began purchasing BP shares on the open market. Initially, the UK government was pleased. The KIO’s buying provided crucial support to the BP share price, helping to ensure the success of the government’s own share sale. In a short time, the KIO had acquired a 21.6pc stake in BP, making it by far the largest shareholder. The UK government’s stake was now zero.

Suddenly, Margaret Thatcher’s government was uncomfortable with a controlling stake being held by a foreign government, even a friendly one. A 21.6pc stake gave Kuwait significant power and the idea of a major British icon falling under effective control of an OPEC member state was politically toxic, even for a pro-market government like Thatcher’s.

India has 800m on food dole, signalling the contradiction between its right-wing government shored up by big money and people’s priorities.

Thatcher formally instructed the KIO to reduce its holding. They were ordered to sell down their stake to no more than 9.9pc. The government made it clear that if Kuwait did not comply voluntarily, it would use its legal and regulatory powers to force the issue, potentially damaging diplomatic relations and Kuwait’s other investments in the UK. Kuwait, a close ally that relied on Western protection, ultimately complied to maintain good relations.

Dawn for more

by LILI YAN ING

The protests currently sweeping Indonesia are not fleeting outbursts, but rather the culmination of long-suppressed grievances over abuses of power.

Less than 11 months into his term, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto faces a stark choice. He can be remembered either as a leader whose presidency was defined by public anger and discontent, or as one who recognised the challenges facing his country and acted in the national interest.

The anti-government protests sweeping Indonesia over the past two weeks are not fleeting outbursts but the culmination of long-suppressed grievances against abuses of power, the erosion of constitutional norms, and the violation of basic human rights. The protesters are not seeking an apology or even sympathy from the president; they demand the chance to live a decent life in which their dignity and human rights are respected and upheld.

Prabowo’s administration has set its sights on making the country the world’s fourth-largest economy by 2045 – a goal that would require sustained annual growth of 8%. But with 68% of Indonesia’s population living below the poverty line for upper-middle-income countries, such ambitions mean little if millions of citizens remain trapped in poverty and hardship.

Indonesians have experienced rapid growth before, most notably during the long dictatorship of Suharto (1967-98), Prabowo’s former father-in-law. Given that history, they know that lasting and inclusive development gains depend on political and social reform, not strongman rule.

New Arab for more

by JACOB SILVERMAN

Last month, on the Daily Beast podcast, journalists Joanna Coles and Michael Wolff took turns reeling off a list of famous people who Wolff met while visiting Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan home. The recited names were a who’s who of rich, powerful, and perverted men, many of them recognized Friends of Jeffrey. But one name stood out as unusual: the Dalai Lama. (The list of names starts at about the 18:25 timestamp on the full recording.)

Coles thought so too, asking Wolff, “Did you actually meet the Dalai Lama at Jeffrey Epstein’s?”

“Indeed,” said Wolff.

Asked why the Dalai Lama was there, Wolff said that a lot of people hung out with Epstein to try to wheedle money out of him. And there was something compelling about the upscale salon-like scene: “It was always extraordinary,” said Wolff.

Wolff said that he started spending time at Epstein’s house in 2014, six years after the infamous pedophile was given an extremely favorable plea deal for sex crimes charges because, former U.S. district attorney Alex Acosta once said, “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.” Wolff was working on a potential book about Epstein and was given access to the now-deceased sex offender’s wealthy social milieu. Epstein later became an important source for Wolff’s best-selling books about President Donald Trump.

Any writing about Michael Wolff seems to require the proviso that his reliability has been questioned by assorted enemies and media critics. Wolff is a gossip hound, practicing the art at a very high level, and he hangs out with unsavory politicians and oligarchs who might like the idea of having a famous journalist around — until he publishes a book about them. Wolff gets into marble-floored rooms that many journalists don’t, so his comments are worth considering.

With that throat-clearing aside, let’s consider why His Holiness the Dalai Lama may have been at now-deceased sex trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s house. People generally hung out with Epstein for two reasons: sex and money. Wolff suggested that, in this case, it was the latter. Did the Dalai Lama, or an organization with which he’s associated, receive a donation from Epstein?

The Dalai Lama’s press office did not respond to an emailed list of questions. I was unable to reach Michael Wolff for comment about the Dalai Lama’s visit to Epstein’s home.

It wouldn’t be the first time the Dalai Lama had received money from a sex trafficker. In 2009, the Tibetan spiritual leader spoke at an event for NXIVM, the abusive sex cult whose leader, Keith Raniere, was convicted in 2019 on seven criminal charges and sentenced to 120 years in prison. During the 2009 appearance, the Dalai Lama gave a speech and placed a ceremonial Tibetan scarf on Reniere’s shoulders. For his efforts, the Dalai Lama reportedly received $1 million. The deal was made by billionaire heiress Sara Bronfman, who, along with her sister Clare, gave Raniere and NXIVM at least $150 million. Sara Bronfman was alleged to be having an affair with the Lama’s personal peace emissary Lama Tenzin Dhonden, who was later removed from his post for corruption.

Counterpunch for more

by HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

It used to be that the annual Conservative Political Action Conference was the gathering where all the right-wing activists and conservative intellectuals would meet to compare notes and get on the same page. A raucous affair with lots of snarky panels and right-wing celebrities, CPAC also featured serious speeches and presentations by conservative politicians, writers and thinkers. While the conference still exists, it’s no longer the only game in town.

Turning Point USA, founded by the late Charlie Kirk, has attracted the entertaining activist types, while the more staid National Conservatism Conference brings together the more serious thinkers. Held last week in Washington, D.C., NatCon featured speakers and panels that plotted an even more conservative future that was downright chilling.

“Overturn Obergefell” was one featured panel, the AP’s Joey Cappelletti reported. “The Bible and American Renewal” was another. The conference, he wrote, “underscored the movement’s vision of an America rooted in limited immigration, Christian identity and the preservation of what speakers called the nation’s traditional culture” — which is putting it very mildly. It certainly doesn’t seem there was much talk of individual freedom, free markets or liberty of any kind, and that is a big change from the conservative movement that has dominated Republican politics since the Reagan administration.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Director Office of Management and Budget (and lead Project 2025 author) Russell Vought, border czar Tom Homan and disbarred attorney John Eastman — who helped to plot a radical strategy to keep President Donald Trump in office after the 2020 election —  were among those in attendance, representing some of MAGA’s most extreme policy leaders.

As Congress wakes up from its self-imposed slumber to face the prospect of yet another government shutdown showdown, what Vought said has particular salience. He “declared that the Government Accountability Office ‘shouldn’t exist’ after it said his latest effort to claw back funds already approved by Congress is illegal,” according to Cappelletti. “On the broader push for the rollback of appropriated funds, or rescissions, he said, ‘If Congress has given us authority that is too broad, then we’re going to use that authority aggressively to protect the American people.’”

There’s lots of paternalistic Daddy talk these days that centers on the need to “protect the American people.” (Some corners of MAGA have even taken to calling Trump “Daddy.”) But Vought’s underlying message showcased a more aggressive Daddy. According to most reports, his underlying message was reflected in a reckless refrain heard throughout the conference: “You can just do things!”

Salon for more

by SUSI MARESCA

The Andean salt flats are known to hold the clues to the origins of life on our planet. They also contain an increasingly coveted, silver coloured alkaline metal: lithium.

Indigenous communities have built a life around salt in Argentina’s Jujuy province for at least 40,000 years. They’ve been steadfast in their resistance against the advances of mining interests that threaten all that surrounds them. 

Salinas Grandes is a high-altitude basin spanning the Argentine provinces of Jujuy and Salta. Renowned for its beauty, it is one of the largest salt fields in Latin America 

It belongs to what corporations and governments call “the lithium triangle,” which spans Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile and holds over half of the world’s lithium reserves.

“Salt is valuable, it’s a natural resource and we conserve and protect it,” said Julia Cañari, the head of the Pozo Colorado Aboriginal Community, one of the communities near Salinas Grandes, while she makes soup in her kitchen. “It’s our community’s source of work.”

While companies present lithium extraction as a technical process, communities experience it as a tangible loss and, in Salinas Grandes, an existential threat.

Salinas Grandes is an endorheic basin where salt fields and freshwater reserves are interconnected, as the water doesn’t drain to the sea. Lithium mining threatens the freshwater deposits, which are crucial to survival in the otherwise arid climate.

“We don’t talk about lithium, we talk about water,” Cañari said.

Ojala for more

BRUSSELS MORNING EDITORIAL TEAM

Germany has supported Israel during the conflict in Gaza and has cracked down on the Palestine solidarity movement more actively than many other countries. These days, it is difficult to have a pro-Palestine protest in Berlin or anywhere else in Germany without being attacked by the police, threatened by the government, and accused of being anti-Semitic by the media. In April, hundreds of police officers shocked the Palestine Assembly, a popular pro-Palestine event in Berlin. British Palestinian Glasgow University rector Ghassan Abu Sitta was deported back to the United Kingdom after being denied entry into Germany to attend the conference. 

Subsequently, he was even banned from moving anywhere in the Schengen area. Abu Sitta, a surgeon who has been volunteering in various Gazan hospitals since last year, intended to give a lecture about the terrible state of the Strip’s healthcare system as a result of Israeli attacks. A German court later revoked the ban. Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, was also barred from entering Germany and was not allowed to attend the congress over a video link.

History of Germany with Israel

Germany began making reparations to the state of Israel in 1953, not to specific Holocaust survivors, but in the form of industrial items, notably weapons. At the time, the Western bloc, including Germany, was focused on countering the influence of the Soviet Union. As Germany joined NATO in 1955 and was incorporated into Western military alliances, de-Nazification was quietly forgotten. Instead of the original goal of eradicating the genocidal mentality that led to the Holocaust, an unqualified support of Israel was adopted. Germany views Israel as its “raison d’état.” 

This rejection of de-Nazification turned the Nazi Holocaust from a result of the Weimar Republic’s social and economic crises in Germany into an unexplainable, ahistorical anomaly that had no origins in the national consciousness of the German people. It prioritized Hitler and the Nazis’ ascent over politics and class.

Germany has committed genocide before the Holocaust. General Lothar von Trotha’s German army massacred 80% of the Herero and 50% of the Nama peoples in Southwest Africa between 1904 and 1907. Most of the thousands who were herded into concentration camps perished there.

Hermann Goring, Hitler’s deputy, was the son of Heinrich Goring, the colony’s imperial administrator. After performing horrific experiments on the prisoners and sending their severed heads back to Germany, Eugen Fischer, a German professor of medicine, anthropology, and eugenics, trained the Nazi SS physicians, notably Josef Mengele, the leading SS physician at Auschwitz.

Why does Germany support Israel?

Germany is fighting anti-Semitism and defending Jewish rights by not stifling pro-Palestinian opinions. This is evident not only in the speech’s content but also in Germany’s treatment of anti-Zionist Jews who advocate for Palestinian rights. For instance, Iris Hefets, a German-Israeli psychologist in Berlin, was detained on anti-Semitic allegations in October. Walking by herself while holding a poster that said, “As an Israeli and as a Jew, stop the genocide in Gaza,” was her only “crime.”

In the same month, over a hundred German-Jewish writers, artists, academics, journalists, and cultural workers released an open letter denouncing Germany’s suppression of pro-Palestinian speech and charges of anti-Semitism against anyone who criticizes Israel’s actions, including Jews like them. The dominant climate of racism and xenophobia in Germany, coupled with a restrictive and paternalistic philo-Semitism, is what worries us. It specifically opposes the association of criticism of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism.

International and legal perspectives on Germany’s support

After World War II, a de-Nazification process was required before the German state could be reintegrated into the international community. But this procedure was quickly dropped. The Cold War took its place. By giving the newly established “Jewish state,” the Western military outpost in Palestine, unrestricted and unconditional support, Germany atoned for its sins against Jews, but not against the Roma. It would have been incompatible with the necessity to combat the Soviet Union to eradicate the political institutions that gave rise to the Nazis, namely imperialism and the German military-industrial complex.

Brussels Morning for more

by JINOY JOSE P.

Dear reader,

This morning Frontline hosted a webinar on Nepal’s “GenZ Uprising”. While preparing and researching for it, this image given above stopped me in my tracks.

Shot in Kathmandu on September 9, it shows a street thick with smoke and energy. At the centre: a man in a bright blue uniform shirt, face hidden by a red Spider-Man mask, fingers cocked in the superhero’s web-shooting pose. His shirt bears an insignia hinting at a security or traffic role. Beside him, a grinning youth in a sailor-style cap draped in Nepal’s flag. Motorcyclists crowd the lower frame, helmets glinting as they weave through the protesters; one bike is dressed up with garlands and stickers. Behind them, a throng of young men raise phones and planks, their faces alive with fury or delight.

Above it all, the Federal Parliament looms, half-veiled by black smoke from nearby fires. The photo catches a collision of carnival and crisis—comic masks and nationalist symbols clashing with real rage and the scent of state collapse.

On TV and the web, the videos were louder. Young voices echoed through Kathmandu: “KP Chor, Desh Chhod” (KP thief, leave the country), they chanted as smoke billowed from the parliament building and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s residence burned.

If you’ve followed the news, you know the story. What began as peaceful protests against a social media ban turned into an uprising after 19 young people were shot dead by security forces. With youth unemployment at 20.8 per cent and politicians’ children flaunting designer lives on the very platforms their parents banned, Nepal’s Gen Z took matters into their own hands. The protests snowballed into a larger political crisis that might have repercussions for entire South Asia.

The images scream of democracy’s eternal tension: the gap between promise and delivery, between those who govern and those who must suffer “governance”. Some dismiss these as “woke” tantrums; some call it Nepal’s Jasmine Revolution. Whether one agrees or not, this is democracy in action—in all its messy, uncertain, chaotic, yet oddly beautiful form.

When the webinar—hosted by Nirupama Subramanian, who spoke with the senior journalist R.K. Radhakrishnan and the Kathmandu-based policy expert Akhilesh Upadhya—ended, I stepped out for tea. At the stall, I ran into two strangers arguing about a dilapidated bridge nearby, meant to have been rebuilt years ago. One man sighed: “If this were in the Gulf, it’d be done in a week. Roads come up overnight there.” The older man, perhaps in his 60s, set down his samosa. “My friend,” he said with measured patience, “I know that system. I lived it. Things get done overnight, yes. But have you thought of the price? That price is freedom. That region will take decades to reach what we achieved in 1947.”

His companion, in crisp Malayalam, countered like a WhatsApp forward: “But our systems are corrupt, chaotic, tilted toward wealth and power.” The elder man breathed deep and said. “That’s democracy’s beauty, don’t you think? You see the flaws, debate in the streets, curse leaders, burn effigies, vote them out. Just like in Nepal [he was watching the news on his mobile; he gestured towards the device]. Try that in the Gulf, you’ll see!” He caught my eye with a knowing smile. His friend fell silent, tea cooling in his hand.

Nepal’s protesters, like that elder man, grasp democracy’s essential truth: inequalities and anomalies can only be challenged in free societies. Yes, democracy moves slowly. It frustrates. It disappoints. But nothing replaces it. Not monarchy, not anarchy. Across the world, the lesson bears repeating, especially now in India, where the seduction of authoritarian “efficiency” is growing.

Democracy is young. Universal suffrage—the very heart of it—is barely a century old. Switzerland gave women the vote only in 1971. Saudi Arabia (still not a democracy) in 2015 [actually 2025]. Today, just over 20 per cent of the world’s population lives in fully free societies. The Yale historian Timothy Snyder reminds us in On Tyranny that Europe’s young democracies actually collapsed into fascism within two decades of birth. The American republic lasted longer, but even it needed a civil war to reckon with slavery. India, against predictions, has been one of democracy’s brightest experiments.

Frontline for more

by MAX BLUMENTHAL

A month before Charlie Kirk’s killing, billionaire pro-Israel moneyman Bill Ackman arranged an intervention in the Hamptons during which sources say he and others “hammered” Kirk for the conservative leader’s growing criticism of Israeli influence in Washington. Kirk came away fretting about Israeli “blackmail,” sources say, as he began attending Catholic mass.

Update: After The Grayzone exposed the covert Hamptons influencer summit, and podcaster Candace Owens provided additional details about the event, Bill Ackman released a lengthy statement declaring, “at no time have I ever threatened Charlie Kirk, Turning Point or anyone associated with him. I have never blackmailed anyone, let alone Charlie Kirk. I have never offered Charlie or Turning Point any money in an attempt to influence Charlie’s opinion on anything.”

One of the influencers who participated in the Hamptons gathering, and was junketed to Israel an all-expenses-paid propaganda tour soon after, Xaviaer DuRousseau, released his own statement recalling how Charlie Kirk complained about “moral blackmail” during an argument over Israel at the closed-door event.

On September 11, one day after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, billionaire pro-Israel moneyman Bill Ackman took to Twitter/X to trumpet his relationship with the late conservative operative. “I feel incredibly privileged to have spent a day and shared a meal with @charliekirk11 this summer. He was a giant of a man.”

The Grayzone has spoken to five people with intimate knowledge of Kirk’s meeting with Ackman, which was held in early August. According to one source, Kirk was left upset after the gathering turned into an “intervention” where he was “hammered” for his increasingly skeptical views on the US special relationship with Israel, and for platforming prominent conservative critics of Israel at his TPUSA events. 

Since publishing this report, The Grayzone has learned from one attendee of the Hamptons event that Ackman convened the influencers under the auspices of a discussion about Zohran Mamdani and the supposed threat he posed to the West if elected mayor of New York. But the meeting went off the rails when Ackman personally confronted Kirk about his views on Israel. The public face of UK Lawyers for Israel, Natasha Hausdorff, joined in the argument, and began “screaming” at Kirk, according to the attendee.

When his hosts presented him with a detailed list of every offense he supposedly committed against Israel, Kirk was “horrified,” said one person. Ackman also allegedly demanded Kirk rescind his invitation for Tucker Carlson to speak at his upcoming America Fest 2025 in December. 

“The whole thing was a disaster,” said an attendee.

The Grayzone reported on September 12, citing a longtime associate of Kirk, that Netanyahu had offered to organize a massive infusion of pro-Israel money into TPUSA, and that Kirk refused. Another longtime friend of Kirk has told The Grayzone that the conservative activist also rejected an offer Netanyahu delivered two weeks before his death to meet with him in Jerusalem.

Kirk, according to one person with inside knowledge of the meeting with Ackman, said he left feeling as though he’d been subjected to “blackmail.”

In a series of text messages with The Grayzone, Ackman described these account of his meeting with Kirk as “totally false.” He pledged to release a public statement providing his own account of the event, but refused The Grayzone’s request for clarification or further details. He would not accept phone calls from this reporter.

“I think I can easily put this to bed,” Ackman promised, “I have receipts as they say.” He did not abide when asked to provide the so-called “receipts.”

In an apparent bid to reinforce the pro-Israel tone at the Hamptons meeting, Ackman hosted a coterie of pro-Israel operatives and conservative influencers at the off-the-record engagement. One was Instagram influencer Xaviaer DuRousseau of Prager U.

Reached by phone by The Grayzone, DuRousseau sounded flustered when asked about his presence at the meeting. He repeatedly demanded to know how this reporter obtained his number, and eventually hung up, refusing to answer questions about the event. 

Several Instagram posts by DuRousseau show him and his friend, conservative influencer Emily Wilson, in the Hamptons on August 8 outside Topping Rose House, a posh hotel and restaurant in Bridgehampton, New York.

The Gray Zone for more