How occupation tactics tested in Palestine are imported to America under the banner of “security cooperation” – and how to fight weaponized language with language.
Contrary to popular myth, the British Empire didn’t collapse at the end of World War II. It simply hung up its red coats, poured itself a gin and tonic, and moved its headquarters into the global banking system. The colonies went nominally free; the accountants didn’t. And like any master manipulator, Empire learned the art of playing both sides.
SOUNDING THE HORN: THE CONDUCTOR’S BRIEF (A fast, clear summary of the key takeaways to keep you informed on the go)
-
The Empire’s New Shield: The The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) isn’t just a definition; it’s the Empire’s newest force field, blurring real anti‑Jewish hate with any hard‑hitting criticism of Israel or Zionism.
-
From People to Policy: By tying certain critiques of Israel to “antisemitism,” states, universities, and NGOs now have a ready‑made pretext to sideline activists, academics, and even Jewish dissidents who challenge Israeli state power.
-
The Zionist Decoy: Instead of protecting Jews from harm, the IHRA framework often protects a geopolitical project — using Jewish identity as a human shield for a century‑old imperial design in Palestine and the wider Middle East.
-
Speech on a Short Leash: The result is chilled speech, self‑censorship, and weaponized accusations of “hate” whenever someone follows the money, the weapons, or the treaties too close to the City of London and its partners.
-
The Sovereign Workaround: The escape hatch is precise language — aim your fire at systems, empires, and financial networks, not at peoples or religions, and you stay in the clear while exposing who’s really hiding behind the IHRA shield.
The Empire didn’t die; it outsourced. What you’re looking at now — “globalization,” “security cooperation,” “shared values” — is just the old British Imperial operating system running in a cloud-based update, with new icons and the same backend code. The colonies went nominally free; the accountants didn’t.
And like any master manipulator, Empire learned the art of playing both sides.
Let’s start with the legal minefield. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism is written broadly enough that criticism of Israel and Zionism can be shoehorned into “hate,” especially when authorities choose to conflate political critique with ethnic hostility.
The key booby traps include calling Israel a “racist endeavor,” applying “double standards,” or treating Israel as a collective stand-in for Jews.
So the pivot is simple and devastating: you do not blame “the Jews.” You do not cast Israel as the mastermind of empire. You frame Jews — including Israelis — as a population strategically placed in harm’s way by a higher, older power structure.
Your target is not a people; your target is a system: the British Imperial logic that learned to hide behind protected identities while it keeps doing business as usual. That keeps you in the realm of political analysis, which is still, for now, protected speech in most jurisdictions.
Now, picture Victorian London: gas lamps outside, cigars and sherry inside, and a foreign office that’s finally figured out that bayonets are expensive, but ideas are cheap. The genius of late-stage Empire was realizing you don’t have to win every war if you can program both sides of the conflict. Communism vs. capitalism, Arab vs. Jew, nationalist vs. “international community” — these become less “historic oppositions” and more like curated feuds, managed by a central clearinghouse of divide-and-rule.
While Europe was still bleeding from one world war and stumbling into another, Britain quietly shifted from red-map imperialism to something more elegant: influence through finance, law, and narrative. Zionism fit this transition perfectly. Whatever else it is — and there are plenty of internal Jewish debates about that — the movement was embraced by Britain in 1917 not because the cabinet suddenly discovered its tender heart for Jewish safety, but because Palestine sat right next to the Suez Canal, the jugular of the Empire. British officials and Zionist leaders themselves sold the project as an imperial guard post: a very effective human buffer around imperial logistics, dressed up as prophecy.
Once you recognize the imperial function, Israel stops looking like the all-powerful puppeteer and starts looking like what the British envisioned: a permanent garrison that doubles as a political lightning rod.
As a garrison, it anchors Western power in the Middle East and disciplines any regional government that dares to drift toward genuine anti-imperialist independence.
As a lightning rod, it absorbs the fury of dispossessed Palestinians and the broader Arab and Muslim world, ensuring that rage is aimed at a visible target instead of at the invisible financial and geopolitical networks that keep the whole mess in motion.
This is where you sidestep the antisemitism trap with precision: you argue that Jews — Israeli and diaspora — have been placed in an impossible position, used as the public face of policies designed elsewhere, then blamed for the inevitable blowback.
You are not accusing “Jews” of running the world; you are accusing an entrenched imperial architecture of using Jews as human shields — morally, politically, and physically. And when speech codes try to collapse “criticism of Zionism” into “hatred of Jews,” you point out that many Jewish critics of Israel and Zionism themselves are smeared as antisemites, which gives the game away: the category is being abused to protect a state project, not a people.
If Empire has a signature move, it’s recycling.
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK RECYCLES
Techniques developed for colonial control abroad get repackaged as “public safety” at home. That’s where the ICE/IDF (Israeli Defense Force) node fits in. Police militarization in the U.S. didn’t appear out of thin air — it grew through “security partnerships,” training exchanges, and the slow normalization of treating populations as potential insurgents rather than citizens.
When U.S. agencies learn crowd control, surveillance, and “counter-terror” tactics from forces hardened in occupation contexts, they import that mindset wholesale: cordon the neighborhood, map the social graph, assume hostility first, civil rights later.
Whether you agree with ICE’s latest transgressions or not in Minnesota, ICE is making it look a lot like Gaza.
The chaos, the violence, the recklessness the “public execution” of Alex Pretti that just took place in Minneapolis yesterday, Jan 24th 2026, MN, above, — this is all by design.
But in order to point this out, you don’t need to say “the Jews militarized American policing.” That’s becoming legally suicidal. You say: empire refines occupation tactics in one laboratory — say, Palestine — and those tactics are then “shared” with local agencies in the U.S. under the banner of “security cooperation.”
I know, it’s a mouthful. Just say this:
“Occupation tactics tested in Palestine, imported to America as ‘security cooperation.’
The result is the Palestinization of domestic life — checkpoints, data-driven suspicion, and a population managed like a hostile other. The point is not that one state is uniquely evil; the point is that an imperial model of governance is being scaled globally, and Jews — again — are conscripted as its most visible frontline, guaranteeing that any challenge to the model gets misframed as hatred of them.
CUPPA GLOBAL TEA?
For decades, “globalization” was sold as the inevitable, benevolent next step of civilization — open markets, open borders, and the gentle rule of international institutions.
But underneath the TED-Talk gloss, the same old hierarchy remained: a small transnational elite, with key power centers like the City of London, setting the rules while elected governments learned to say “we have no choice.”
Into this steps Trump, not as a theorist but as a wrecking ball with a microphone. At the UN and in Davos, he laid it out in plain Queens English: we reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism. In those moments, he framed sovereignty against “global governance” and “new forms of coercion,” drawing a line between nation-state self-rule and a managerial class that doesn’t answer to voters.
You’re not obligated to turn Trump into a saint; that’s not the job. What matters for this narrative is that he broke the taboo: he named globalism as an ideology rather than a law of nature.
Once you accept that globalism is an ideology, you get to ask the questions you’re not supposed to ask: whose ideology, and who benefits? And that’s where you slide the crown back onto the right head.
MODERN-DAY 1776
This isn’t some abstract force of history; it’s the continuation of the British Imperial toolbox through banks, treaties, military basing, and narrative management. You can frame Trump’s nationalist turn as a second-generation 1776 moment: not a revolt against the physical Empire of red-coated soldiers, but against the disembodied Empire of credit ratings, “rules-based order,” and permanent security crises.
Maybe he’s an imperfect vessel; maybe the movement is messy. But the heresy is clear: saying no to globalism is, in effect, saying no to the polite, rebranded version of the same empire that once carved up continents with a map and a pen.
Here’s the through-line you can lean on, hard and repeatedly.
The same power centers that once carved up the globe with rulers and treaties now operate through financial rules, treaty regimes, and security architectures. Zionism, as implemented in Palestine, served those imperial interests by providing a reliable outpost and a perpetual conflict zone that justified Western intervention as I covered earlier, HERE. Ordinary Jews did not design this architecture; they were — and are — placed in the crosshairs of it.
Now, mind you. Once the globalization comes to an end, THIS is what Trump and his administration have in store for us — so, as it currently stands, we are trading one set of handcuffs for another.
No bueno.
….and I already hit upon that earlier, The Silicon Fortress vs. The Digital Cage:
The Silicon Fortress vs. The Digital Cage
I’m going to be frank with you: this is a heavy lift.
ATTACK “THE HAND”
When criticism of that architecture is criminalized under the banner of antisemitism, Jews become both the shield and the hostage. The real line of struggle is not Jew vs. non-Jew, or Israeli vs. Palestinian, but peoples vs. Empire — any empire, but especially the one that learned to hide behind noble causes while it secures trade routes and banking privileges, quietly sipping their cuppa Earl Grey.
So when someone accuses you of antisemitism for criticizing the system, your answer is crisp: you refuse to blame a people for an imperial design that victimizes them too. Your issue is not with Jews; it’s with the imperial networks that sacrificed Jewish safety, Palestinian rights, and American sovereignty on the same altar of power.
You’re not attacking the weapon; you’re naming the hand that holds it.
RELATED ARTICLES:
If you find these interviews and articles informative, please become a paid subscriber for under 17¢ a day. I don’t believe in paywalls, but this is how I make a living, so any support is appreciated. If you prefer not to use your credit card, checks can be sent to Reinette Senum, PO Box 1972, Nevada City, CA.