The Seven Steps by Golan Ramraz

THE SEVEN STEPS

When it comes to vilifying Israel (and, let’s be real, the Jews), I keep noticing something interesting. A repeating pattern. An undeniable repeating pattern.

We’ll put aside for the moment that one Muslim country after another attacks Israel, and then when Israel defends itself, the narrative is “look how many wars Israel is involved in, therefore they are the bad guys.” That type of idiocy I’m used to. If you fall for it, shame on you.

No, in this case, I’m talking about something else. A citation cycle. Seven steps that turn an allegation into a fact:

1. A false war zone allegation against Israel emerges from one of Israel’s many fronts.
2. Almost immediately, an activist organization decries the Israeli action.
3. A journalist cites the activist organization, entering it into the media public record.
4. A human rights group repeats what the journalist said in the form of an official statement, adding a sheen of progressive respectability to the lie.
5. An international body enters the human rights group’s report into the political record as if it is fact. Sometimes, they even vote on some measure that condemns Israel for the fictional act.
6. A thousand other predisposed “journalists” eagerly pick up the story, now using the international body’s report alongside the human rights group’s statement and the first journalist’s initial story as citations for the continued blood libel.
7. Academic institutions teach about the ongoing war using all of the above as their study guide, entering the false story as true into the minds of the young, susceptible students, who become activists because of the evil action that they’ve now learned about that never happened.

Eventually the original allegation has disappeared beneath layers of institutional validation. It has become a fact.

I guess what I want to know is… why? Why does this keep happening? These are supposedly independent institutions. Different organizations. Different countries. Different mandates. Different funding. Different people. And yet, somehow, they keep finding the same sources credible. Using the same vocabulary. Identifying the same villains. And, remarkably, always arriving at the same conclusions.

I was taught a long time ago not to prescribe malice or evil where stupidity or useful idiocy could apply. So let’s play Occam's Razor for a second and assume that it’s just ideological conformity.

Maybe this whole generation of activists, journalists, academics, human-rights lawyers and international bureaucrats all went to similar universities, learned from similar professors, read similar books, hired people who thought like them and inadvertently created an enormous self-reinforcing bubble that kept reality at bay and their ideology protected from the inconvenience of contradictory facts.

Maybe, right? I mean… that would certainly explain at least some of it.

Sadly, I know too much to assume the simplest path this time around. I know who these people are, what they want to accomplish and what they believe. Which brings me to the real question here: What if the ideological conformity isn’t where the story begins, but where it ends? What if this particular ecosystem is the residue of something much older?

What if some portion of this supposedly organic institutional consensus is the downstream result of an ideological influence campaign that was built and set in motion decades ago? Or longer?

Yeah, I know how that sounds. Like I’ve become one of the conspiracy theory tin foil hat types. But we’ve come this far together, so stick with me and let’s see where this goes by conducting a little thought experiment.

First, a brief history lesson. For centuries, Muslims tried to create a caliphate at the behest of the sword. They were very successful. 57 countries that once were not Muslim are now Muslim – 49 where Islam is the dominant religion and another 8 that are technically Christian (for now) but belong to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. They say to get a sense of who is a colonizer, count the number of countries that speak their language. Today, 25 countries speak Arabic as an official language. So I'd say they did one hell of a job out of the gate. They're STILL doing a great job in many countries – raping and killing Druze in Syria, beheading and enslaving Christians in Mozambique, etc. Despite the massive success of their mass genocide, rape and forced conversion of the planet – there are some places their normal playbook simply won't work. But what if they figured out that, in the modern world, those tactics aren't necessary anyway?

Which brings us to Islam 2.0. Suppose they concluded sometime in the twentieth century that their objectives in liberal democracies – like the UK, Canada, the United States and much of Europe – could be advanced more effectively through institutions rather than through confrontation. Suppose they came to this conclusion because they realized that those democracies possessed a peculiar vulnerability.

They outsource moral authority.

No, not to governments. To institutions and experts that claim neutrality. Universities. Journalists. Human rights organizations. Lawyers. International bodies.

If I were designing an operation to influence those institutions, I wouldn’t try to seize them. That would be too obvious. No, I would join them. Enter them. Quietly. Patiently. One person at a time. One career at a time. Not hundreds of people all at once. Maybe… three one year. Five the next. A couple dozen or so over a decade. The idea would be that nobody would notice as my foot soldiers slowly took over from the inside.

The objective wouldn’t be to control that institution today. It would be to influence who gets hired tomorrow. Who gets promoted. Who sits on the hiring committee. Who selects the next generation. If I could do that for forty years, then I will have accomplished something remarkable.

There’s no need to try to convince anyone of anything. No need to blackmail. Or figure out who I can exploit. The call would always be coming from inside the house.

The people making the decisions would wake up every morning already knowing who was at fault. For whatever. Even before any incident occurred, they would know who to blame. Like the precogs in MINORITY REPORT. They would already know which sources to work with to get the confirmation they need to back up what they were going to say anyway.

Sounds insane, right? Too elaborate. Too many moving parts. Too many assumptions. But here’s the thing. I didn't make one bit of this up.

THE RECEIPTS

There are actual documents. You know that phrase “I brought receipts”? Well, apparently nobody told the Muslim Brotherhood to shred theirs.

Allow me to take you back to 1991\. TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY was dominating the box office. Michael Jordan won his first championship with the Chicago Bulls. U2 released their seminal album “Achtung Baby”. And the Muslim Brotherhood wrote an internal document entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America”, laying out a long-term project for what it called the “Enablement of Islam in North America.” Sounds benign, right? Don’t worry. They get considerably more specific.

Remember as you read this next part that I’m quoting. These are their actual words. The memorandum describes the project as a “Civilization-Jihadist Process.” In fact, it further describes what they want to accomplish in America as a “grand Jihad” by “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

Again, these are THEIR words. And I’m not done.

They go on to give their clear and unambiguous stated objective: the establishment of a “global Islamic State.”

To recap, civilization jihad, destroy Western civilization from within, global Islamic state.

“But,” you might be saying as you read this, “Duh. This guy has spent 1,200 words telling me that Muslims want a caliphate?” And good point. This is indeed the duh portion of the conversation. So let’s get to the part that matters for our little thought experiment. The HOW.

Well, don’t worry again\! Because that 1991 document doesn’t merely describe their destination. It describes the infrastructure necessary to get there. And this is where it gets interesting.

Humanitarian organizations. Schools. The media. Social institutions. Coalitions. Recruitment. Research into American society. Human resources. And gradual implementation. They specifically call for mastering the art of “coalitions,” “absorption” and “cooperation.” They talk about taking people from inside the Brotherhood into the “orbit” of the plan and the “circle” of the movement. And it calls for a “specific, gradual and balanced time frame.”

Sound familiar? I just spent all that time trying to convince you of my crazy conspiracy theory about how a patient terrorist group might embed themselves inside a liberal democracy over generations. And it turns out they’d already written the f\*cking manual.

But if that was my only evidence, it wouldn’t be enough. Luckily, it isn’t. Let’s move ahead two years. Because in 1993, the FBI was listening. And recording. And years later, all of it became evidence in federal court.

In October 1993, the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee” – aka Hamas – met up in, of all places, Philadelphia, the cradle of liberty. This was just after the Oslo Accords had been signed, which – despite Arafat lying about wanting peace – Hamas was against because it supposedly recognized Israel’s right to exist. So this little get together was for the terrorists to discuss how to undermine the agreement and how they would do that from inside our country.

But these poor genocidal maniacs had a problem. Operating openly as Hamas in the United States of America was becoming increasingly difficult. So their first order of business was twofold: 1\) How to tell the American infidels that Arafat and the PLO didn’t represent the Palestinian people so they could destroy Oslo, and 2\) How to function as a political organization without openly identifying themselves as Hamas.

Oh. And they also had a second problem. They didn’t know the FBI was recording them.

So, on tape, Hamas terrorist and founder of the Holy Land Foundation Shukri Abu Baker explained that Americans were going to ask follow-up questions. And that they explicitly couldn’t answer those questions honestly. He literally play-acted the conversation:

“If he doesn’t represent you, who represents the Palestinian people?”
“I cannot say to him that I’m Hamas.”

Then he performed Act Two, in which he pretended to discuss the topic with an American congressman:

“\[Founder and spiritual leader of Hamas\] Mr. Ahmad Yasin represents us.”
“You cannot say that.”

Someone else in the room interrupts the show and asks, “Is this against Hamas?”

On tape, Baker snaps at him: “Didn’t we say not to mention that term?” He instead suggests reversing Hamas to “Samah” – a level of tradecraft previously available only to eight-year-olds passing notes in class.

In case you think I’m reading into selective quotes, Baker eventually supplied the description himself: “War is deception,” he said, “Deceive. Camouflage.”

Another Hamas member, eventual founder of CAIR Omar Ahmad (you can’t make this stuff up), responded: “I agree with you. Like they say, politics is a completion of war.”

Baker agreed: “Yes, politics, like war, is a deception.”

They also made clear, in their subtle way, what they were interested in influencing here in America: Congress. Media. Universities. Think tanks. Research centers. Political organizations. Human Rights groups. Sound familiar?

Again, I didn't make this list. They did.

And here’s my favorite part. And by “favorite,” I mean the part that should chill you to your very bones. They discussed how American (AMERICAN\!) based organizations could advocate the terrorist position to Americans and Congress without openly identifying themselves as Hamas representatives.

Yes. Literally. Then they went into the details.

Ahmad suggested that they create organizations that sounded American. Friendly. Harmless. He called it feeding Americans “honey” with their “poison.” He even brainstormed a few ideas, including the “Palestinian-American Friendship Association.” Ah, yes. Very on brand. We all know that when someone says “Palestinian,” the first thing that comes to mind is “friendship.” I don’t know exactly when he came up with the “Council on American-Islamic Relations,” but it’s what they settled on as the name for their American-sounding terrorist arm. Largely because – based on the conversation they had in 1993 – the acronym sounds like a big, cuddly teddy bear: CAIR.

Yes, the very same CAIR that Al Gore brought into a White House advisory process, that George W. Bush welcomed into the White House after 9/11, that Obama fatally legitimized as a stakeholder in his administration and that Biden clown shoes’d his way to including in his National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. Yes. Sleepy Joe asked HAMAS to weigh in on f\*cking ANTISEMITISM.

Once again, none of this is my skewed interpretation. It’s their explicitly stated intent.

To cut to the chase, in a development that shocked exactly zero people with properly functioning brain pans, it turned out that the Holy Land Foundation – at the time, the largest Muslim “charity” in America – turned out to be Hamas’ chief fundraising arm in the United States, funneling more than \$12.4 million directly to the terrorists, according to the Justice Department.

With that chapter done, let's recap where we are. A “Civilization-Jihadist Process.” A “grand Jihad.” Destroy Western civilization “from within.” A “global Islamic State.” “Concealment.” “Deception.” Material support for Hamas from what claimed to be a benevolent non-profit. And a desire for gradual implementation.

WATCH IT HAPPEN

I hope you’re following along because we're nowhere near done. Remember those seven steps from the beginning? Scroll up, if you must. You will notice that, at the time, I presented them merely as an observation. A strange pattern I kept noticing.

Now that we’ve seen what the Muslim Brotherhood and their offshoot Hamas said themselves, let’s go back and watch those seven steps happen. Only this time, not as theory, nor as an observation. Let’s see what they look like in practice.

1\. A false war zone allegation against Israel emerges from one of Israel’s many fronts.

On October 17, 2023, an explosion tore through the grounds of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza. Instantly, the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health announced that Israel had bombed the hospital. No proof. No evidence. And, of course, it turned out to be a lie. No matter. Hamas even pinpointed how many people had died with surprising accuracy – five hundred people were genocided at the hands of the Zionist entity, said the terrorists to a world hungry for their propaganda.

2\. Almost immediately, an activist organization decries the Israeli action.

Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) responded almost immediately, taking the Hamas lie at face value without curiosity or examination.

They condemned what had happened and attributed responsibility to Israel. So now the allegation wasn't merely coming from Hamas. One of the most recognizable humanitarian organizations in the world rubber stamped it.

3\. A journalist cites the activist organization, entering it into the media public record.

ABC News (alongside the New York Times, the BBC and a thousand others) incorporated Doctors Without Borders directly into its reporting, using the organization’s statements as proof of the initial claim. In fact, ABC interviewed Dr. Ghassan Abu Sittah, one of the Doctors Without Borders “physicians” working inside Al-Ahli. He qualified the attack as Israel’s “massacre.” The allegation had now crossed another threshold. It wasn't merely something Hamas and humanitarian workers were claiming. It was being reported by major mainstream news organizations as truth.

4\. A human rights group repeats what the journalist said in the form of an official statement, adding a sheen of progressive respectability to the lie.

Human Rights Watch entered the chat that same day through its official social-media account. They weren’t the only NGO to amplify the Al-Ahli lie, but they were the first at their level. How did they know it was true? Hamas’ “Gaza Health Ministry” said it. Doctors Without Borders said it. The media said it. Now HRW was validating the allegation once again. Again, notice what’s happening here. To the uninformed person scrolling through TikTok, those look like entirely different sources. When they are all different heads of the same Hydra.

5\. An international body enters the human rights group’s report into the political record as if it is fact.

On October 19th, the UN got involved. One of their illustrious and not-at-all corrupt “human-rights experts” issued a statement under the headline: “UN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide.” Of course, they blamed Israel.

So now, the Al-Ahli allegation was not only being repeated by newspapers, politicians and human-rights organizations. It had entered the language of international institutions. And all within 48 hours.

6\. A thousand other predisposed “journalists” eagerly pick up the story, now using the international body’s report alongside the human rights group’s statement and the first journalist’s initial story as citations for the continued blood libel.

I could cite countless articles lying about this particular topic, but I’ll focus on one written for Al Jazeera. The headline was: “’Yet Another War Crime Committed By The Israeli Army’: Human Rights Watch On Gaza Hospital Attack.”

That headline pretty much says it all. In addition to everything else, the article reported the explosion as an “Israeli airstrike” to an Al Jazeera audience spanning 25+ million unique online visitors per month, 450+ million households worldwide, 150+ countries, 107+ million Facebook followers, 42+ million X followers, 24+ million Instagram followers and 20+ million YouTube subscribers.

It, of course, validated its claims by – amongst other things – quoting Ahmed Benchemsi, one of Human Rights Watch’s directors, as saying the bombing was “yet another war crime committed by the Israeli army.”

But it was no longer shackled to one fallible or biased source. It had its pick of the litter. The Gaza government, countless journalists, humanitarian organizations, the UN. When they all start corroborating the lies, it becomes unassailable.

7\. Academic institutions teach about the ongoing war using all of the above as their study guide, entering the false story as true into the minds of the young, susceptible students, who become activists because of the evil action that they’ve now learned about that never happened.

So finally, the allegation entered the academic ecosystem. This kind of lie being taught in a classroom can be drawn as a direct line to so many young, vulnerable and gullible students becoming radicalized. A few examples:

A “BMJ Global Health” editorial written by academics affiliated with University College London, the University of Melbourne, Birzeit University, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, the University of Sydney and Boston University stated that “an airstrike on Al-Ahli Hospital” had killed at least 471 people. It described it as “one of the most horrific attacks on a healthcare facility in our collective history.”

The University of St. Andrews' Centre for Syrian Studies in Fife, Scotland subsequently discussed Israel’s aggressive actions in Gaza, including “the bombing” of Al-Ahli.

A Cambridge University Press journal article referred to “the Israeli attack on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital,” even while mentioning many paragraphs later that competing accounts existed.

But some falsehoods never die. They become what Bill Maher calls a “zombie lie.” We know it’s not true, and yet it is repeated ad nauseam. In this case, fast forward all the way up to this year – 2026 – when a new PEER-REVIEWED paper published in the well-respected Swiss academic journal “Frontiers in Communication” just mentioned “the Israeli attack on October 17 at al-Ahli Arab Hospital.”

That completes the circle. The initial lie marches through the seven steps, laundered time and again within these “trusted” institutions validating one another until they all just become SOURCES. Independent sources. Respected sources. Institutional sources. But now that you see the pattern, you realize that you’re not looking at ten pieces of evidence. You’re looking at one terrorist narrative wearing ten different suits.

That's the trick. Repetition becomes corroboration. Corroboration becomes consensus. Consensus becomes citation. And citation becomes history. Who even remembers who made the original accusation anymore? And if someone does remember, they don’t have to say “According to Hamas.” That would be ridiculous. Not when they can say “according to Doctors Without Borders, ABC News, Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, BMJ Global Health, the Cambridge University Press, Frontiers in Communication and the United Nations.”

So we can see how having control of all of these institutions – NGOs, media, human rights organizations, universities and international bodies – would come in especially useful to someone who wants to launder lies and vilify the Jews 24/7.

Of course, proving that controlling these institutions would be useful is not the same thing as proving that Hamas actually controls them. So let's move into the part where I lay out some proof. I’ll start with the easy ones:

The non-profit, humanitarian and charity organizations that turned out to be nothing but Hamas storefronts.

THE HUMANITARIAN SHIELD

This is where the theory stops being a theory. Sure, we heard them say it. We know they planned it. But, as they say, “best laid plans of mice and men…” Just because it’s what they wanted doesn’t mean it’s what happened.

But it is. It’s happened. And we have proof.

This next section will show you why we no longer have to speculate about whether terrorist organizations are using non-profits, humanitarian organizations and NGOs as terrorist infrastructure while putting a humanitarian face on them. We know they do.

In 2000, the “Union of Good” (aka “the Charity Coalition,” aka “Itilaf al-Khayr”) was created. Founded in Saudi Arabia during the Second Intifada, it was an international umbrella organization of over 50 Islamic “charities” and “funds.” Why am I putting so many things in quotes? Because it all turned out to be nonsense. In 2008, the United States Treasury Department designated it a terrorist support organization, determined that it was literally founded by Hamas, and that it was raising money through a network of “charitable organizations” from all over the world (including the afore-mentioned Holy Land Foundation) specifically to support Hamas, build political influence for the terrorists and back the families of suicide bombers and other Hamas operatives. The US government froze all its assets under Executive Order 13224 – this after it had transferred an approximate \$100 million to the terrorists in Gaza and Judea and Samaria.

In 2012, the Treasury Department was at it again. This time, it designated two more “charities” as terrorist hubs – both Lebanon-based. The poetically named “Al-Waqfiya Al-Ri’aya Al-Usra Al-Filistinya Wa Al-Lubnanya,” established once again by Hamas itself, and the Al-Quds International Foundation, controlled by Hamas and operating on its behalf. Al-Waqfiya (for short) collected money for Hamas and used money changers and merchants to transfer funds to the terrorists in Gaza. Al-Quds supported Hamas fighters and prisoners, and clandestinely raised money for programs specifically designed to spread Hamas’ “influence and control” throughout Gaza and Judea and Samaria. When I say “clandestinely,” I’m actually being facetious, as many of the board members of this benevolent non-profit were literal Hamas officials. Subtle.

Every time one was cut down, three more popped up. State was already warning that Europe was checkered with these Hamas organizations that the governments of European countries were failing to crack down on (spoiler alert: they still are). So the State Department started stepping in on international affairs. In 2024, Treasury designated an Italian organization called the Associazione Benefica di Solidarietà con il Popolo Palestinese (ABSPP) a terrorist supporting group. As usual, the group claimed they raised money for humanitarian purposes, but they were – as Treasury so perfectly put it – a “sham charity” established by an Italy-based Hamas member who’d been sending money to the terrorist group since at least 2018, and was instrumental in funneling millions to Gaza to help finance Hamas’ “military wing,” the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades (the group that launched the October 7th attack).

But Treasury went further, saying that by 2024, Hamas had developed an entire European fundraising apparatus of fake charities that brought in approximately \$10 million per month to Hamas. Per month, you guys. PER MONTH.

Which brings us squarely to today. The year of our Lord, 2026\.

This January, Treasury designated six more terror supporting non-profit “charities.” At once. Waed Society. Al-Nur Society. Qawafil Society. Al-Falah Society. Al-Salameh Society. And, last but not least, the aptly named Merciful Hands. All six of them Gaza-based. All six of them presenting as medical or humanitarian groups helping Palestinian civilians. All six of them actually supporting Hamas’ military wing.

This time, the US government had an ace up their sleeve in identifying these terrorist outlet malls – actual documents recovered from Hamas offices after October 7th. They had first-hand proof that these “charities” were “organized by, and integrated into, Hamas’s military wing.” Hamas set them up, funded them, tasked them with specific terrorist projects, had them advocate on behalf of captured Hamas terrorists and even had an internal bureaucratic process through which Hamasniks could request specific services from them. Hell, their employee rosters were made up of mostly members of Hamas’ internal security forces.

And, per their playbook that they told us about out loud, Hamas was concealing its affiliation with these organizations so that overseas donors would believe they were giving money to independent humanitarian groups. The donors were usually completely clueless that their money was being spent on terrorist infrastructure.

But we’re not done. In March, Treasury designated four more “charities” in Turkey and Indonesia as being integrated into Hamas's military wing, providing cash directly to Hamas terrorists. One of the Turkish organizations was also moonlighting as an operational headquarters and financial hub for the Muslim Brotherhood, for good measure.

Hamas’ bogus aid groups kept on trucking into July, too. Treasury started out the month targeting two more sham charities – the Madad Palestine Charitable Society in Gaza and Tujah Bulah Global in Indonesia (aka Seven Spikes Global) – both of which, again, were literally created by Hamas to raise money for its military wing. Then, as a chaser, they dismantled a Turkish money exchange that had transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hamas and brought down a senior Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood official based in the UK who had helped fundraise millions for Hamas. Treasury once again announced that they were uncovering a “multi-layered” system in which the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas were using front organizations operating across national borders, using “charitable facades” and underground banking networks to move the money. Just like they said they would do in 1991 and in 1993\.

By the way, IT'S STILL HAPPENING. Just a month and a half ago, the Americans arrested Mohammad Yousef Hasna, the global director of an – you guessed it –international “humanitarian organization” for allegedly coordinating directly with senior Hamas leaders and firehosing them money and supplies. And days after he was arrested, the UK opened a statutory inquiry into the Al-Khair Foundation, another alleged Hamas-funded “charity” bringing in more than \$100 million a year. Since the case is still active, I’ll let you guess where the bulk of that is going.

For the sake of time, I won’t even get into the other “charities” raising money for the other terrorist groups, like when Samidoun was revealed to be an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), despite presenting themselves as a Palestinian prisoner-solidarity network.

At the beginning of this, I asked you to roll with me as I posited the crazy idea that non-profits, relief groups and NGOs presenting themselves as independent humanitarian actors were actually part of a terrorist organization. Well, we’re past all that. Now, it’s not something I'm asking you to imagine. They HAVE existed. They DO exist. They have been caught.

The only question left to ask is how far the model extends.

That's where I'm going to leave you. For now. Because everything we've looked at so far has actually been the easy part. These were the organizations that already were caught. The money has been traced. The documents have been found. The people have been prosecuted. The organizations have been designated.

We don't have to wonder whether Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood built supposedly benevolent organizations to raise money, spread influence and advance their interests while concealing who was really behind them. They did. That part is fact and on the record.

But remember where this whole thing started. I wasn’t just talking about the new(ish) groups that were clearly started for terrorists by terrorists like some demented FUBU.

No, no. I started off talking about journalists. Universities. Human rights organizations. International institutions. The big boys whose names don't merely carry credibility… they confer it.

The next part of this article will cover what happens when we start looking at THEM, as opposed to the obscure “charities” you've never heard of. At some of the most respected humanitarian and human-rights institutions in the world. At massive groups that also reference the same sources, speak with the same vocabulary, make the same assumptions and reliably arrive at the same conclusions as the Hamas-run organizations we’ve just examined.

Which brings us right back to the question I asked at the beginning: What if the ideological conformity isn't where the story begins, but where it ends? What if some of these institutions didn't simply drift toward the same ideology independently? What if there was something more deliberate at work?

As you can likely guess, I already know the answer. In the next article, I’m going to share what I know.

And trust me – that's where things are going to get considerably more interesting.