It was a historic day for health sovereignty for American citizens. On January 22, 2026, the White House released Executive Order #14155, which formally withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization. While this decision was made a year ago, the terms of membership required a one-year waiting period to exit the organization. Health Freedom Defense Fund voices its full support of this steadfast move, and hopes that it will be a durable one. The WHO was and remains the world’s top supporter of one-size-fits-all medicine, and it facilitated and legitimized most of the excesses and crimes of the “pandemic” era.

The WHO constitution, written in 1948, was an optimistic and exceptionally naive document that was full of flowery language and vague mandates. In theory, cooperation is always nice, but in practice, the details and results are what matters. And if the cost of this arrangement was loss of sovereignty over our own health decisions, billions of dollars in funding, and a continuation of a paternalistic attitude toward individual choices and local control, no trade off could be worth it.

For eight decades after the Second World War, the WHO consulted UN member states on health matters and policy, issued medical guidelines, hosted working groups, and held opulent galas to celebrate their own achievements. Privileges and immunities, both legal and social, were showered upon its officials. Despite admitting doing no actual “implementation” of health programs, the WHO was quick to dubiously note its own impact through its various meetings and declarations, all to justify its existence, and to extend its reach and budget. Over that time period, the United States was by far its largest donor, and certainly in turn used the WHO for its own purposes of maintaining easy financial support for favored regimes abroad. It did this while dictating other country’s policies to benefit American pharmaceutical and diagnostic corporations’ bottom line.

Until very recently, the WHO served as a lead technical advisor to huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer money going around the world through USAID, PEPFAR, The Global Fund, and other mechanisms. So instead of U.S. citizens and their elected representatives deciding how health and development assistance money should have been spent, the WHO was inappropriately and secretly advising how and when American taxpayer money should be spent. In so doing, it not only interfered with our representative republic, but also enriched themselves via American generosity with exorbitant tax-free salaries, diplomatic immunity, and insufferable arrogance.

More importantly, in so doing, the WHO decided the fates of billions of people by its arbitrary, unaccountable guidelines and recommendations. Even if we are to believe the lofty goals of the WHO were genuine, and if we believed the fantastic claims of effectiveness of a given drug or intervention, the WHO often stood in the way of poor people receiving the same access to care as those in rich countries, in effect “kicking away the ladder” so poor people couldn’t access the very care available in richer countries.

As an example, the WHO excluded horrific ailments like childhood tuberculosis, from the official treatment guidelines, so member states for decades never received funding to treat children for the ailment under the utilitarian justification that “it is necessary to make the best possible use of limited resources”[1]. So even by its own terms, it was a shameful failure that stood in the way of countries making their own decisions for decades. And so, it remains.

Ultimately, in practice, the WHO attempted to continue a legacy of colonial control that eventually started to also include control over rich countries through its Covid-19 guidelines and arbitrary measures like social distancing and masking. Even newer instruments like the Pandemic Treaty would have eviscerated the sovereignty of all member states to make their own decisions in health emergencies. Thankfully, for now, the country is safe from this meddling by foreign bureaucrats.

With this announcement, one less country, and one huge donor, will no longer be involved in this scheme. With the departure of the United States, the top donors will be Bill Gates’ “philanthropic” organizations like The Gates Foundation and GAVI, with China leading the way as a state donor. HFDF sincerely hopes that countries around the world consider these facts before giving money to the WHO, listening to its advice, or assuming it has their best interests in mind.

[…]

Via https://healthfreedomdefense.org/a-historic-win-the-us-exits-the-world-health-organization/

Episode 23: End of Persian Empire 333-323

The Persian Empire

Dr John W I Lee (2012)

Film Review

The armies of Darius III and Alexander met for the first time in 333 BC at the Battle of Issus (in modern Turkey near the border with Syria). Darius had approximately 50,000 men (mainly Greek mercenaries and Persian archers) and Alexander 37,000. Despite their smaller numbers, the latter had far more training and experience. The vast majority of Darius’ army had never seen battle.

The Persian emperor fled the battlefield after his guard was killed, allowing Alexander to capture his mother, wife and daughter, which the latter treated with great respect. When Darius wrote Alexander requesting his family’s return. Alexander made reference to the emperor’s illegal seizure of the Persian throne.

Following his victory at Issus, Alexander laid siege (with his siege engines) to Tyre and Gaza. After laying waste to both cities, he headed south to Egypt, where most cities surrendered voluntarily.

Darius meanwhile built up a force of 100,000 men from the eastern empire. This included armored cavalry from Bactria and and 15 elephants from India. Alexander marched north to confront him at Gaugamela north of Babylon in 331 BC. With fewer troops (40,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry), he deployed his pike holders in a moving hollow square so he couldn’t be outflanked.

Darius fled after the Persian center collapsed and escaped to Ecbatana in Medea. Proclaiming himself great king of the Persian empire, he headed for Babylon to “liberate” the Babylonians from Persian oppression.

Seizing the city’s massive treasury of gold and silver, he appointed the Persian Mazeus as satrap of Babylonia and ordered the money spent on public works and infrastructure to stimulate the Babylonian economy.

Pushing on to Persepolis and Pasargardae, Alexander experienced strong resistance that killed many of his troops. However without clear leadership, the Persian forces had no hope of prevailing. After looting the immense stores of silver and gold in Persepolis, Alexander set fire to the palaces and burnt much of the city to the ground.

Darius had planned to make a stand at Ecbatana, but found none of the nobles there regarded him as the legitimate king. So he took a few thousand troops and headed for Bactria, seeking support from nomadic steppes warriors. When he decided to surrender to Alexander in 330 BC, the nobles accompanying him put him in golden chains and left him by the roadside to die. Alexander sent the body to his mother in Susa, who buried him and stabbed herself to death. Bessus, the Persian satrap of Bactria, declared himself Artaxerxes the V and unsuccessfully tried to mobilize opposition to Alexander.

Between 330-327 BC Alexander, who adopted Persian dress and married both Darius’s oldest daughter and Artaxerxes IV’s sister, suppressed numerous revolts in the eastern empire. However the letter never came under Macedonian control.

Between 327-25 BC he led his troops to the Indus valley, when they refused to go any further. He returned to Susa to assume his full time role as Persia’s new king. He died under mysterious circumstances in 323 BC.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/15372393/15372454

Dmitry Orlov

Since I mostly publish in English and in French, most of you, my readers, find yourselves living in North America or in Europe. And since I happen to be Russian, my attitude is pro-Russian — as you would expect, as you would cats to be pro-cat and dogs to be pro-dog. This is potentially a problem for you, my dear readers, since in the countries in which you find yourselves being pro-Russian is a crime. Hence, my call for caution.

I take it as axiomatic that Europe and the US are being run by genocidal maniacs who are hell-bent on killing as many Russians as possible, be they Russian Russians or Ukrainian Russians. The difference between the two is not so much cultural, religious or linguistic as it is ethical and moral. My distinctly Russian attitude is that Ukrainians are Russians who have lost their way. Russia had also lost its way, albeit briefly, and in this we have done a great disservice to the Ukrainians, causing them to once again succumb to the siren call of the west.

In any case, the Genocidal Maniacs of the West, who have been hell-bent on killing as many Russians as possible for 830 years (ever since Pope Celestine III’s call for the Northern Crusades in 1195) have taken advantage of this situation and, overcome by their centuries-old bloodlust, have funneled huge quantities of money and weapons to the losing side (the Ukrainians, that is), resulting in at least a million deaths, most of them on the Ukrainian side.

In perpetuating the fiction that this is some sort of “just war,” the Genocidal Maniacs of the West no longer feel restrained by any legal requirements or strictures. To them, anybody who is active socially or on the internet (which are the same thing at this point) and who is pro-Russian is automatically a criminal. So, here’s the choice: either you stay in North America or in Europe, or you can be pro-Russian. (Conversely, if you are in Russia and are anti-Russian, you can easily find yourself labeled as a foreign agent and face certain unpleasant consequences.) There is a war going on, you know. “The first casualty when war comes is truth,” said Senator Hiram W Johnson.

There are some people who apparently believe themselves to be magic elves to whom no evil can ever befall and who violate this cardinal rule: those who say pro-Russian things while remaining in Europe or the US. Examples include the Swiss military expert Jacques Baud and the former Iraqi arms inspector Scott Ritter, who have suddenly found their bank accounts frozen. And let’s not forget the Chilean/American journalist Gonzalo Lira who was tortured to death in a Ukrainian jail. I am sure that I am failing to mention quite a few other such people, but that is the range of negative experiences one should expect: the lightest sanction one would face is financial, the heaviest getting tortured to death.

Their predicament results from a combination of two root causes:

1. being on the wrong side physically and

2. being on the wrong side publicly

They could have avoided their predicament either by shifting sides or by keeping quiet. Taking their location as a given, the root cause reduces to UNSAFE PUBLICITY.

Some of them attempt to “fix” their problem through even greater unsafe publicity — with the help of YouTube journalists such as Tucker Carlson or judge Napolitano. By the way, some of these YouTube journalists may also turn out to be magic elves — but not all: there is also Nima. He may look like a magic elf but he isn’t one, since he broadcasts from the safety of distinctly pro-Russian Brazil.

Some also attempt to “fix” their problem by applying legal or political pressure — but the problem with this approach is that anybody who comes to the defense of someone who is pro-Russian is also automatically pro-Russian and therefore, axiomatically, a criminal. Therefore, these approaches only enlarge the problem.

The only solution to someone who has gotten into trouble by making pro-Russian statements or expressing pro-Russian sentiments in the public space in Europe or the US is EXPATRIATION. But this is not possible without considerable preparation and planning, so the only viable alternative for most people is keeping their mouths shut.

I know that many people feel that speaking the truth is somehow an impenetrable defense: how can someone accuse you of making statements that are provably true? For them, it is important to understand that concepts such as “truth” no longer apply in Europe or the US. Statements made or opinions expressed in public must fit one of the acceptable, mainstream narratives.

If you are in (no longer great) Britain, same goes for statements or opinions made or expressed in private — the walls have ears and so do the gadgets through which people now communicate. You might still get away with thinking contrary thoughts, but only because the prosecution of thought crimes is still technically challenging.

[…]

Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/a4eb8c02-5acf-472d-868d-a92ac8521191

Jonathan Turley

Yesterday, a curious thing happened in a House Committee. Bill and Hillary Clinton were actually held accountable for flouting the law — at least as a preliminary matter. In the House Oversight Committee, Democrats joined Republicans in approving contempt resolutions against the two political figures after they refused to appear to answer questions about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.

The House panel voted 34-8 to advance the resolution on Bill Clinton to a floor vote. It voted 28-15 to advance a resolution on Hillary Clinton.

As previously discussed, the Clintons adopted a position that was devoid of any cognizable legal defense. It was simple hubris, telling Congress that they did not want to appear to be saying that congressional subpoenas are discretionary for them.

From the Whitewater case to the Lewinsky matter to the email scandal, the Clintons have always escaped accountability for their actions. Courts can find perjury and prosecutors can find classified material without a criminal charge. Evidence can suddenly surface after investigations, or thousands of emails can be destroyed without any repercussions.

After that history, it is little surprise that the Clintons would believe that they, unlike other Americans, can choose whether to comply with a subpoena. After standing in flagrant contempt, the Clintons only reaffirmed the sense of entitlement by offering to allow an interview in New York without a transcript. There would be no “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” moments.

It is a demonstration of our partisan times that the mere fact that Democrats joined in the motion came as a surprise to many. Nine Democrats voted with their GOP colleagues against the Clintons

What is disgraceful are those Democrats who dispensed with any institutional or ethical obligations in opposing the resolution. Here were the eight Democrats who voted to allow the Clintons to disregard lawfully issued subpoenas from the Committee:

Wesley Bell (D., Mo.)

Shontel Brown (D., Oh)

Robert Garcia (D., Cal.)

Ro Khanna (D., Cal.)

Kweisi Mfume (D., Md.)

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.)

Suhas Subramanyam (D., Va.)

James Walkinsaw (D., Va.)

Then there are the two Democrats who voted “present” rather than take responsibility by making an actual decision: Reps. David Min (D., Cal.) and Yassamin Ansari (D., Wash.). That is the “profile of courage” for some members: voting that “I’m here” without taking a position on open contempt for the Committee.

Figures like Ro Khanna have long portrayed themselves as more moderate voices, but appear to be yielding to the far left, including his recent support for the disastrous wealth tax in California. Now he is effectively saying that congressional subpoenas simply do not apply to the Clintons like they would every other American.

The three Democrats who voted to advance the resolution against Hillary Clinton are Lee, Stansbury and Tlaib, according to Politico.

Two Democrats voted “present” for the Bill Clinton contempt resolution: California Rep. David Min and Washington Rep. Yassamin Ansari, while just Min voted “present” on the Hillary Clinton resolution.

This vote was the true test of courage for House members. There has to be something that is not entirely dispensable in the face of political advantage. Even if you disagree with the need for a subpoena, members should be able to support the authority of their colleagues to demand that everyone, even the Clintons, respect such subpoenas.

For a party that runs on fighting the privileged and entitled wealthy class, this vote is comically ironic. They are supporting the claim of the Clintons that they get to decide when they will be subject to legal demands without offering an even remotely plausible legal defenses.

[…]

Via https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/22/democrats-join-republicans-in-voting-the-clintons-in-contempt-of-congress/

By PHILLIP NIETO, US POLITICAL REPORTER

 22 January 2026

The report surfaced online by an X account claiming that the sonic weapon caused Venezuelan soldiers to vomit blood. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared the testimony via X earlier this month.

Leavitt’s account on X shared an interview with an unnamed security guard who claimed to be working the night the US struck Venezuela and took Maduro on drug trafficking charges.

The interview saw the security guard reveal the terrifying capabilities of the mysterious new US military weapon, which he described as a ‘very intense sound wave’ that disabled Venezuelan forces.

Mike Netter, the vice chairman of Rebuild California, first shared in the days after the attack in an X post that received over 15 million views in a day, and he said the apparent use of the sonic weapon ‘explains a lot about why the tone across Latin America suddenly changed.’

‘Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside,’ the security guard reportedly said. ‘We all started bleeding from the nose. Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, unable to move.

‘We couldn’t even stand up after that sonic weapon or whatever it was.’

Following reports of the weapons existence, Kremlin officials have demanded that the US provide more information about the sonic device.

Putin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, said his government would begin investigating and obtaining more information regarding Trump’s remarks.

Sonic weapons have been linked to the ‘Havana Syndrome’, a controversial disease which is yet to be formally recognized but has been put forward as an explanation for dozens of anomalous ailments hitting US officials.

The condition was first documented in 2016, after officials said a localized sound wave caused symptoms including headaches, dizziness, nausea, cognitive impairment, memory lapses, balance issues and insomnia.

If the weapon system Trump is referring to is a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), then this device has been used by other countries’ militaries all over the world, including Israel.

An LRAD is a specialized loudspeaker that fires a concentrated beam of sound, rather than spraying noise in all directions like a typical bullhorn.

LRADs are used by military, law enforcement and maritime security for communication, crowd control and defense against pirates.

Capable of reaching up to 3.5 miles for voice, they can also emit excruciating sound at 160 decibels as a deterrent that can cause hearing loss.

[…]

Via https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15484475/Trump-reveals-details-secret-sonic-weapon-used-Venezuela-raid-it.html

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney arrives in Beijing on January 14, 2026. Carney kicked off an official visit to China from Wednesday to Saturday. Photo: VCG

By Liu Xin

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney arrived in Beijing on Wednesday for an official visit to China through Saturday. This marks the first trip to China by a Canadian Prime Minister in eight years.

Some Chinese experts said that Carney’s visit may also mark a pivotal step in efforts to stabilize and repair China-Canada relations. Using Carney’s visit as a starting point to advance consensus and restore economic and trade ties would help further stabilize China-Canada relations, allowing more room for Ottawa to balance its ties with both Washington and Beijing.

“I am headed to Beijing. China is our second-largest trading partner, and the world’s second largest economy,” Carney wrote on X on Tuesday local time. “A pragmatic and constructive relationship between our nations will create greater stability, security, and prosperity on both sides of the Pacific.”

He also posted a photo showing himself waving after stepping onto the aircraft’s boarding stairs, with the plane’s cabin door open behind him.

Upon arrival later on Wednesday, Carney was welcomed at Beijing Capital International Airport by Chinese officials and the Guard of Honor, according to video clips from CCTV.

China attaches high importance to the visit. President Xi Jinping will meet with Prime Minister Carney to provide new strategic guidance for the further improvement and development of bilateral relations. Premier Li Qiang and Chairman Zhao Leji of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress will hold talks and meet with him respectively to have broad-based and in-depth exchanges of views on bilateral relations and issues of mutual interests, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Carney’s pre-departure tweet to China conveyed goodwill and signaled a willingness to build consensus for tangible cooperation. Although China and Canada have maintained constructive engagement in recent months, concrete progress in economic and trade ties has yet to materialize, making the visit an effort to move beyond symbolism toward actionable outcomes, Zhao Xingshu, a deputy director of the Department of Canadian Studies at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

The China-Canada leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of last year’s APEC meeting in Gyeongju, South Korea, sent a positive signal, and Carney’s current visit is both a follow-up to that consensus and a reflection of a growing sense of urgency in Ottawa, Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

That urgency, Lü noted, stems from Canada’s unique strategic predicament. As a North American country, Canada is facing what he described as “unprecedented security pressure from its neighbor,” prompting a reassessment of its relations with major powers and a shift away from the previous government’s one-sided approach. In this context, managing ties with major powers has become an urgent, and in some respects existential strategic task for Canada.

Carney’s visit may also mark a pivotal step in efforts to stabilize and repair China-Canada relations. Whether Canada can seize the opportunity to translate diplomatic goodwill into concrete outcomes through pragmatic cooperation in trade, climate action, and multilateral affairs, will shape not only the future of bilateral ties but also broader stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific, Lü said.

Move toward diversification

Canada announced Carney’s plan to visit China and Switzerland on January 7, and said that Canada’s new government is moving its economy from reliance to resilience by “building our strength at home, working to double our non-US exports, and attracting massive new investment.”

Trade is expected to feature prominently on Carney’s agenda, alongside agriculture and international security. While some Western media have highlighted bilateral frictions, particularly disputes over tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, some Chinese experts said the two sides still have room to resolve differences through sincere dialogue that aligns with their respective interests, rather than following the US approach of imposing unilateral trade pressure.

Lü said that even in areas Canada views as competitive, there is significant room for complementary cooperation with China. For example, Canada’s strength in traditional auto parts could be redirected toward EV components, allowing it to integrate into China’s mature electric vehicle ecosystem as a key supply-chain partner.

While full vehicle manufacturing may not be Canada’s strong suit, deeper participation in the industrial chain would both create opportunities and help ease its dependence on the US market. Overall, cooperation remains the central focus of Carney’s visit, said Lü.

Canadian and other Western media have extensively covered Carney’s visit to China in recent days. A BBC report on Wednesday said that Carney faces a “delicate balancing act” during his China visit. On Wednesday, a report in The New York Times claimed that “Carney…is spending a significant chunk of his time overseas seeking new customers for Canadian goods. China is at the top of his list.”

A report in Canadian media The Globe and Mail on Tuesday noted that Carney’s entourage for the China trip will include five cabinet members, the biggest ministerial delegation that has accompanied Carney on a foreign trip so far. It also claimed that Carney’s trip to China comes with an agenda that would have seemed unlikely before Trump took office – warming up ties with China “to a degree not seen in a decade, plus carving out a bigger role for Beijing in Canada’s economy.”

Also on Tuesday, The Globe and Mail reported that Trump described the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade as “irrelevant,” remarks coming just a day ahead of Carney’s visit to China. The report added that Trump’s comments have unsettled both Canada and Mexico ahead of an expected renegotiation of the continental trade pact later this year.

Canada has come to realize that the Pacific Rim’s pathway to stability is under threat. This reflects not only concern over Canada’s own position, but also deeper anxiety that a vast, tightly interconnected trans-Pacific trade system is being destabilized by US unilateralism, Lü said, noting that with trade protectionism on the rise globally, China and Canada need frank and proactive consultations aimed at delivering concrete outcomes.

Zhao noted that amid China-US strategic competition, managing ties with China has become a key test for Canada. The resumption of the China-Canada diplomatic dialogue reflects Ottawa’s effort to reassess its role within the US alliance framework, as bilateral exchanges enter a phase of recalibration.

If Carney’s visit can anchor cooperation around shared interests and deliver tangible progress in restoring economic and trade ties, it may help steer China-Canada relations back onto a healthy and sustainable path, and support a more balanced relationship with the US, Zhao said.

[…]

Via https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1353230.shtml

U.S. Army personnel, Israeli military personnel and others international officials monitor screens displaying maps and imagery of the Gaza Strip during a media tour inside the Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) on November 20, 2025 in Kiryat Gat, Israel. (Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

Sharif Abdel Kouddous

The U.S.-led Civil-Military Coordination Center is proposing a residential zone in Gaza with biometric surveillance, checkpoints, and educational programs promoting normalization with Israel.

The U.S. military-led group supporting “stabilization efforts” in Gaza has put forward plans for a housing block for Palestinians in Gaza in an area under full Israel military control. According to materials circulated by the Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) and obtained by Drop Site News, the “planned community,” if developed, would contain and control its residents through biometric surveillance, checkpoints, monitoring of purchases, and educational programs promoting normalization with Israel.

The CMCC was established by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on October 17, one week after Hamas and Israel agreed to an exchange of captives and a ceasefire was supposed to go into effect. The center, which is based in a large warehouse-style building in Kiryat Gat in southern Israel and involves dozens of countries and organizations, is supposed to “monitor implementation of the ceasefire” and “help facilitate the flow of humanitarian, logistical, and security assistance from international counterparts into Gaza,” according to CENTCOM.

The CMCC is led by U.S. Army Lieutenant General Patrick D. Frank and includes both U.S. and Israeli military officials along with personnel from dozens of countries, including France, Britain, Germany, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. The CMCC was a key feature of President Trump’s “ceasefire” plan, though it is unclear where exactly it will operate within the new structures being created after Trump announced Phase Two of the plan last week, including the formation of a so-called “Board of Peace” to oversee Gaza with a Founding Executive Board beneath it and a Gaza Executive Board of Palestinian technocrats beneath that.

In November, news first emerged that the Trump administration was planning the construction of a number of residential compounds, dubbed “Alternative Safe Communities” to house Palestinians in Gaza east of the yellow line, an area occupied and controlled by the Israeli military. Analysis of satellite imagery by Forensic Architecture suggests the first of these so-called communities is being prepared on a 1-square-kilometer plot of land in Rafah in southern Gaza at the intersection of two military corridors.

“Plans are rapidly accelerating for what U.S. officials last week cynically referred to as the ‘Gaza first planned community,’ previously known as ‘alternative safe communities,’” Jonathan Whittall, a senior UN official in Palestine between 2022 and 2025 and the executive Director of KEYS Initiative, a political affairs and strategic advisory organization, said after reviewing a transcript of the materials obtained by Drop Site. “This is the next phase in the weaponization of aid.”

Last week, a presentation was given at CMCC headquarters about the “Gaza First Planned Community” that is being built to house up to 25,000 Palestinians.

Palestinians would have to pass through a checkpoint to access the zone. “Residents will be able to enter and exit the neighborhood freely, subject to security checks to prevent the introduction of weapons and hostile elements,” the materials state. “All entering residents will be registered with biometric documentation to enable identification for movement and civil services.”

“The registry will be based on Palestinian ID numbers issued by the authorities in coordination with COGAT,” a reference to the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories—the branch of the Israeli military that oversees Palestinian civilian affairs in the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza—giving the Israeli military even more surveillance control over Palestinians housed in the zone.

CENTCOM directed inquiries from Drop Site about the CMCC’s plans to the White House, who in turn directed inquiries to the State Department. No one provided comment.
Part of the CMCC presentation for a “Gaza First Planned Community” on January 14, 2026.

The presentation does not specify who would be selecting Palestinians to live in the zone, though all security checks for Palestinians in Gaza in the past (for example to be allowed to enter or exit the enclave) have ultimately gone through COGAT. It does, however, provide a set of criteria for deciding which Palestinians should be “invited” to live there:

The population should be based on Palestinian residents invited based on the following criteria:

• Priority is given to residents of the Shaboura and Rafah areas from before the war.
• Intact extended families are preferred to enable mutual aid and prevent friction.
• Essential professionals are required: teachers, medical staff, rescue personnel, community workers, merchants, administrative/municipal staff, and banking/finance professionals.
• All individuals will undergo security vetting to prevent the entry of weapons or Hamas elements.

As for Palestinians who may have lived there or have a legal claim to the land, the presentation notes that “an examination is required regarding potential private rights holders, including mechanisms for registration and compensation.”

The promise of compensation to private land owners is striking in the face of the reality in Gaza after over two years of Israel’s genocidal assault, where most of the housing and civilian infrastructure in the enclave has been reduced to rubble, nearly the entire Palestinian population have been displaced from their homes, and Israeli troops occupy over half of the territory.

The disparity between CMCC’s plans and Israel’s actions on the ground is reportedly leading several European countries to consider reducing their presence at the center or to stop sending personnel altogether, according to Reuters, citing concerns that CMCC has failed to increase the delivery of aid into Gaza.

The proposed residential zone is referred to in the CMCC presentation as “the Emirati compound.” While it is unclear why that name was chosen, the Emirati field hospital, which is funded by the UAE, is nearby in Rafah. The UAE established formal relations with Israel in September 2020, as part of the Abraham Accords brokered by the first Trump administration that included other countries, including Bahrain, Morocco. Since then, the UAE has normalized relations with Israel more than any other Arab country, with robust trade, tourism, and defense cooperation. On Tuesday, the UAE accepted Trump’s invitation to join the “Board of Peace” that will oversee Gaza, becoming one of the first countries to do so.

Part of the CMCC’s proposals regarding schooling in the planned residential zone seem aimed at promoting an Emirati-inspired reeducation program. It states that “Temporary ‘Emergency Studies’ can expedite a curriculum framework to resume classrooms. The curriculum will not be Hamas-based but will follow ‘Culture of Peace’ principles, e,g., modeled after the UAE.” The text of the normalization agreement between the UAE and Israel says both countries will “undertake to foster mutual understanding, respect, co-existence and a culture of peace between their societies.” The UAE embassy in Washington, D.C. did not respond to inquiries from Drop Site.

The CMCC presentation also states that “educational programs can prevent diversion of an uneducated and unoccupied population to misaligned activities.” Despite Israel’s brutal occupation, Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have had one of the highest literacy rates in the world, reaching over 97 percent in 2020, with high rates of enrollment in secondary and higher education.

The plan would also bring economic transactions under Israeli surveillance, replacing Gaza’s largely cash-based economy with “Electronic Shekel wallets” which would be used as “primary modes of commerce as they are secure and mitigate diversion of goods and funds to the Hamas financial channels.”

The CMCC also proposes that “residents should be permitted to import products into the Gaza Strip to facilitate and encourage commerce and economic growth” but that “products would be subject to security restrictions and checks at crossings.” The presentation makes no mention of the fact that Israel, which controls all of the crossings into Gaza, has severely restricted the entry of goods for nearly 20 years.

“This community being established in Rafah will form the blueprint for how Israeli control could be deepened and rolled out further,” Whittall told Drop Site. “After Gaza was razed, starved, and deliberately blockaded over the past years, these ‘new’ communities built on the rubble of peoples homes are not only governance labs to test ultimate control and subjugation, but they are also the reincarnation of refugee camps. They are designed to contain a new generation of dispossessed Palestinians, effectively screened and corralled into shrinking Israeli-controlled zones in exchange for survival. Meanwhile, the so-called ‘red-zones’ remain under assault, increasingly cut off from a humanitarian system that is being deliberately obstructed.”

To enforce the CMCC’s restrictive vision, which would corral selected Palestinians into a zone where Israel and outside forces have complete economic, social, and security control, a police force would be installed that would operate under an international security force. “Civil policing will operate on-site to maintain public order, operating under the ISF,” the presentation states, referring to the International Stabilization Force that has yet to be formed but will be led by Major General Jasper Jeffries, the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Central. The presentation adds, “Security-sector reform requires updated police and civil defense laws, strong oversight and accountability, people-centered security approaches, and measures to prevent radicalization.”

Part of the CMCC presentation for a “Gaza First Planned Community” on January 14, 2026

Text of the Presentation Delivered at the CMCC in Southern Israel on January 14, 2026

Municipality

• The population should be based on Palestinian residents invited based on the following criteria:
  • Priority is given to residents of the Shaboura and Rafah areas from before the war.
  • Intact extended families are preferred to enable mutual aid and prevent friction.
  • Essential professionals are required: teachers, medical staff, rescue personnel, community workers, merchants, administrative/municipal staff, and banking/finance professionals.
  • All individuals will undergo security vetting to prevent the entry of weapons or Hamas elements.
• Residents will be able to enter and exit the neighborhood freely, subject to security checks to prevent the introduction of weapons and hostile elements.
• Initially, a temporary community directorate should be appointed from among the residents. Elections for a neighborhood directorate should be held in the future as the project develops.
• The directorate would facilitate coordination with the relevant authorities for regional services (major infrastructure) and with funding bodies for municipal services.
• The directorate would manage basic municipal services such as water, sanitation, electricity, etc although service payment by residents requires further discussion.
• All entering residents will be registered with biometric documentation to enable identification for movement and civil services.
• The registry will be based on Palestinian ID numbers issued by the authorities in coordination with COGAT.
• Residents needing to travel abroad may use their Palestinian passports. Those who have lost documents or require new ones can process them through the Palestinian Authority (PA) via a local post office branch to be opened on-site.
• Residents can report deaths or births occurring during the war to the PA population registry via the local post office.
• Since the Emirati compound is intended to be on public land, an examination is required regarding potential private rights holders, including mechanisms for registration and compensation.
• The public use of land with private rights requires in-depth discussion with legal entities.
• Donor-funded projects within the community will be coordinated by a supervisory mechanism to ensure funds go directly to local projects since the PA’s Municipal Development and Lending Fund (MDLF) [mechanism cannot] be used.

Economy

• The Israeli Shekel will remain legal tender, as it is in the rest of Gaza and the West Bank.
• Electronic Shekel wallets should be primary modes of commerce as they are secure and mitigate diversion of goods and funds to the Hamas financial channels.
• A Bank of Palestine branch in the community would provide secure and transparent commerce.
• Private sector shops and markets should be prioritized to promote productive economic initiatives.
• Efforts should be made to promote paid employment for the maximum number of residents. Employment will be based on essential professions, public services, and unskilled labor for the public good and managed through an established employment bureau.

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2026/01/21/planned-community-in-rafah-would-force-palestinians-into-israeli-panopticon/