This is how Epstein is linked to Israel

(MENAFN) When I first arrived in New York, I remember walking into my dentist’s office and thinking I had mistakenly stepped into a casting call. The lobby looked like a runway audition. Eventually I figured out that the clinic shared space with a modeling agency, so it was hard to tell who was there for dental work and who was about to sign a contract.

Jeffrey Epstein’s world functioned in a similar two-track way. His operations blended two spheres that had no business coexisting: one involving minors, and the other involving prominent political figures — including individuals associated with the Israeli state. Unlike veneers and modeling portfolios, the dual nature of Epstein’s activities was jarring in far more disturbing ways.

His universe played out like a warped mix of “Law & Order” and “House of Cards.” The scandalous elements dominated public attention, while the strategic, geopolitical aspects were pushed aside or ignored entirely.

According to reports, in 2006 Epstein coordinated with attorney Alan Dershowitz to attack “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.” Dershowitz produced the counterargument titled “Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy,” and Epstein circulated it widely among his elite network. As some noted, it might have been the reading material of choice on flights to his private island or between personal appointments with young women under his control.

Any time someone raises the idea that a foreign government might be influencing political debates, accusations of prejudice quickly follow. Certain states appear to treat even mild scrutiny of their policies as if it’s some catastrophic trigger capable of collapsing the entire system — the political equivalent of an Indiana Jones booby trap.

Speculation about Epstein’s connections to Israel has surfaced for years. Ghislaine Maxwell — now incarcerated — is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, a business magnate and media figure long rumored to have deep links to Israeli intelligence. His sudden death at sea culminated in a memorial in Jerusalem and a burial on the Mount of Olives, an unusual choice that has fueled questions. One might wonder if London simply wasn’t available.

Epstein also maintained a relationship with former Israeli leader Ehud Barak. According to reports, the two worked together on ventures marketing Israeli cyber tools under the guise of security or tech startups — even to Washington — prompting observers to wonder if US officials were complicit or simply unaware of the true nature of what they were purchasing.

Recently released communications suggest Epstein even arranged meetings between Israeli and Russian representatives during the Syrian conflict. Officially, none of this is considered noteworthy. Yet if identical behavior involved Russia alone, critics would label it foreign meddling without hesitation.

Reports have also examined how influence operations — including ones that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken about supporting — are not confined to the United States.

Even cultural events have become arenas for political tension. The Eurovision Song Contest found itself pulled into controversy after questions emerged about alleged Israeli government involvement. As one report put it: “What are Eurovision’s new voting rules following allegations of Israeli government ‘interference’?” Political monitoring has now reached even song competitions.

Meanwhile, more consequential influence is unfolding behind the scenes. Investigations have pointed out a “close relationship” between Israeli intelligence and the Iranian exile group MEK in Europe. Western advocates such as Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo have championed the organization. With their support, MEK was removed from US and EU terror lists, positioning it as a strategic tool in future attempts to reshape Iran’s political landscape.

Europe’s own attempt to assert independence has been largely symbolic. In the fall, EU officials claimed they were finally taking a tougher line on Israel over Gaza. “Queen” Ursula von der Leyen appeared to frame the decision as a major stance. But the actual adjustments — small cuts of a few million euros — were negligible, especially compared to the EU’s typical spending on administrative extras.

Despite dramatic political rhetoric, core trade agreements remain intact, merely “under review,” a phrase that often means the topic is being pushed quietly into storage. Israel’s counterargument was predictable: accusations that EU leaders had been manipulated by Hamas narratives and overlooked Israeli humanitarian actions. In diplomatic terms, it’s equivalent to saying, “Yes, I knocked down your house with a bulldozer, but I also watered your plants, so let’s not be too dramatic.”

Much of the noise surrounding these disputes masks the deeper reality: Europe’s most significant ties to Israel are military. Nearly half of Israel’s defense exports go to European states. Companies like Elbit and Rafael operate factories on EU soil and recently secured contracts to provide electronic warfare equipment for NATO vessels.

While European leaders announce minor funding adjustments, protesters throughout the continent have been confronting the defense sector itself. Elbit facilities in Germany have been vandalized or picketed, yet officials dismiss the public’s alarm like parents brushing off complaints from teenagers.

Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz even announced a visit to Israel while simultaneously lifting an arms embargo. It’s difficult to claim moral outrage while approving weapons sales.

So, despite Brussels’ declarations that the bloc is “pressuring” Israel, ongoing defense contracts make the criticism about as impactful as taping a sternly worded note to armored machinery.

Epstein, while committing his crimes against young girls, was also involved in promoting military-grade technologies linked to Israel on a global scale. That part of his world — once obscure — is now being pieced together more publicly. He played an active role in discrediting anyone who suspected these connections, casting them as fringe conspiracy theorists who should be ostracized.

Which raises the central dilemma: who is allowed to raise legitimate questions?
If every inquiry is dismissed as prejudice, and if entrenched institutions get to dictate the boundaries of acceptable curiosity, the idea of sovereignty — whether in the US, EU, or elsewhere — becomes little more than a relic preserved behind glass.

MENAFN03122025000045017281ID1110429235