Skip to content
Shoresh Wiki

Did Zionists erase Al-Haq from the internet?

“They were effectively erased from the internet right as settler violence began to reach its peak … The big four platforms are entirely owned by Zionist captured tech oligarchs who have been directly paid and funded by lobbying groups within Israel and the US.”

Here is the film’s own account, at 20:48 of Channel 5’s “Occupied Palestine”:

“that deletion was caused by a US review that found the channel was working with the ICC, who had an open investigation into Benjamin Netanyahu’s war crimes.”

That sentence is accurate. It is also the refutation of the sentence that follows it, in which the same removal becomes evidence that the major platforms are owned by “Zionist captured tech oligarchs.” An OFAC designation is a decision by the United States government under an executive order signed in February 2025, published in the Federal Register, with an appeals process. Sundar Pichai did not make it, and no lobbying payment is required to explain why a company with American shareholders obeys American sanctions law.

What the sanctions were, exactly

Section titled “What the sanctions were, exactly”

Executive Order 14203 imposes sanctions on the International Criminal Court and on those who assist its investigations of American and Israeli nationals. The State Department’s September 2025 announcement named the three organisations for having “directly engaged” in the ICC’s proceedings against Israelis. Designation freezes any US-jurisdiction assets and prohibits US persons and companies from transacting with the entity.

The consequences flow mechanically from that. YouTube removed the channels on 3 October 2025, along with more than 700 videos. Payment processors, cloud providers and app stores would have had to do the same.

Nothing about this is hidden and much of it is contested inside the United States. UN special rapporteurs objected, Human Rights Watch and dozens of organisations issued a joint statement against it in October 2025, and the American press covered the designation and the takedown at length. A conspiracy whose mechanism is a published executive order, criticised on the record by the UN and reported by CNN, is not a conspiracy.

Al-Haq is not a neutral documentation body

Section titled “Al-Haq is not a neutral documentation body”

The film introduces Al-Haq as an organisation that collects testimony “according the international standards of the documentation,” and treats the Israeli terrorist designation as arbitrary spite. The record is longer than that.

Israel designated six Palestinian NGOs including Al-Haq in October 2021 over alleged links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terrorist organisation in the US, EU, Canada and Israel. That designation is disputed and several European governments declined to follow it. But the concerns predate 2021 by years: Visa, Mastercard and American Express withdrew donation facilities from Al-Haq and three other groups in 2018 after being alerted to links with a designated organisation, and Al-Haq’s general director has been the subject of Israeli Supreme Court rulings addressing his relationship with the PFLP.

Our own audit of Wikipedia’s Al-Haq article found the credit-card episode present in the 2020 opening and absent from it today, which is the same erasure in a different medium.

”The big four platforms”

Section titled “”The big four platforms””

The ownership claim collapses on inspection. The platform with the largest young audience and by far the greatest reach for pro-Palestinian content is TikTok, whose parent company is Chinese. X is owned by a man who has spent three years in open conflict with the Anti-Defamation League. Meta and Alphabet are public companies with dispersed institutional ownership.

The claim also has to explain the visible world. If the major platforms were captured by Zionist owners, the last three years would not have produced a documentary series in which a creator with millions of subscribers narrates that Israel is committing genocide, uploaded to YouTube, monetised on YouTube, promoted on Instagram, and clipped into virality on TikTok, closing with an advertisement for a bank and a plug for the creator’s own streaming platform.

This is the oldest hatred with the nouns updated. In 1903 it was the bankers, in 1930 the press, in 2026 the platforms. The structure never changes: a real event, in this case a genuinely troubling act of sanctions-driven censorship, is explained by hidden Jewish ownership rather than by the government document that caused it.

The complaint has an address, and it is Washington

Section titled “The complaint has an address, and it is Washington”

An American executive order pulled a foreign organisation’s archive off the world’s largest video platform, and that is a precedent worth being alarmed by, because the same instrument works on anyone. Making that case requires one thing: naming the government that did it.

The film will not do it. It has the correct explanation in its own script, thirty seconds before it reaches for the other one, and it reaches anyway. That is the choice worth noticing. A complaint aimed at an executive order can be litigated, appealed and repealed. A complaint aimed at “Zionist captured tech oligarchs” can only be repeated, which is why it was preferred: the version that names Washington ends in a court, and the version that names the Jews ends in a comment section, forever.

Section titled “Related pages”

Sources

Section titled “Sources”