In her debut book—The Othered Woman—Shahed Ezaydi blends sociopolitical analysis, multimedia research, and personal experience to critique white feminism. She explores the phenomenon as a mindset, unchecked ego, and a place of privilege (with race playing second-fiddle). 

Ezaydi’s no-holds-barred approach challenges reductive framings of Islam as the ball-and-chain holding back women. She flips the script, delivering a sobering account of how white saviorism silences Black and Brown voices, and assumes the unelected role of ‘representing’ them— think ‘comic relief,’ colonial Britain, and Priti Patel.

The Othered Woman is sorely needed

In her own words, Ezaydi writes:

It’s a feminism that does not consider the intersectionality of women, ignoring how misogyny intertwines with racism, Islamophobia, and ableism, for example.

Its adherents, she adds, use “representation” to “reinforce existing structures of oppression behind a mask of superficial progress”.

This rigorous study—written with her younger self in mind—reminds readers that Muslim women are not your Cinderella story. Our pain should never justify another person’s congratulatory posturing, especially when it inspires neoliberal policies detrimental to Muslim women and their societal inclusion and employment prospects.

The main charge across Ezaydi’s chapters (mini-essays, as she calls them) is the “box of silence” white feminism imposes on Muslims. Its proponents are unable or unwilling to look past Islam as “the single issue of oppression”. Islam is their boogeyman, the antithesis of ‘girl boss’ or ‘lean-in’ feminism, which overlooks wider and varied structural factors of oppression.

White feminism routinely sidelines Muslim women

Rather than acknowledging the agency of Muslim women, this kind of feminism suggests Muslims can only be ‘saved’ by ditching the hijab, adopting a ‘work-life balance’ lifestyle or embracing ‘pussy power’ slogans (think FEMEN)—while blaming Brown and Black ‘sisters’ for not achieving so-called feminist wins. It tells Muslim women “what their problems are,” instead of passing the mic. In other words, the metrics of Western feminism are skewed: short skirt (check), free flowing hair (check), immodesty (check)—not exactly what panned out in Iraq or Afghanistan whose women were promised unconditional freedom as it never existed.

This isn’t naive nor incidental, as laid out in Chapter 3. White feminism—borrowing from its colonial brethren—villainises Islam to promote itself as the ‘rescuer.’ The author demonstrates how this ideology is embedded in popular culture, where hijabis are either haplessly oppressed, submissively docile, or are would-be-terrorists (think Shamima Begum). Each of these uphold an image of Islam as backwards and uncivilised — precisely the tunnel vision this book tackles head-on.

Ezaydi singles out hit TV series such as Homeland (2012) and Bodyguard (2018) as contemporary examples which flit “between [these] two stereotypes”. Ezaydi views these dangerous portrayals as an extension of colonialism’s ‘civilising’ mindset. Her research uncovered a 1950s French colonial poster addressing Algerian women. It depicts two faces, one with and one without a veil, emblazoned with: “Are you not pretty? Then unveil yourself!” 

It’s evident from the rich body of literature and case materials she relies on that the hubristic underbelly of colonialism is replicated by white feminist crusades. They operate from the same playbook, denying Muslim agency, neglecting their voices, and grand-standing on their struggles for self-gratitude and political point-scoring. It’s the old ‘you need saving’ chestnut. 

Ezaydi’s ability to support her argument with stats, media coverage, and public interviews is a particular strength, adding muscle to her argument. Of particular interest are the TV interviews The Othered Woman discusses, in which Muslim subjects are belittled through aggressive, interrogative interviews that uphold the view of Islam as inferior. In terms of the selection process, Ezaydi told the Canary that her social media algorithm provided ample material evidencing the “otherisation” of muslim subjects.

Saviourism meets bigotry

Ezaydi and I discussed the deeply offensive Women’s Hour interview with Zara Mohammed, the first woman to lead the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Emma Barnett, in her combative signature style, was less interested in shining a light on Mohammed’s leadership success. Instead, Barnett set about berating her guest relentlessly over the question of “how many female imams are there in Britain.” Mohammed answered the question but was interrupted, spoken over, and mocked. Barnett’s intent was clear: reinforcing damaging, prejudicial tropes about Islam. 

Ezaydi explained to the Canary that Barnett—whom she wasn’t so familiar with before this saga— asked questions that weren’t “coming from a willingness to learn” but aimed at “packaging and reinforcing these harmful tropes into your five-minute interview”. It’s a “perfect example,” she said of how white feminism manifests itself in real-life interactions and underwrites the successes of its Muslim counterparts. 

Another striking example of the hostility Muslim guests face appears in chapter 4 of The Othered Woman, recalling a controversial interview between TalkTV host Julia Hartley-Brewer with Palestinian MP, Mustafa Barghouti. Despite repeatedly speaking over her guest, she accused him of exactly that, and ended the conversation (if you can call it that) by saying: “Sorry to have been a woman speaking to you but there you are.”

The inference here is that Barghouti doesn’t know how to address women because, you know, Muslim men act from a place of ‘unique” misogyny—which is the very title of the chapter. By projecting this false image, Hartley-Brewer sought to vilify Barghouti for expressing views she disagreed with.

Minimisation emerges as another tool used by White feminism to maintain superiority, glossing over and reducing the nuanced political views held by Muslims. Hartley-Brewer’s attack on Barghouti—accusing him baselessly of misogyny—serves as another classic example of how white feminists invalidate Muslim women.

White fragility

The most poignant argument at the heart of both the book and white feminism is the proclaimed innocence and fragility of its adherents. Ezaydi sharply critiques this mindset, explaining how it’s rooted in self-perceived innocence—a cornerstone of this feminist brand. Its followers bristle at the slightest criticism of unconscious racism, often responding with familiar defenses like “I have a Muslim friend” or “my partner is of Muslim heritage”. Other times, they tone-police their Brown and Black counterparts—many of us have encountered that one boss who insists on having ‘good intentions’. “It’s that discomfort which festers into fragility and defensiveness in white feminists,” Ezaydi writes.

Speaking about the book’s origin story, Ezaydi told the Canary how she wrestled with the idea of writing a “half narrative memoir, half fiction,” adding:

A memoir wouldn’t have worked. My sole voice wouldn’t have quite worked for the topic. The introduction is quite personal as I want people to relate to me.

Instead, she opted for a nonfiction text in the form of The Othered Woman—academic in tone, yet widely accessible through its concise approach. In doing so, Ezaydi deftly avoids being cast as a token Muslim voice (a role she’s often been thrust into), and instead highlights the scholarly contributions of Muslim thinkers and writers whose work is anything but marginal. It’s clear that Ezaydi has written the book many of us wished we had in our school curricula, libraries, and bookstores. For Muslim women in particular, it serves as a reminder that the two aspects of our identities—faith and feminism—are not at odds with each other. 

Featured image via Pluto Press

Help and support:

1) Building and maintaining muscle

2) Prioritising sleep and recovery

3) Reducing inflammation through lifestyle choices

4) Enjoy life, in moderation

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

 With Holyrood elections just over six weeks away, my latest polling looks at Scottish public opinion towards the SNP government’s record, the parties and leaders, the independence debate, and the issues that will shape the outcome in May. The full report, including thoughts from our focus groups around the country, is here. My commentary on the research for Holyrood magazine is here.

 The SNP government’s record

Offered three statements about the SNP government’s record, just under one in five Scots said they thought it was doing a good job. This included 40 per cent of those who voted SNP in 2021, and only just over half of those intending to back the party at the 2026 election. A further 22 per cent overall, including nearly four in ten likely SNP voters, said the SNP was doing a bad job but was still better than the alternatives. The combined overall total of 41 per cent thinking the government was doing a good job or was better than the alternatives matched the proportion who said the SNP was doing a bad job and they would rather have someone else running the Scottish government.

 Looking in more detail at the SNP government’s record, its best marks overall were for “standing up for Scotland” – a majority of all voters say it has done a good job on this score, including three quarters of 2021 SNP list voters and nearly nine in ten of those intending to vote

for the party this year. On other things, the proportion saying the SNP government had done a good job did not exceed 35 per cent (“making life better for people in Scotland”) and fell to as low as 26 per cent for “honesty and integrity” – though majorities of both 2021 and likely 2026 SNP voters said the Scottish government had performed well on this score.

 Scots said they thought the Westminster Labour government’s record since the 2024 election was bad, by 73 per cent to 15 per cent. Those who had voted Labour in 2024 said it was doing a bad job by 68 per cent to 23 per cent. However, they thought the SNP government’s record in Holyrood since 2007 was bad by a narrower 18-point margin. Nearly two thirds of 2021 SNP list voters said they thought their party had done a good job in government, as did nearly eight in ten of those intending to vote SNP in the regional list vote.

Issues and priorities

 Asked to name the three most important issues facing Scotland at the moment, Scots as a whole chose health and the NHS, the cost of living, and the economy and jobs as their top three priorities. These were followed by immigration, poverty and inequality, housing, education and climate change. However, there were notable differences between political groups. Health and the cost of living topped the list for those intending to vote SNP, Labour, Conservative and Green in the regional list vote. For the first three of these the economy was in third place, but for Greens this spot went to poverty and inequality.

Getting Scottish independence was the fourth biggest priority for those intending to vote SNP, and was named by just under a quarter of likely SNP voters. For Greens, getting independence ranked equal eighth. It was named by 12 per cent of them, on a par with Brexit and welfare, and after health, the cost of living, poverty, climate change, the economy and jobs, housing and immigration.

 Asked what they would have in mind when deciding how to vote in the Holyrood elections, Scots were most likely to choose having a strong voice for Scotland, followed by backing the party they most support or stopping the party they most oppose. Only 26% overall mentioned the record of the SNP government, putting it in fourth place.

Again, however, there were sharp differences between political groups. Two thirds of those intending to vote SNP chose having a strong voice for Scotland, with just over half saying they would be using their vote to try and get an independent Scotland. For Reform, Lib Dem

and Conservative voters, the biggest motivating factor was keeping Scotland in the UK. For Greens, the top two places went to backing the party they most support and stopping the party they most oppose.

Independence

Asked how they would vote if an independence referendum were held tomorrow, respondents said they would vote No by a three-point margin, with 18 per cent saying they didn’t know or would not vote. Including only those giving a voting intention, this gives a result of Yes 48 per cent, No 52 per cent. (This compares to a 12-point margin for No in our previous survey in February 2023).

Among those currently intending to vote SNP in the regional list vote, 84 per cent said they would vote Yes to independence, while 7 per cent would vote No and 8 per cent said they didn’t know. Ninety-four per cent of those intending to vote for the Scottish Conservatives in the regional list vote said they would vote No, as did nearly three quarters of those intending to back Scottish Labour, six in ten of those backing the Scottish Lib Dems and nearly eight in ten of those intending to vote Reform. Those intending to vote Green said they would back independence by a 50-point margin, with 12 per cent saying they didn’t know or wouldn’t vote.

A plurality of Scots thought a referendum tomorrow would result in a No vote on independence, but the reverse was true if a referendum were to be held in five years’ time.

Only a quarter of Scots overall – including only just over half of likely SNP voters – said that pro-independence parties winning a majority of seats in the May election should be taken as a mandate for another independence referendum. More than six in ten agreed with the alternative proposition that someone cannot be assumed to support independence just because they support a particular party. Those intending to vote Green chose the second statement by a four-point margin.

Parties and leaders

When we asked how favourable or otherwise people felt towards various politicians, Nicola Sturgeon emerged with the most positive score (but also one of the highest negatives). Nigel Farage had a higher favourable score than Keir Starmer, but their net scores (favourable minus unfavourable) were the same.

 Comparing these favourability ratings with the figures above, we can see that Anas Sarwar, Zack Polanski, Ed Davey and Kemi Badenoch are more popular (or less unpopular) than their respective parties. While same is also true of Gillian Mackay, Alex Cole-Hamilton and Russell Findlay, this owes more to their relatively low recognition figures than to high favourability scores.

A majority of Scots said they saw Nicola Sturgeon as a liability rather than an asset to her party. Likely Green voters were also more likely to see her as a liability. However, SNP voters themselves were more likely to take the opposite view: those intending to back the party in the regional list vote this year saw her as an asset by 50 per cent to 33 per cent.

 By a margin two-to-one margin, Scots thought Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar was right to call for Keir Starmer to resign as prime minister (indeed those intending to vote for Scottish Labour in the Holyrood elections were the only group to disagree). However, a majority of all parties’ voters thought Sarwar had made the call as a tactical move to distance Scottish Labour from the Starmer government, rather than that he was saying what he believed was right.

Attitude to Reform UK

Just over half of Scots (including around three quarters of likely SNP and Labour voters) said they thought Reform UK were a negative influence on politics and they wished the party didn’t exist. A further 17 per cent, including one third of likely Conservative voters and more than one in five likely Lib Dems, say they probably wouldn’t vote Reform but they say things that need to be said so they’re glad the party is around. Just under one in five, including half of all 2021 Conservative voters, say they like a lot of what the party stands for and could see themselves voting for it in an election.

We asked people how likely they thought they were to vote for each party in the Scottish Parliament elections in May on a scale from 0 to 100 – where 0 means there is no chance, they will vote for that party and 100 means they will definitely vote for that party. Looking at those saying they are more likely than not to vote for one party (those whose likelihood of voting for one party was at least 50/100), this implies the following state of the parties in the constituency and regional list votes at the outset of the campaign:

Six segments

Our analysis identifies six similarly sized segments within the Scottish electorate.

• The SNP Stalwarts have given the party strong support at the last two general elections and are the most likely to vote SNP in May, although a significant minority will use their list vote for the Scottish Greens. Their vote in the Scottish Parliament elections tends to be about having a strong voice for Scotland and getting an independent Scotland. They think the SNP government is doing a good job and overwhelmingly prefer a SNP-Green coalition to any alternative. Economically they are very optimistic for their local area and for Scotland, but far less so for the UK. They support Scottish independence and are the only segment to agree that a majority of seats being won by pro-independence parties constitutes a mandate for a second referendum. They are evenly divided as to whether Scotland should keep using North Sea oil and gas reserves.
• The Lib/Lab Unionists are most likely to vote Labour or Lib Dem both in Holyrood and Westminster elections and have consistently done so in the past. They are most likely to identify education, the economy and the NHS as major issues. They tend to say the SNP government is doing a bad job and they want them replaced, although a significant proportion don’t know. They strongly oppose independence and expect that Scotland would reject it in a referendum held tomorrow, but are far less sure about a result in five years’ time. They have a strong preference for a coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats over an SNP-Green coalition; this preference persists but becomes much weaker if the Conservatives are added as a coalition partner. However, they prefer a SNP-Green coalition to any coalition involving Reform.
• Though the Open to Tories segment has the highest support for the Conservatives as things stand, their voting intention is currently spit between the Conservatives, Labour and Reform. They backed the Conservatives by a fair margin in 2019, but switched to Labour in 2024. These voters are most likely to care about defence, welfare the economy and immigration. They are the least likely of any segment to be concerned about the cost of living. In the Holyrood elections they are most likely to be motivated by keeping Scotland in the UK and SNP government’s record. About two-thirds of this segment disapprove of the SNP’s performance in government and want them replaced; there are consistent clear preferences for any coalition of unionist parties to a SNP-Green coalition.
• The Leaning Green segment are currently more likely to give their list vote to the Greens than the SNP and show the strongest Green support overall, despite having voted heavily for the SNP in the last two general elections. They are most likely to name poverty and inequality, drug addiction and climate change as the key issues, and say their Holyrood vote will be motivated by getting a strong voice for Scotland and Scottish independence, although not to the same extent as the SNP Stalwarts; they are also the most likely to want to stop the party they most oppose. They are most likely to think the SNP government is not doing a good job, but is better than the alternatives. They are the most likely to want to stop issuing North Sea oil and gas licences, and the most likely to be students or unemployed.
• The Reform Curious group had the strongest support for the Conservatives in 2019, but the Tory vote among this segment dropped 25 points in 2024 with Reform the primary beneficiaries. They show the strongest support for Reform in Holyrood and future Westminster elections. They are most likely to consider immigration and crime as important issues facing Scotland. Over 80 per cent of them say the SNP government is doing a bad job and want them replaced, and they are the most likely to expect the economy in their local area and the Scottish economy to perform badly over the next year.
• Having voted overwhelmingly for the SNP in 2019, the party’s vote plunged among the Disillusioned Nationalists in 2024 and they are now the most likely of any segment to say they will not vote. The few voters considering backing Alba are largely in this group. They say the cost of living is the most important issue by some margin, and tend to disagree that a pro-independence Holyrood majority would be a mandate for another referendum. They are unenthusiastic about the SNP government’s record and deeply pessimistic about the economy, both for themselves and the country.

Full report and data tables at LordAshcroftPolls.com

A draconian bill for trans rights in India has passed through the Lok Sabha on Tuesday 24th March 2025 the and Rajya Sabha on Wednesday 25th March. Swift and damning condemnation has followed from opposition parties and civil society groups. Trans rights have seen global backsliding in recent years, including in the UK.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill 2026 will become law following the President’s assent.

The Hindu reported that the bill:

proposes to remove transgender people’s right to self-determination of gender, and introduces a clause for examination by a medical board to determine their gender.

Rolling back basic rights

Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the opposition party Indian National Congress, said that his party unequivocally opposed the bill, calling it a “brazen attack on the Constitutional rights and identity of transgender people.”

The BJP government’s Transgender Persons Amendment Bill is a brazen attack on the Constitutional rights and identity of transgender people.

This regressive bill:
– strips transgender people of their ability to self identify, violating a Supreme Court judgement
– ⁠wipes out the… pic.twitter.com/et6lqpgTXw

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) March 24, 2026 

Mahua Moitra, Lok Sabha MP of another opposition party – All India Trinamool Congress – said that the bill stigmatized trans people and bemoaned the lack of consultation with trans people:

Article14, a newswire, published an opinion piece condemning the bill, arguing that rather than being a simple amendment, it represents a devastating erasure of rights for trans, non-binary, and intersex individuals.

This isn’t an amendment—it’s erasure

The transgender rights amendment bill strips away the right to self-identify and pushes trans, non-binary, and intersex people back by decades, @mridulasee writes of the panic & fearhttps://t.co/6PVGzZ4kWH

Advertisement

— Article 14 (@Article14live) March 25, 2026

Satya Rai Nagpaul, founder of Sampoorna, described the situation as stemming from an “existential panic,” adding that this mindset extends beyond the bill into national policy.

Satya Rai Nagpaul, founder of Sampoorna:

“All of this comes from an existential panic. This mindset isn’t just in this bill — it exists in national policy.”

“Disenfranchisement and delegitimisation are happening everywhere.” pic.twitter.com/c32BMPCeqq

Advertisement

— newslaundry (@newslaundry) March 25, 2026

The bill was passed by both houses of the Indian parliament despite legal advice against it.

‘Dark day for India’

A Supreme Court-appointed Advisory Committee, led by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon,  urged the Centre to withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, according to the Free Press Journal. The panel said the proposed changes undermine the landmark NALSA v Union of India ruling, which recognised the right to self-identify one’s gender.

The group “Yes, We Exist” called Wednesday a “dark day for India.”

Featured image via the Canary

4 min read48 min

The House of Lords will again today (Wednesday) vote on a cross-party amendment, tabled by Lord Nash, on raising the age limit to 16 for harmful social media. The vote comes amid Louis Theroux’s recent documentary on the “manosphere”, which has brought into view what many of us working on the frontline have been witnessing for years. For doctors, teachers, and youth workers, this is not a sudden crisis. It is a predictable outcome.

We have watched, in real time, as young people’s understanding of relationships, identity, and self-worth has been shaped not by families or schools, but by algorithm-driven ecosystems that reward extremity, outrage, and division. At a recent education leadership conference, a teacher reflected that there had been a noticeable change in boys’ behaviour in just a single term. And in clinical and community settings, the impact is just as stark. A mother of a 14-year-old girl recently described sitting down with her daughter to talk about relationships, only to find that the way boys in her year were speaking about girls was, in her words, “heartbreaking.” These are not isolated observations; they are warning signs.

It is easy, in moments like this, to default to outrage or to dismiss the figures highlighted in Theroux’s documentary as caricatures: exaggerated, fringe, almost absurd. But that would be a serious mistake. What matters is not just the individuals at the centre, but the ecosystem around them. Their ideas do not stay contained at the extremes; they diffuse, soften, and normalise as they travel. What begins as overt misogyny at the top is repackaged into irony, “banter,” or pseudo-self-improvement further down the chain. By the time it reaches younger audiences, it is often unrecognisable as ideology and therefore far more difficult to challenge. This trickle-down effect must not be underestimated.

It is also uncomfortable, but necessary, to acknowledge that this culture does not emerge in isolation. When those in positions of political or social power express misogynistic attitudes, it confers legitimacy. The “manosphere” is not an aberration; it is, in part, an amplification of signals already present in the wider culture.

It is into this space, between glacially slow research, reactive policy, a rapidly evolving digital landscape, and, let’s face it, a generational identity crisis, that a highly organised, highly profitable industry has stepped, fronted by so-called “alpha male” influencers. But strip away the branding, and what remains is something far less aspirational. These figures do not model secure, grounded masculinity. What they often project, thinly veiled beneath performance, is insecurity, fragility, and unresolved attachment needs. The relentless emphasis on control, dominance, emotional detachment, and transactional relationships is not a sign of strength; it is a defence against vulnerability. And crucially, it is being monetised.

This is not simply ideology; it is exploitation. A pyramid-like system in which a small number of influencers profit from amplifying dissatisfaction and grievance. They sell certainty to the uncertain, status to the insecure, and belonging to the isolated. Courses, memberships, exclusive communities, all built on the promise that if you adopt this worldview, your discomfort will disappear. It will not. Instead, young men and boys, many already navigating loneliness and confusion, are drawn deeper into a system that depends on keeping them dissatisfied. Because resolution does not sell. Insecurity does.

Those engaging with this content are not the problem. They are the market. What they are offered is not genuine support or growth, but a script: that their struggles are caused by women, and that the solution lies in power, withdrawal, or contempt. It is a compelling narrative precisely because it simplifies complexity and because it externalises pain.

So yes, regulation matters. But we must be clear: this is not a space where light-touch measures will suffice. We do not allow children unrestricted access to gambling platforms, predatory financial schemes, or harmful substances. We recognise that certain environments are developmentally inappropriate and potentially dangerous. The same principle must apply here.

Raising the age limit to 16 for harmful social media is not about censorship. It is about safeguarding. Delaying exposure to highly polarised, adult ideological content gives young people the time to develop the cognitive and emotional capacity required to critically evaluate what they encounter. Without that foundation, they are not engaging freely; they are being shaped by individuals whose business model depends on influence, not truth.

I urge the Lords to once again vote for Lord Nash’s amendment. If they don’t, we are already seeing in some areas what the national consequences might be.

Dr Lauren Bull is safeguarding lead at Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust and is a TedxNHS speaker

Following its operation to torch and destroy the joint venture between Elbit Systems and LPP Holding in the Czech Republic, a newly launched group has threatened to release restricted documents in an ultimatum.

The Earthquake Faction has released its second communiqué, where it threatens to release restricted documents taken from the site in Pardubice, Czech Republic. The group says it will do this unless LPP Holding releases a statement cutting ties with Elbit Systems and denouncing the occupation of Palestine.

The group gave a limited view of one of the documents, and set a deadline for 20 April for LPP Holding to respond.

LPP Holding has been publicly in partnership with the Israeli company since October 2023. Its COO stated, in relation to the Pardubice site, that:

one of the projects we are preparing with Elbit involves the Israeli army.

Elbit Systems is Israel’s largest weapons company. It manufactures 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet and land based equipment. And it describes its drones as the “backbone” of the Israeli military.

The Earthquake Faction also took aim at all companies that work with Elbit Systems, demanding public statements they have cut ties and threatening action at their sites.

The full communiqué:

Communiqué #2

As the roof of Elbit and LPP Holding’s facility collapsed, with it went their partnership.

Advertisement

LPP Holding has spent the length of a live streamed genocide boasting about their collaboration and support. They collaborated with Elbit Systems as our comrades in Palestine were murdered and maimed, while children were obliterated in fractions of a second by precision technologies made in factories like this Pardubice site, operated by cowards in air conditioned offices.

Underlining their sniveling cowardliness is the sudden public back-stepping, spin and panic only when they realize their power to take life can be shattered by a few people with conscience. Your panic and embarrassment flaps around in the wind for the world to see; after all what kind of “defense” company doesn’t have an alarm?

They know there is no safe corner of this earth for collaborators in the genocide of our comrades in Palestine. We live in the belly of this wretched beast, across continents, countries and cities that these companies operate in. Every company that works with Elbit Systems is a target, and we will target you where and when we choose.

To LPP Holding: we have taken your restricted documents and burned the rest to the ground. You have until 20th April 07:00 UTC to publicly cut all ties with Elbit Systems, and denounce the barbaric occupation of Palestine, or will we release these documents to the public.

Advertisement

For all others who work with Elbit you have two options: wait for us, or release a public statement with proof that you have cut ties with Elbit Systems.

About Elbit Systems and LPP Holding

Elbit Systems is Israel’s biggest weapons producer, which manufactures 85% of Israel’s military drone fleet and land based equipment. It also supplies the Israeli military with munitions, missiles and electronic warfare.

LPP Holding is “a proud weapons supplier to the Zionist state”, says the Earthquake Faction, marketing its array of companies as “powered by Artificial Intelligence”. The holding, and its subsidiaries, is a key strategic partner of Elbit Systems in the Czech Republic. It receives funding from the Czech government for the development of AI-guided unmanned aerial and ground vehicles.

About The Earthquake Faction

The Earthquake Faction describes itself as:

an internationalist underground network that targets key sites critical to the Zionist entity. We aim to destroy all limbs of the Empire from within, by any means effective.

Featured image via the Earthquake Faction