Global Research Editor’s Note

We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.

The authenticity of this interview remains to be confirmed. It was available in recognized electronic news archives including the BBC. 

The interview tends to demystify the Osama bin Laden persona.

Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.  Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.

In this interview, Osama bin Laden exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He focusses on CIA support to the narcotics trade.

He also makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of  the September 11 attacks.

This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.

We have highlighted key sections of this interview.

It is our hope that the text of this interview, published on 28 September 2001 barely a week before the onset of the war on Afghanistan, will contribute to a better understanding of the history of Al Qaeda, the role of Osama bin Laden and the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

I should be noted that on the day preceding the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden had been admitted for treatment in a Military Hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

This was confirmed by Dan Rather in a CBS News Report. 

This interview is published for informational purposes only.

GR does not in any way endorse the statements in this interview. Nor are we in a position to confirm its authenticity.

Michel  Chossudovsky, September 2, 2023

---

Full text of September 2001 Pakistani paper’s “exclusive” interview with Usamah Bin-Ladin

translated from Urdu by the BBC World Monitoring Service

Karachi, 28 September 2001, pp. 1- 7.

Ummat’s introduction

Kabul: Prominent Arab mojahed holy warrior Usamah Bin-Ladin has said that he or his al-Qa’idah group has nothing to do with the 11 September suicidal attacks in Washington and New York. He said the US government should find the attackers within the country. In an exclusive interview with daily “Ummat”, he said these attacks could be the act of those who are part of the American system and are rebelling against it and working for some other system. Or, Usamah said, this could be the act of those who want to make the current century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. Or, the American Jews, who are opposed to President Bush ever since the Florida elections, might be the masterminds of this act. There is also a great possibility of the involvement of US intelligence agencies, which need billions of dollars worth of funds every year. He said there is a government within the government in the United States.

The secret agencies, he said, should be asked as to who are behind the attacks. Usamah said support for attack on Afghanistan was a matter of need for some Muslim countries and compulsion for others. However, he said, he was thankful to the courageous people of Pakistan who erected a bulwark before the wrong forces. He added that the Islamic world was attaching great expectations with Pakistan and, in time of need, “we will protect this bulwark by sacrificing of lives”.

Following is the interview in full detail:

Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

Usamah [Osama bin Laden]: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel.

There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya, and Bosnia?

Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims .

The US has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates.

However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that, it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of United States, or the latter itself considers them as its enemies. Or the countries, which do not agree to become its slaves, such as China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria, and the former Russia as received .

Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.

According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the US government has stated. But the Bush administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be any one, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.

Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This funding issue was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger.

They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance.

Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the US secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the US Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other US president, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.

Ummat: A number of world countries have joined the call of the United States for launching an attack on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will Al-Qa’idah declare a jihad against these countries as well?

Usamah: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam says and what the enemies of Islam want?

Al-Qa’idah was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to encounter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared element of Islam. The first five being the basic holy words of Islam, prayers, fast, pilgrimage to Mecca, and giving alms Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of it. Al-Qa’idah wants to keep this element alive and active and make it part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship. We are not against any Islamic country nor we consider a war against an Islamic country as jihad.

We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel countries, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women, and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the US act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic shari’ah jurisprudence for such individuals, organizations, and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous on them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Amir ol-Momenin the commander of the faithful Mola Omar and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them.

Ummat: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the US is not too difficult. US experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is al-Qa’idah not targeting their economic pillars?

Usamah: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the US is not uttering a single word.

Ummat: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, inciting the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines, and TV channels.

Usamah: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycott of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim world but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today’s world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done.

Ummat: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of Al-Qa’idah and its jihadi successes. Would you comment?

Usamah: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause.

The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which make us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness.

Ummat: What will the impact of the freeze of al-Qa’idah accounts by the US?

Usamah: God opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing of accounts will not make any difference for Al-Qa’idah or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, al-Qa’idah has more than three such alternative financial systems, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What to say of the United States, even the combined world cannot budge these people from their path.

These people are not in hundreds but in thousands and millions. Al-Qa’idah comprises of such modern educated youths who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate in spite of the passage of so many days.

Ummat: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad?

Usamah: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am helpless fellowman of God, constantly in the fear of my accountability before God. It is not the question of Usamah but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad. Thanks to God, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad was still present when there was no Usamah and it will remain as such even when Usamah is no longer there. Allah opens up ways and creates loves in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property, and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the after life. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life.

Ummat: What do you say about the Pakistan government policy on Afghanistan attack?

Usamah: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade in front of the wrong forces and stood in the first file of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized, and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended every help to the mojahedin and the Afghan people. Then these are the same Pakistanis who are standing shoulder by shoulder with the Taleban. If such people emerge in just two countries, the domination of the West will diminish in a matter of days. Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, God forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is sacred for us like a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defence of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who rules Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people.

Copyright Ummat in Urdu, BBC translation in English, 2001

---

Read about Osama Bin Laden in Michel Chossudovsky’s international best-seller

Order Directly from Global Research

America’s “War on Terrorism”

by Michel Chossudovsky

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

 

Nous faisons face présentement à une problème technique.

Pour accéder à la version mobile de mondialisation.ca, cliquez sur le Menu principal de Globalresearch.ca (version mobile), (en haut à gauche) et ensuite cliquez sur Mondialisation.ca.

 

A partir de la semaine prochaine le problème technique devrait être résolu.

Amitiés à tous nos lecteurs

 

The world is globalizing and information has become more accessible to more people than ever before. We are, indeed, in unprecedented times, and we face unprecedented challenges.

The aims of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research are to battle the tidal waves of misinformation and propaganda washing our minds on a daily basis. We have separated ourselves from the corporate controlled mainstream news, whose only objective is to serve their corporate masters. We take no assistance from the major foundations such as Rockefeller, Ford, and MacArthur, who act as patrons (and thus pacifiers) of the alternative and critical voices challenging the forces of globalization.

We do this in order to remain an independent voice, challenging all that needs to be challenged and exposing all that remains in the dark. Bringing light to a dimly lit world is no easy task, and though the aim and method is “independence,” we are, in fact, entirely dependent upon YOU, our readers. Without your support, we cannot continue our operations nor expand our horizons and opportunities. Global Research is indebted to our readers, and we are here for you and because of you. If you would like Global Research to continue and to grow, we need your support now more than ever.

By making a donation  to Global Research, you  assist journalists, researchers and contributors who have either lost their jobs with the mainstream media or who have been excluded from employment opportunities as professional journalists for their pledge to the truth. We send our thanks to all who have contributed so far by donating or becoming a member!

The mainstream media is owned by bankers and corporate kingpins. Not only that, but it has been historically and presently infiltrated by covert government agencies, seeking to deceive and propagandize their agendas. The CIA has long had associations with major mainstream news publications. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. The CIA even ran a training program “to teach its agents to be journalists,” who were “then placed in major news organizations with help from management.”

At Global Research, we seek to not only expose and criticize the larger picture, but to point the finger at the media, itself, and examine who is lying, why they lie, and how they get away with it.

To continue in our endeavours, we need our readers to continue in their support.

One important and helpful thing that all of our readers can do is to help spread our name and information by “sharing and  “liking” our Facebook page here. We post articles daily that will appear in your news feed so that you don’t have to come to us, we can bring our information straight to you. “Like” our page and recommend us to your friends. Every bit helps! You can also subscribe to our RSS feed

You can also support us by continuing to send us your much needed donations which allow us to continue our day-to-day operations and help us expand our scope and content.

Supporting Global Research is supporting the cause of truth and the fight against media disinformation.

Thank you.

The Global Research Team

FOR ONLINE DONATIONS

For online donations, please click below:

VISIT THE DONATION PAGE

FOR DONATIONS BY MAIL

To send your donation by mail, kindly send your cheque or international money order, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

PO Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest,

Montreal, QC, H2Y 4A7
CANADA

FOR DONATIONS BY FAX
For payment by fax, please print the credit card fax authorization form and fax your order and credit card details to Global Research at 514 656 5294

You can also support us by purchasing books from our store! Click to browse our titles.

A deluge of articles have been quickly put into circulation defending France’s military intervention in the African nation of Mali. TIME’s article, “The Crisis in Mali: Will French Intervention Stop the Islamist Advance?” decides that old tricks are the best tricks, and elects the tiresome “War on Terror” narrative.TIME claims the intervention seeks to stop “Islamist” terrorists from overrunning both Africa and all of Europe. Specifically, the article states:

“…there is a (probably well-founded) fear in France that a radical Islamist Mali threatens France most of all, since most of the Islamists are French speakers and many have relatives in France. (Intelligence sources in Paris have told TIME that they’ve identified aspiring jihadis leaving France for northern Mali to train and fight.) Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), one of the three groups that make up the Malian Islamist alliance and which provides much of the leadership, has also designated France — the representative of Western power in the region — as a prime target for attack.”

What TIME elects not to tell readers is that Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is closely allied to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG whom France intervened on behalf of during NATO’s 2011 proxy-invasion of Libya – providing weapons, training, special forces and even aircraft to support them in the overthrow of Libya’s government.

As far back as August of 2011, Bruce Riedel out of the corporate-financier funded think-tank, the Brookings Institution, wrote “Algeria will be next to fall,” where he gleefully predicted success in Libya would embolden radical elements in Algeria, in particular AQIM. Between extremist violence and the prospect of French airstrikes, Riedel hoped to see the fall of the Algerian government. Ironically Riedel noted:

Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.

And thanks to NATO, that is exactly what Libya has become – a Western sponsored sanctuary for Al-Qaeda. AQIM’s headway in northern Mali and now French involvement will see the conflict inevitably spill over into Algeria. It should be noted that Riedel is a co-author of “Which Path to Persia?” which openly conspires to arm yet another US State Department-listed terrorist organization (list as #28), the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to wreak havoc across Iran and help collapse the government there – illustrating a pattern of using clearly terroristic organizations, even those listed as so by the US State Department, to carry out US foreign policy.Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar noted a more direct connection between LIFG and AQIM in an Asia Times piece titled, “How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli:”

“Crucially, still in 2007, then al-Qaeda’s number two, Zawahiri, officially announced the merger between the LIFG and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). So, for all practical purposes, since then, LIFG/AQIM have been one and the same – and Belhaj was/is its emir. “

“Belhaj,” referring to Hakim Abdul Belhaj, leader of LIFG in Libya, led with NATO support, arms, funding, and diplomatic recognition, the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi and has now plunged the nation into unending racist and tribal, genocidal infighting. This intervention has also seen the rebellion’s epicenter of Benghazi peeling off from Tripoli as a semi-autonomous “Terror-Emirate.” Belhaj’s latest campaign has shifted to Syria where he was admittedly on the Turkish-Syrian border pledging weapons, money, and fighters to the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” again, under the auspices of NATO support.

LIFG, which with French arms, cash, and diplomatic support, is now invading northern Syria on behalf of NATO’s attempted regime change there, officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007 according to the US Army’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). According to the CTC, AQIM and LIFG share not only ideological goals, but strategic and even tactical objectives. The weapons LIFG received most certainly made their way into the hands of AQIM on their way through the porous borders of the Sahara Desert and into northern Mali.

It is no coincidence that as the Libyan conflict was drawing to a conclusion, conflict erupted in northern Mali. It is part of a premeditated geopolitical reordering that began with toppling Libya, and since then, using it as a springboard for invading other targeted nations, including Mali, Algeria, and Syria with heavily armed, NATO-funded and aided terrorists.

Algeria was able to balk subversion during the early phases of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” in 2011, but it surely has not escaped the attention of the West who is in the midst of transforming a region stretching from Africa to Beijing and Moscow’s doorsteps – and in a fit of geopolitical schizophrenia – using terrorists both as a casus belli to invade and as an inexhaustible mercenary force to do it.

Part I: Syria comes to the Russian Caucasus

On August 28 Sheikh Said Afandi, acknowledged spiritual leader of the Autonomous Russian Republic of Dagestan, was assassinated. A jihadist female suicide bomber managed to enter his house and detonate an explosive device.

The murder target had been carefully selected. Sheikh Afandi, a seventy-five-year old Sufi Muslim leader, had played the critical role in attempting to bring about reconciliation in Dagestan between jihadist Salafi Sunni Muslims and other factions, many of whom in Dagestan see themselves as followers of Sufi. With no replacement of his moral stature and respect visible, authorities fear possible outbreak of religious war in the tiny Russian autonomous republic.[1]

The police reported that the assassin was an ethnic Russian woman who had converted to Islam and was linked to an Islamic fundamentalist or Salafist insurgency against Russia and regional governments loyal to Moscow in the autonomous republics and across the volatile Muslim-populated North Caucasus region.

Ethnic Muslim populations in this region of Russia and of the former Soviet Union, including Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan and into China’s Xinjiang Province, have been the target of various US and NATO intelligence operations since the Cold War era ended in 1990. Washington sees manipulation of Muslim groups as the vehicle to bring uncontrollable chaos to Russia and Central Asia. It’s being carried out by some of the same organizations engaged in creating chaos and destruction inside Syria against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. In a real sense, as Russian security services clearly understand, if they don’t succeed in stopping the Jihadists insurgency in Syria, it will come home to them via the Caucasus.

The latest Salafist murders of Sufi and other moderate Muslim leaders in the Caucasus are apparently part of what is becoming ever clearer as perhaps the most dangerous US intelligence operation ever—playing globally with Muslim fundamentalism.

Previously US and allied intelligence services had played fast and loose with religious organizations or beliefs in one or another country. What makes the present situation particularly dangerous—notably since the decision in Washington to unleash the misnamed Arab Spring upheavals that began in Tunisia late 2010, spreading like a brushfire across the entire Islamic world from Afghanistan across Central Asia to Morocco—is the incalculable wave upon wave of killing, hatreds, destruction of entire cultures that Washington has unleashed in the name of that elusive dream named “democracy.” They do this using alleged Al-Qaeda groups, Saudi Salafists or Wahhabites, or using disciples of Turkey’s Fethullah Gülen Movement to ignite fires of religious hatred within Islam and against other faiths that could take decades to extinguish. It could easily spill over into a new World War.

Fundamentalism comes to Caucasus

Following the dissolution of the USSR, radical Afghanistani Mujahadeen, Islamists from Saudi Arabia, from Turkey, Pakistan and other Islamic countries flooded into the Muslim regions of the former USSR. One of the best-organized of these was the Gülen Movement of Fethullah Gülen, leader of a global network of Islamic schools and reported to be the major policy influence on Turkey’s Erdogan AKP party.

Gülen was quick to establish The International Dagestani-Turkish College in Dagestan. During the chaotic days after the Soviet collapse, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation officially registered and permitted unfettered activity for a variety of Islamic foundations and organizations. These included the League of the Islamic World, the World Muslim Youth Assembly, the reportedly Al-Qaeda friendly Saudi foundation ‘Ibrahim ben Abd al-Aziz al-Ibrahim.’ The blacklist also included Al-Haramein a Saudi foundation reported tied to Al-Qaeda, and IHH, [2] a Turkish organization banned in Germany, that allegedly raised funds for jihadi fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan, and was charged by French intelligence of ties to Al Qaeda.[3] Many of these charities were covers for fundamentalist Salafists with their own special agenda.

As many of the foreign Islamists in Chechnya and Dagestan were found involved in fomenting the regional unrest and civil war, Russian authorities withdrew permission of most to run schools and institutions. Throughout the North Caucasus at the time of the Chechyn war in the late 1990’s, there were more than two dozen Islamic institutes, some 200 madrassas and numerous maktabas (Koranic study schools) present at almost all mosques.

The International Dagestani-Turkish College was one that was forced to close its doors in Dagestan. The College was run by the Fethullah Gülen organization.[4]

At the point of the Russian crackdown on the spread of Salafist teaching inside Russia at the end of the 1990’s, there was an exodus of hundreds of young Dagestani and Chechyn Muslim students to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other places in The Middle east, reportedly to receive training with the Gülen movement and various Saudi-financed organizations, including Salafists. [5] It is believed in Russia that the students trained by Gülen supporters or Saudi and other Salafist fundamentalist centers then were sent back to Dagestan and the North Caucasus to spread their radical strain of Islam.

By 2005 the situation in the Caucasus was so influenced by this Salafist intervention that the Chechen Salafist, Doku Umarov, cited by the UN Security Council for links to Al-Qaeda,[6] unilaterally declared creation of what he called the Caucasus Emirate, announcing he planned to establish an Islamic state under Sharia law encompassing the entire North Caucasus region including Dagestan. He modestly proclaimed himself Emir of the Caucasus Emirate. [7]

*  *  *

*  *  *

 

Part II: Salafism at war with Sufi tradition

Salafism, known in Saudi Arabia as Wahhabism, is a fundamentalist strain of Islam which drew world attention and became notorious in March 2001 just weeks before the attacks of September 11. That was when the Salafist Taliban government in Afghanistan willfully dynamited and destroyed the historic gigantic Buddhas of Bamiyan on the ancient Silk Road, religious statues dating from the 6^th Century. The Taliban Salafist leaders also banned as “un-islamic” all forms of imagery, music and sports, including television, in accordance with what they considered a strict interpretation of Sharia.

Afghani sources reported that the order to destroy the Buddhas was made by Saudi-born jihadist Wahhabite, Osama bin Laden, who ultimately convinced Mullah Omar, Taliban supreme leader at the time to execute the act.[8]

Before and…After Salafist Taliban …

While Sufis incorporate the worship of saints and theatrical ceremonial prayers into their practice, Salafis condemn as idolatry any non-traditional forms of worship. They also call for the establishment of Islamic political rule and strict Sharia law. Sufism is home to the great spiritual and musical heritage of Islam, said by Islamic scholars to be the inner, mystical, or psycho-spiritual dimension of Islam, going back centuries.

As one Sufi scholar described the core of Sufism, “While all Muslims believe that they are on the pathway to God and will become close to God in Paradise–after death and the ‘Final Judgment’– Sufis believe as well that it is possible to become close to God and to experience this closeness–while one is alive. Furthermore, the attainment of the knowledge that comes with such intimacy with God, Sufis assert, is the very purpose of the creation. Here they mention the hadith qudsi in which God states, ‘I was a hidden treasure and I loved that I be known, so I created the creation in order to be known.’ Hence for the Sufis there is already a momentum, a continuous attraction on their hearts exerted by God, pulling them, in love, towards God.” [9]

The mystical Islamic current of Sufism and its striving to become close to or one with God is in stark contrast to the Jihadist Salafi or Wahhabi current that is armed with deadly weapons, preaches a false doctrine of jihad, and a perverse sense of martyrdom, committing countless acts of violence. Little wonder that the victims of Salafist Jihads are mostly other pacific forms of Islam including most especially Sufis.

The respected seventy-five year old Afandi had publicly denounced Salafist Islamic fundamentalism. His murder followed a July 19 coordinated attack on two high-ranking muftis in the Russian Volga Republic of Tatarstan. Both victims were state-approved religious leaders who had attacked radical Islam. This latest round of murders opens a new front in the Salafist war against Russia, namely attacks on moderate Sufi Muslim leaders.

Whether or not Dagestan now descends into internal religious civil war that then spreads across the geopolitically sensitive Russian Caucasus is not yet certain. What is almost certain is that the same circles who have been feeding violence and terror inside Syria against the regime of Alawite President Bashar al-Assad are behind the killing of Sheikh Afandi as well as sparking related acts of terror or unrest across Russia’s Muslim-populated Caucasus. In a very real sense it represents Russia’s nightmare scenario of “Syria coming to Russia.” It demonstrates dramatically why Putin has made such a determined effort to stop a descent into a murderous hell in Syria.

Salafism and the CIA

The existence of the so-called jihadist Salafi brand of Islam in Dagestan is quite recent. It has also been deliberately imported. Salafism is sometimes also called the name of the older Saudi-centered Wahhabism. Wahhabism is a minority originally-Bedouin form of the faith originating within Islam, dominant in Saudi Arabia since the 1700’s.

Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism give the following description of Saudi conditions under the rigid Wahhabi brand of Islam:

“Women living under Saudi rule must wear the abaya, or total body cloak, and niqab, the face veil; they have limited opportunities for schooling and careers; they are prohibited from driving vehicles; are banned from social contact with men not relatives, and all personal activity must be supervised including opening bank accounts, by a male family member or “guardian.” These Wahhabi rules are enforced by a mutawiyin, or morals militia, also known as “the religious police,” officially designated the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) who patrol Saudi cities, armed with leather-covered sticks which they freely used against those they considered wayward. They raid homes looking for alcohol and drugs, and harassed non-Wahhabi Muslims as well as believers in other faiths.” [10]

It’s widely reported that the obscenely opulent and morally-perhaps-not-entirely-of- the-highest-standards Saudi Royal Family made a Faustian deal with Wahhabite leaders. The deal supposedly, was that the Wahhabists are free to export their fanatical brand of Islam around to the Islamic populations of the world in return for agreeing to leave the Saudi Royals alone.[11] There are, however, other dark and dirty spoons stirring the Wahhabite-Salafist Saudi stew.

Little known is the fact that the present form of aggressive Saudi Wahhabism, in reality a kind of fusion between imported jihadi Salafists from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the fundamentalist Saudi Wahhabites. Leading Salafist members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were introduced into the Saudi Kingdom in the 1950’s by the CIA in a complex series of events, when Nasser cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood following an assassination attempt. By the 1960’s an influx of Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia fleeing Nasserite repression, had filled many of the leading teaching posts in Saudi religious schools. One student there was a young well-to-do Saudi, Osama bin Laden.  [12]

During the Third Reich, Hitler Germany had supported the Muslim Brotherhood as a weapon against the British in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. Marc Erikson describes the Nazi roots of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood thus:

…as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and ’40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and “supreme guide” Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini.[13]

After the defeat of Germany, British Intelligence moved in to take over control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ultimately, for financial and other reasons, the British decided to hand their assets within the Muslim Brotherhood over to their CIA colleagues in the 1950s. [14]

According to former US Justice Department Nazi researcher John Loftus,  “during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like Dr Abdullah Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism.” [15]

“Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not,” Loftus continues. “They think that Islam–the Saudi version of Islam–is typical, but it’s not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in Saudi Arabia–that’s how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence.” [16]

Loftus identified the significance of what today is emerging from the shadows to take over Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, and the so-called Syrian National Council, dominated in reality by the Muslim Brotherhood and publicly led by the more “politically correct” or presentable likes of Bassma Kodmani. Kodmani, foreign affairs spokesman for the SNC was twice an invited guest at the Bilderberg elite gathering, latest in Chantilly, Virginia earlier this year.[17]

The most bizarre and alarming feature of the US-financed  regime changes set into motion in 2010, which have led to the destruction of the secular Arab regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muhammar Qaddafi in Libya, and the secular regime of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, and which have wreaked savage destruction across the Middle East, especially in the past eighteen months in Syria, is the pattern of emerging power grabs by representatives of the murky Salafist Muslim Brotherhood.

By informed accounts, a Saudi-financed Sunni Islamic Muslim Brotherhood dominates the members of the exile Syrian National Council that is backed by the US State Department’s Secretary Clinton and by Hollande’s France. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is tied, not surprisingly to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood of President Mohammed Morsi who recently in a meeting of the Non-Aligned in Iran called openly for the removal of Syria’s Assad, a logical step if his Muslim Brothers in the present Syrian National Council are to take the reins of power. The Saudis are also rumored to have financed the ascent to power in Tunisia of the governing Islamist Ennahda Party,[18] and are documented to be financing the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council against President Bashar al-Assad. [19]

Part III: Morsi’s Reign of Salafi Terror

Indicative of the true agenda of this Muslim Brotherhood and related jihadists today is the fact that once they have power, they drop the veil of moderation and reconciliation and reveal their violently intolerant roots. This is visible in Egypt today under Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi.

Unreported in mainstream Western media to date are alarming direct reports from Christian missionary organizations in Egypt that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood has already begun to drop the veil of “moderation and conciliation” and show its brutal totalitarian Salafist colors, much as Khomeini’s radical Sharia forces did in Iran after taking control in 1979-81.

In a letter distributed by the Christian Aid Mission (CAM), a Christian Egyptian missionary wrote that Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood “announced they would destroy the country if Morsi didn’t win, but they also said they will take revenge from all those who voted for [his opponent Ahmed] Shafiq, especially the Christians as they are sure we did vote for Shafiq. Yesterday they began by killing two believers in el Sharqiya because of this,” the missionary added, speaking on condition of anonymity.[20]

This report came only weeks after Egyptian State TV (under Morsi’s control) showed ghastly video footage of a convert from Islam to Christianity being murdered by Muslims. The footage showed a young man being held down by masked men with a knife to his throat. As one man was heard chanting Muslim prayers in Arabic, mostly condemning Christianity, another man holding the knife to the Christian convert’s throat began to cut, slowly severing the head amid cries of “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is great”), according to transcripts. In the letter, the Egyptian missionary leader added that, “soon after Morsi won, Christians in upper Egypt were forcibly prevented from going to churches.” Many Muslims, the letter claimed, “also began to speak to women in the streets that they had to wear Islamic clothing including the head covering. They act as if they got the country for their own, it’s theirs now.” [21]

Already in 2011 Morsi’s Salafist followers began attacking and destroying Sufi mosques across Egypt. According to the authoritative newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm (Today’s Egyptian), 16 historic mosques in Alexandria belonging to Sufi orders have been marked for destruction by so-called ‘Salafis’. Alexandria has 40 mosques associated with Sufis, and is the headquarters for 36 Sufi groups. Half a million Sufis live in the city, out of a municipal total of four million people. Aggression against the Sufis in Egypt has included a raid on Alexandria’s most distinguished mosque, named for, and housing, the tomb of the 13th century Sufi Al-Mursi Abu’l Abbas.[22]

Notably, the so-called “democratically elected” regime in Libya following the toppling of Mohamar Qaddafi by NATO bombs in 2011, has also been zealous in destroying Sufi mosques and places of worhip. In August this year, UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova expressed “grave concern” at the destruction by Islamic Jihadists of Sufi sites in Zliten, Misrata and Tripoli and urged perpetrators to “cease the destruction immediately.” [23] Under behind-the-scenes machinations the Libyan government is dominated by Jihadists and by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood, as in Tunisia and Egypt. [24]

The explosive cocktail of violence inherent in allowing the rise to power of Salafist Islamists across the Middle East was clear to see, symbolically enough on the night of September 11,^th when a mob of angry supporters of the fanatical Salafist group, Ansar Al-Sharia, murdered the US Ambassador to Libya and three US diplomats, burning the US Consulate in Bengazi to the ground in protest over a YouTube release of a film by an American filmmaker showing the Prophet Mohammed indulging in multiple sex affairs and casting doubt on his role as God’s messenger. Ironically that US Ambassador had played a key role in toppling Qaddafi and opening the door to the Salafist takeover in Libya. At the same time angry mobs of thousands of Salafists surrounded the US Embassy in Cairo in protest to the US film. [25]

Ansar Al-Sharia (“Partisans of Islamic law” in Arabic) reportedly is a spinoff of Al-Qaeda and claims organizations across the Middle East from Yemen to Tunisia to Iraq, Egypt and Libya. Ansar al-Sharia says it is reproducing the model of Sharia or strict Islamic law espoused by the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant umbrella group that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq. The core of the group are jihadists who came out of an “Islamic state”, either in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s, or among jihadists in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003.[26]

The deliberate detonation now of a new round of Salafist fundamentalist Jihad terror inside Muslim regions of the Russian Caucasus is exquisitely timed politically to put maximum pressure at home on the government of Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Putin and the Russian Government are the strongest and most essential backer of the current Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, and for Russia as well the maintenance of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base at Syria’s Tartus port is vital strategically. At the same time, Obama’s sly message to Medvedev to wait until Obama’s re-election to evaluate US intent towards Russia and Putin’s cryptic recent comment that a compromise with a re-elected President Obama might be possible, but not with a President Romney, [27] indicate that the Washington “stick-and-carrot” or hard cop-soft cop tactics with Moscow might tempt Russia to sacrifice major geopolitical alliances, perhaps even that special close and recent geopolitical alliance with China.[28] Were that to happen, the World might witness a “reset” in US-Russian relations with catastrophic consequences for world peace.

F. William Engdahl*  is the author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order

Notes:

Dear Readers,

Welcome to the newly redesigned Global Research website!

We are very proud to launch an updated version of our website, featuring the same timely and analytical content as before, in a display that will be easier for our readers to navigate so that you can get the information you need as quickly and easily as possible.

On this website, you will be able to access an archive of more than 30,000 articles published by Global Research.

We thank all of our readers for the feedback you have sent us over the years and hope you will enjoy your browsing experience.

These changes would not be possible without your support, and for that we extend our sincere appreciation.

To help us cover the costs of important projects and necessary upgrades like this, we kindly ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research.

We also take this opportunity to invite you to become a Member of Global Research

If we stand together, we can fight media lies and expose the truth. There is too much at stake to choose ignorance.

Be aware, stay informed, spread the message of peace far and wide.

Feedback and suggestions regarding our new website are most welcome. To post a comment, kindly visit us on the Global Research facebook page

Sincerely,

 

The Global Research Team

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

This article was first published on March 9, 2022, revised and expanded on October 5, 2022, minor revisions on May 25, 2023.

 

Introduction

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped.

Let us also recall the unspoken history of America’s doctrine pertaining to the conduct of nuclear war. 

Barely six weeks after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. War Department released a Secret Plan on September 15, 1945 to  bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union with 204 atomic bombs.

The September 1945 Plan was to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map” at a time when the US and the USSR were allies. Confirmed by declassified documents, Hiroshima and Nagasaki served as a “Dress Rehearsal” (see historical details and analysis below). 

---

Video: The Dangers of Nuclear War: Michel Chossudovsky

Comments: Link to Odysee

---

Putin’s February 2022 Statement

Vladimir Putin’s statement on February 21st, 2022 was a response to US threats to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis against Russia, despite Joe Biden’s “reassurance” that the US would not be resorting to “A first strike” nuclear attack against an enemy of America: 

“Let me [Putin] explain that U.S. strategic planning documents contain the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike against enemy missile systems. And who is the main enemy for the U.S. and NATO? We know that too. It’s Russia. In NATO documents, our country is officially and directly declared the main threat to North Atlantic security. And Ukraine will serve as a forward springboard for the strike.” (Putin Speech, February 21, 2022, emphasis added)

In July 2021, the Biden administration launched its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) which was formally announced in October 2022.

The 2022 NPR includes what is described as a “nuclear declaratory policy of the United States”.

The 2022 NPR largely confirms the nuclear options developed by the Obama and Bush administrations predicated on the notion of preemptive nuclear war raised in President Putin’s speech. 

The underlying US nuclear doctrine consists in portraying nuclear weapons as a means of “self defense” rather than as a “weapon of mass destruction”.

The NPR does not rule out the possibility of a “first strike” nuclear attack against Russia. According to the US Congress Research Service:  

“The NPR [2022] suggests that the United States may use nuclear weapons in circumstances that do not involve potential adversaries’ potential use of nuclear weapons. …The review also asserts that an ‘effective nuclear deterrent is foundational to broader U.S. defense strategy,’ but does not elaborate.  (…)”

The Privatization of Nuclear War 

It should be understood, that there are powerful financial interests behind the NPR which are tied into the $1.3  trillion nuclear weapons program initiated under President Obama. 

Although the Ukraine conflict has so-far been limited to conventional weapons coupled with “economic warfare”, the use of a large array of sophisticated WMDs including nuclear weapons is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.

Dangerous narrative: The NPR proposes “increased integration of conventional and nuclear planning”, which consists in categorizing tactical nuclear weapons (e.g. B61-11 and 12) as conventional weapons, to be used on a preemptive basis in the conventional war theater (as a means of self defense)

According to the Federation of American Scientists, the total number of nuclear warheads Worldwide is of the order of 13,000.  Russia and the United States “each have around 4,000 warheads in their military stockpiles”.

The Dangers of Nuclear War are Real. Profit Driven. Two Trillion Dollars

Under Joe Biden, public funds allocated to nuclear weapons are slated to increase to 2 trillion by 2030 allegedly as a means to safeguarding peace and national security at taxpayers expense. (How many schools and hospitals could you finance with 2 trillion dollars?):

The United States maintains an arsenal of about 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and at strategic bomber bases. There are an additional estimated 100 non-strategic, or tactical, nuclear weapons at bomber bases in five European countries and about 2,000 nuclear warheads in storage. [see our analysis of B61-11 and B61-12 below]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in May 2021 that the United States will spend a total of $634 billion over the next 10 years to sustain and modernize its nuclear arsenal. (Arms Control)

In this article, I will focus on

• The Post Cold War shift in US Nuclear Doctrine,
• A brief review of the History of US-Russia Relations since World War I, 
• An Assessment of  the history of nuclear weapons going back to the Manhattan Project initiated in 1939 with the participation of both Canada and the United Kingdom. 

Most people in America do not know that the Manhattan Project in the immediate wake of bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki in August 1945, was intended to formulate a nuclear attack against the USSR, at a time when the Soviet Union and the U.S. were allies. 

What I am referring to is the U.S Blueprint of September 15, 1945 according to which the US War Department planned to drop more than 200 atomic bombs on 66 cities of the Soviet Union. This is not mentioned in the history books. See:

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1945-Atomic-Bomb-Production.pdf 

A Note on the History of US-Russia Relations. The Forgotten War of 1918

From a historical standpoint the US and its Allies have been threatening Russia for more than 104 years starting during World War I with the deployment of US and Allied Forces against Soviet Russia on January 12, 1918, (two months following the November 7, 1917 revolution allegedly in support of Russia’s Imperial Army).  

The 1918 US-UK Allied invasion of Russia is a landmark in Russian History, often mistakenly portrayed as being part of a Civil War. 

It lasted for more than two years involving the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I  dispatched 70,000 troops. 

US Troops in Vladivostok, 1918

US Occupation Troops in Vladivostok 1918

US and Allied Troops in Vladivostok in 1918

The Threat of Nuclear War

The US threat of nuclear war against Russia was formulated more than 76 years ago in September 1945, when the US and the Soviet Union were allies. It consisted in a “World War III Blueprint” of nuclear war against the USSR, targeting 66 cities with more than 200 atomic bombs. This diabolical project under the Manhattan Project was instrumental in triggering the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. (See analysis below).

Chronology

1918-1920:  The first US and allied forces led war against Soviet Russia with more than 10 countries sending troops to fight alongside the White Imperial Russian army. This happened exactly two months after the October Revolution, on January 12, 1918, and it lasted until the early 1920s.

The Manhattan Project initiated in 1939, with the participation of the UK and Canada. Development of the Atomic Bomb. 

Operation Barbarossa, June 1941. Nazi Invasion of the Soviet Union. Standard Oil of New Jersey was selling oil to Nazi Germany.

February 1945: The Yalta Conference. The meeting of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.

“Operation Unthinkable”: A Secret attack plan against the Soviet Union formulated by Winston Churchill in the immediate wake of the Yalta conference. It was scrapped in June 1945.

April 12, 1945: The Potsdam Conference. President Harry Truman and Prime Minister Winston Churchill approve the atomic bombing of Japan.

September 15, 1945: A World War III Scenario formulated by the US War Department: A plan to  bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union with 204 atomic bombs, when the US and USSR were allies. The Secret plan  (declassified in 1975) formulated during WWII, was released less than two weeks after the official end of WWII on September 2, 1945

1949: The Soviet Union announces the testing of its nuclear bomb.

Post Cold War Doctrine: “Preemptive Nuclear War”

The Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) of the Cold War Era no longer prevails. It was replaced at the outset of the George W. Bush Administration with the Doctrine of Preemptive Nuclear War, namely the use of nuclear weapons as a means of “self-defense” against both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states.

In early 2002, the text of George W. Bush’s Nuclear Posture Review had already been leaked, several months prior to the release of the September 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) which defined, “Preemption” as:

“the anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack”. 

Namely as an act of war on the grounds of self-defense

The MAD doctrine was scrapped. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review not only redefined the use of nuclear weapons, so-called tactical nuclear weapons or bunker buster bombs (mini-nukes) could henceforth be used in the conventional war theater without the authorization of the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States.

Seven countries were identified in the 2001 NPR (adopted in 2002) as potential targets for a preemptive nuclear attack 

Discussing “requirements for nuclear strike capabilities,” the report lists Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria as “among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies.”  …

Three of these countries (Iraq, Libya and Syria) have since then been the object of US-led wars. The 2001 NPR also confirmed continued nuclear war preparations against China and Russia.

“The Bush review also indicates that the United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, citing “the combination of China’s still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non-nuclear forces.”

“Finally, although the review repeats Bush administration assertions that Russia is no longer an enemy, it says the United States must be prepared for nuclear contingencies with Russia and notes that, if “U.S. relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future, the U.S. may need to revise its nuclear force levels and posture.” Ultimately, the review concludes that nuclear conflict with Russia is “plausible” but “not expected.” [that. was back in 2002] ( Arms Control) emphasis added.

The Privatization of Nuclear War

With tensions growing in major regions of the World, a new generation of nuclear weapons technology was unfolding making nuclear warfare a very real prospect. And with very little fanfare, the US had embarked on the privatization of nuclear war under a first-strike “preemptive” doctrine. This process went into full swing in the immediate wake of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (2001 NPR) adopted by the US Senate in 2002.

On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance.

This mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima. The meeting was intended to set the stage for the development of a new generation of “smaller”, “safer” and “more usable” nuclear weapons, to be used in the “in-theater nuclear wars” of the 21st Century.”

“Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”. 

Nuclear War against both China and Russia is contemplated

Russia is tagged as  “Plausible” but “Not Expected”. That was back in 2002.

Today at the height of the Ukraine war, a Preemptive Nuclear attack against Russia is on the drawing of the Pentagon. That does not however mean that it will be implemented.

A Nuclear War Cannot be Won?

We recall Reagan’s historic statement: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used.”

Nonetheless, there are powerful voices and lobby groups within the US establishment and the Biden administration that are convinced that “a nuclear war is winnable”.

Flashback to Inter-War Period: Wall Street Finances Hitler’s Election Campaign 

According to Yuri Robsov, Wall Street and the Rockefellers were funding Germany’s war machine as well as Adolf Hitler’s election campaign:

American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Danat-Bank (Darmstädter und Nationalbank), etc.  were under the control of American financial capital.

The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler personally.

“Operation Unthinkable”: A World War III Scenario Formulated During World War II

Churchill’s “Operation Unthinkable” against Soviet Forces in Eastern Europe (see above) was abandoned in June 1945.

During his mandate as Prime Minister (1940-45), Churchill had supported the Manhattan Project. He was a protagonist of nuclear war against the Soviet Union, which had been contemplated under the Manhattan project as early as 1942, when the US and the Soviet Union were allies against Nazi Germany.

A  Blueprint for a Third World War using nuclear weapons against 66 major urban areas of the Soviet Union was officially formulated on September 15, 1945 by the US War Department (see section below).

The Potsdam Conference

Barely two weeks after the official end of World War II (September 2, 1945), the US War Department issued  a directive  (September 15, 1945) to “Erase the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and USSR were allies, confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)

According to a secret (declassified) document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union  with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.

All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas.

Six atomic bombs were to be used to destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.

The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 atomic bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities.

One single atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima resulted in the immediate death of 100,000 people in the first seven seconds. Imagine what would have happened if 204 atomic bombs had been dropped on major cities of the Soviet Union as outlined in a secret U.S. plan formulated during the Second World War.

Hiroshima in the wake of the atomic bomb attack, 6 August 1945

The document outlining this diabolical military agenda had been released in September 1945, barely one month after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (6 and 9 August, 1945) and two years before the onset of the Cold War (1947).

The secret plan dated September 15, 1945 (two weeks after the surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri, see image below) , however, had been formulated at an earlier period, namely at the height of World War II,  at a time when America and the Soviet Union were close allies.

The Manhattan project was launched in 1939, two years prior to America’s entry into World War II in December 1941. The Kremlin was fully aware of the secret Manhattan project as early as 1942.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Dress Rehearsal for Planned Nuclear Attack against the Soviet Union

Were the August 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks used by the Pentagon to evaluate the viability of  a much larger attack on the Soviet Union consisting of more than 204 atomic bombs? The key documents to bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union (15 September 1945) were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945):

“On September 15, 1945 — just under two weeks after the formal surrender of Japan and the end of World War II — Norstad sent a copy of the estimate to General Leslie Groves, still the head of the Manhattan Project, and the guy who, for the short term anyway, would be in charge of producing whatever bombs the USAAF might want. As you might guess, the classification on this document was high: “TOP SECRET LIMITED,” which was about as high as it went during World War II. (Alex Wellerstein, The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements (September 1945)

The Kremlin was aware of the 1945 plan to bomb sixty-six Soviet cities.

The documents confirm that the US was involved in the “planning of genocide” against the Soviet Union. 

Let’s cut to the chase. How many bombs did the USAAF request of the atomic general, when there were maybe one, maybe twobombs worth of fissile material on hand? At a minimum they wanted 123. Ideally, they’d like 466. This is just a little over a month after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course, in true bureaucratic fashion, they provided a handy-dandy chart (Alex Wellerstein, op. cit)

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1945-Atomic-Bomb-Production.pdf 

Soviet Cities to be targeted with Atomic Bombs

 

Map of 66 Soviet Urban Strategic Areas to be Bombed with 206 atomic Bombs (Declassified September 1945) 

Access all the documents of the September 15, 1945 Operation

The Nuclear Arms Race

Central to our understanding of the Cold War which started (officially) in 1947, Washington’s September 1945 plan to bomb 66 cities into smithereens played a key role in triggering the nuclear arms race.

The Soviet Union was threatened and developed its own atomic bomb in 1949 in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.

While the Kremlin knew about these plans to “Wipe out” the USSR, the broader public was not informed because the September 1945 documents were of course classified. They were declassified 30 years later in September 1975

Today, neither the September 1945 plan to blow up the Soviet Union nor the underlying cause of the nuclear arms race are acknowledged. The Western media has largely focussed its attention on the Cold War US-USSR confrontation. The plan to annihilate the Soviet Union dating back to World War II and the infamous Manhattan project are not mentioned.

Washington’s Cold War nuclear plans are invariably presented in response to so-called Soviet threats, when in fact it was the U.S. plan released in September 1945 (formulated at an earlier period at the height of World War II) to wipe out the Soviet which motivated Moscow to develop its nuclear weapons capabilities.

The assessment of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists mistakenly blamed and continue to blame the Soviet Union for having launched the nuclear arms race in 1949, four years after the release of the September 1945 US Secret Plan to target 66 major Soviet cities with 204 nuclear bombs:

“1949: The Soviet Union denies it, but in the fall, President Harry Truman tells the American public that the Soviets tested their first nuclear device, officially starting the arms race. “We do not advise Americans that doomsday is near and that they can expect atomic bombs to start falling on their heads a month or year from now,” the Bulletin explains. “But we think they have reason to be deeply alarmed and to be prepared for grave decisions.” (Timeline of the Doomsday Clock, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2017)

IMPORTANT: Had the US decided NOT to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race would not have taken place. 

Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of “Deterrence” agains the US which had already formulated plans to annihilate the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.

The Cold War Era

The Nuclear Arms Race was the direct result of America’s September 1945 plan to “blow up the Soviet Union”, formulated by the US War Department.

The Soviet Union tested its first nuclear bomb in 1949. Without the Manhattan Project and the War Department’s September 15, 1945 “World War III Blueprint”, the Arms Race would not have occurred.

The September 15, 1945 War Department set the stage for numerous plans to wage World War III against Russia and China:

The Cold War List of 1200 Targeted Cities

This initial 1945 list of sixty-six cities was updated in the course of the Cold War (1956) to include some 1200 cities in the USSR and the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europe (see declassified documents below). The bombs slated for use were more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Excerpt from list of 1200 Soviet cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive, op. cit.

“According to the 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe. Major Cities in the Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings.  (William Burr, U.S. Cold War Nuclear Attack Target List of 1200 Soviet Bloc Cities “From East Germany to China”, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538, December 2015

Source: National Security Archive

 

Rand Corporation

During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevailed, namely that the use of nuclear weapons would result in “the destruction of both the attacker and the defender”.

In the post Cold war era, US nuclear doctrine was redefined.  “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.

Humanitarian Nuclear Warfare under Joe Biden

 US-NATO led military Interventions (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen) which have resulted in millions of civilian casualties are heralded as Humanitarian Wars, as a means to ensuring Peace.

This is also the discourse underlying US-NATO intervention in Ukraine.

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace” said George W. Bush

“Humanitarian Nuclear Bombs”

This kind of window dressing of “humanitarian nuclear bombs” is not only embedded into Joe Biden’s foreign policy agenda, it constitutes the mainstay of US military doctrine, namely the so-called Nuclear Posture Review, not to mention the 1.2 trillion nuclear weapons program initiated during the Obama administration.

The B61 Mini-nukes Deployed in Western Europe

The latest B61-12 “mini nuke” is slated to be deployed in Western Europe, aimed at Russia and the Middle East (replacing the existing of B61 nuclear bombs).

B-61-12 is portrayed as a “more usable” “low yield” “humanitarian bomb” “‘harmless to civilians”. That’s the ideology. The reality is “Mutual Assured Destruction” (MAD).

The B61-12 has a maximum yield of 50 kilotons which is more than three times that of a Hiroshima bomb (15 kilotons) which resulted in excess of 100,000 deaths in matter of minutes.

If a preemptive attack using a so-called mini nuke were to succeed, targeted against Russia or Iran, this could potentially lead humanity into a WW III scenario. Of course these details are not highlighted in mainstream media reports.

F-15E Eagle Strike Eagle Fighter for the Delivery of the B-61-12 

Low Yield Nukes: Humanitarian Warfare Goes Live

And when the characteristics of this “harmless” low yield nuclear bomb are inserted into the military manuals, “humanitarian warfare” goes live: “It’s low yield and safe for civilians, let’s use it” [paraphrase].

The US arsenal of B61 nuclear bombs directed against the Middle East are currently located in the military bases of 5 non-nuclear states (Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey). The command structure pertaining to the B61-12 is yet to be confirmed. The situation with regard to Turkey’s Incirlik base is unclear.

Upholding WMDs as Instruments of Peace is a Dangerous Gimmick

Throughout History, “Mistakes” have Played a Key Role 

We are at a Dangerous Crossroads. There is no Real Anti-war Movement in Sight.

Why? Because War is Good for Business!

And the powers of Big Money which are behind US-NATO led wars control both the anti-war movement as well as the media coverage of US led wars. That’s nothing new. It goes back to the so-called Soviet-Afghan War (1979-) which was spearheaded by US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. 

Through their “philanthropic” foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Soros et al) the financial elites have over the years channelled millions of dollars into financing so-called “progressive movements” including the World Social Forum (WSF)

It’s Called “Manufactured Dissent”: Big Money is also behind numerous coups d’état and color revolutions.

Meanwhile, important sectors of the Left including committed anti-war activists have endorsed the Covid mandates without verifying or acknowledging the facts and the history of the so-called pandemic.

It should be understood that the lockdown policies as well as the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine” are an integral part of the financial elite’s “broader arsenal”. They are instruments of submission and tyranny. 

The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset is an integral part of  the World War III scenario which consists in establishing through military and non military means an imperial system of  “global governance”.

The same powerful financial interests (Rockefeller, Rothschild, BlackRock, Vanguard, et al) which are supportive of the US-NATO military agenda are firmly behind  the “Covid Pandemic Op”.

***

The Historic Battle for Peace and Democracy. A Third World War Spells the End of Humanity?

Relentless War Propaganda and Media Disinformation Is the Driving Force. It Must be Confronted. 

Is “Peaceful Coexistence” and Diplomacy between Russia and the U.S. an Option? 

“War is Good for Business”: Corrupt Governments which Uphold the Interests of Big Money Must be Challenged

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Fundraising: Stop the Pentagon’s Ides of March

***

Israel’s plan to expand into an Eretz or “Greater” state incorporating large chunks of its neighbors’ land starts with eliminating the pre-1948 inhabitants of a place once known as Palestine.

That nearly all of those who think of themselves as Palestinians must be killed or otherwise removed is perhaps reduced to an aphorism, like “Israel has a right to defend itself,” to absolve the Israeli state and its rampaging army of any guilt in the process. Indeed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ability to avoid any serious consequences for his behavior is remarkable, and it generates further atrocities that might have been unimaginable when the fighting in Gaza started back in October.

Al Jazeera has reported how Netanyahu is now pushing ahead to formalize what has been referred to as the “colonial project,” whereby “the appropriation of all Palestinian Lands will follow on… the outright exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland.” Bibi said in a speech to supporters that

“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.”

Journalist Patrick Lawrence, writing at Consortium News, recently described how “Israel’s savagery in its determination to exterminate the Palestinians of Gaza — and we had better brace for what is next on the West Bank of the Jordan — marks a turn for all of humanity. In its descent into depravity the Zionist state drags the West altogether down with it.” Indeed, and the United States of America is the foremost great power to be reduced to the status of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Jewish state, unable to advance its own interests when confronted by the juggernaut of the so-called Israel Lobby and associated Jewish and Zionist-Christian organizations that have corrupted and controlled American foreign as well as select domestic policies.

Witness what has occurred in the last several weeks when the international community has rallied to end the slaughter and deliberate starvation of largely defenseless Gazan civilians. First came a United Nations Security Council move by the United States, which introduced a resolution calling for, but not demanding, an immediate though possibly temporary cease fire in Gaza. When the resolution came up for a vote it was vetoed by Russia and China. There were several problems with the text as it inevitably sought to give Israel considerable flexibility in managing the situation. It included an admonition that the effort to secure a ceasefire must be “in connection with the release of all remaining hostages,” which is an Israeli demand with the willingness of Israel to participate at all very much dependent on the hostage issue. The resolution allowed the fighting to continue and it put control of the entry and distribution of urgently needed relief supplies under the ”security” management of the Israeli army.

Then came a Russian and Chinese resolution, approved by all members of the council but the US which “abstained.” The US immediately declared the resolution to be “non-binding” and while the document was meant to permit a ceasefire through the end of Ramadan, it has yet to be enacted by Israel which continues to block food and medicine relief shipments and has focused its latest attacks on the few remaining hospitals, killing hundreds more Gazans. Even though the resolution demanded action on the ceasefire and access to relief supplies Israel has ignored it and so has Washington. As only the United States can compel Israel to change course the fact that it continues to fund Israel and provide it with secret shipments of planeloads weapons, without which Netanyahu would be unable to continue his war, speaks for itself in terms of who is controlling whom.

And don’t be fooled by President Joe Biden’s alleged pressure on Netanyahu to “protect civilians” even as Bibi draws up plans with his war cabinet to invade Gaza’s southernmost Rafah Region, where 1.5 million Palestinians have sought refuge and are now confronted by imminent death with no way out. Biden is responding to opinion polls in the US that indicate that more than half of Americans are opposed to what Israel is doing in Gaza and the percentage is steadily growing, so he is pretending to have humanitarian impulses and a conscience, neither of which is true, in a cynical effort to support his possible reelection.

To be sure both the White House and Congress, supported by the Jewish dominated media, are totally in Netanyahu’s pocket, something which he has admitted to publicly more than once, saying that the United States is “easily moved” by someone like him.

But if one really needed proof positive about who is in charge in the US-Israel relationship, one need only look at the recent omnibus federal government budget bill of $1.2 trillion.

Activist Pascal Lottaz has taken the time to go through the complete 1,012 page document detailing where the money goes and discusses his findings in a 9 minute podcast on YouTube. Lottaz has confirmed both the immediate cash payment of $3.8 billion in “tribute money” to Israel plus the already reported blocking of any federal government funding of United Nation Relief and Works Agency for Gaza (UNRWA) for at least a year. As UNRWA is the key humanitarian aid agency, the latter is a prohibition completely inconsistent with Biden’s expressed desire to confront the “surging” humanitarian aid crisis for the Gazans who are facing starvation in the context of an active genocide. The prohibition is in spite of the continuing lack of evidence to substantiate Israel’s claims of “terrorism support” leveled against the UN agency and despite the famine conditions already present in Gaza. In his review of the document, Lottaz has also discovered those and other specific benefits that involve Israel in 10 sections of the bill.

The bill also seeks to protect Israel from accountability under existing or new international law and to limit Palestinian efforts to resist or defend themselves. It requires any organization receiving US funding to show that it is actively taking steps “to combat anti-Israel bias” and it prohibits any funding to support Palestinian statehood unless it is shown that a list of specified conditions are met including satisfactory “cooperation with Israeli security organizations.” It prohibits any funding to the Palestinian Authority if Palestine is granted statehood status by the UN or any UN agency without Israel’s consent. It oddly prohibits any security support to the West Bank or Gaza unless it is shown that satisfactory steps are being taken by the Palestinian Authority to “end torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees.” It should be noted that the Palestinians, not Israel, are required to end abuse of detainees even though it is Israel that routinely engages in those practices. The detailed sections of the bill expanding on what is blocked or prohibited are as follows:

1. The bill forbids any US funding of the UN International Commission of Inquiry investigation into Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory: Sec. 7848(C)(2) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.
2. The bill defunds the UN Human Rights Council unless the organization drops all inquiry into human rights violations by Israel: Sec. 7048(b)(2)(c) UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL. (1) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available in support of the United Nations Human Rights Council unless the Secretary of State determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that participation in the Council is important to the national interest of the United States and that such Council is taking significant steps to remove Israel as a permanent agenda item and ensure integrity in the election of members to such Council.
3. The bill requires any international organization, department, or agency receiving US funding to show that it is taking “credible steps to combat anti-Israel bias”: SEC. 7048. (a) TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to the Committees on Appropriations whether each organization, department, or agency receiving a contribution from funds appropriated by this Act under the headings ‘‘Contributions to International Organizations’’ and ‘‘International Organizations and Programs’’:
4. The bill prohibits funding of any support to Palestinian Statehood except under US State Department confirmation that its government meets specified conditions including that is is “cooperating with appropriate Israeli and other appropriate security organizations.”
5. The bill prohibits any support to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation: SEC. 7038. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to provide equipment, technical support, consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
6. The bill prohibits any funding to security assistance to the West Bank or Gaza unless the State Department reports on “the steps being taken by the Palestinian Authority to “end torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees”: 7039(C)(2) SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available by this or prior appropriations Acts, including funds made available by transfer, may be made available for obligation for security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza until the Secretary of State reports to the Committees on Appropriations on the steps being taken by the Palestinian Authority to end torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees, including by bringing to justice members of Palestinian security forces who commit such crimes.
7. The bill prohibits any funding of the Palestinian Authority if Palestine achieves recognition of statehood by the UN or any UN agency without Israel’s agreement or if the Palestinians initiate an investigation of Israel in the International Criminal Court: Sec.7401(k)(2)(A)(i) None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians or the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court (ICC) judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
8. The bill extends existing loan guarantees to Israel under the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act through September 30, 2029: SEC. 7034(k)(6).
9. The bill grants $3.3 billion in “Foreign Military Financing” to Israel, to be disbursed within 30 days: 7401(d) ISRAEL.—Of the funds appropriated by this Act under the heading ‘‘Foreign Military Financing Program’’, not less than $3,300,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel which shall be disbursed within 30 days of enactment of this Act: Provided, That to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel under this heading shall, as agreed by the United States and Israel, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less than $725,300,000 shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services, including research and development.
10. The bill authorizes half a billion dollars in military aid to Israel for “Iron Dome” and other missile defense systems: SEC. 8072. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the headings ‘‘Procurement, Defense-Wide’’ and ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, $500,000,000 shall be for the Israeli Cooperative Programs.

The bill has passed through Congress, is written into law, and is on its way for Joe Biden’s signature. In other words, the US is willingly complicit in thousands of deaths already plus the impending deaths of some tens of thousands more innocent people. It is funding Israel’s war of extermination against the Palestinians and is opposed to any attempts by the Palestinians to either defend themselves or their interests as a people. It is shameful and our government is behaving monstrously, controlled by a foreign power that has thoroughly corrupted it. And the rot is spreading throughout our political system to include the death of our own right to freedom of speech. Only last week Governor Greg Abbott of Texas boasted of new legislation to stamp out alleged antisemitism and as criticism of Israel or the behavior of Jews is defined as being antisemitic it is likely that students demonstrating against the Jewish state and in support of Gaza will be expelled from universities and even prosecuted. And it is also reported that the Israel Lobby in the US is busy assembling a war chest of $100 million to fund the removal of politicians and other public figures who are critical of Israel. This is serious stuff that will affect all of us. Time to wake up America!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Displaced Palestinians take refuge at the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, on 15 December. Ismael Mohamad UPI

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

It is virtually impossible to get good stillbirth data anywhere in the world, so this dataset is nothing short of miraculous.

A headline caught my eye two days ago. St. Albert is a small town next to Edmonton, about a 30 minute drive north of where I live. Tragically, the political representative is Alberta NDP Marie Renaud, who is an insane, far left extremist Communist.

April 23, 2024 – St. Albert Gazette – Steep rise in rate of stillbirth among young women in Alberta

“Rates of stillbirth have risen sharply among young women in Alberta. Health authorities say there are many possible reasons for the increase, as well as a need for further investigation.”

Brett McKay is a “local journalism initiative reporter” who has been able to get his hands on some stunning Alberta data, that I’m sure the health authorities did NOT want released.

Let’s look at the numbers very simply (above graph):

• Age 15-19, 2019 (20.76) to 2023 (26.32) = 27% rise
• Age 20-24, 2019 (8.88) to 2023 (12.91) = 45% rise
• Age 25-29, 2019 (5.57) to 2022 (8.64) = 55% rise in 2022, 2023 (7.18) = 29% in 2023
• Alberta average 2019 (7.33) to 2023 (9.43) = 29%

“Doctors Are Baffled” 

Alberta has had issues with syphilis on and off.

But it’s been very steady since 2019, so that doesn’t account for the latest surge in stillbirths.

“Robinson studied cases of congenital syphilis and stillbirth in Edmonton between 2015 and 2021. In every single case where congenital syphilis resulted in stillbirth, the mother did not get proper prenatal care and the infection wasn’t treated.”

“It’s nothing more complicated than that,” Robinson said. “If you go to the doctor when you are pregnant, and you get the blood work done, and you have syphilis, we treat it. But the problem with every single case, is that the mom never got the blood work done, or they couldn’t track her down so she never got treated.”

With treatment, Robinson said stillbirth is incredibly rare.

That which cannot be named. 

The article itself makes no mention of the COVID-19 Vaccine, which is fine, the data is sufficient and speaks for itself.

• Age 15-19, 2019 (20.76) to 2023 (26.32) = 27% rise in stillbirths
• Age 20-24, 2019 (8.88) to 2023 (12.91) = 45% rise in stillbirths
• Age 25-29, 2019 (5.57) to 2022 (8.64) = 55% rise in 2022, 2023 (7.18) = 29% in 2023
• Alberta average, 2019 (7.33) to 2023 (9.43) = 29% rise in stillbirths

My Take…

Once COVID-19 Vaccines rolled out, healthcare officials developed an absolute seething hatred for pregnant women

Any doctor or public health official who recommended COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in pregancy is guilty of medical malpractice and much worse.

Here is an Alberta Health Services Official engaging in medical malpractice and medical malfeasance, in trying to harm as many pregnant women as she can (AHS COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group Chair Dr.Lynora Saxinger). A video like this is evidence for future criminal charges.

Click here to watch the video

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines have caused skyrocketing miscarriages and stillbirths.

When you see an increase in stillbirths of 55% in Alberta women ages 25-29 in 2023 and a 45% increase in stillbirths in Alberta women ages 20-24 in 2023, without any explanation (or even an attempt at an explanation), the data speaks for itself.

Another Alberta Health Services Official attempt to harm as many pregnant women as possible.

Click here to watch the video

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

How sweeping can the reach of imperialism become, and what extreme forms can it take? Can it even take such an atrocious form as to decide what people of other countries will eat? Can it become so draconian as to insist that people have to eat food that they do not consider to be safe, or are prevented from growing and eating food they consider to be safe? These are the extremely important questions at the heart of the intense debates on GM food in Mexico today. 

In a review of the existing situation titled ‘Mexico defends GM Corn restriction with Science’ the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) has stated,

“Since Mexico imposed its restrictions on genetically modified (GM) corn in tortillas as precautionary measures to protect public health and corn biodiversity, the United States government has repeatedly justified its challenge to the policies under the countries’ trade agreement with the claim that Mexico’s policies are not based on science. Mexico has now filed its formal response to the U.S. in the trade dispute. Published March 5, Mexico shows that it has the latest independent science firmly on its side.” (Review written by Timothy Wise, March 14 2024).

As the Mexican government notes in its 200-page response,

“Far from there being a consensus on the safety of GMOs, scientific evidence points to various negative effects on health, on native corn and on the environment, derived from the cultivation and consumption of GM corn.” (119 –quotes from the document are italicized and cited here by their numbered paragraphs). 

 The IATP review has highlighted some of the most important quotes in the text of the Mexican government response, and some views of key academic, civil society and government leaders, who have been instrumental in the decades-long effort to stop GM corn and its companion herbicide glyphosate. 

This evidence collected and presented by the Mexico government includes:

Risks from direct consumption of GM corn: 13 pages of evidence that GM corn, particularly insect-resistant Bt varieties, poses potential health risks to humans through damage to the intestinal tract and other organs. The section includes 66 academic references from peer-reviewed journals. The documented risks arise from: direct exposure through foods; epigenetic changes that can be passed to the next generation; increased antibiotic resistance; and reduced nutritional content.

“Given the fundamental importance of corn as everyday staple food in Mexico, the population in Mexico is highly exposed and vulnerable to these risks due to the amount of corn grain consumed directly on a daily basis in the form of tortilla and other foods made with nixtamalized flour and dough.” (24)

“Although the United States has attempted to trivialize and dismiss this body of scientific evidence, Mexico’s assessment indicates that the risks are real and of particular concern to human health in Mexico.” (382)

Risks from consuming glyphosate residues on GM corn: 16 pages of evidence, including 74 academic references, on the elevated risks to Mexican consumers from glyphosate residues on GM corn. Those residues have been documented to be present in Mexican tortillas already, even though it is illegal to grow GM corn in Mexico and the country produces nearly all its own white and native corn for tortillas. That evidence of traces of glyphosate, presumably from imported GM corn, is one of the main reasons for the GM corn restrictions.

Mexico’s submission cites the growing mountain of evidence that direct exposure to glyphosate causes cancer, as jury after jury has found in damage cases against Monsanto and its owner Bayer.

Multiple academic references show risks from low-level exposures from residues on consumed food. “Mexico considers that the ingestion of residual glyphosate and other contaminants present through the direct consumption of GM corn grain represents a serious food safety risk in Mexico.” (174)

Lax U.S. regulatory processes that fail to ensure safety for Mexico: Mexico questions the U.S. presentation of the science claiming safety:

“The United States, far from proving that the measures identified are not based on science, presents information lacking scientific rigor, is outdated, or with conflicts of interest.” (230-235).

Many of the studies cited by the U.S. show conflicts of interest, indicating funding by biotech companies or researchers associated with biotech interests. U.S. regulatory standards are weak since they do not require animal studies or other safety assessments before a new GM variety is approved. The oft-cited “4,000+ studies that show GM safety” are rife with errors. Most come from companies’ own tests when they sought approval from U.S. regulators to commercialize new GM varieties. Few are peer-reviewed. Fewer are based on long-term animal feeding trials.

Mexico highlights that the U.S. cannot produce a single academic study that shows that the long-term consumption of large quantities of minimally processed GM corn treated with glyphosate is safe to eat. That is why Mexico took the precautionary measures it did. As Mexico’s Undersecretary of Agriculture Victor Suárez told Reuters: 

“To this day we have not seen any scientific studies that have been presented by the U.S. and the companies on the safety of continued consumption over years. So there is no scientific basis for the U.S. and the companies to claim that their corn is safe.”

Mexico’s careful risk assessment in accordance with USMCA guidelines: Mexico presents ample evidence that it has indeed done the risk assessment required by the trade agreement and that the agreement gives Mexico the right to determine the levels of protection it deems necessary, then interpret the available science in light of that commitment.

 The absence of long-term studies with high levels of consumption forced Mexico to conduct its own risk assessment based on the available science. Mexico lists the documentation of that risk in a 31-page 2020 publication by the national science agency, which has been available for the U.S. government and the media to review. Mexico has constantly updated that evidence base in a publicly available databank that further informed its updated 2023 decree.

“The Risk Assessment evaluated the potential adverse effects on the health of Mexicans from the presence of contaminants, specifically glyphosate and GM proteins residues in foods made from GM corn commonly consumed by Mexicans.” (403)

Risks to native corn varieties from GM corn: Mexico also presents extensive evidence of the risks to native corn varieties from cross-pollination by GM corn, including a comprehensive study by NAFTA’s own environmental commission. Such contamination can undermine the genetic integrity of Mexico’s native corn varieties, which it argues is a unique and endangered natural resource valuable not just to Mexico but also to the world for future plant-breeding. Mexico cites 13 distinct national laws and international treaties that obligate it to protect native corn. That obligation includes a special exception in the current trade treaty that allows countries to take actions that guarantee cultural and Indigenous rights, of which native corn is considered an integral part.

The IATP review also quotes several experts who have praised Mexico’s response as a strong science-based justification for its policies: 

“Mexico presents ample scientific evidence on the risks to human health and the environment of consuming GM corn with residues of the herbicide glyphosate. The government of Mexico has every right to determine the appropriate level of protection to protect human health,” according to Fernando Bejarano, Ph.D., Red de Acción sobre Plaguicidas y Alternativas en México (RAPAM)/Pesticide Action Network in Mexico. 

“Mexicans are the largest consumers of corn, especially through tortillas. We have the right to prohibit the use of transgenic corn in the preparation of tortillas not only because of the presence of transgenic corn but also the higher concentrations of glyphosate residues. In addition, our country is the center of origin and diversity of corn, the basis of our culinary culture, which has been declared a world heritage site. We have the right to protect this food and this cultural asset,” stated Alejandro Calvillo, Poder del Consumidor.

“We welcome this vigorous defense of Mexico’s programs to transform its food system. The science they present backs up longstanding civil society campaigns for healthy foods and biodiverse agricultural systems. There’s a lot here that could contribute to more substantive debates on our food and agriculture system in the U.S., as well,” observed Karen Hansen-Kuhn, IATP’s director of trade and international strategies.

The IATP review concludes,

“Ever since Mexico first announced its intentions to limit GM corn and glyphosate in its tortilla chain, the U.S. government has asserted that Mexico’s policies are not based on science. Mexico’s comprehensive response refutes that claim, presenting hundreds of academic studies that show cause for concern about human health and the threat to native corn diversity.”

Another organization Canadian Biotechnology Action Network has published a report titled ‘Mexico’s Precaution on GM Corn Safety is Justified’ (see Food Tank, report written by Lucy Sharratt). 

This report says, ”The purpose of Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn is to safeguard the integrity of native corn from GM contamination and to protect human health. The purpose of the U.S. and Canadian challenge is to defend the interests of the biotechnology industry. The U.S. and Canada want to force Mexico to open its market to all genetically modified foods and seeds. Canada is supporting the U.S. challenge (as a third party in the dispute) even though Canada does not export any corn to Mexico.

“Mexico has the right to restrict the use of GM corn. The U.S. argues that Mexico’s actions are not based on scientific principles, but the government has sufficient science to justify its precautionary policies.

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), is a large network of farmer and environmental groups that has been monitoring the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for over 15 years, and it has extended strong support to Mexico’s restrictions. 

CBAN’s analysis shows that Mexico’s ban is supported by the science. “Research continues to find indicators of potential harm to humans from eating GM insect-resistant corn. The science also continues to warn of health impacts from exposure to the herbicide glyphosate which is used in GM corn production.

“Most GM corn plants are genetically modified to kill insect pests. The GM plants express a toxin from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that is known to harm the guts of specific types of insects but not others. Farmers have long used Bt as a spray to kill pests but the Bt toxins in GM crops are different from this natural Bt in structure, function, and biological effects. In fact, peer-reviewed studies across the scientific literature continue to find that Bt toxins in GM plants can harm insects (spiders, wasps, ladybugs, and lacewings, for example) that are not the intended targets.

Very recently “new peer-reviewed studies further found impacts of Bt where there was assumed to be none. For example, a 2023 study conducted by a team of researchers from universities in Brazil and Colombia, funded by the Brazilian government, found Bt had many significant impacts on the health of wasps, even affecting the next generation. University researchers in China and Pakistan also found lower diversity of bacteria in the gut of wolf spiders exposed to Bt. This adds to a laboratory test published in 2023, funded by the French government, that found a particular Bt toxin disrupts normal growth and functioning of gut cells in fruit flies, raising the possibility that Bt toxins could harm the intestinal lining of animals, including humans.

“To add to these results, a number of animal feeding trials also find that Bt toxins and GM Bt crops could have toxic effects on mammals. Toxic effects and indications of toxicity have variously been observed in the blood, stomach, small intestine, liver, kidney, spleen, and pancreas, as well as immune responses, though the mechanism is not clear from these studies. Critically, animal feeding studies are not required by the U.S. or Canadian governments in order to demonstrate GM food safety. In fact, there are very few long-term and multigenerational tests on animals in the scientific literature.

“But Bt toxicity is not the only safety concern. GM corn production is also tied to the use of glyphosate and other herbicides that are linked to serious health problems including neurological diseases and some cancers. The International Agency for Cancer Research of the World Health Organization classifies glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen” and, as successful lawsuits against Bayer/Monsanto demonstrate, there is ample evidence that direct exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides can result in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in particular. Critically, evidence also points to danger from exposure to residues in food which is the concern highlighted by Mexico in relation to GM corn.

“…The U.S. and Canada essentially argue that if they have decided a genetically modified food is safe, then Mexico should agree.”

Clearly in such conditions of a difficult struggle for food safety the Mexican government, farmers and activists need widespread support from all over the world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include ‘India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food, 14 Questions on GM Crops, A Day in 2071 and Planet in Peril. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

The US Congress has approved a $95 billion bill for “aid” to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

The Act was voted by a large bipartisan majority of Democrats and Republicans and provided $60.8 billion for Ukraine, $26.4 billion for Israel, and $8.1 billion for Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific region. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services, Republican Mike Rogers, said:

“China, Russia, and Iran are working together in a new Axis of Evil to damage our alliances and undermine our national security.”

President Biden, who immediately signed the Act, declared:

“It’s a good day for America, it’s a good day for Europe and it’s a good day for world peace.

It will make America safer. It will make the world safer and continue America’s leadership.”

---

Washington Post

 

Jo Biden then added concerning Israel:

“My commitment to Israel, I want to make it clear once again, is ironclad. Israel’s security is paramount. I will always ensure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself from Iran and the terrorists it supports.”

This Act fuels wars and war preparations from Europe to the Middle East and East Asia against Russia, Iran, Palestine, China, and other countries, and further strengthens the US military.

Of the 60 billion in “aid” to Ukraine, 48 billion finance the US Armed Forces: 23.2 billion dollars are intended to replenish US stockpiles of weapons used to arm Ukraine; $11.3 billion is earmarked for current U.S. military operations in the region;

13.8 billion dollars are intended for the purchase of advanced weapon systems, materials, and defence services. At the same time, the Act requires that US allies, including Italy, pay their “fair share” of the costs of war against the “new Axis of Evil.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

 

 

Free speech only comes into its own when you freely consent to hear what you hate to hear.

When everyone is singing from the same songbook, it sure may sound mighty sweet – but it is not free speech. It then becomes a type of cackle of congregating geese or perhaps even the synchronized song of several robins of early spring, singing the same song together.

Except for the robins themselves (or perhaps even for them!), this would become insufferably boring after the first full flush of amorous feeling.

It is the multitudinous, different tones and timbres and pitches of birdsong that has been the stuff of the poet’s longing and the spurned lover’s consolation when he walks in the woods alone. In comparing the song of the skylark to that of the nightingale and several other choristers of the skies and choosing one (Shelley, the skylark) or the other (Keats, the nightingale), we may join the poet in the exercise of free choice that follows the exercise of free speech.

For those of us who have resolved to fight the good fight of freedom, for those of us who believe in the right to protest and the right to free speech, we must support free speech anywhere, everywhere, even in our universities. Especially in our universities.

We don’t have to agree with those who protest. We may even detest their views with all our hearts. But we of all people must uphold their right to protest. To protest in peace is a fundamental right. It follows from the right to free speech and it is deeply indebted to our Christian civilization and the bequeathing to us of the ability to choose life or death, blessing or curse, for ourselves.

The present, widespread turmoil in American universities is not new.

It follows a glorious tradition of civil disobedience and protest which has inspired generations of Americans.

Quintessentially, Americans have seen themselves as blessed among the nations in their ability to protest in the hallowed grounds of their institutions of higher education and exercise their “first amendment rights.”

That ancient incubator of new ideas which is the university, has nowhere seen as much of the ever present tension between free speech and tyranny, as in America.

The people of the Western world are coming round to the idea at last, that children in Gaza must be protected from harm –

• from having their limbs and faces blown off,
• from being burned and incinerated by bombs dropped from the skies;
• from undergoing ampuations without anesthesia;
• from being orphaned and seeing adults dying slow, painful deaths all around them;
• from dying of hunger and thirst;
• and from being shot and bombed to death themselves -with 15,000 of them killed so far, in the space of just six months.

Normal people, who have not lost their common humanity cry out in despair and shake their fists with anger at the powers that have allowed this demonic travesty to happen.

And most people, upon witnessing what is happening to the trapped children in the besieged, bombed and battered city of Gaza are, (in the words of Roger Waters, the Pink Floyd frontman), “on the edge of tears.”

But the cowardly powers behind the throne seem to think they can literally get away with murder.

The chicken hawk Speaker of the American House has lately put his satanic stamp upon sending 61 billion dollars to the killing fields of Ukraine (where 300+ billion dollars to Ukraine so far has not stopped the Russian advance) and several billion dollars to Israel, which will be used to kill more children in Gaza with American bombs.

The world was treated to the curious spectacle in the august hall of Jeffersonian democracy a week ago, when, after unleashing the dogs of war, members of congress started waving little Ukrainian flags no less! Mr. Blinken, America’s secretary of state is acting like a blinking, blundering, but dangerous fool – and there is no coherence or common sense at all that comes out of the mouths of our “leaders” – Trudeau, Biden, Sunak, Macron, Scholz, all seem to be under an evil spell.

Students in numerous American universities have now decided that enough is indeed enough – and for the last week, have been protesting peacefully in Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Brown, Berkeley, Emory and numerous other universities.

Tyrannies feel particularly threatened by peaceful student protests, since they know that nothing short of brute and crude force will be able to suppress them (temporarily). They also know from recent history that American student protests spread with an organic intensity and fervour from university to university – and then to the public at large.

And when American students have spoken their free speech with just cause, the tyranny knows that a whole generation of people have been inspired to stand up for liberty, for freedom, for peace over war and for love over prejudice and hate. The tyranny trembles at the sounds of students marching or camping in protest.

Predictably therefore, the Biden tyranny, together with kindred powers acting in the shadows, have unleashed the full might of the state against peaceful students protesting on behalf of helpless children being killed, maimed and orphaned in Gaza.

Heavily armed police have been terrorizing peaceful students and their faculty on numerous campuses around America. Hundreds of students have been violently arrested. Once again, there is a disconnect between the Presidents, Deans and overpaid, elite university heads – and the students and faculty of these universities. Yesterday, the faculty of Yale wrote a poignant, powerful letter in support of first amendment rights, free speech, academic freedom and peaceful, student protests.

Opponents of free speech love zero-sum games, which help to simplify for themselves, the process of demonizing those they do not agree with.

The present zero-sum game they play is that the student protests in America are “anti-semitic” (while children are actually being killed in Gaza). In fact, Jewish students constitute a sizeable part of the student body protesting the killing of children in Gaza – this of course, destroys the zero-sum narrative that the protesting students are “terrorists” or “muslims” or “left wing, anti-semitic nuts.” The Yale faculty letter for example, points out that the Jewish group, “Yale Jews for Ceasefire” are a prominent part of the student protests at Yale. And yesterday, an 88 year old Jewish, holocaust survivor gave a moving, inspiring speech to protesting Columbia students.

In Columbia University, which is turning into the epicentre of the student protests, Jewish students have joined their non-Jewish peers in protest and have been arrested along with them, for peacefully protesting the slaughter in Gaza.

The zero-sum game of the charlatans who oppose campus free speech and protest and seek to demonize their opponents, is falling apart.

As in past American campus protest movements, those who are now protesting for humanity and the children of Gaza, bear watching – many of them will be tomorrow’s leaders, many of them will be hailed as heroes who stood and wept with those who weep and tenaciously defied the tyranny on behalf of those who had no voice of their own (the children of Gaza).

We, who love freedom and free speech, must be on guard – lest we fall victim ourselves to the same intolerant and dictatorial attitudes that have always characterized opponents of free speech, from the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, to Trudeau’s police tyranny that was unleashed on the Truckers Freedom Convoy.

The quote wrongly attributed to Voltaire (and which was actually first uttered by the English author Evelyn Beatrice Hall) should be the rallying cry of those who oppose the views of the protesting students (but still value free speech and freedom of conscience): “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

Much better, those of us on the side of freedom and humanity should join the students in solidarity, admiration and prayer. Their idealism speaks to us of the better way, a better world that beckons beyond the noise and strife of war and slaughter.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Francis Christian is a poet, surgeon, scientist. 

Featured image: Courtesy Robin Monnoti’s X feed

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

The Israeli authorities, in their campaign of remorseless killing, doctoring and adjusting the numbers of the Palestinian populace for whatever future awaits, have been found wanting on accusations that Hamas terrorists packed, stacked and filled UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East).

Not that this, in of itself, negates the need to feed, clothe and provide medical assistance to Palestinians being pummelled into oblivion. Or avoid committing war crimes against them. Or avoid starving, humiliating, and degrading them through administrative fiat and bureaucratic oppression. By any estimation, bad apples do not destroy the entire crop, and still need harvesting.

From the outset, Israel asserted that 12 such individuals in UNRWA had participated in the October 7 attacks by Hamas, sharing the sparse details on January 29 with media outlets. The grateful recipients of the alleged scandal proceeded to gorge on the thin morsel comprising a few pages. The Financial Times, for instance, wrote of Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs having “something explosive on their agenda”, even if 12 suspects from a Gaza complement of 13,000 would have barely caused a ripple in any other circumstance.

Fifteen donor governments, in a fit of stretched moral outrage, froze promised funding, insisting that investigations by the organisation be undertaken.  The UN’s Office of International Oversight Services immediately commenced an investigation while US$444 million was withheld from an aid agency that has assisted dispossessed Palestinians for three-quarters of a century.

On February 5, the UN Secretary General António Guterres announced that an independent panel would assess “whether the agency is doing everything within its power to ensure neutrality and to respond to allegations of serious breaches when they are made.”  The panel, chaired by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, and also comprising the work of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden, the Chr. Michelsen Institute in Norway, and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, released its findings on April 22.

The full report, titled “Independent review of mechanisms and procedures to ensure adherence by UNRWA to the humanitarian principle of neutrality”, was marked by a total absence of cooperation from Israeli authorities.  Two requests from the Colonna-led inquiry in March and April requesting names and details to support Israel’s allegations died in silence.

In its findings, UNRWA was found to have, in place, “a significant number of mechanisms and procedures to ensure compliance with the humanitarian principles, with the emphasis on the principle of neutrality, and that it possesses a more developed approach to neutrality than other similar UN or NGO entities.”

It also noted that staff lists, comprising names and functions, are shared on an annual basis with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Israel and the US for East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. It falls on the states in question “to alert UNRWA of any information that may deem a staff member unworthy of diplomatic immunity.” The report further notes that “the Israeli Government has not informed UNRWA of any concerns relating to any UNRWA staff based on these staff lists since 2011.” Regarding the March 2024 list, Israel made public allegations “that a significant number of UNRWA employees are members of terrorist organizations.  However, Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence of this.”

The report does not ignore the challenges facing the agency in the Gaza Strip, one made more complex since Hamas took over the reins of the territory in 2007.  It found, generally, that the agency had been admirable in maintaining its neutrality in such trying circumstances, though identified eight “critical areas” for improvement, among them addressing the neutrality of education, the political position of staff unions, staff and behaviour, and management and internal oversight mechanisms. UNRWA schools, for instance, were not found to be breeding grounds of antisemitism, though some “host-country textbooks with problematic content” were being used in them.  Other areas needing rectification are unlikely to be taken, given the need for Israeli cooperation.

As the report’s executive summary notes,

“In the absence of a political solution between Israel and the Palestinians, UNRWA remains pivotal in providing life-saving humanitarian aid and essential social services, particularly in health and education, to Palestinian refugees in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank.”

Despite refusing to furnish any solid evidence, Israel was already preparing the ground for refusal and refutation ahead of the release.  Any findings would be ignored with a fanatic’s adamance.  While the country jumps at every opportunity to conduct investigations into its own military misconduct at the drop of hat, with the inevitable exonerations, no external review would convince them.  Nothing short of the destruction of the agency would satisfy the objectives of the Israeli state.

In March, The Guardian quoted one Israeli diplomatic source (nameless, naturally) as claiming that a “double game” was being played by Hamas and the agency, “so much so that UNRWA is a Hamas strategic asset.”  Another nameless diplomatic source was of the view that the aid agency was “so penetrated in Gaza, it cannot be repaired.  This is the policy of the state of Israel.  We want to see an end to UNRWA activity in Gaza.  This is not a case of a few bad apples.  It is systemic, consistent and cannot be ignored.”  Out, it would seem, with the entire orchard.

Presumption can therefore take the position of hard fact, a point made crystal clear in another round of allegations (no evidence supplied about that either) that 2,135 UNRWA staff were supposedly members of Hamas, of whom 400 were alleged to be active fighters.

From the perspective of lusty warmongers, UNRWA remains an obstacle, a nuisance, a nightmare of reminder to those wishing to be done with the Palestinian issue once and for all.  May it continue to thrive, and, more ever, may its funders finally wise up to the fact that in the viciousness of conflict, civilians should never have to pay the price for military actions undertaken by others.  Unfortunately, three months after, and a human-confected famine ravaging Gaza even as the killings continue, various donor countries such as the United States, Germany and the UK are still minding their wallets.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected] 

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

A drone attack against the capital of the Republic of Belarus, Minsk, was neutralized by local defense forces, avoiding a serious tragedy. The UAVs departed from Lithuania – a NATO country that is home to several Belarusian expatriate terrorists who since 2020 have been promising to wage a civil war against the legitimate government of Aleksandr Lukashenko. The incident clearly shows the danger posed by these groups and how irresponsible and provocative Western countries are by sheltering, training and financing them.

On April 25, Ivan Tertel, head of the Committee for State Security (KGB), stated that a plot to attack Minsk and neighboring cities with combat drones had been disrupted by Belarusian intelligence. His speech took place during the All-Belarussian People’s Assembly, one of the most important political events in the country, which took place between April 24 and 25, bringing together representatives from all sectors of Belarusian society in Minsk. It is very likely that the attack was aimed at preventing the event from taking place properly.

Since the precise date of the attack was not revealed – which is usual procedure in security matters – it is not possible to know whether the attackers’ plan was to cancel the Assembly or target the meetings during the event, killing Belarusian public figures. What seems clear is that the importance of the Assembly to the Belarusian people appears to have been one of the main reasons for the terrorist incursion.

During his speech, Tertel warned about the risk of a serious escalation in regional tensions, given the hostile and provocative stance of NATO countries. He emphasized that Minsk has a neutral and peaceful stance in current conflicts, but the Collective West acts in a hostile manner because it does not tolerate friendly relations and mutual cooperation between the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation.

According to him, the US and its European allies plan to control Belarus completely, capturing the country’s wealth and turning it into a satellite state – something similar to what happened to Ukraine in 2014. The states that cooperate the most with the US to provoke Minsk are neighboring countries that have engaged in Russophobic hatred, such as Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine. These countries are even protecting terrorists who publicly want to start a civil war in Belarus.

These terrorist groups are mainly formed by expatriate fascist militants from Belarus. In 2020, NATO financed an attempted color revolution in Minsk, co-opting nationalist militants to take to the streets and lead mass demonstrations against the legitimacy of the presidential electoral process. The country’s security forces acted efficiently and managed to neutralize the regime change attempt, which led the most radical militants to flee the country and seek shelter and financing in states such as Ukraine and NATO countries.

Ultranationalist organizations include groups such as Bypol, one of the most dangerous neo-Nazi militias in Europe. Bypol has already claimed responsibility for several terrorist attacks in Belarus, including drone attacks against the country’s capital. More than that, Bypol’s leaders have publicly admitted that their intention is to return to the territory of Belarus and start a civil war so that they can overthrow Lukashenko. Considering that there are members of Bypol in Lithuania, it is very likely that the group is also behind the latest attempted UAV incursion against Minsk.

Tertel warned in his recent speech that radical expatriate militias are currently developing advanced capabilities for using military drones – largely due to cooperation with NATO armies. He also warned of the direct action of Ukrainian intelligence in crimes committed by expatriates. According to Tertel, there are around one thousand Belarusian dissidents currently in Ukraine preparing for raids on the border with Belarus.

The official believes that the rebels plan to create a parallel [US-puppet] state on the borders. After attacking Belarus, Bypol and other militias want to establish territories inaccessible to Minsk’s forces, creating a kind of “new country”, which is expected to be able to continue fighting the official government in the long term in a permanent civil war. This plan would allow terrorists to destabilize the Russian strategic environment for a long time.

However, this project seems to be utterly unrealistic, considering the high combat and intelligence capacities of the Belarussian forces. It must be remembered, since 2023, more than 40 terrorist operations involving these nationalist groups have been neutralized – which shows that, despite the efforts of the West, Minsk continues to keep the situation absolutely under control.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Back in December last year, the United States announced that it wanted to deploy “Skynet-style weapons” against its geopolitical adversaries. The relevant reports revealed that the Pentagon is even using new military nomenclature for such a system, calling it ADA2 or all-domain attritable autonomous weapons (not to be confused with the similarly named A2/AD or anti-access/area denial weapons). At the time, I argued that when such programs have advanced nomenclature, it clearly implies that the said weapon systems are already deeply ingrained in the emerging US strategy. The latest revelations by the infamous neoliberal mouthpiece, The New York Times, just confirmed my hypothesis by revealing that the Pentagon is using advanced AI (artificial intelligence) to “kill Russian troops”. Precisely in those terms.

In a piece titled “In Ukraine, New American Technology Won the Day. Until It Was Overwhelmed“, David E. Sanger, a White House and national security reporter, reveals the disturbing details about Project Maven which was “meant to revolutionize modern warfare”.

Sanger questioned the program’s ability to “turn the tide”, but still went on to explain how it works. Namely, back in 2018, Google started a $9 million project to develop an advanced AI system that would help the US military fight wars by using drone footage to easily determine enemy positions. Sanger then goes on to a laughable “moral high ground” rant that this idea supposedly “triggered a full-scale revolt” and “uproar” on the Google campus, as “engineers and other Google employees argued that the company should have nothing to do with Project Maven”.

Still, according to Sanger’s admission, “Project Maven didn’t die — it just moved to other contractors”. Obviously, the US will never give up on the idea of finding “shiny” new ways of killing people around the world. The program has grown exponentially since then and is actively being tested in Ukraine, where the Pentagon is sharing battlefield data directly with the Neo-Nazi junta forces.

Sanger further admitted that the “results are mixed”, as Project Maven gave “generals and commanders a new way to put a full picture of Russia’s movements and communications into one big, user-friendly picture, employing algorithms to predict where troops are moving and where attacks might happen”, but that it’s questionable whether it will “help turn the tide of the war at a moment when the Russians regained momentum“.

Interestingly, Sanger also admits that the NATO-orchestrated conflict in Ukraine became a “testing ground for Project Maven and other rapidly evolving technologies”. He said that US drones were “blown out of the sky with ease“, but that this helped the Pentagon to realize that it needs to build a massive network of military satellites identical to those of Elon Musk’s Starlink. It should be noted that, despite Musk’s posturing as a “pacifist genius” billionaire, he’s just another US military contractor helping Washington DC to continue its unceasing aggression against the world. SpaceX has long been involved with the Pentagon, virtually since its very inception, so it can only be expected that its technologies are being used for military purposes. After all, Musk bragged about “preventing Crimean mini-Pearl Harbor” by denying its usage to the Kiev regime.

Meanwhile, NATO military personnel, particularly American and British, were deployed in Ukraine to help their Neo-Nazi junta proxies to use the new advanced AI system in “exploring new ways of finding and exploiting Russian vulnerabilities, even while US officials try to navigate legal restraints about how deeply they can become involved in targeting and killing Russian troops”. This is yet another confirmation of numerous claims by my colleagues and me that NATO is directly involved in targeting Moscow’s soldiers, as there’s no “layered way of killing someone”. You’re either doing it or not. This is hardly surprising, given the fact that some Western top-ranking officers are openly bragging about their direct participation in attacking Russian forces. This admission alone could easily serve as a legitimate casus belli for the Kremlin.

And to say nothing of NATO’s terrorist attacks on Russian civilians, orchestrated through its Kiev regime puppets with the goal of not only causing religious and ethnic unrest in Russia, but also provoking Moscow to launch retaliatory strikes against the belligerent alliance itself, so that the political West could then present its direct confrontation with the Eurasian giant as supposed “defense”. Knowing all this surely makes one wonder if the true meaning of the infamous “NATO” acronym is actually “Nazi American Terrorist Organization”, as this perfectly encompasses everything it genuinely stands for. As the geopolitical (and, in many ways, literal) outgrowth of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, it might as well rename itself to this, as nothing would really change, except that it would be honest in at least one thing about itself.

Sanger’s further revelations only reinforce this notion, although he continued with futile attempts to mask this essentially illegal weaponized AI program with laughable euphemisms, such as that “Project Maven quickly became the standout success among the Pentagon’s many efforts to tiptoe into algorithmic warfare”. And indeed, using phrases such as “tiptoeing into algorithmic warfare” is not a very good way to conceal what can only be described as Skynet-style terrorism. The Pentagon itself also bragged that Project Maven is a way for the US to “harness its competitive advantage in technology to maintain superiority over Russia and China in an era of renewed superpower rivalries”. This is yet another confirmation that Washington DC will stop at nothing to remain relevant in the geopolitical arena, regardless of the means.

As for Google’s “non-involvement for moral reasons”, that too turned out to be a blatant lie, as Sanger himself stated that Eric Schmidt, one of the corporation’s top-ranking officials, is now “drawing on lessons from Ukraine to develop a new generation of autonomous drones that could revolutionize warfare”. So much for the “full-scale revolt” and “uproar” over using advanced AI as a weapon. And yet, although Sanger essentially presented Project Maven as some sort of a “quiet, invisible wunderwaffe”, the reality on the ground is starkly different. Namely, the Pentagon is frustrated by Russia’s ability to quickly adapt to these new weapon systems, disrupting or completely nullifying their ability to change the situation on the battlefield. Sanger singled out Moscow’s world-class electronic warfare (EW) capabilities as the primary issue.

According to his own admission, Russian EW systems have effectively turned American drones into plastic junk. Worse yet for the Pentagon, the grossly overhyped HIMARS is often jammed, with its rockets and missiles rendered useless. The US military and NATO are trying to figure out how Moscow is achieving this, so they could “one day use it against the Russian military directly”, but what their planners have managed to gather so far is that Russia’s EW edge is forcing the political West to revert to “the brutality of old-fashioned trench warfare, the results of which are rarely what Pentagon planners expect”. Sanger also stated that “Starlink is often the only thing connecting Ukrainian soldiers to headquarters, or to one another”, once again clearly implicating Elon Musk and showing that he’s little more than an arms dealer.

Sanger also quoted former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, who said that “for a while we thought this would be a cyberwar, then we thought it was looking like an old-fashioned World War II tank war, but then there were days when it seemed as though they were fighting World War I”. This demonstrates the Kremlin’s ability to not only rapidly adapt to the situation on the ground, but also shape up the battlefield the way it sees fit, leaving entire teams of US/NATO planners dumbfounded as to what doctrine to use in any given situation. Busy with its aggression against the world that mostly includes bullying largely helpless opponents, the political West has completely ignored entire aspects of conventional warfare, foolishly thinking that much of it is supposedly “outdated”.

The US military uses one of its bases “more than a thousand miles west of Ukraine, deep inside an American base in the heart of Europe” (suggesting that it’s most likely in Germany) as an intelligence-gathering center “that has become the focal point of the effort to bring the allies and the new technology together to target Russian forces”. Once again, a clear admission of NATO’s direct involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. However, Sanger conceded that “visitors are discouraged in ‘the Pit’, as the center is known”. He also admits that US officials “rarely discuss its existence”, partly for security concerns, but “mostly because the operation raises questions about how deeply involved America is in the day-to-day business of finding and killing Russian troops”. And here it is again, Washington DC casually playing with WW3.

Sanger then described an event from the very first days of the special military operation (SMO), when a US military official and a senior general of the Neo-Nazi junta forces met at the Polish border, where the latter was presented with the Project Maven technology. Worse yet, the US officer demonstrated the way it works by essentially directing attacks on Russian troops. The Pentagon also transferred the technology to the Kiev regime forces, which are now using commercial satellite firms such as Maxar and Planet Labs, as well as data from various social media networks. Sanger says that “this flow of information helped Ukraine target Russia’s artillery”, but the Pentagon complains that the “initial hope that the picture of the battlefield would flow to soldiers in the trenches, connected to phones or tablets, has never been realized”.

The key is Starlink, meaning that the US military needs a constellation of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of small satellites that would provide constant ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) coverage. Sanger once again said that former Google CEO Schmidt was directly involved in funding this “pilot project” of sorts, since Ukraine serves as the testing ground for such technologies. The plan is to create a swarm of drones that would overwhelm Russian air defenses and pave the way for larger systems such as missiles to attack high-value targets. InfoBRICS reported on similar projects by NATO (specifically the United Kingdom) during the early stages of the SMO. It’s very likely these were part of a similar (if not the same) weapons program. However, once again, as it turned out, the Russian military’s EW “would like a word”.

The Neo-Nazi junta’s hopes of getting a NATO-backed “technological edge” over the Kremlin not only ended up in smoke, but also forced it to rely even more on basic weapons, artillery munitions and drones, all fields in which Moscow maintains a manifold advantage. Worse yet for the political West, Russia quickly learned the source of this technology and also realized that NATO would need to militarize space in order to use it strategically. In response, it rapidly developed and deployed a plethora of advanced anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, be it on land, in air or in space. It’s also working together with China to ensure that the political West cannot jeopardize their national security interests. All this is yet another proof that shooting down NATO’s ISR assets is both justified and necessary, as it saves lives from its terrorist methods.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Despite almost zero coverage in the mainstream corporate media, this sea change in the way transactions are conducted has been decades in the making and will end the concept of privacy and anonymity

*

The era of cash money is nearing its end, and with it will come the end of privacy.

The World Economic Forum claims that 98 percent of the world’s central banks have agreed to implement the globalists’ long-awaited dream of a cashless society.

Most central banks, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve, are quasi-government institutions owned privately by billionaire bankers.

And the WEF is not the first to reveal the plans of the globalist elite, which have been preparing for years to eliminate paper fiat currencies. But this latest report indicates the grand plan is now very close to being realized, perhaps just awaiting a triggering event – a Black Swan event of some type – before making the switch to “digital cash.”

As first reported by Slay News, the latest revelation was made in a new white paper from the WEF which declares that nations around the world will soon be “forced” to adopt a central bank digital currency, or CBDC, in place of traditional money.

In the report, titled Modernizing Financial Markets With Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency, the WEF asserts that a CBCD will replace all other forms of money to serve as a single global digital currency system.

It makes sense that when the petro dollar collapses, all paper currencies pegged to it will fall like dominoes.

This has been hinted at for many years, with perhaps the most clear indication coming from economist Dr. Pippa Malmgren in March 2022, when she addressed the World Governments Summit and said:

“And I’ll say this boldly, we’re about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one. And the new, the new accounting is what we call blockchain. It means digital. It means having an almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what’s going on.”

Digital cash is not cash at all. It is not only digital but programmable, meaning some higher authority has the ability to turn it on and off, or program it in such a way that makes it applicable only at certain stores or for certain goods and services, not others.

The WEF report states:

“CeBM is ideal for systemically important transactions despite the emergence of alternative payment instruments. Wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) is a form of CeBM that could unlock new economic models and integration points that are not possible today.”

The report focuses on the claimed goal of streamlining cross-border transactions, but it’s much more than that.

According to the WEF, central banks are preparing to deploy different forms of CBDCs specifically designed to be used by different institutions for different reasons.

Wholesale CBDCs will be used by banks, governments, and transnational corporations. Retail CBDCs will be reserved for the general public.

The WEF report also confirms what we already knew, that converting to this new digital system means all physical assets will eventually be “tokenized,” in a scheme meant to bring more billions in profits to elites on Wall Street.

“The tokenization of assets involves creating digital tokens representing underlying assets like real estate, equities, digital art, intellectual property, and even cash.

“Tokenization is a key use case for blockchain, with some estimates pointing towards $4-5 trillion in tokenized securities on DLTa by 2030.”

Doesn’t that sound like fun?

And I’m sure our beloved politicians will protect us from these monsters, right?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Speaking at the United Nations Security Council; Larry Johnson, a seasoned veteran of the CIA and State Department, as he dissects the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.

With stakes higher than ever in global politics, Johnson brings his expertise in intelligence, counterterrorism, and financial investigations to bear on this politically charged quandary.

As we navigate the murky waters of international relations, his insights offer clarity on the necessity of a comprehensive and transparent probe led by the United Nations Security Council, drawing upon the legacy of President Truman’s pursuit of peace.

In a narrative that is as riveting as it is enlightening, Johnson stitches together the logistical and strategic threads behind the Nord Stream attack. His call for an unspoiled evidence chain and his expertise in financial forensics underscore the importance of untangling this complex web to maintain the delicate balance of international relations.

By scrutinizing the response of NATO countries and paralleling historical events like the Pan Am 103 bombing, our discussion elevates the conversation surrounding global security dynamics and the quest for truth in an age of uncertainty.

Join us for a session that not only enlightens but also imparts the gravity of leadership in the face of adversity.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (Desk Top version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published on February 7, 2023

Author’s Introduction 

My  long-standing commitment is to “the value of human life”,  “the criminalization of  war” , “peaceful co-existence” between nation states and “the future of humanity” which is currently threatened by nuclear war.

I have been researching nuclear war for more than 20 years focussing on its historical, strategic and geopolitical dimensions as well as its criminal features as a means to implementing what is best described as “genocide on a massive scale”.  

What is presented below is a brief history of nuclear war: a succession of U.S. nuclear war plans going back to the Manhattan Project (1939-1945) leading up to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

Unknown to the broader public, the first U.S. Doomsday Blueprint of a nuclear attack directed against the Soviet Union was formulated by the US War Department at the height of World War II, confirmed by “Top Secret” documents on September 15, 1945 when the US and the Soviet Union were allies.

There is an element of political delusion and paranoia in the formulation of US foreign policy. The Doomsday Scenario against the Soviet Union has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for almost 80 years.

Had it not been for the September 1945 plan to  “wipe the Soviet Union off the map” (66 urban areas and more than 200 atomic bombs), neither Russia nor China would have developed nuclear weapons. There wouldn’t have been a Nuclear Arms Race.

Numerous US nuclear war plans have been formulated from the outset, leading up to The 1956  Strategic Air Command SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study (Declassified in December 2015) which consisted in targeting 1200 urban areas in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads: it should be understood that the use of nuclear weapons in relation to the confrontation between US-NATO and Russia would inevitably lead to escalation and the end of humanity as we know it.  

Video: The Dangers of Nuclear War.

Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

April 23 2024,

 

To Leave a comment or access Rumble click here

Video Odysee

Earlier video interview, April 2022

Click to access full screen

What is required is a Worldwide peace movement coupled with the banning of nuclear weapons.  

In recent developments,  several EU-NATO proxy heads of state and heads of government  including President Macron (acting on behalf of powerful financial interests) have candidly intimated the need for NATO to wage war against Russia on behalf of a Neo-Nazi government, which indelibly would lead us into a World War III scenario. 

What is unfolding is not only “the criminalization of  “La Classe politique”,

the judicial system is also criminalized with a view to upholding the legitimacy of the war criminals in high office.

And the corporate media through omission, half truths and outright lies upholds war as a peace-making endeavor. In the words of the Washington Post, “war makes us safer and richer”

 

 

Globe and Mail 

 

Business Insider

 

Washington Post

And Many More…

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 3, 2024

***

The Hiroshima Nagasaki “Dress Rehearsal”: 

Oppenheimer and the U.S. War Department’s 

Secret September 15, 1945 “Doomsday Blueprint” to

“Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”

by

Michel Chossudovsky

February 1, 2023

 

90 Seconds to Midnight according to the Doomsday Clock

The Nobel Peace Laureates are casually blaming Russia, without recalling the history of nuclear war, not to mention Joe Biden’s 1.3 trillion dollar program to develop “more usable”, “low intensity” “preemptive nuclear weapons” to be used on a “first strike basis” against both nuclear and non nuclear states as a means of “self defense”.

This is the nuclear doctrine which currently prevails in US-NATO’s confrontation against Russia.

It is clearly outlined in the NeoCons’ Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

America’s Manhattan Project

Let us recall the history of  the “doomsday scenario” which was part of America’s Manhattan project launched in 1939 with the participation of Britain and Canada. 

The Manhattan Project was a  secret plan to develop the atomic bomb coordinated by the US War Department, headed (1941) by Lieutenant General Leslie Groves.

Prominent physicist  Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer  had been appointed by Lt General Groves to head the Los Alamos Laboratory (also known as Project Y) which was established in 1943 as a “top-secret site for designing atomic bombs under the Manhattan Project”. Oppenheimer was entrusted in recruiting and coordinating a team of prominent nuclear scientists including Italian Physicist and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Enrico Fermi who joined the Los Alamos Laboratory in 1944. 

Oppenheimer not only played a key role in coordinating the team of nuclear scientists, he was also engaged in routine consultations with the head of the Manhattan project Lieutenant General Groves, specifically with regard to the use of the first atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in more than 300,000 immediate deaths.

Below is the Transcript of an August 6, 1945 telephone conversation, declassified (Between Gen. Groves and Dr. Oppenheimer) hours after the Hiroshima bombing:

Gen. G. I am very proud of you and your people [nuclear scientists]

Dr. O. It went alright?

Gen. G. Apparently it went with a tremendous bang.

screenshot below, click link to access complete transcript )

 

The September 15, 1945 Blueprint to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map” 

Barely two weeks after the official end of World War II (September 2, 1945), the US War Department issued  a blueprint  (September 15, 1945) to “Wipe  the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and the USSR were allies. This infamous project is confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)

Below is the image of the 66 cities of the Soviet Union which had been envisaged as targets by the US War Department. 

The 66 cities. Click image to enlarge 

The Hiroshima Nagasaki “Dress Rehearsal”

The preparatory documents (see below) confirm that the data pertaining to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were being used to evaluate the viability as well as the cost of  a much larger attack against the Soviet Union. These documents were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945).

“To Ensure our National Security”

Note the correspondence between Major General Norstad and the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, who was in permanent liaison with Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Los Alamos team of nuclear scientists. 

On September 15, 1945 Norstad sent a memorandum to Lieutenant Leslie Groves requesting an estimate of  the “number of bombs required to ensure our national security”  ( The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements )

Lieutenant General Groves no doubt in consultation with Dr. Oppenheimer responded to Major General Norstad in a Memorandum dated September 29, 1945 in which he refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

See section 2, subsections a, b and c.

“It is not essential to get total destruction of a city in order to destroy its effectiveness. Hiroshima no longer exists as a city even though the area of total destruction is considerably less than total.”

Read carefully. The text below confirms that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “A Dress Rehearsal”.  

Bear in mind the name of the country which is threatening America’s “national security” is not mentioned.

Answering your memorandum of 15 September 1945, [see response below]

The 1949 “Dropshot Plan”: 300 Nuclear Bombs, Targeting More than 100 Soviet Cities

Numerous US war plans (under the Truman presidency) to attack the Soviet Union were “formulated and revised on a regular basis between 1945 and 1950”. Most of them were totally dysfunctional as outlined by J.W. Smith in his book entitled “The World’s Wasted Wealth 2”.

“The names given to these plans graphically portray their offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown, Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic.

The US military knew the offensive nature of the job President Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their war plans accordingly”

Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod in their book entitled: “To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon’s Secret War Plans,” provide evidence (based on declassified documents) that the September 1945 blueprint was followed by a continuous plan by USG to bomb the Soviet Union (as well as Russia in the post-Cold War era):

“This book [preface by Ramsey Clark] compels us to re-think and re-write the history of the Cold War and the arms race… It provides a startling glimpse into secret U.S. plans to initiate a nuclear war from 1945 to the present.”

The September 1945 Blueprint (66 Cities) was followed in 1949 by another insidious project entitled the Dropshot Plan: 

According to Kaku and Axelrod, the 1949 DropShot consisted of  a plan directed against the Soviet Union to “drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg).

According to the plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.

The Dropshot Plan was formulated prior to Russia’s August 1949 announcement pertaining to the testing of its nuclear bomb. 

The Cold War List of 1200 Targeted Cities

The initial 1945 Blueprint to attack 66 cities, the subsequent 1949 Dropshot Plan (targeting 100 cities) were updated in the course of the Cold War. The 1956 Plan included some 1200 cities in the USSR, the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europe and China (see declassified documents below).

The bombs slated for the attack significantly more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see below)

We are talking about planned genocide against the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe .

Excerpt from list of the 1200 cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive, op. cit.

Details pertaining to the “The SAC [Strategic Air Command] Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, produced in June 1956 were declassified on December 22, 2015 (Excerpts below, click to access full text).

According to the National Security Archive www.nsarchive.org, the SAC, 1956: 

“…provides the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear targets and target systems that has ever been declassified. As far as can be told, no comparable document has ever been declassified for any period of Cold War history.

The SAC study includes chilling details. …  the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw.  

The SAC document includes lists of more than 1100 airfields in the Soviet bloc, with a priority number assigned to each base. …

A second list was of urban-industrial areas identified for “systematic destruction.”  SAC listed over 1200 cities in the Soviet bloc, from East Germany to China, also with priorities established.  Moscow and Leningrad were priority one and two respectively.  Moscow included 179 Designated Ground Zeros (DGZs) while Leningrad had 145, including “population” targets.  … According to the study, SAC would have targeted Air Power targets with bombs ranging from 1.7 to 9 megatons. 

Exploding them at ground level, as planned, would have produced significant fallout hazards to nearby civilians.  SAC also wanted a 60 megaton weapon which it believed necessary for deterrence, but also because it would produce “significant results” in the event of a Soviet surprise attack. One megaton would be 70 times the explosive yield of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.  (emphasis added).

Read carefully:

Had this diabolical project been carried out against the Soviet Union and its allies, the death toll would be beyond description (ie. when compared to Hiroshima. 100,000 immediate deaths). The smallest nuclear bomb contemplated had an explosive yield of 1.7 megatons, 119 times more “powerful’ than a Hiroshima bomb (15 kilotons of TNT)

The 9 megaton bomb mentioned above was 630 times a Hiroshima bomb, The 60 megaton bomb:  4200 times a Hiroshima bomb. 

The Bulletin: Founded by Manhattan Project Scientists in September 1945

In a bitter irony, in the immediate wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 in Chicago by Manhattan Project scientists, who had been involved in the development of the atomic bomb.

Two years later, in 1947, The Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock, “with an original setting of seven minutes to midnight”.

The initiative was formulated at a time when there was no arms race: 

There was only one nuclear weapons state, namely the USA, which was intent upon carrying out a Doomsday scenario (genocide) against the Soviet Union formulated in September 1945.

In 1947, when the Doomsday Clock was created, the “justification” which was upheld by The Bulletin was that:

“the greatest danger to humanity came … from the prospect that the United States and the Soviet Union were headed for a nuclear arms race.”

The underlying premise of this statement was to ensure that the US retain a monopoly over nuclear weapons.

While in 1947, “The Plan to Wipe the Soviet Union of the Map” was still on the drawing Board of the Pentagon, the relevant documents were declassified thirty years later in 1975. Most of the former Manhattan project scientists were unaware of the September 1945 blueprint against the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union emerged as a nuclear power in August 1949, two years after the launching of the Doomsday Clock, largely in view of applying what was later entitled “deterrence”, namely an action to discourage a nuclear attack by the US. At the height of the Cold War and the Arms Race, this concept eventually evolved into what was defined as “Mutually Assured Destruction”.

While several authors and scientists featured by The Bulletin have provided a critical perspective concerning America’s nuclear weapons program, there was no cohesive attempt to question the history nor the legitimacy of  the Manhattan Project.

The broader tendency has been to “erase history”, sustaining the “rightfulness” of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while also casually placing the blame on Russia, as well as China and North Korea.

Nuclear War versus the “Imminent Dangers of CO2”

In the last fews years, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists “seeks to provide relevant information about nuclear weapons, climate change, and other global security issues”.

According to Mary Robinson, Chair of The Doomsday Clock Elders and former President of the Republic of Ireland (2023 statement):

The Doomsday Clock is sounding an alarm for the whole of humanity. We are on the brink of a precipice. … From cutting carbon emissions to strengthening arms control treaties and investing in pandemic preparedness, we know what needs to be done. … We are facing multiple, existential crises. Leaders need a crisis mindset. (emphasis added)

This perspective borders on ridicule. CO2 is casually put forth as a danger to humanity comparable to nuclear war. It becomes an instrument of propaganda. 

The Doomsday Clock is now said to “represent threats to humanity from a variety of sources” according to a collective of Nobel Prize Laureates.

What nonsense.

2023  January Statement, ScreenShot from WP

Presenting C02 or Covid as a danger comparable to nuclear war is an outright lie.

Its intent is to mislead public opinion. It is part of a rather unsubtle propaganda campaign which provides legitimacy to the US doctrine of first strike “preemptive nuclear war”, i.e. nuclear war as a means of “self-defense” (formulated in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review).

What is of concern is that U.S. decision makers including Joe Biden believe in their own propaganda, that a preemptive first strike nuclear war against Russia is “winnable”. And that tactical nuclear weapons are “instruments of peace”.

Meanwhile history is erased. America’s persistent role in developing “a Doomsday Agenda” (aka genocide) since the onslaught of the Manhattan Project in 1939 is simply not mentioned.

What is of concern is that there is a continuous history of numerous projects and WWIII scenarios consisting in “Wiping Russia off the Map” and triggering  a Third World War.

Nuclear war against Russia has been embedded in US military doctrine since 1945.

---

Related Article

“Preemptive Nuclear War”: The Historic Battle for Peace and Democracy. A Third World War Threatens the Future of Humanity

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 31, 2023

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

As of early January 2020, it was the object of extensive media coverage and an unfolding Worldwide fear campaign.  Media disinformation went into high gear.

“The Chinese authorities (allegedly) “identified a new type of virus” on January 7, 2020, using the RT-PCR test. No specific details were provided regarding the process of isolation of the virus.

And then mysteriously a change in the name of the virus took place on February 11, 2020.

The 2019 novel coronavirus: 2019-nCoV designation was abandoned. Henceforth the “2019 New Virus” would be designated as: 

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2: SARS-CoV-2

which stands for “SARS – Corona (Co) Virus(V)-2″.  

“We received clinical specimens from patients in seven countries and tested them, using virus-isolation techniques, electron-microscopical and histologic studies, and molecular and serologic assays, in an attempt to identify a wide range of potential pathogens.”

While 2003-SARS-CoV, was categorized as a New Virus in 2002-2003. it can by no means be categorized as a New Virus in 2020-2023.

 

“New Virus” versus “Old Virus”: the 2002-2003 “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome” (SARS)

SARS-CoV-2  –which since February 11, 2020 has become the official name of the 2019 novel coronavirus– cannot be categorized as a A NEW VIRUS. 

The text above provides a summary. It is based on a more detailed article entitled:

There Never Was a “New Virus”, There Never was a Pandemic

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 29, 2023

Video: The Non-existent “New Virus”

Note: Minor technical problem.

The video starts at 0.34″. Go to 0.34″ manually. To access Rumble and/or comment click the lower right hand corner of the screen.

 

 

 

 

 

First published on November 26, 2022

***

We are being accused of  “spreading disinformation” regarding the Covid-19 vaccine. 

The Reuters and AP media “trackers” and “fact checkers” will be out to smear the testimonies of parents who have lost their children.  

Let us be under no illusions, the Covid Jab is not only “experimental”, it’s a Big Pharma “killer vaccine” which modifies the human genome. The evidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from vaccine inoculation both present (official data) and future (e.g. undetected microscopic blood clots) is overwhelming. 

The official data (mortality and morbidity) as well as numerous scientific studies confirm the nature of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine which is being imposed on all humanity. 

Peer reviewed reports confirm the causes  of vaccine related deaths and “adverse events” (injuries) including among others blood clots, thrombosis, myocarditis, cardiac arrests.

The stated objective is to enforce the Worldwide vaccination of 8 billion people in more than 190 countries, to be followed by the imposition of a digitized “vaccine passport”. Needless to say this is a multi-billion dollar operation for Big Pharma. It’s a crime against humanity.

The global vaccine project entitled COVAX is coordinated Worldwide by the WHO, GAVI, CEPI, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in liaison with the World Economic Forum (WEF),  the Wellcome Trust, DARPA and Big Pharma which is increasingly dominated by the Pfizer-GSK partnership established barely four months before the onset of the Covid-19 crisis in early January 2020.  

The Covid 19 “Vaccine” from the very outset in January 2021 has been conducive to a Worldwide Upward Movement in Mortality 

 

This is Not Manslaughter. It’s Murder

Yes, It’s a killer vaccine. That message should be loud and clear.

This is happening all over the world: children and adolescents are dying.

Crimes against humanity, crimes against our children.

Less than two months following the launching of Pfizer’s mRNA “vaccine”, a mass funeral protest was held for children who died after receiving the vaccine in Geneva, Switzerland (January 29, 2021)

Video

Myocarditis, Cardiac Arrest: “Young People Are Dying”. Sudden Death on a Massive Scale

The Vaccine Safety Research Foundation has recently released Until Proven Otherwise— a short video documentary about the corroborating findings of two leading cardiologists.

Video

Pfizer Reveals in a secret report (declassified under freedom of information) that its mRNA vaccine is a “killer vaccine”. The evidence comes from the “Horse’s Mouth”

“By February of 2021, Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.

Bear in mind, this is Pfizer’s own data.

In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO. It also confirms the analysis of numerous medical doctors and scientists who have revealed the devastating consequences of the mRNA “vaccine”.

What is contained in  Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.

Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA vaccine which it is marketing Worldwide would result in a wave of mortality and morbidity. This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma.

Pfizer knew from the outset that it was a killer vaccine. 

It is also a  Mea Culpa and Treason on the part of corrupt national governments Worldwide which are being threatened and bribed by Big Pharma.

No attempt has been made by the governments to call for the withdrawal of the killer vaccine.

People are told  that the vaccine is intended to save lives.” (Michel Chossudovsky)

Click here to read Pfizer’s “confidential” report.

 

What is Presented above is but the “Tip of the Iceberg” of what is happening Worldwide

This whole process is “profit driven” in the billions, sustained by scientific fraud and disinformation.

Worldwide “Big Money” Vaxx Operation

Recorded September 21, 2022: 12.9 Million doses administered (mid December 2020- September 21, 2022)

• DO NOT GET VACCINATED.
• STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN VACCINATED.
• INFORM PEOPLE ACROSS THE LAND ON THE HEALTH RISKS. 
• TAKE A FIRM STANCE AGAINST THE VACCINE PASSPORT. 

The legitimacy of politicians and their Big Money sponsors must be challenged.

We must act with a single voice nationally and internationally.

Our First Task is to disable the fear campaign

The COVID-19 “vaccination” programme should be halted immediately worldwide.

Please forward this article to friends, colleagues, family. Global Research is the object of censorship. The search engines will not pick it up.

For a more detailed and comprehensive analysis. See Michel Chossudovsky’s recently released book on the Worldwide Corona Crisis. Click here: FREE Download

---

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity

Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression

By Michel Chossudovsky

Translations in several languages are envisaged. The book is available in print form in Japanese. 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち

 

As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided to distribute the eBook for FREE.

Price: $11.50. FREE COPY Click here to download.

---

In this September interview, Michel Chossudovsky outlines recent developments pertaining to the Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine.

Video: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux

 

click here to leave comment and access Rumble
Odysee version currently unavailable

To access Odysee, leave a comment

Is the Vaccine Safe?

If your remain unconvinced on the dangers of Big Pharma’s Vaxx, have a look at the following carefully research video which according to Dr. Gary G Kohl is:

“a must-watch, totally-truthful, science-based, vaccinology-literate video for anyone who is considering getting a booster (or even an initial jab)”.

Video, click lower righthand corner to enlarge screen

Source: JRickey Productions Studio

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Huge Questions Must be Addressed, But Can or Will They?

Since the very outset 80 years ago, with the Zionist’s promulgation of the myth “A Land Without a People For a People Without A Land”, reaching back even longer still into 19^th century mythology, and even longer still again back to the distant mists of ancient biblical times,

Zionism’s methodically-planned, assiduously-executed, reign of terror against the Palestinian people and its violent occupation of the lands of Palestine, predictably, could only have but led to the woeful, pitiful place where the entire world now finds itself; flummoxed, painted into a corner, hopelessly frozen, conceivably capable of blowing itself up, along with all life on Planet Earth, to smithereens. 

This is all because of a mythic creation belief held by demented radicals among the Judaic and Christian faiths, calling themselves Zionists, who endeavor to bring to some final conclusion, fruitful or calamitous, what they perceive to be The End Times. The Zionist’s warring against Palestinians simply more ‘Don Quixotes’, tilting at windmills, when the real enemies are within themselves and their own twisted, demented beliefs about God and Life. Of course, it’s utter madness, but there you have it. 

How Does the Human Race Get Out of the Fix It’s In?

At this point in Humanity’s deeply-troubled history, all one can do is to give themselves some self-solace by continually singing a paraphrase of the old Scottish jingle, repeated every New Year’s time, to the Robbie Burns tune of Auld Lang Syne,

“We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here because were here, We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here!”

By now, it should be blatantly obvious, to even the most casual, non-political human observer, living at this critical moment in time and space, that the human condition and world’s whole ball of wax, as thus far fashioned by the human species, being the most dominant species on planet earth since the extinction of the dinosaurs, with the unbelievably-potential powers of both creation and destruction, within the vast realm of capabilities at its disposal, now must either completely reconfigure everything about how its current way of life, including itself, thus far has evolved, or face its own, and every other life form’s, ultimate extinction. 

The litany of what must be radically changed, and fast, faster than the human race ever has been able to demonstrate its capacity or capability of doing so in the past, is exceedingly complex, long and tedious. 

Exponential rates of climate change, caused largely by the world’s fossil fuel industry and a multitude of related industries, ruled over by greedy ‘Goldman Sach’ type investors and insane ‘Trump’ or ‘Netanyahu’-like politicians, joined at the hip by a rabid citizenry prepared to back them to the hilt must be radically changed or even reversed. But they all aren’t even remotely-close to ever thinking about, let alone seriously consider, how to divest themselves of so many of the toxic anti-life, anti-planet substances and processes they’ve created, as well as the deeply-embedded political, economic, military, cultural ideologies they represent. Especially the vast array of commercial industries these fossil fuels are responsible for creating and only endlessly spawn more of the same; that only continue to deplete, all the more, the earth’s precious natural resources which, in turn, inexorably threaten all the more the very survival of the entire planet itself. Not to mention the human race’s inability to challenge within itself, to any significant degree or extent, that which humans are prepared to meaningfully address and face up to address the massive changes its species must make to its entire, so-called, advanced way of being, if, is the big question, it seriously intends to survive,. 

That is, if the human race can ever hope to find some new level of homeostasis that indigenous humans, over the millennium, like the aboriginal peoples of Australia, as one example, once demonstrated their ability to work out fairly well for their continued existence. Something that modern, non-indigenous, humans haven’t even begun to grasp, let alone remotely demonstrate, the many basic, minutiae, building block steps required to even begin the attempt to undertake, let along accomplish.

Then there is the morass of exceedingly complex, self-destructive, economic and financial human systems, predicated upon untenable, self-destructive models of perpetual, unsustainable economic growth, based upon a “survival of the fittest” philosophy, that only knows how to  perpetuate more and more endless, senseless systems of growth, with no end in sight, for fewer and fewer humans, that for centuries have, themselves, been forever on the verge of reeling out of control, with one violent, ruthless, expansionistic colonization movement, financial system or world war after another; that now threatens to only grow ever worse, given humankind’s parallel capacity for ever-greater scientific developments in the destructive killing arts and capabilities of its latest military inventions. These sciences of the human mind exponentially matched only by humanity’s still exceedingly-primitive set of emotions, basic drives, penchant for violence and a basic indifference towards any and all required acts of massacre, slaughter and genocide of humans, non-humans and the natural world; about which a broad span of visionaries from many disciplines, such as Shakespeare or Sir David Attenborough, have written so eloquently.

Going hand-in-hand with the untenableness of these harsh realities that seemingly know no bounds is the insane madness of the underlying, unchecked rates of growth in human population, that the former borders and boundaries, that once more or less divided human settlements into relatively-mutually and agreeable, inviolate political regions, no longer can contain the unruly massive numbers of humans within them; created by unending war, famine, pestilence, lack of food, economic parity or territorial space for their mutually-reasonable survival. 

Hence, ever-greater numbers of humans are forced to continue to massively emigrate or migrate everywhere, to all points on the globe, especially into the once less crowded, more favored, economically-secure, less-populated privileged parts of the Western world’s countries, states, provinces, towns, hamlets and neighborhoods. Which, already, have begun to force the settled humans in all these places to, in turn, increasingly become displaced themselves, forcing them into ever-tighter close physical proximity to one another; aggravating to an ever-greater extent than has ever been known, to endlessly adapt to a massive “rat psychology way of life”; whereby once tolerant, former stable state civil societies are increasingly fast disappearing, if not already all but gone.

Now Comes the Realities of an Increasingly War-torn World

Now we come to the insanity of current wars in places like Ukraine, Gaza and so many others. All the foregoing, still unresolved, out-of-control realities already mentioned have, for the past two years, been matched and underscored by: a war-torn, Nazi-dominated, Ukraine; and now an even more war-torn, Nazi-like, fascist Israeli-Zionist-settler-colonist nightmare of a Kafkaesque world whose Western Corporate mainstream press (MSM) has thus far successfully managed to manipulate all the war news, intentionally brainwashing all the people everywhere in the process; while ever-striving to totally dominate and eradicate, all the more,  any signs or memories of the former usurped territories of Palestine and its refugee/concentration camps in Gaza.

Meanwhile, the majority of the surrounding humanity’s would-be Western democratic or Arabic semi-feudal societies, continue to nervously look on from the sidelines, and whatever their vantage points, at these on-going human holocausts; increasingly acting as if they are nothing more than complicit, Vichy-like governments; as is now the case almost everywhere in the Western World; aided by a host of inept, incompetent human institutions, incapable of assuming their assigned responsibilities; whether as members of a truly ‘United’ Nations Assembly of humans, or as a definitive, truly-just, International Criminal Court of Justice; capable of being able to  swiftly adjudicate whatever the existing disputes. Together, they continue to demonstrate a pathetic, gross ineptness and inability to squarely address the widespread outrageous abuses to human life that daily continue to play themselves out in places like Ukraine and Gaza.

The ravages that continue to be perpetrated against Palestine and Palestinians; trying to discern real truth from fiction in the Wars in Ukraine and Gaza; yet remains one of humanity’s most awesome daily challenges, as yet woefully unmet and unfulfilled. 

The average human citizen of the world, who truly desires to know the truth, or some semblance of truth, of what all is going on, is further faced with the overwhelming task of wading through what currently is the Western World’s  Corporate Mainstream Media’s brutal, ruthless coup de etat; as real and violent as any major coup ever perpetrated in either the West or East, Communist or Democratic worlds, that seeks total control over the array of all the massive propaganda spins, narratives and constant outright duplicitous lies with which it seeks to endlessly brainwash the minds of the entire world 

If the Truth be Told

Recently, the news organization Intercept released a blockbuster document, leaked to it by brave, stalwart journalist staffers at the New York Times. Famous for its masthead that has declared, since 1897, “All The News That’s Fit To Print”. the NYTimes once was considered, worldwide, to be among the most reputable major newspapers of note, that readers could depend upon for real truth-telling. 

However, that sentiment has long since been tarnished, both in many mainstream media circles, as well as alternative news circles; where the NYTimes, already, has long since been considered a disgrace to honest journalism and an object of derision and ridicule for having too often been commonly used as a “mouthpiece” by nefarious sources of disrepute, and  purveyors of propagandic spin, planted by both government officials, private industry and special interest sources. 

Yet, more recently, a NYT’s memo, leaked via the Intercept to the world press, suggests an even more grievous widespread affront and purge has been committed against truth-telling in American journalism; specifically pertaining to Zionist Israel’s war in Gaza. 

As a result, once sacrosanct principles of democracy within American society and government, especially concerning matters of freedom of speech and the moral integrity of US media, are under serious attack that could be likened to the great purges that have happened over time in the Chinese or Russian Communist Party’s, or during the McCarthy era in US History.

What the leaked memo in question revealed was what amounts to the moral depravity of the US Media and its intention, in the case of the wars in both Ukraine and Gaza, to interfere with humanity’s freedom of thought, now being waged against towards even its own in-house journalists and editorial staff members. 

Journalists from around the world have long looked to the NYTimes, as has its many readers, as a veritable ‘bible’ of dependable, truthful news. The consequent whirlwind this revelation now has set into motion has only just begun, as it continues to whirl and spin its way to every corner of the earth, with, as yet, unforeseen consequences.

Disparity in Truth-telling of Mainstream Media (MSM) Is Immense

In the original expose by the Intercept, the blatant one-sided ‘language control’ by the NYTimes chief ‘gate-keepers’ is alarming in the way it flies in the face of the Times own biased media reporting in which, between Oct 7 and Nov 14, its journalists and columnists mentioned the word “massacre” 53 times when it referred to Israelis being killed by Palestinians, and yet only once in reference to Palestinians killed by Israel.

Another outrageous comparative fact to fiction comparison to be made is the wide disparity that exists in the official reported death count of Palestinians by the corporate mainstream press, that, since Oct 7, statistically hovered for quite some time around the figure of some 30,000 to 40,000 murders of Palestinians by Zionist IDF forces.

Image: General Lloyd J. Austin III [Source: euractiv.com]

But, when US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was asked sas recently as February 29^th that question, Austin replied “It’s over 25,000”. While another news source, the Kashmir Report, contrarily reported the human death count of dead or wounded Palestinians to be more in the neighborhood of 120,000. With still other trustworthy sources, claiming there to be well-over 109,000 civilian Palestinian casualties in Gaza; a minimum of 70,000 said to be innocent women and children. 

Hardly, the often intentionally-used, inaccurate, soft-pedalled term “scores of casualties”, typically used by the NYT’s own reportage. At any rate, these figures, by no stretch of the meaning, are “scores”, as the NYTimes would have its readers believe. 

NYT’s Verboten Words to be Omitted From Public’s Consciousness

The Intercept’s release of the NYTime’s Gaza Memo points out the disgrace this represents for international journalism. Especially the barely-veiled dictatorial nature, and double-speak of the Time’s editorial overseers and gatekeepers of the public’s conscious awareness of what actually is going on in the war in Gaza. 

Barely couched so-called recommendations to its writers included in the memo the use of certain approved terms and more neutral phrases when reporting the war in Gaza, while omitting other less desirable, inflammatory terms such as: using the term

• “neighborhoods” instead of “refugee camps”;
• “displaced communities”, rather than “occupied territories”.

Other recommended terms, to be frowned upon, ortotally censored, included any reference to:

• “genocide”;
• “ethnic cleansing”;

or the use of inflammatory words like:

• “slaughter”,
• “carnage”;
• “massacres”;
• “brutality”,

or even phrases like

• “Occupied Palestine”;
• ”Palestinian Territories”, or
• “Crimes Against Humanity”

Encouragement given to the journalist, as well, to avoid, whenever possible, the actual use of the term “Palestinian” itself.

Some NYT’s staff members, upon receiving this memo didn’t hesitate to offer the observation that the NYT’s memo recommendations clearly were intended to be biased and apologetic towards Zionist Israel. So problematic is this issue of thought-control that it soon involved even the NYTimes own august Weekend International editor Phillip P. Pan, a long-time veteran of the NYT’s International Desk weighing into the controversy.

The Pan International Desk of the Time’s so huge within itself that it’s like an entirely separate news organization, with its own 24-hour operation and news gathering forces that reach around the world. 

What the leaked NYT’s memo suggests is that, with Zionist Israel’s war in Gaza, and the obvious overwhelming influence of Israel’s right wing AIPAC on the United States Corporate Press, with its ideological allies in Canada and throughout the Western World, there obviously is a titanic ideological struggle underway within America’s Corporate mainstream press networks over who will ultimately control, what could be called the current Neo Fascist World Order; tantamount to a virtual ‘Purge’, not unlike what once occurred in political revolutions in China or Russia, or Gene McCarthy-type ‘Witch-hunts. 

Zionist War in Gaza Continues to Reveal So Many Truths and Untruths

The title this writer gave to this piece suggests that unless the world’s whole ball of wax is totally reconfigured, the Human Race, unequivocally, without any question of doubt, at some point in time, eventually will blow itself up, and every other life form along with it, to smithereens.

Well, welcome to Smithereen time! The Doomsday Clock is ticking away! Getting ever closer to the bewitching hour. No better verification of that truth can be discerned than by simply reading Israel’s Likud Party Charter of 1977. The Likud Party being that of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has always been part of a far-right bloc of political parties that includes Israel’s radical Religious Zionism Party.

If the world was actually awake to itself back then, it would have fully realized that what is happening now in Gaza and Zionist Israel, was totally predictable, if only all those responsible had only considered the real intent of those early Zionists, like the former ruthless terrorist Menachem Begin, who became Israel’s first President of its Likud Party.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who followed in his footsteps, originally came into power in 1977, in a coalition with Israel’s major right-wing ‘Freedom Party’, centered on the ultra-religious ideology of Vladimir Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism; as well as nationalist ideologues and pre-Israeli independence terrorist groups, such as Irgun Zvai Leumi. President Menachem Begin, himself, being an early terrorist leader of the original Irgun cell.

Palestine Police Force wanted poster of Irgun and Lehi members. Begin appears at the top left. (From the Public Domain)

In the early 21^st century, the Likud Party quickly adopted a policy opposing the establishment of a Palestinian State, under any conditions, and Likud Party stalwarts ever since have remained opposed to a Two State Solution; tht still remains dead as a doornail.

The Likud Party, from its earliest origins, equally opposed, as well, to ceding any major portions of land whatsoever to Palestinian control, as well as remaining adamantly opposed to the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories that the Zionists had conquered in its 1967 War against Palestine.

If this were the World Series of Baseball this whole disaster of humanity would represent Strike One in the Ninth inning of the United Nation’s herculean effort plan to break through and defeat the Zionists abject resistance to any reconciliation or co-existence between the Zionists and the Palestinians.

Clearly, the Likud Party, since its earliest origins, has remained opposed to ceding any major portions of conquered lands back to Palestinian control, or the dismantling of Zionist Israel’s ‘squatter’ settlements anywhere in the Palestinian territories; it’s simply a fanatical religious, ideological thing that knows no possible bridging or compromise.

So, when the Likud Party Charter declares “The Right of the Jewish People (i.e. “Zionists”) as being eternal and indisputable”, it actually is more a declaration of the Right of the Conqueror, by virtue of their occupation that the Zionists say extends back to before the beginning of time, that is eternal and indisputable. This suggests that some decision was long ago made by some higher power beyond time. 

Call this, “Strike Two” of the United Nations World Series Reconciliation/Co-Existence Plan. 

Then, when the Likud Charter goes on to further declare that the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria, will not be handed to any foreign administration between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”, one must assume that Palestinians would fall into that classification of being a foreign administration, which automatically leaves them out again. 

Call this, “Strike Three & You’re Out! Game Over!” Any remote Reconciliation/Co-Existence Plan a totally defunct, cadaverous body.

The Likud Charter concludes by saying,

“A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a “Palestinian State,” jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.”

End of the story. Strike Three again! You’re Out! Finished! Goodbye, Forever!

So, in essence, according to the Likud Party Charter, its hopeless to think that any human power on earth can ever successfully intercede on behalf of the Palestinians to realize either a One State or a Two State Solution; which leaves only a possible Third State Solution for Palestinians, which would be their imposed exile to some other place other than Eretz Israel. Of course, they’re not going anywhere soon, either.

Finally, when the Likud Charter goes on to emphatically declare, “Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”, given these clearcut, absolute declarations of the Likud Party Charter, one can understand why the Zionists in America, led by President Joe Biden, a self-declared Zionist himself, who should be sitting in the docket of the International Criminal Court right next to Netanyahu as a co-conspirator, recently encouraged the elected officials of the United States to convene in the United States House of Representatives and vote 377-44 with one abstention, in favor of a resolution to officially oppose, as being fundamentally anti-semitic, the Palestinian peoples opposite declaration that “From the Jordan To The Sea Palestine Will Be Free.”

That’s It! Back to the Dugout! Take a Shower!” In the final end, as the old paradox goes, “What Happens When An Unstoppable Force Meets An Immovable Object?”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jerome Irwin is a Canadian-American writer who, in previous lives, has been involved in a wide range of diverse and varied worlds, including the Criminology profession with an American police department, and later for a brief-time in the capacity of clandestine communications with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. For decades, in various professional capacities as an educator, researcher, geo-political analyst, and writer. Irwin has sought to call attention to a broad spectrum of world problems pertaining to the degradation and unsustainability caused by a host of environmental-ecological-spiritual-ideological issues that exist between the conflicting world philosophies of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

Irwin is the author of the book, “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey” (www.turtle-island-odyssey.com), a spiritual odyssey among the native peoples of North America that over the decades has produced numerous articles pertaining to: Ireland’s Fenian Movement; native peoples Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance Movement; AIPAC, Israel & the U.S. Congress anti-BDS Movement; the historic Battle for Palestine & Siege of Gaza, as well as; the many violations constantly being waged by industrial-corporate-military-propaganda interests against the World’s Collective Soul. To examine a portion of the eclectic body of his work goggle: “Jerome Irwin, writer” The author and his wife are long-time residents on the North Shore of British Columbia.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Il Congresso USA ha approvato una legge da 95 miliardi di dollari per gli “aiuti” a Ucraina, Israele e Taiwan. La Legge, votata da una grande maggioranza bipartisan di Democratici e Repubblicani, prevede 60,8 miliardi di dollari per l’Ucraina, 26,4 miliardi per Israele e 8,1 miliardi per Taiwan nella regione dell’Indo-Pacifico. Il presidente dei Servizi Armati del Senato, il repubblicano Mike Rogers, ha dichiarato: “Cina, Russia e Iran stanno lavorando insieme in un novo Asse del Male per danneggiare le nostre alleanze e minare la nostra sicurezza nazionale”, Il presidente Biden, che ha firmato immediatamente la Legge, ha dichiarato: “È un buon giorno per l’America, è un buon giorno per l’Europa ed è un buon giorno per la pace nel mondo. Renderà l’America più sicura. Renderà il mondo più sicuro e continuerà la leadership dell’America nel mondo.” Ha quindi aggiunto riguardo a Israele: “Il mio impegno nei confronti di Israele, voglio chiarirlo ancora una volta, è ferreo. La sicurezza di Israele è fondamentale. Garantirò sempre che Israele abbia ciò che gli serve per difendersi dall’Iran e dai terroristi che esso sostiene.”

La Legge – che alimenta le guerre e i preparativi di guerra dall’Europa al Medioriente e all’Asia Orientale contro Russia, Iran, Palestina, Cina e altri paesi – rafforza ulteriormente l’apparato militare statunitense. Su 60 miliardi di “aiuti” all’Ucraina, 48 miliardi finanziano le Forze Armate statunitensi: 23,2 miliardi di dollari sono destinati a ricostituire le scorte statunitensi di armi usate per armare l’Ucraina; 11,3 miliardi di dollari sono destinati alle attuali operazioni militari statunitensi nella regione; 13,8 miliardi di dollari sono destinati all’acquisto di sistemi d’arma avanzati, materiali e servizi per la Difesa. Allo stesso tempo la Legge richiede che gli Alleati degli Stati Uniti, tra cui l’Italia, paghino la loro “giusta quota” dei costi della guerra contro il “nuovo Asse del Male”.

Manlio Dinucci

 

VIDEO :

https://www.byoblu.com/2024/04/26/gli-stati-uniti-in-guerra-contro-il-nuovo-asse-del-male-grandangolo-pangea/

Um ataque de drones contra a capital da República de Belarus, Minsk, foi neutralizado pelas forças de defesa locais, evitando uma grave tragédia. Os UAV partiram da Lituânia – um país da OTAN que alberga vários terroristas expatriados bielorrussos que desde 2020 prometeram travar uma guerra civil contra o governo legítimo de Aleksandr Lukashenko. O incidente mostra claramente o perigo que estes grupos representam e quão irresponsáveis ​​e provocadores são os países ocidentais ao abrigá-los, treiná-los e financiá-los.

Em 25 de Abril, Ivan Tertel, chefe do Comité para a Segurança do Estado (KGB), afirmou que um plano para atacar Minsk e cidades vizinhas com drones de combate tinha sido interrompido pela inteligência bielorrussa. O seu discurso ocorreu durante a Assembleia Popular Bielorrussa, um dos eventos políticos mais importantes do país, que decorreu entre 24 e 25 de abril, reunindo em Minsk representantes de todos os setores da sociedade bielorrussa. É muito provável que o ataque tenha como objetivo impedir que o evento ocorresse de maneira adequada.

Dado que a data precisa do ataque não foi revelada – o que é procedimento habitual em questões de segurança – não é possível saber se o plano dos atacantes era cancelar a Assembleia ou visar as reuniões durante o evento, matando figuras públicas bielorrussas. O que parece claro é que a importância da Assembleia para o povo bielorrusso parece ter sido uma das principais razões da incursão terrorista.

Durante o seu discurso, Tertel alertou para o risco de uma grave escalada nas tensões regionais, dada a postura hostil e provocativa dos países da OTAN. Ele enfatizou que Minsk tem uma postura neutra e pacífica nos conflitos atuais, mas o Ocidente Coletivo atua de forma hostil porque não tolera relações amistosas e cooperação mútua entre a República da Bielorrússia e a Federação Russa.

Segundo ele, os EUA e os seus aliados europeus planejam controlar completamente a Bielorrússia, capturando a riqueza do país e transformando-o num Estado satélite – algo semelhante ao que aconteceu com a Ucrânia em 2014. Os estados que mais cooperam com os EUA para provocar Minsk são países vizinhos que foram contaminados pelo ódio russofóbico, como a Polônia, os Estados Bálticos e a Ucrânia. Estes países estão mesmo a proteger terroristas que querem publicamente iniciar uma guerra civil na Bielorrússia.

Estes grupos terroristas são formados principalmente por militantes fascistas expatriados da Bielorrússia. Em 2020, a OTAN financiou uma tentativa de revolução colorida em Minsk, cooptando militantes nacionalistas para saírem às ruas e liderarem manifestações em massa contra a legitimidade do processo eleitoral presidencial. As forças de segurança do país agiram de forma eficiente e conseguiram neutralizar a tentativa de mudança de regime, que levou os militantes mais radicais a fugir do país e a procurar abrigo e financiamento em estados como a Ucrânia e países da OTAN.

As organizações ultranacionalistas incluem grupos como o Bypol, uma das milícias neonazistas mais perigosas da Europa. Bypol já assumiu a responsabilidade por vários ataques terroristas na Bielorrússia, incluindo ataques de drones contra a capital do país. Mais do que isso, os líderes de Bypol admitiram publicamente que a sua intenção é regressar ao território da Bielorrússia e iniciar uma guerra civil para que possam derrubar Lukashenko. Considerando que há membros da Bypol na Lituânia, é muito provável que o grupo também esteja por trás da última tentativa de incursão de UAV contra Minsk.

Tertel alertou no seu recente discurso que milícias radicais expatriadas estão atualmente a desenvolver capacidades avançadas para a utilização de drones militares – em grande parte devido à cooperação com os exércitos da OTAN. Alertou também para a ação direta da inteligência ucraniana em crimes cometidos por expatriados. Segundo Tertel, há cerca de mil dissidentes bielorrussos atualmente na Ucrânia que se preparam para ataques na fronteira com a Bielorrússia.

O responsável acredita que os rebeldes planejam criar um Estado paralelo [fantoche dos EUA] nas fronteiras. Depois de atacar a Bielorrússia, Bypol e outras milícias querem estabelecer territórios inacessíveis às forças de Minsk, criando uma espécie de “novo país”, que deverá ser capaz de continuar a lutar contra o governo oficial a longo prazo numa guerra civil permanente. Este plano permitiria aos terroristas desestabilizar o ambiente estratégico russo.

No entanto, este projeto parece totalmente irrealista, tendo em conta as elevadas capacidades de combate e de inteligência das forças bielorrussas. É preciso recordar que, desde 2023, mais de 40 operações terroristas envolvendo estes grupos nacionalistas foram neutralizadas – o que mostra que, apesar dos esforços do Ocidente, Minsk continua a manter a situação absolutamente sob controle.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : NATO-based terrorists launch foiled attack on Belarus during important political event, InfoBrics, 26 de Abril de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://twitter.com/leiroz_lucas

It was 15 years ago: Felicity Arbuthnot recalls the massacre of Palestinian children during the December 2008-January 2009 invasion of Gaza.

It did not start in 2023.

The killing of children by Israel has been persistent

Veteran War Correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot in solidarity with the Children of Palestine describes the underlying and evolving criminality as well as the Anglo-American complicity. 

***

  “Light the fire so I can see my tears, On the night of the massacre …” (Samih al-Qasim, b: 1939.)

It was that “pinpoint accuracy”, “surgical strike” stuff again, there were “unavoidable tragic errors”, “mistakes”, “scrupulous efforts made to avoid” etc., blah. And as Britain’s Colonel Richard Kemp declared of the fourteen hundred dead of the Christmas and New year onslaught on Gaza in 2008-2009: “Mistakes are not war crimes.” (i)

Colonel Kemp, with impeccable ties to British Intelligence Services, spoke to the BBC from Jerusalem in similar sanguine vein on 21st November(ii) of the then latest twenty four hour bombardment of the tiny, walled in Gaza Strip, where over half the population are children. But Colonel Kemp has seen a fair amount of carnage in his time, from Belfast to the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Seemingly after a while the dead and dismembered are just part of the day job.

The eight day blitz killed one hundred and sixty two Palestinians in what were merciless attacks on families with no where to hide. Nine hundred and ninety nine were injured. Eight hundred and sixty five houses are damaged or destroyed.

Six health centres are damaged, thirty schools, two universities, fifteen NGO offices, twenty seven mosques, fourteen media offices, eleven industrial plants, eighty one commercial stores and a UNRWA food distribution Centre.

In addition seven Ministry offices, fourteen  police or security stations, five banks, and two youth clubs. The sports complex where the Palestinians athletes and paralympians trained for the 2012 London Olympics is reduced to rubble, as is the beautiful and most necessary Gaza Interior Ministry.

On Universal Children’s Day, 20th November, an air strike destroyed the Oxfam-supported Al Bajan kindergarten school and damaged the Al Housna kindergarten. (iii) Oxfam’s Sara Almer commented that more than one hundred and fifty children attended these kindergartens. “The children are safe, but the places where they learned and played are now in ruins.” This in an area: “where they already suffer a high level of trauma …”

The Oxfam project was as a result of the devastation caused by “Operation Cast Lead” between 27th December 2008-17th January 2009, when they also repaired the now re-fractured water and sanitation facilities.

There is a shortage of two hundred and thirty schools in Gaza, the Agency points out – and a ban on importing construction materials, which means the further thirty two damaged, the two universities and all else may well stay that way.

Ironically, on the day of the nurseries’ destruction, the UN Secretary General announced, that marking Universal Children’s Day, the launch of a major UN initiative: “Education First.” The day commemorates the adoption of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. The 1989 Convention entered in to force on September 2nd 1990, under a month after the UN embargo on Iraq, with even baby milk formula importation denied.

“The child … needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth” is included in the preamble to a fine document. (iv)

Four year old twins, Suhaib and Muhammed Hijazi will never learn of the “protection” they are entitled to by the United Nations. They were killed when their home was bombed as the dawn of Universal Children’s Day approached. Their parents, Fouad and Amna died in hospital.

Saraya, eighteen months, won’t grow to read the fine words either, she died of a heart attack, literally frightened to death by the bombardment.

As the lights went off in Gaza’s hospitals, and their generator fuel hovered  on empty, Gilad Sharon – youngest son of eighty four year old former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, who has benefited from Israel’s fine health services and been on life support systems since 2006 – stated: “We need to flatten entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki too.”

Israel’s Interior Minister Eli Yishai stated that the goal of the attacks were to: “ … send Gaza back to the Middle Ages.”
Palestine has no army, navy, air force, no heavy weaponry. Israel is an undeclared nuclear power, regarded as having the fourth strongest military on earth.

Gaza was, of course being bombed by American supplied F-16s and a variety of American weaponry. But as Gaza grieved, America had parades across the land, ate turkey, prayed over their festive dinners on Thanksgiving Day, 22nd November.

Reality would have had them burning, city to city, The UN Declaration and Convention on the Rights of the Child, The UN Declaration on Human Rights, The Geneva Convention, The Nuremberg Principles and making a pyre of all the fine, meaningless words which do not end or mask international lawlessness and inhumanity. A bonfire which might light the  lie of the whole murderous hypocrisy of self proclaimed “democratic” nation states.

Notes

i.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kemp
ii.    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9771000/9771507.stm
iii.    http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m92857&hd=&size=1&l=e
iv.    http://un.by/en/hr/doc/child/

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Israel’s flagrant genocide against Palestinian Arabs in Gaza has caused protests all over the world. The latest headline grabbers are protester encampments at a number of college campuses spreading across America, the latest at Columbia, New York University, Yale, Harvard, Brown, MIT, University of Michigan, University of Texas at Austin, USC and California Polytechnic University Pomona.

Apparently, on Monday April 22nd, the Yale students were arrested for urging the university to divest from defense manufacturers arming Israel to kill Palestinians. But as always, the Zionist controlled press is once again conflating opposition against the slaughter of innocent Palestinian civilians with antisemitism, the go-to weapon that has allowed Zionists to literally get away with murder for over three-quarters of a century during the Jewish State’s entire existence.

On Monday, Braindead Biden further fanned the sensationalized flames, polarizing the volatile situation by calling for Americans to speak out against this “alarming surge of antisemitism.” Just like the Braindead regime has called the greatest threat to America “white supremacist extremism,” this latest fabrication is being used to further divide and rule America. This favorite totalitarian M.O. is used to justify launching neo-Nazi campaigns to lock up targeted innocent law-abiding citizens as dissenters opposing the genocide and treasonous destruction of America’s liberty. It’s all too obvious to not see what’s really unfolding.

Though I support these protests against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, I also see that this anti-Israel movement has been co-opted, not unlike the Occupy Wall Street movement a dozen years ago. It too started out somewhat promising, an organic grassroots effort illuminating the ever-widening wealth disparity gap between the 1%-ers and the rest of us. But it was neutralized to fizzle out with over-the-top police state mobilization into another war at home against dissent.

Heavy-handed police state tactics of aggression are once again arresting hundreds of these anti-Israel genocide protesters, aimed at quashing this latest well-meaning grassroots movement. The same oppressive tactics are being rolled out to quell this latest college campus rebellion. This current protest wave will also peter out as virtually all previous antiwar movements come and go, meeting the same fate.

Overt elements of bread and circus, wag-the-dog, diversionary tactics are currently deployed to divert public focus away from World War III-in-the-making, and the globalists’ agenda for their larger genocide against the human race as bottom-line reality. But also, this growing unrest on college campuses is just a prelude of what’s to come during the long hot summer months ahead. In increasing numbers, thousands more Americans will be in revolt against the mounting oppression of America’s militarized police state amidst this nation’s total financial and economic house of cards collapse.

Police begin arresting Yale University students occupying the campus with a ‘Gaza Plaza Liberation Zone’ tent encampment.

As a detained activist is taken into police custody, students chant:

“Down, down with occupation.”

pic.twitter.com/IIQFhDkeWI

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) April 22, 2024

On Wednesday April 24th, House Majority Leader and AIPAC-owned traitor Mike Johnson stood in front of the Columbia University library, flanked by a few Congress members to deliver the official federal response. Amidst the booing, heckling crowd of protesters, Johnson threatened to fire Columbia’s president for her alleged laxity in dealing with what Johnson refers to as the “lawlessness” displayed on  campuses by anti-Israel activists.

Johnson repeatedly emphasized alleged violence and threats of violence toward Jewish students afraid of attending class. This is the propaganda of today’s oppressive federal tyranny exercising its agenda to destroy America’s constitutional right to peaceful assembly for protest. The Zionist controlled Mockingbird press and Zionist controlled US government are opportunistically using a few isolated incidents as their excuse to eliminate America’s First Amendment free speech right to protest.  

Police violently detaining US protesters this week are sending the loud and clear message to all American citizens that protest in the land of not so free is now against the law. After all, all the US municipal police departments received their mob dispersal training combating “civil unrest” from who else? The apartheid genocidal expert itself – Israel, owner of the world’s largest open-air bombed out genocidal prison in Gaza. There’s an obvious  thread in everything America and Israel are and are fast becoming pariah nations of the world.

Ultimately, the plan in the US is to create so much destabilization and upheaval that martial law is conveniently declared so that the useful idiot uni-party puppet traitors in DC funding three war fronts retain their token tyrannical power by canceling the November election.

This week, law enforcement nationwide has been ordered at all these university campuses to arrest hundreds, if not thousands of protesters, the vast majority simply American citizens exercising their First Amendment constitutional rights to peaceful assembly, protesting against Israel’s in-our-face brutality. Though there may be a small minority of bigots or more apt agent provocateurs among the protests (as in the unindicted J6 inciters) appearing to prejudicially target Jewish students, with a few idiots that may actually be antisemitic, like clockwork always the Zionist controlled media seizes upon this perfect “wag the dog” misdirection moment as another opportunity to draw much needed attention away from the senseless slaughter of more than 20,000 women and children thus far mass murdered in Palestine.

And now it’s become the classic misdirection from all sides, slamming dissent with police state tactics to quell the student uprising from spreading further into mainstream America. This is a psyops fed by the weak excuse of a few Jewish students reportedly harassed and threatened, with rabbis instructing them to leave their prestigious Ivy League colleges in response to the media-hyped “antisemitism” claim.

It’s all too obvious that this unbridled sensationalism instantly removes all focus from Gaza’s bloodbath, Israel’s bloodthirsty madness of its failed EMP attack against Iran, the still unfunded open border policy intended to overload and destroy the West, driving up skyrocketing crime, rising domestic warfare exploiting the class, racial, gender, religious and cultural divide, imminent World War III at three US-funded theaters of combat operations, the crumbling, crashing national and global economies and spreading worldwide impoverishment, famine, homelessness and destitution, not to mention the next bioweapon terror attack usurping all our national and individual sovereignty rights vis-a-vis the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty up for UN vote within a few weeks. See what the controllers are desperately blocking out of view with all their sinister sleight of hand, over-the-top coverage of US college campus protests?

With the diabolical elites deliberately engineering all these deadly crises and multiple disasters boiling over into worldwide chaos, brutal mass death and destruction, the globalists prefer Americans be preoccupied with so-called “antisemitic” student protests, while Rome, or in this case, the world burns, as the global masses get blindsided into ignorant oblivion to never see what’s coming – a genocidal tsunami of global upheaval, devastation and drastic depopulation.

This overtly oppressive pattern unfolds with growing criminal charges of hate speech crime now usurping our constitutional rights and silencing dissent in order to deliver punitive retribution against peaceful protesters and truthtellers brave enough to exercise their free speech rights. 

Essentially, what we are witnessing in the face of this current crackdown on Americans’ right to freely assemble and protest is today’s USA brand of authoritarian tyranny. In case you hadn’t noticed in all the media circus theatrics, treasonous Congress’ recent renewal of FISA allowing the federal government without warrant to continue spying on Americans or, as Tucker Carlson points out, the CIA threatens to put kiddie porn on Congress members’ computers. And now the latest assault on our constitutional rights, in one fell swoop, our Fourth Amendment search and seizure and Fifth Amendment self-incrimination protection are eroded by last week’s 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. It ruled that law enforcement can force suspects to unlock their cellphone encryption data where nothing is safe from snooping Big Brother surveillance. From an April 19th reason.com article:

Even cursory access to someone’s phone can turn up travel history, banking information, and call and text logs—a treasure trove of potentially incriminating information, all of which would otherwise require a warrant.

In a single week, piece by piece our Constitutional freedoms are being undermined and systematically dismantled as our historic rule of law. Those exercising their First Amendment rights on college campuses need the rest of us Americans who still believe in the sanctity of our Constitution, and who know that genocide is evil whether it’s committed by Israel or not, to step up in support of the rights to protest against this blight. Bottom line, we have elites waging genocide against the entire human race, cloaked under their open banner of depopulation.

Will Americans and humans wake up in time before we’re either all dead or rotting away under digital enslavement in our 15-minute smart city prison cells? It’s a tossup.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system.

The experience in both the military and child welfare system prepared him well as a researcher and independent journalist, exposing the evils of Big Pharma and how the Rockefeller controlled medical and psychiatric system inflict more harm than good, case in point, the pandemic hoax and kill shot genocide. As an independent journalist for the last decade, Joachim has written hundreds of articles for many news sites, including Global Research, lewrockwell.com and currently https//jameshfetzer.org, Inteldrop.org and  https://thegovernmentrag.com. As a published author of a 5-book volume series entitled Pedophilia & Empire: Satan, Sodomy & the Deep State, Joachim’s books and chapters are Amazon bestsellers in child advocacy and human rights categories. His A-Z sourcebook series fully document and expose the global pedophilia scourge and remain available free at https://pedoempire.org/contents/. Joachim also hosts the weekly Revolution Radio broadcast “Cabal Empire Exposed” on Friday morning at 7AM EST (ID: revradio, password: rocks!).

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

In the present discourse on global capitalism and its social, political, and economic consequences, two influential public intellectual figures from the academe emerge prominently: Noam Chomsky and Michel Chossudovsky.

Both academics proffer penetrating assessments of the exploitative and oppressive nature of capitalism and global corporatocracy and their impacts in our contemporary society. However, the methodological approaches and frameworks of both public intellectuals display notable similarities and remarkable differences that warrant careful examination to understand the nuances of their equally weighty perspectives.

This article aims to analyze, compare, and critically evaluate the similarities and differences of the approaches of Noam Chomsky and Michel Chossudovsky in criticizing the societal exploitation and oppression brought about by global capitalism and corporatocracy on the downtrodden masses and marginalized sectors of society.

Similarities Between Chomsky and Chossudovsky’s Critique of Global Capitalism

1.) Anti-Imperialist and Anti-Neocolonialist Positionalities

Both Noam Chomsky and Michel Chossudovsky espouse an anti-imperialist stance in their critiques of global capitalism and corporatocracy. They highlight the role of powerful Western nations, particularly the United States, in perpetuating economic exploitation, military interventions, regime changes, and geopolitical dominance to further their capitalistic agendas (Cf. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, p. 30-32).

Their analyses underscore the interconnectedness of capitalism and imperialism, emphasizing how economic exploitation is often intertwined with political and military agendas (Cf. Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, p. 25).

2.) Critical Emphasis on the Analysis of Corporate Power

Both Noam Chomsky and Michel Chossudovsky focus upon the domination and ascendancy of corporate power in shaping global capitalism. They critique the influence of multinational corporations, financial institutions, and elite economic cartels in controlling resources, manipulating markets, and exacerbating political inequality as well as social and economic inequity (Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, p. 32-34). Both academics highlight how corporate interests and agendas drive policies that prioritize profit over the well-being of people and the ecosystem of our planet, leading to social injustice, environmental degradation, economic instability, and socio-political marginalization (Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, p. 68).

3.) Scathing Criticisms of Neoliberal Policies

Another common ground in their analyses is the critique of neoliberal policies and neoliberal globalization. Chomsky and Chossudovsky condemn the deregulation, privatization, and austerity measures promoted by neoliberal ideology, arguing that these policies exacerbate poverty, inequality, and social exclusion (Chomsky, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order, p. 78). Chomsky and Chossudovsky highlight how neoliberal globalization benefits the wealthy elite at the expense of the working class, leading to wage stagnation, job insecurity, inflation, and the erosion of social welfare systems (Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, p. 102).

Differences Between Chomsky and Chossudovsky

1.) Methodological Approaches and Frameworks of Analysis

Noam Chomsky’s approach to critiquing global capitalism is rooted in linguistics, philosophy, and political activism. He employs a multidisciplinary standpoint, drawing on historical analysis, empirical research, and ethical deliberation to expose the injustices of capitalism and advocate for social transformation (Chomsky, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order, p. 14). Chomsky’s critique is often characterized by a focus on linguistics as well as linguistic philosophy, and emphasis on discourse, highlighting how media, propaganda, and ideological hegemony perpetuate capitalist narratives and maintain oppressive, extractive, and exploitative power structures in contemporary society.

In contrast, Michel Chossudovsky’s approach is more explicitly economic and overtly geopolitical rooted in his expertise in the analytical field of the political science subdisciplines of international politics and global relations. Additionally, as an economist, geopolitical analyst, and an expert in global relations, Chossudovsky emphasizes the role of financial markets, monetary policy, and geopolitics in shaping global capitalism (Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, p. 47). Chossudovsky’s analyses often incorporate data-driven research and empirical geopolitical analysis to uncover the mechanisms of capitalist exploitation and the interests of global power players: both State and non-State actors as well as public and private corporations and economic institutions that perpetuate political marginalization and economic exploitation in our present times.

2.) Scope and Extent of Analysis

While both Noam Chomsky and Michel Chossudovsky critique global capitalism, they often focus on different aspects and dimensions in their critical analysis of the capitalistic and corporatocratic system. Chomsky’s critiques tend to encompass a broader range of issues, including militarism, imperialism, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses (Chomsky, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order, p. 94). He examines the intersectionality of global capitalism with other systems of oppression, such as racism, patriarchy, and colonialism, highlighting the interconnectedness of various forms of injustice and marginalization.

On the other hand, Chossudovsky’s analyses often delve deeply into specific economic and geopolitical phenomena as well as socio-economic interfaces governing economic policies, such as financialization, currency manipulation, monopolization, and geopolitical conflicts (Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, p. 135).

His work often emphasizes the role of specific States, non-State actors and public as well as private institutions, such as central banks, international financial institutions, and intelligence agencies, hegemonic exploitative corporations, and monopolistic cartels in perpetuating capitalistic exploitation, corporatist extractive agendas, and global hegemony of States perpetuating abusive capitalistic economic policies.

Concluding Thoughts

Summing it up: the critiques of global capitalism offered by Noam Chomsky and Michel Chossudovsky share common themes of anti-imperialism, critique of corporate power, and opposition to neocolonial and neoliberal policies. However, their approaches exhibit considerable differences in terms of methodology, scope of analysis, and emphasis on specific political, social, economic, and geopolitical contextualities.

Through critically engaging with their perspectives and by complementing as well as synthesizing both Chomsky’s and Chossudovsky’s strong and forceful criticisms of the present trends of contemporary capitalism, educators, academics, scholars, students, social advocates, and progressive activists can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of global capitalism and corporatocracy.

By exploring analytically, reflectively, and insightfully Noam Chomsky’s and Michel Chossudovsky’s writings outlining and directing venues for the liberation of our contemporary society from the exploitative gripping tentacles of global capitalism, progressive activists and advocates can effectively lead our present society towards a holistic social, economic, and political transformation of the world on the side of peace, justice, amity, and equity.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu is Associate Professor-7 of Philosophy and Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu City, Philippines. He was Academic Coordinator of the Political Science Program at UP Cebu from 2011-2014, and Program Coordinator of Gender and Development (GAD) Office at UP Cebu from 2015-2016 and from 2018-2019. He is presently the Focal Point Faculty for Gender and Development in the University of the Philippines (UP) Cebu, College of Social Sciences. 

 

Sources

Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002.

Chomsky, Noam. Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2011.

Chossudovsky, Michel. The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. Quebec: Global Research Publishers, 2003.

Chossudovsky, Michel (Editor). The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century. Quebec: Global Research Publishers, 2010.

Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Robinson, William I. Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Sassen, Saskia. Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2014.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

When NATO turned 75, the director of SIPRI – formally, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute – Dan Smith wrote this diplomatic wishy-washy essay about the alliance with program director Barbara Kunz who has a past in the US at the German Marshall Fund and in the German Federal Foreign Office’s policy planning unit as an external expert.

The authors discuss the ‘security dilemma,’ deterrence, perceptions, and defence but do not address why NATO can be seen as co-responsible for the present, extremely serious security situation in Europe. Or, if you will, how it is a fiasco in terms of its self-perception as a defensive peace-making alliance.

They do not address NATO’s homepage’s incredibly low intellectual level, which is filled with assertions, postulates, and accusations and is devoid of clear conceptualisations, theories, and analyses. They don’t question NATO’s constant pathetic image of Russia and China – oh, the Taiwan issue! – as enemies.

The authors say that stability is the goal of the international system; it isn’t peace.

They do not problematize NATO’s doctrine of Nuclear First Use or ask themselves what the alliance has achieved concretely.

They firmly believe that NATO does not represent a problem or is outdated. They conclude that it just needs to think a little differently, respect old concepts that worked well and “stay humble.” (!)

The word peace doesn’t appear in their text.

However, according to § 2 of its Statutes, SIPRI shall “conduct scientific research on questions of conflict and cooperation of importance for international peace and security, with the aim of contributing to an understanding of the conditions for peaceful solutions of interstate conflicts and for stable peace.”

Well, that’s hardly what it does when it rubs itself with the Munich Security Conference or when its former Board Chairman, Jan Eliasson, at length describes how he thinks it was right for Sweden to join NATO.

*

Today, SIPRI contributes nothing to the stated understanding of peaceful solutions. Instead, it promotes the traditional weapons-focused security concepts in general and an understanding of NATO country policies in particular.

SIPRI recently stated that

“Total global military expenditure reached $2443 billion in 2023, an increase of 6.8 per cent in real terms from 2022…In 2023 the 31 NATO members accounted for $1341 billion, equal to 55 per cent of the world’s military expenditure. Military spending by the USA rose by 2.3 per cent to reach $916 billion in 2023, representing 68 per cent of total NATO military spending.”

But SIPRI’s leaders do not see that as a problem. Smith and Kunz don’t ask why NATO is such a huge overspender relative to the rest of the world.

And here, you find the institute’s clearly pro-NATO markings of the alliance’s 75th anniversary, where you may also take note of Jan Egeland’s absurd argument that alliance membership does not hinder any member from promoting causes it believes are important. Did he ever hear about, say, disarmament, nuclear abolition or confidence building with Russia?

You get the gist. The above-mentioned essay and the SIPRI’s materials presented to mark NATO’s 75th anniversary could hardly be more toothless. They represent neither peace nor free research. They smack of commissioned work within an intellectual “groupthink” thriving inside an echo chamber of political correctness.

The world receives SIPRI’s publications as statistically authoritative, and that is not wrong, many are – such as those on military expenditures and arms trade. However, this type of bean-counting isn’t what SIPRI was originally established to do. And that explains why SIPRI so seldom manages to create debate about the existentially important issues it works with.

*

SIPRI now (on top of all its pages) calls itself “The independent resource on global security”—note that SIPRI decades ago was proud of associating itself with the word “peace;” then it became an independent resource on security and peace, and now “peace” has been dropped.

Well, that is at least indicative of some honesty.

Eight years ago, in a scathing critique, I argued that SIPRI was no longer a peace research institute and recommended a name change to Stockholm International Military Security Institute, SIMSI. Everything I wrote back then is worse now.

As mentioned, SIPRI pathetically prides itself on being an independent source of security. The word “independent,” however, is clearly dishonest.

If you look at SIPRI’s funding, virtually 100% comes from NATO members and partners.

The largest is Sweden and various institutions, including Uppsala University, but you also notice the governments and various organisations in the EU, Germany, Holland, the UK, USAID, Open Societies Foundation, Japan, and Taiwan.

Ask yourself why all these NATO-related countries support SIPRI. What is in it for them? What would the price for SIPRI to pay if the institute published a series of critical analyses of the basic propensity of our time to use military means no matter what the problem is? If it criticised the world’s larger military consumers and war-fighting countries – that is, NATO? And if it devised imminently possible alternatives to the arms races, sabre-rattling, militarism and, say, NATO’s extremely ill-conceived, tension-increasing expansion against all promises given to Gorbachev and in defiance of all – also Western – experts warnings that that expansion would end us all in a war? And what if it published true conflict-resolution ideas and principles that show, in one conflict after the other, how things could be done differently?

Unthinkable, of course. SIPRI is anything but independent. Its funding is extremely biased.

*

Over time, SIPRI has become as intellectually boring and politically mainstream as NATO itself – and as quite a few other peace research institutes. The discourse on peace – in research, politics and media – has been disappeared in the maelstrom of contemporary Western militarism.

In such a situation, SIPRI could have stood up like a beacon for international peace through true peace research. Its leadership – and the backing Swedish government – chose not to and must, therefore, be deemed increasingly irrelevant. There are more than enough traditional security research institutes around the world.

If she knew where SIPRI stands today, the founding mother of SIPRI, Alva Myrdal, would likely rotate in her grave because she was a world-renowned woman of peace and vision, a disarmament ambassador, a leader of the international disarmament movement, a social democrat and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Her vision has been destroyed by the very thinking and forces she devoted her life to reducing – which is also indicative of what has happened to the social democracy that, once upon a time, was oriented towards peace.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Transnational

Video: Fake Pandemic Triggers Worldwide Economic and Social Collapse

Michel Chossudovsky Interview with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media

 

click lower right corner of screen to access Rumble and/or leave a comment

Donate to Lux Media Click Here

***

 

CENSORSHIP:

The original Global Research video produced by Ariel Rodriguez in February 2021, aired by Vaccine Choice Canada in June 2021 was taken down by Vimeo on March 5, 2022

Below is the version on Rumble

6′.40″ to 37’00”

***

Click here to Access The Video on Rumble and/or leave a Comment

Our thanks to Vaccine Choice Canada

 

---

Michel Chossudovsky’s Message

Dear Readers,

We stand in solidarity Worldwide. My thanks for your support in the course of more than twenty years.

You are welcome to download (free of charge) my Book (15  chapters) which provides a detailed analysis of a crisis which is still ongoing.

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

Free of Charge for ALL our Readers. Click here to Download 

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

**

“People are dying! Entire ecosystems are collapsing! We are in the beginning of a mass extinction! And all you can talk about is money! And Fairy Tales of eternal economic growth! HOW DARE YOU! – Greta Thunberg, September 23, 2019, at the United Nations Climate Summit [1]

“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” – Henny Penny aka “Chicken Little” [2]

“Of course I’ve been called a denier. And my response is “tell me what I’m denying!” Because I’m quoting from you directly from the official UN Scientific reports!” – Physicist Stephen Koonin, as quoted in the movie Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth [3]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

With forest fires blazing all over the planet, dreadful hurricanes causing damage, floods, droughts, sudden cold snaps and hot temperatures, people around the world and across the media are quite open now about their virtually religious concern that the disastrous weather is all the fault of human beings!

Greta Thunberg, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, and all the other great saviours of our modern day scientistic religion tell us that we must all perform a penance to atone for our individual and collective environmental sins! We must burn less fossil fuels! We must part forever from the demonic internal combustion engine! We must refrain from raising and eating non-kosher flatulating cows!

While we all cloak our deeds in scientific jargon, our behaviour seems to indicate prehistoric patterns of superstition is once again creeping into our lives. Yesterday, people trusted the judges presiding over the Salem Witch trials, to the detriment of the many accused women. Today, the authority of our day includes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change alerting us to huge climate catastrophes on the horizon.

But today’s authorities claim their arguments rest on science. SCIENCE, the modern day heroic discipline that has rewarded our people with unprecedented riches and gifts of knowledge that put us light years ahead of any other practise of worshipping old-fashioned deities brought to appeasement by mumbling old-fashioned mumbo jumbo.

However, when people who have adapted the scientific credentials with their experiments and published papers, and then state the most outrageous attacks on the dogma of today known under the label of man-made carbon dioxide fueling climate change, people in the trade look desperately for counter-arguments. Receiving boons from “Big Oil” companies is the modern version of the epithet “Heretic!”

This week’s episode of the Global Research News Hour attempts to listen to the statements from some of these dissident scientists and possibly come to a different array of conclusions actually consistent with the true nature of scientific progress of questioning authorities no matter what the cost!

In our first half hour, Tom Nelson, a climate skeptic, joins us to talk about his recent film Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth, which features a number of high profile scientific leaders who are now, not unlike skeptics of COVID, branded dragons of “dis-information.”

What follows is a free exhibition of his film.

And in our second half hour, we speak with Jacob Nordangard, about his recent book, Rockefeller: Controlling the Game, which looks at the role J.D. Rockefeller and his descendants played in setting the stage for this connecting of human activities to the climate change hysteria, and for developing a political response.

Tom Nelson holds a Masters Degree in electronics and electrical engineer and hosts a regular podcast debunking climate change/energy myths from the beginning.

Jacob Nordangard is a Swedish researcher, author, lecturer, and musician. He holds a Ph.D. in Technology and Social Change at Linköping University. He holds a Master of Social Science in Geography, and a Master of Social Science in Culture and Media Production. He is the author of Rockefeller: Controlling the Game, and blogs regularly at substack.com/@drjacobnordangard.

(Global Research News Hour episode 429)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.

1. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/23/763452863/transcript-greta-thunbergs-speech-at-the-u-n-climate-action-summit
2. https://www.dltk-teach.com/fairy-tales/chicken-little/story.htm
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI&t=286s

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

[First published on October 3, 2019]

Introduction

There are several dimensions to the mosquito crisis.

The release of gene-edited male mosquitoes, coupled with the development of a dengue and malaria vaccine.

But that is but the tip of the iceberg.

According to F. William Engdahl in 2018, the weaponization of insects is on the drawing board of the Pentagon:

There is strong evidence that the Pentagon, through its research and development agency, DARPA, is developing genetically modified insects that would be capable of destroying agriculture crops of a potential enemy. The claim has been denied by DARPA, but leading biologists have sounded the alarm on what is taking place using new “gene-editing” CRISPR technology to in effect weaponize insects. It’s like a 21st Century update of the Biblical plague of locusts, only potentially far worse.

Under the DARPA project, Genetic Alteration Agents or viruses will be introduced into the insect population to directly influence the genetic makeup of crops.

DARPA plans to use leaf hoppers, white flies, and aphids to introduce select viruses into crops. Among other dubious claims they say it will help farmers combat “climate change.” What no one can answer, especially as neither the Pentagon nor the US FDA are asking, is how will the genetically engineered viruses in the insects interact with other microorganisms in the environment?

If crops are constantly being inundated by genetically modified viruses, how could this could alter the genetics and immune systems of humans who depend on the crops?

See F. William Engdahl, Why Is the Pentagon “Weaponizing Insects”? October 30, 2018

The Release of 5 Billion Gene-edited Mosquitoes in Brazil. Will It Save Lives? 

“It may sound like the premise for a horror movie, or a biblical plague”:

The World Mosquito Program plans to release five billion mosquitoes into Brazil.

“And the hope is they will help save lives.

“[Once] you see the reductions in disease transmission, it doesn’t seem like a horror movie any more,” Scott O’Neill, director of the World Mosquito Program” (CBC, April 2023)

Implemented concurrently with the influx of 5 billion friendly mosquitoes, Brazil approved in March 2023 a vaccine against dengue.

In turn, the Brazilian government has confirmed its support for the creation of a Mosquito Factory which is slated to produce 5 billion mosquitoes a year starting in 2024.

I should mention that the British Company Oxitec has been actively involved in the development of genetically modified mosquitoes in the course of the last eight years:

“They will mate with the females of the ordinary mosquitoes, spawning babies with a genetically inbuilt flaw that causes them to die quickly.

Oxitec says its factory in the town of Piracicaba, northwest of Sao Paulo, can produce 60 million mutant mosquitoes a week.” (Phys.org, 2016)

 

Source: Nature

 

Coordination of “Mosquito Production” and Vaccine Against Dengue

There is a coordination of Brazil’s factory production of gene-edited mosquitoes with that of the vaccine to halt dengue by the non-profit World Mosquito Program (WMP) funded by Big Pharma’s Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

According to Bill Gates:

“These mosquitoes are allies in the fight against dengue and other deadly viruses.”

“The demand for these lifesaving mosquitoes continues to grow and that means the World Mosquito Program needs to produce hundreds of millions of Wolbachia mosquitoes.

This might sound the beginnings of a Hollywood writer’s horror film plot.

But it’s not.

This factory is real.

And the mosquitoes being released don’t terrorize the local population. Far from it. They’re actually helping to save and improve millions of lives.

That brings us back to the factory in Medellín, which is currently the world’s largest mosquito breeding facility in the world, producing more than 30 million mosquitoes per week. [1.5 billion per annum]

With regard to the Vaccine against Dengue, more than 3 million people are slated to receive the jab against Dengue in 2024” (CBC Report, April 2023, That report was published almost a year ago).

The 2024 Brazil “Mosquito Horror Story” 

Today Brazil is experiencing something beyond the “The Premise for A Horror Movie”.

The release of 5 billion male gene-edited mosquitoes in 2023 was intended to REDUCE the number of mosquitoes in Brazil.

The underlying logic was that the male gene-edited mosquitoes would be mating with normal female mosquitoes with a view to undermining the reproductive process and significantly reducing the number of normal mosquitoes.

That did not happen.

What is now happening is exactly the opposite. Early 2024: There is a tendency for the number mosquitoes to increased. WHY?

Brazil’s Health Minister casually blames it on the hot weather and “above-average rainfall.”

According to a Yale University research project quoted by Engdahl,

“some of the [gene edited] mosquitoes likely have “hybrid vigor,” resulting from “a hybrid of the natural mosquito with the gene-edited mosquito.”

What has occurred is the creation of “a more robust population than the pre-release population [of mosquitoes] which may be more resistant to insecticides, in short, resistant “super mosquitoes.””

What’s the OUTCOME?

According to Engdahl:

After an initial period in which the target mosquito population markedly declined, after about 18 months the mosquito population recovered to pre-release levels.

 

 

August 2023

Here is the official media narrative, which blatantly contradicts what is actually happening:

“The firm has developed a version of the male Aedes aegypti mosquito which carries a gene that kills female offspring before they reach maturity, suppressing the population. Only female mosquitoes bite and transmit diseases.

Eggs for the mosquitoes are placed inside a box and water is added to activate them.

“They complete the cycle inside these boxes in about ten days and the adult insects come out to do their work,” said Oxitec’s general manager in Brazil, Natalia Ferreira.

As the modified mosquitoes are released in a given region, they proliferate and the total population of the insect decreases. (Reuters, 28, February, 2024, emphasis added)

See video below.

According to F. William Engdahl:

“This once more highlights the dangers of uncontrolled gene-editing of species”, generously funded by the Gates Foundation.

The Gates Foundation’s Dengue and Malaria Vaccine 

According to The Guardian,

“in the first five weeks of this year [2024], 364,855 cases of infection have been reported, the health ministry [Brazil] said, four times more than dengue cases in the same period of 2023.”

Below are the figures of Brazil’s Ministry of Health, comparing 2023 and 2024.

 

 

Is this surge in dengue infection the result of hot weather and “above-average rainfall” as outlined by Ministry of Health?

Or is it the result of the release of the 5 billion gene-edited “modified mosquitoes” in 2023?

The impacts of the release of gene-edited mosquitoes have over the years been the object of extensive laboratory research.

Was there foreknowledge in terms of prior scientific research as to what was going to happen, namely the surge in the number of hybrid “Super Mosquitoes” as well as the reproduction (through the mating process) of the hybrid variety of mosquitoes?

Brazil had committed itself to supporting the factory production of gene-edited mosquitoes, with a commitment to release another 5 billion gene-edited mosquitoes in 2024. Will that project be carried out?

SEATTLE — To accelerate the development of a vaccine to prevent dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever, debilitating diseases affecting children in the developing world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced a $55 million grant to the International Vaccine Institute (IVI) to support the Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative (PDVI).

This posting includes excerpts from Jordan Shachtel, Amie Wek and Jamie White followed by the article of F. William Engdahl.

—Michel Chossudovsky, March 2, 2024; revised on March 3, 2024

---

By Jordan Schachtel

The World Health Organization and its partner organization, the Bill Gates-controlled GAVI, announced Wednesday [July 2023] that they will be flooding Africa with 18 million doses of malaria vaccines.

During a Wednesday press conference, [July 2023] WHO director Tedros Adhanom declared that 12 African countries will be receiving 18 million doses of malaria vaccine in the coming months, declaring that climate change is largely responsible for the continuing disease burden in the continent.

Now, Gates Inc and its middleman partners have released a white paper detailing their roadmap for the deployment of these shots. They are seeking to establish a system in which 80-100 million shots are injected into the arms of sub Saharan African children on an annual basis by 2030. This would create a malaria vaccine industry in Africa that is poised to rake in close to $1 billion annually.

 

There is no evidence that these shots work to prevent malaria, but that hasn’t stopped Big Pharma and global “Public Health” institutions from executing its designs upon the African continent.

(Jordan Schachtel, The Weaponization of Mosquitoes: WHO and Gates Inc Announce Plans to Flood Africa with Ultra Dangerous Malaria “Vaccines”, Global Research, July 2023)

By Amy Wek

Inside a two-story brick building in Medellín, Colombia, scientists work in muggy labs breeding 30 million genetically modified mosquitoes weekly in labs.

They tend to the insects’ every need as they grow from larvae to pupae to adults, keeping the temperature just right and feeding them generous helpings of fishmeal, sugar, and, of course, blood. They are then released into the wild in 11 countries.

Billionaire Bill Gates, who is funding the project, assures us it’s not a scene from a horror movie.

“The factory is real. And the mosquitoes that are released do not terrorize the locals. They help save and improve millions of lives.”

Just as his ‘covid vaccines’ have ‘saved’ millions of lives or his’ previous vaccination projects have left thousands of women sterile in India and Kenya. Or even his Polio vaccines have caused paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions in Sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, Congo, and the Philippines.

(Amy Mek, Warning: Gates-Funded Factory Breeds 30 Million Mosquitoes a Week for Release in 11 Countries, Global Research, March 2, 2024)

By Jamie White 

Money and Weaponized Mosquitoes: Dengue Fever Surges by 400% in Brazil After Bill Gates-Backed Gene-Edited Mosquitoes Released

“Dengue fever has spiked fourfold in Brazil in 2024 following the release of millions of gene-edited mosquitoes by the United Nations’ World Mosquito Program.”

In the first five weeks of 2024, over 364,000 cases of dengue infection have been reported, according to the country’s health ministry, which is 4x greater than previous cases in the same period of 2023.

The dramatic spike in dengue cases has prompted Brazil to purchase millions of doses of the dengue vaccine.

Warning: Gates-Funded Factory Breeds 30 Million Mosquitoes a Week for Release in 11 Countries

The Dengue Vaccine 

“Brazil has bought 5.2m doses of the dengue vaccine Qdenga, developed by Japanese drugmaker Takeda, with another 1.32m doses provided at no cost to the government, a ministry statement said.

Three Brazilian states have declared emergencies, including the second most populous state, Minas Gerais, and the Federal District, where the capital, Brasília, is located and is facing an unprecedented rise in infections.

Brasília will start vaccinating children aged 10-14 on Friday with Qdenga, the local government said on Wednesday.

Cases of dengue in Brasília since the start of the year have exceeded the total for the whole of 2023, with a rate of infection of 1,625 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with the national average of just 170.

The UN’s World Mosquito Program announced in 2023 a plan to release billions of gene-edited mosquitoes in Brazil over a 10-year period in a bid to eradicate dengue fever in the country.

“Brazilian health officials in five cities have been releasing clouds of lab-grown Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with Wolbachia bacteria, which prevents dengue virus transmission to humans,” Harvard Public Health reported in August 2023.

“The country will be the first to launch a nationwide program to release Wolbachia-modified mosquito And it’s building a factory to scale up mosquito production: Beginning 2024, the factory will mass-produce five billion mosquitoes a year.”

Now a year after the mosquito initiative began, dengue cases have risen sharply rather than fallen.

Notably, the World Mosquito Program received a $50 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also bankrolling research into the dengue fever vaccine.

The Brazilian government purchased over 5 million doses of the Qdenga dengue fever vaccine, manufactured by Japanese drugmaker Takeda, which also received millions of dollars in grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

In other words, Bill Gates Foundation money is involved in all sides of the situation, from the gene-edited mosquitoes — which has apparently exacerbated the dengue crisis — to bankrolling companies who are providing the in-demand dengue fever vaccine to Brazil.

To what end?

(Jamie White, Money and Weaponized Mosquitoes: Dengue Fever Surges by 400% in Brazil After Bill Gates-Backed Gene-Edited Mosquitoes Released , March 01, 2024)

---

Will It Save Lives? 

Read the incisive analysis of William Engdahl below.

See also Enghahl’s earlier article entitled

Why Did Gates and the Pentagon Release “Gene Edited” (GMO) Mosquitoes in Florida Keys?

By F. William Engdahl, November 18, 2023

---

Gene-Edited Mosquitoes: Catastrophe in Brazil,

a Gates Foundation Project. Will It Save Lives? 

by 

F. William Engdahl

A British-American gene-editing company has released millions of genetically modified mosquitoes containing a dominant lethal gene, each week for 27 months in the Bahia, Brazil region in a test to see if the gene-edited mosquitoes would mate with local mosquitoes carrying Zika, malaria or other mosquito-borne diseases.

A new study documents the alarming fact that following an initial reduction of the target population of mosquitoes, after some months the “population which had been greatly suppressed rebounded to nearly pre-release levels.” Scientists to date have no idea what dangers are presented by the new mutations. This once more highlights the dangers of uncontrolled gene-editing of species.

According to a new published study in Nature Reports journal, genetically engineered mosquitoes produced by the biotech company, Oxitec, now part of the US company Intrexon, have escaped human control after trials in Brazil and are now spreading in the environment.

On paper the theory was brilliant. Strains of “yellow fever” male mosquitoes taken from Cuba and Mexico were altered using gene-editing to make it impossible for their offspring to survive. Oxitec then began a systematic release of tens of millions of the manipulated mosquitoes over more than two years in the the city of Jacobina in the region of Bahia in Brazil. The Oxitec theory was the altered mosquitoes would mate with normal females of the same type which carry infectious diseases like dengue fever, and kill them off in the process.

‘Unanticipated Outcome…’ Breeding “Super Mosquitoes”

A team of scientists from Yale University and several scientific institutes in Brazil monitored the progress of the experiment. What they found is alarming in the extreme.

After an initial period in which the target mosquito population markedly declined, after about 18 months the mosquito population recovered to pre-release levels.

Not only that, the paper notes that some of the mosquitoes likely have “hybrid vigor,” in which a hybrid of the natural with the gene-edited has created “a more robust population than the pre-release population” which may be more resistant to insecticides, in short, resistant “super mosquitoes.”

The scientists note that,

“Genetic sampling from the target population six, 12, and 27–30 months after releases commenced provides clear evidence that portions of the transgenic strain genome have been incorporated into the target population. Evidently, rare viable hybrid offspring between the release strain and the Jacobina population are sufficiently robust to be able to reproduce in nature…” They continue, “Thus, Jacobina Ae. aegypti are now a mix of three populations. It is unclear how this may affect disease transmission or affect other efforts to control these dangerous vectors.”

They estimate that between 10% and 60% of the Bahia natural Ae. Aegypti mosquitoes now had some gene-edited OX513A genome. They conclude that “The three populations forming the tri-hybrid population now in Jacobina (Cuba/Mexico/Brazil) are genetically quite distinct, very likely resulting in a more robust population than the pre-release population due to hybrid vigor.”

This was not supposed to happen. Professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, Jeffrey Powell, senior author of the study, remarked on the findings:

“The claim was that genes from the release strain would not get into the general population because offspring would die. That obviously was not what happened.” Powell went on to note, “But it is the unanticipated outcome that is concerning.”

A Gates Foundation Project

The Brazil study deals a major alarm signal on the uncontrolled release of gene-edited species into nature. It calls to mind the horror plot of Michael Crichton’s 1969 science fiction novel, Andromeda Strain. Only it is no novel.

The Oxitec mosquitoes were developed using a highly controversial form of gene-editing known as gene drive. Gene Drive, which is also being heavily funded by the Pentagon’s DARPA, combined with CRISPR gene-editing, aims to force a genetic modification to spread through an entire population, whether of mosquitoes or potentially humans, in just a few generations.

The scientist who first suggested developing gene drives in gene-editing, Harvard biologist Kevin Esvelt, has publicly warned that development of gene editing in conjunction with gene drive technologies has alarming potential to go awry. He notes how often CRISPR messes up and the likelihood of protective mutations arising, making even benign gene drives aggressive. He stresses,

“Just a few engineered organisms could irrevocably alter an ecosystem.”

Esvelt’s computer gene drive simulations calculated that a resulting edited gene “can spread to 99 percent of a population in as few as 10 generations, and persist for more than 200 generations.” This is very much what has now been demonstrated in the mosquito experiment in Brazil.

Notable is the fact that the Oxitec Brazil mosquito experiment was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In June, 2018 Oxitec announced a joint venture with the Gates Foundation, “to develop a new strain of Oxitec’s self-limiting Friendly™ Mosquitoes to combat a mosquito species that spreads malaria in the Western Hemisphere.” The Brazil results show the experiment is a catastrophic failure as the new strain is anything but self-limiting.

The Gates Foundation and Bill Gates have been backing development of the radical gene-editing technology and gene drive technology for more than a decade. Gates, a long-time advocate of eugenics, population control and of GMO, is a strong gene-editing promoter.

In an article in the May/June 2018 magazine of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, Gates hails gene editing technologies, explicitly CRISPR. In the article Gates argues that CRISPR and other gene-editing techniques should be used globally to meet growing demand for food and to improve disease prevention, particularly for malaria. In his article he adds,

“there is reason to be optimistic that creating gene drives in malaria-spreading mosquitoes will not do much, if any, harm to the environment.”

Every bit as alarming as the failure of the Brazil gene-editing mosquito experiment is the fact that this technology is being spread with virtually no prior health or safety testing by truly independent government institutions. To date the US Government relies only on industry safety assurances. The EU, while formally responsible to treat gene-edited species similarly to GMO plants, is reportedly trying to loosen the regulations. China, a major research center for gene-editing, has extremely lax controls. Recently a Chinese scientist announced an experiment in human gene-editing allegedly to make newborn twins resistant to HIV. Other experiments are proliferating around the world with gene-edited animals and even salmon. The precautionary principle has been thrown to the winds when it comes to the new gene-editing revolution, not a reassuring situation.

Currently Oxitec, which denies that the Brazil results show failure, is now trying to get regulatory approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a similar experiment with the same gene-edited species in Texas and Florida. One of the people involved in the attempt, Texan Roy Bailey, is a Washington lobbyist and close friend of Randal Kirk, the billionaire CEO of Intrexon, owner of Oxitec. Bailey is also a major Trump fundraiser. Let’s hope that regulatory prudence and not politics decide the outcome.

see also:

Why Did Gates and the Pentagon Release “Gene Edited” (GMO) Mosquitoes in Florida Keys?

By F. William Engdahl, November 18, 2023

*

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

---

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Military operations are invariably planned well in advance. Was “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” a “surprise attack” ? Or Was it “A False Flag”.

In the words of Philip Giraldi: 

“As a former intelligence officer, I find it impossible to believe that Israel did not have multiple informants inside Gaza as well as electronic listening devices all along the border wall which would have picked up movements of groups and vehicles.

In other words, the whole thing might be a tissue of lies as is often the case.” 

A Tissue of Lies 

“A Tissue of Lies” has served to justify the killing in the Gaza Strip of more than 34,000 civilians, of which 70% are women and children coupled with total destruction and an endless  string of atrocities. 

The Cat is out of the bag. Netanyahu has tacitly acknowledged that it was “A False Flag” which was intent upon justifying a carefully planned genocidal attack against Palestine: 

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

Does this candid statement not suggest that Netanyahu and his military-intelligence apparatus are responsible for the killings of innocent Israeli civilians? 

On that same day of October 7, 2023 Netanyahu launched a carefully planned military operation against the Gaza Strip entitled “State of Readiness For War”.  

Military operations are invariably planned well in advance.

Had  “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” been a “surprise attack” as parroted by the media, Netanyahu’s “State of Readiness For War” could not have been carried out (at short notice) on that same day, namely October 7, 2023. 

South Africa’s  Legal Procedure against The State of Israel 

On January 11, 2024, The Republic of South Africa  presented to The Hague World Court, a carefully formulated Legal Procedure against the State of Israel predicated on  The Genocide Convention.

This legal procedure, however, has not contributed to repealing the ongoing genocide and saving the lives of tens of thousands of civilians.

I should mention that the False Flag issue –which constitutes a crime against humanity– was casually ignored by the ICJ.

Our suggestion is that  an investigation followed by a legal procedure pertaining to the “False Flag” should be undertaken.

The heads of State and heads of government who have endorsed Israel’s Genocidal Acts are from a legal standpoint complicit. 

The ICJ Judgement was contradictory. The Presiding Judge (former legal advisor to Hillary Clinton) was in conflict of interest: 

The ICJ Judgment of January 26, 2024 assigns the Netanyahu government representing the State of Israel –accused by the Republic of South Africa of genocide against the People of Palestine– with a mandate to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent and punish” those responsible for having committed “Genocidal Acts”. (under Article IV of the Genocide Convention)

Sounds contradictory? What the ICJ judgment intimates –from a twisted legal standpoint– is that Netanyahu’s Cabinet which was “appointed” to implement  the “prevent and punish” mandate cannot be accused of having committed “Genocidal Acts”.

See

“Fake Justice” at The Hague: The ICJ “Appoints” Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish” Those Responsible for “Genocidal Acts”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 24, 2024

 

Our intent is to provide a broad and detailed understanding of the false flag issue: 

The titles of the videos, articles and texts presented below:  

1. Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag”? They Let it Happen? Their Objective Is “to Wipe Gaza Off the Map”?, by Dr. Philip Giraldi. 
2. Video: ICJ Hearings in The Hague, 
3. Text of Israel’s Secret Intelligence Memorandum. Planning the Forcible Exclusion of Palestinians from Their Homeland
   
4. Video: “False Flag. Wiping Gaza Off the Map”, Interview. Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux
5. “False Flag. Wiping Gaza Off the Map”, by Michel Chossudovsky
6. Gaza Strikes Back. It’s Another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? But Who Actually Did What to Whom? “This Was More Likely a False Flag Operation”, by Philip Giraldi 

 

In solidarity with the People of Palestine.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 11, 2024, April 25, 2024 

 

Part I

Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag”?

They Let it Happen?

Their Objective Is “to Wipe Gaza Off the Map”?

by Dr. Philip Giraldi 

October 8, 2023

Am I the only one who read about a speech given by Netanyahu or someone in his cabinet about a week ago in which he/they in passing referred to a “developing security situation” which rather suggests (to me) that they might have known about developments in Gaza and chose to let it happen so they can wipe Gaza off the map in retaliation and, possibly relying on the US pledge to have Israel’s “back,” then implicating Iran and attacking that country.

I cannot find a link to it, but have a fairly strong recollection of what I read as I thought at the time it would serve as a pretext for another massacre of Palestinians.

As a former intelligence officer, I find it impossible to believe that Israel did not have multiple informants inside Gaza as well as electronic listening devices all along the border wall which would have picked up movements of groups and vehicles.

In other words, the whole thing might be a tissue of lies as is often the case.

And as is also ALWAYS the case Joe Biden is preparing to send some billions of dollars to poor little Israel to pay for “defending” itself.

 

 Part II

VIDEO. ICJ Hearings in The Hague

ICJ Hearings 

1. January 11, 2024. Click Here to View the ICJ Hearings,

2. January 12, 2024. Israel’s Legal Team’s response to South Africa, ICJ The Hague at 10 am. Video in Real Time 

3. Video: South Africa’s Closing Argument against Israel for Genocide. January 11 Hearing at the World Court

 

Part III

Israel’s Secret Intelligence Memorandum

Planning the Forcible Exclusion of Palestinians from Their Homeland

 

An official “secret” memorandum authored by Israel’s  Ministry of Intelligence “is recommending the forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”, namely to a refugee camp in Egyptian territory. There are indications of Israel-Egypt negotiations  as well as consultations with the U.S. 

The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023, bears the logo of the Intelligence Ministry … assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip … It recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. … The document, the authenticity of which was confirmed by the ministry, has been translated into English in full here on +972.

See below, click here or below to access complete document (10 pages)

For further details and analysis see:

“Wiping Gaza Off the Map”: Israel’s “Secret” Intelligence Memorandum “Option C” by Michel Chossudovsky

 

Part IV 

Video: “False Flag. Wiping Gaza Off the Map”

Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux 

October 17, 2023

 

To comment or access Rumble 

 

 

 

 

Part V 

“False Flag”. Wiping Gaza Off the Map

by

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

October 12, 2023

 .

Introduction

.

Early Saturday October 7, 2023, Hamas launched “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” led by Hamas’ Military Chief Mohammed Deif. On that same day, Netanyahu confirmed a so-called “State of Readiness For War”.  

Military operations are invariably planned well in advance (See Netanyahu’s January 2023 statement below). Was “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” a “surprise attack” ?

U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack. 

“One would have to be almost hopelessly naïve to buy the corporate state media line that the Hamas invasion  was an Israeli “intelligence failure”. Mossad is one of, if not the, most powerful intelligence agencies on the planet.”

Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Hamas attack which has resulted in countless deaths of Israelis and Palestinians.

Was a carefully formulated Israeli plan to wage an all out war against Palestinians envisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of  “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”? This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite. 

Evidence and testimonies suggest that the Netanyahu government had foreknowledge of the actions of Hamas which have resulted in hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian deaths. And “They Let it Happen”:

“Hamas fired between 2-5 thousand rockets at Israel and hundreds of Israeli are dead, while dozens of Israelis were captured as prisoners of war. In the ensuing air response by Israel, hundreds of Palestinians were killed in Gaza.” (Stephen Sahiounie)  

This was Not a “Surprise Attack”

Was the Hamas Attack a “False Flag”? 

“I served in the IDF 25 years ago, in the intelligence forces. There’s no way Israel did not know of what’s coming.

A cat moving alongside the fence is triggering all forces. So this??

What happened to the “strongest army in the world”?

How come border crossings were wide open?? Something is VERY WRONG HERE, something is very strange, this chain of events is very unusual and not typical for the Israeli defense system.

To me this suprise attack seems like a planned operation. On all fronts. 

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say that this feels like the work of the Deep State.  

It feels like the people of Israel and the people of Palestine have been sold, once again, to the higher powers that be. 

(Statement by Efrat Fenigson, former IDF intelligence,  October 7, 2023, emphasis added)

Ironically, the media (NBC) is now contending that the “Hamas attack bears hallmarks of Iranian involvement”

History: The Relationship between Mossad and Hamas

What is the relationship between Mossad and Hamas? Is Hamas an “intelligence asset”? There is a long history. 

Hamas (Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya) (Islamic Resistance Movement), was founded in 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin. It was supported at the outset by Israeli intelligence as a means to weaken the Palestinian Authority:

“Thanks to Mossad, (Israel’s “Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks”), Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat’s Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation.

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)”. (L’Humanité, translated from French)

The links of Hamas to Mossad and US intelligence have been acknowledged by Rep. Ron Paul in a statement to the U.S Congress: “Hamas Was Started by Israel”?

“You know Hamas, if you look at the history, you’ll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat… (Rep. Ron Paul, 2011)

What this statement entails is that Hamas is and remains “an intelligence asset”, namely “an “asset” to intelligence agencies”

See also the WSJ (January 24, 2009) “How Israel helped to Spawn Hamas”. 

Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. (WSJ, emphasis added)

 

“The Hamas Partnership” is confirmed by Netanyahu

 

“The Cat is Out of the Bag”

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

Does this statement not suggest that Netanyahu and his military-intelligence apparatus are responsible for the killings of innocent Israeli civilians? 

“Support” and “Money” for Hamas. 

“Transferring Money to Hamas” on behalf of Netanyahu is confirmed by a Times of Israel October 8, 2023 Report: 

“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (emphasis added)

.

The Dangers of Military Escalation?

 

Let us be under no illusions, this “false flag” operation is a complex military-intelligence undertaking, carefully planned over several years, in liaison and  coordination with US intelligence, the Pentagon and NATO. 

In turn, this action against Palestine is already conducive to a process of military escalation which potentially could engulf a large part of Middle East.

Israel is a de facto member NATO (with a special status) since 2004, involving active military and intelligence coordination as well as consultations pertaining to the occupied territories.

Military cooperation with both the Pentagon and NATO is viewed by Israel’s Defence Force (IDF) as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.”

The premise of NATO-Israel military cooperation is that “Israel is under attack”. Does Israel’s agreement with the Atlantic Alliance “obligate” NATO “to come to the rescue of Israel” under the doctrine of “collective security” (Article 5 of the Washington treaty)?

In recent developments, U.S. military deployments in the Middle East are ongoing allegedly to avoid escalation.

According to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:

There is always the risk that nations and/or organisations hostile to Israel will take try to take advantage. And that includes, for instance, organisations like Hezbollah or a country like Iran. So this is a message to countries and organisations hostile to Israel that they should not try to utilise the situation. And the United States have deployed, or has deployed more military forces in the region, not least to deter any escalation or prevent any escalation of the situation. (NATO Press Conference, Brussels, October 12, 2023, emphasis added) 

Netanyahu’s “New Stage”

“The Long War” against Palestine

 

Netanyahu’s stated objective, which constitutes a new stage in the 75 year old war (since Nakba, 1948) against the people of Palestine is no longer predicated on “Apartheid” or “Separation”. This new stage –which is also directed against Israelis who want peace— consists in “total appropriation” as well as the outright exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland:

“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me [Netanyahu]: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.” (Netanyahu January 2023. emphasis added)

We bring to the attention of our readers the incisive analysis of  Dr. Philip Giraldi pointing to the likelihood of a “False Flag’”. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 8, 2023, Above text updated on October 12, 2023

.

 

Part VI

Gaza Strikes Back. It’s Another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor?

But Who Actually Did What to Whom?

“This Was More Likely a False Flag Operation”

by

Dr Philip Giraldi

October 16, 2023

.

“As a former on-the-ground intelligence officer, I am somewhat convinced that this was likely more like a false flag operation rather than a case of institutional failure on the part of the Israelis.”

It’s amazing how America’s thought-controlled media is able to come up with a suitable narrative almost immediately whenever there is an international incident that might be subject to multiple interpretations.

***

Since 1948 Israel has expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes,

has occupied nearly all of the historic Palestine, has empowered its army to kill thousands of local people, and

has more recently established an apartheid regime that even denies that Palestinian Arabs are human in the same sense that Jews are.

Netanyahu-allied government minister Ayelet Shaked memorably has called for Israel not only to exterminate all Palestinian children, whom she has described as “little snakes,” but also to kill their mothers who gave birth to them.

But when the Arabs strike back against the hatred that confronts them with their limited resources it is Israel that is described as the victimand the Palestinians who are dehumanized and portrayed as the “terrorists.”

Media in the US and Europe were quick to label the Hamas offensive breaching the formidable Israeli border defenses as “Israel’s 9/11” or even “Israel’s Pearl Harbor” to establish the context that the Israelis have been on the receiving end of an “unprovoked” attack by a cruel and heartless enemy.

Israel has responded to the attack with a heavy bombardment of Gaza that has destroyed infrastructure, including hospitals and schools, while also cutting off food supplies, water and electricity.

It has demanded that residents of north Gaza, all 1.1 million of them, evacuate to make way for a possible ground offensive but there is nowhere to go as all the borders are closed, and the United Nations is calling it a demand with “devastating humanitarian consequences.” Journalist Peter Beinart has commented “This is a monstrous crime. It’s happening in plain view, with US support.”

And the United States government is indeed typically on the same page as Israel. President Joe Biden, citing fabricated stories about dead Jewish babies, speaks of how Israel has a “duty” to defend itself, while the Palestinians somehow have no right to protect themselves at all, much less to rise up against their persecutors in a struggle for freedom.

And Washington has also unhesitatingly chosen to directly involve itself in the conflict, completely on the side of the Jewish state, asserting repeatedly that “Israel has a right to defend itself” and telling the Israelis that “we have your back” while also dispatching two aircraft carrier groups to the scene of the fighting as well as the 101^st Airborne to Jordan and increasing the readiness of Marines stationed in Kuwait.

The White House could have taken more aggressive steps to encourage a ceasefire and talks but has chosen instead to issue essentially toothless calls to let the trapped civilians escape while also backing a devastating Israeli military response.

 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Oct. 12, 2023. – Secretary Antony Blinken on X

Israel is also hosting the worthless and brain dead Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin who will be providing advice along the lines of his insightful comment that Hamas is “evil” and “worse than ISIS.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken is already in Jerusalem, announcing that the US is there to support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unity government “as long as America exists” after first saying “I come before you not only as the United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew.”

Blinken’s explicit association of his personal religion with his official role as a representative of the US government makes clear that a key element in why he is there is because he is “a Jew.” Perhaps he should recuse himself from policy making involving Israel as being “a Jew” would not appear to be a United States national interest and is likely to produce irrational responses to developing situations.

If all of this sounds a lot like Ukraine it should, except that in Ukraine the US and NATO are fighting against Russia, which is being demonized for occupying what is claimed Ukrainian territory, whereas in Palestine they are supporting the occupier of actual Palestinian territory, Israel.

Funny thing that, and the word “hypocrisy” comes immediately to mind. As it turns out, however, I am somewhat on the same page as much of the media, agreeing that the Hamas incursion is something like 9/11, though I am sure that my take would not be found acceptable to the CNN Jake Tappers of this world.

My thinking is that Israel knew in advance about 9/11 in the United States due to its extensive spying network and chose not to share the information because it was to their advantage not to do so.

Indeed, a pleased Netanyahu even stated several years later that “9/11 was a good thing because it made the United States join us in our fight.”

That the attacks killed 3,000 Americans did not bother the Israeli government as Israel has a long history of killing Americans when it can benefit from so doing, starting with the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 which killed 34 sailors.

So too in this case in Gaza, Netanyahu may have decided to encourage an unexpected development, making it like 9/11, that would enable him to escalate and “mow the grass” as the Israelis put it, in the remainder of Arab Palestine.

And bear in mind that the actual incident that triggered the uprising was a rampage involving at least 800 Israeli settlers in and around the al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, beating pilgrims and destroying Palestinian shops, all without any interference from the nearby Israeli security forces. The rioting was clearly allowed and even encouraged by the government.

Drawing on my experience as a former on-the-ground intelligence officer, I am somewhat convinced that this was likely more like a false flag operation rather than a case of institutional failure on the part of the Israelis.

Israel had an extensive electronic and physical wall backed by soldiers and weaponry that completely surrounded Gaza on the landward side, so effective that it was claimed that not even a mouse could get in.

The Mediterranean side of Gaza was also tightly controlled by the Israeli Navy and boats to and from Gaza were completely blocked.

Egypt tightly controlled the southern part of Gaza bordering on the Sinai. So Gaza was under 24/7 complete surveillance and control at all times. Israeli military intelligence also certainly had a network of recruited informants inside Gaza who would report on any training or movements, easy enough to do when you can approach people who are starving and make them an offer they cannot refuse just for providing information on what they see and hear.

And then there was a warning from the Egyptian government to Israel ten days before the Hamas attack, with Egypt’s Intelligence Minister General Abbas Kamel personally calling Netanyahu and sharing intelligence suggesting that the Gazans were likely to do “something unusual, a terrible operation.” Other media accounts reveal how Hamas trained and practiced their maneuvers publicly. There were also assessments made by US intelligence, which were shared with Israel, suggesting that something was afoot. So, given all of the evidence, there likely was no intelligence failure to anticipate and counter the Hamas attack but rather a political decision made by the Israeli government that knew what might be coming and chose to let it proceed to provide a casus belli to destroy Gaza, vowing that “Every member of Hamas is a dead man,” and then go on from there. And “from there” might well include Lebanon, Syria and Iran, possibly with the assistance of the United States to do the heavy lifting. Iran in particular is already being blamed by the usual suspects as a party involved in the Hamas attack, so far without any evidence whatsoever, which is typical of how these stories evolve.

Image: Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir visits Al-Aqsa, 3 January (Social Media)

And Israel has moved far to the right politically to such an extent that it might appreciate a little ethnic cleansing to demonstrate its seriousness. Netanyahu and other senior government officials in his cabinet have recently been making passing references to a “developing security situation” in the country to justify the intensifying of the raids by the army against Palestinian towns and refugee camps. The new government in Israel has also placed police under the control of ultra-nationalist Jewish Power party head Itamar Ben-Gvir as National Security Minister. He has been exploiting his position to call in particular for a war to destroy Hamas in Gaza, which is precisely what is happening. Gaza might be of particular interest to Ben-Gvir and others as it uniquely shelters an armed and organized resistance in the form of Hamas, which, oddly, was founded with the support of Israel to split the Palestinian political resistance with Fatah controlling the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza.

There is another issue relating to the recent fighting that one would like to know the answer to, namely how did Hamas get its weapons in the first place?

Some were clearly manufactured from parts and scrap but others were sophisticated and, as Gaza is blockaded on all sides, smuggling them in becomes problematical. One argument is that they were supplied by Iran and others to be brought in by tunnels, but the tunnels on two sides would end up in Israel and on the third side in Egypt. The fourth side is the Mediterranean Sea. So how did they arrive? Is there a possible triple or even quadruple cross taking place with different parties lying to each other? And should there be concerns that after the American armada arrives off the coast of Gaza there just might be some kind of false flag incident engineered by Netanyahu that will involve Washington directly in the fighting?

And there is what amounts to a related issue that should be of concern to everyone in the US and generically speaking the “Western world” where human rights are at least nominally respected. The message from almost all Western governments is that Israel has a carte blanche to do whatever it likes even when it involves war crimes to include mass forced displacement or genocide. In this case, the coordinated government-media response which is intended to protect Israel from any criticism almost immediately began circulating fabricated tales of atrocities while also delivering a hit on freedom of speech and association. President Biden, who should be trying to defuse the crisis, is instead adding fuel to the flames, saying of Hamas that “Pure, unadulterated evil has been unleashed on the earth!”

In Florida the arch Zionist stooge Governor Ron Desantis met with Jewish leaders in a synagogue to announce draconian measures against Iran to include sanctions on companies that are in any way linked to that country. One might point out that those businesses have done nothing wrong and Desantis also called for “eradication of Hamas from the earth.” His intellectual depth was at the same time revealed when he said the US should not take in any Gazan refugees because they are “antisemites.”

And in South Carolina, America’s favorite he/she Senator Lindsey Graham is calling for a US attack on Iran as well as declaring the war against Hamas to be “a religious war” and urging the Israeli army to invade Gaza and do “Whatever the hell you have to do to” to “level the place.”

And the Europeans are equally spineless in their deference to Israel. The Israeli president declared the that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, and not long after that top European Union representatives met with him to offer their unqualified support. Meanwhile in France, the spineless and feckless government of Emmanuel Macron has sought to outlaw any gathering that expresses support for Palestinian rights.

And in the UK, the Home Secretary Suella Braverman has proposed criminalizing any protest against Israeli actions or anything in support of Palestine to include banning any public display of the Palestinian national flag, which she regards as a “criminal offense toward the Jewish community in Britain.”

She has also said that “I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.” Berlin’s Public Prosecutor’s Office has also classified the use of the expression as a “criminal offense.” The manner in which most Western political elites are lining up unquestionably and even enthusiastically behind Israel and its craven leaders’ desire for bloody vengeance is truly shocking but comes as no surprise.

Beyond the issue of Gaza itself, some in Israel are arguing that Netanyahu has personally benefitted from the unrest through the creation of the national unity government which has ended for the time being the huge demonstrations protesting his judicial reform proposals. If all of this comes together politically as it might in the next several weeks, we could be seeing the initial steps in what will develop into the complete ethnic cleansing of what was once Palestine, in line with Netanyahu’s assertion that “the Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel.” So all of the former Palestine is now a land to be defined by its Jewishness where Jews are in full control and are free to do whatever they want without any objection, referred to by the Israeli government as “an exclusive right to self-determination.” And it has all possibly been brought to fruition by the enablement provided by the current developments in Gaza.

The original source of Dr. Giraldi’s October 16, 2023 article. 

Gaza Strikes Back. It’s Another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor but Who Actually Did What to Whom? “This Was More Likely a False Flag Operation”

By Philip Giraldi, October 16, 2023

***

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

Os Estados Bálticos continuam a promover políticas racistas contra o povo russo, criando uma grave atmosfera de hostilidade na Europa. A Letônia planeja erradicar completamente a língua russa do currículo escolar, o que terá certamente consequências catastróficas para a estabilidade social do país, uma vez que uma parte substancial da população letã é de etnia russa. Além de afetar desnecessariamente pessoas inocentes, a medida deixa claro que a russofobia continuará a ser uma prioridade para o governo letão.

De acordo com uma recente decisão governamental, a partir de Setembro de 2025, nenhum estudante letão poderá aprender russo nas escolas. As únicas línguas que poderão ser ensinadas nas escolas, além da língua nativa, serão as línguas dos países da Europa Ocidental. A medida afeta tanto os cidadãos de etnia russa como os de etnia letã que pretendem estudar russo como segunda língua estrangeira – o inglês é a primeira língua estrangeira obrigatória em todas as escolas letãs.

25% da população letã é de etnia russa, enquanto pelo menos 36% dos cidadãos são falantes de russo. O russo é a língua mais falada no país depois do letão e sempre foi um importante mecanismo de comunicação para uma parcela substancial dos letões. Na prática, nunca houve uma distinção entre saber russo ou letão, podendo qualquer cidadão utilizar qualquer uma destas línguas nas suas atividades públicas, mas as recentes políticas de genocídio cultural estão a gerar um verdadeiro apartheid, excluindo cidadãos de etnia russa da vida social. .

Como todos os países ex-soviéticos, a Letônia é o lar de muitos russos. Durante o período comunista, todas as repúblicas socialistas pertenciam ao mesmo país. Quando a URSS entrou em colapso, milhões de russos tornaram-se “estrangeiros” nos recém-criados países pós-soviéticos, gerando uma das maiores tragédias sociais da história recente. Em países como os Estados Bálticos, o fim da URSS coincidiu com a ascensão de um nacionalismo chauvinista fortemente encorajado pelas potências ocidentais. Estes sentimentos russofóbicos tornaram-se cada vez mais comuns e perigosos nos últimos anos.

Desde o início da operação militar especial, a onda russofóbica nos países bálticos atingiu níveis cada vez mais preocupantes. Os cidadãos russos foram submetidos a testes obrigatórios de proficiência na língua letã. Os resultados insatisfatórios nestes testes legitimam o governo letão a expulsar estes cidadãos e cancelar a sua cidadania letã. Este tem sido um problema grave, especialmente para os idosos da era soviética, que viveram em solo letão durante décadas e nunca aprenderam a língua local, uma vez que o russo sempre foi amplamente falado no país. Estes idosos estão a ser as maiores vítimas do apartheid linguístico letão, com milhares deles a temerem ser expulsos do país a qualquer momento.

Além do genocídio cultural anti-russo implementado através da proibição da língua, foram praticadas outras medidas coercivas contra cidadãos de etnia russa. Por exemplo, cidadãos russos foram ameaçados de expulsão do país por terem votado nas eleições presidenciais da Federação Russa em março. Os agentes da polícia letã declararam simplesmente que estavam a monitorizar as áreas em redor das instalações diplomáticas russas, deixando claro que qualquer russo que votasse teria os seus dados pessoais descobertos pelas autoridades e perderia o direito de viver no país.

Segundo o governo letão, o mero ato de participar na vida política russa é um gesto de apoio à operação militar especial – chamada de “invasão injustificada da Ucrânia” no Ocidente. Neste sentido, os cidadãos russos que queriam votar eram vistos pela Letônia como verdadeiros criminosos, tendo de ser punidos e sendo “indignos” de continuar a viver no país. É evidente que, ao implementar políticas racistas tão draconianas, a Letônia está a esforçar-se por tornar a vida impossível aos cidadãos russos, forçando-os a abandonar o país o mais rapidamente possível.

A Letônia quer basicamente que 25% da sua população deixe o país – ou que negue a sua própria etnia russa e aceite ser assimilada culturalmente, forçando-se a falar letão e a desistir da sua identidade original. Estas medidas são obviamente repreensíveis do ponto de vista dos valores europeus. Não há nada de humanitário ou democrático na promoção do apartheid étnico e do genocídio cultural. No entanto, aparentemente, o Ocidente Coletivo dá carta branca aos seus aliados para implementarem qualquer medida contra os russos.

No caso da Letônia, em vez de uma erradicação absoluta da cultura russa, é mais provável que haja uma grave instabilidade social e uma crise de legitimidade, com o povo russo local a sair às ruas para protestar contra as medidas nazistas do governo.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Artigo em inglês : Latvia Advances Russophobic Policies. Suppresses the Russian Language

https://infobrics.org/post/41051/

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://twitter.com/leiroz_lucas

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

A new study on harms resulting from the COVID vaccine was published on April 8 in the U.S.-based peer-reviewed medical science journal Cureus. It represents the largest study to date on adverse effects of the COVID vaccine, and the results are shocking, to put it mildly.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Apart from causing large-scale distress the prolonged Ukraine conflict also has very dangerous possibilities of escalation. There do not seem to be any visible efforts on the part of Ukraine and its NATO backers for ending the war as early as possible despite all the adversities the Ukraine forces have suffered in recent times. In these circumstances, and keeping in view the urgent need for peace, Russia should take a bold initiative with unilateral declaration of ceasefire. This should be on the basis of the existing line of control. Russia should also announce that the ceasefire, if reciprocated, would be followed by extensive, longer-term talks to resolve various differences in conditions of peace.

If Russia announces such a unilateral ceasefire then this should be welcomed by various forces of peace all over the world as well as by various eminent persons known for their commitment to peace. This will increase the chances of a positive response by Ukraine.

If Ukraine respects the ceasefire and responds in similar fashion, a big breakthrough for peace would be achieved. Peace will get a big chance. Both sides should work carefully to build further on this so as to achieve more durable peace in a spirit of give and take. Meanwhile everyone can pray that NATO or the USA will not obstruct or sabotage this.

If Ukraine does not respond to this ceasefire, then Russia will still not lose much as it can regretfully continue its war effort after clarifying to the world that its ceasefire offer was not accepted or respected. In its existing strong position Russia will not incur any big loss and so it has nothing much to lose by declaring a unilateral ceasefire and initiating a peace effort on this basis.

On the other hand if Ukraine responds well and also declares a ceasefire, then a very big achievement and opening for peace will be made and the entire world should support this.

If both sides cooperate in this way then chances will increase that the war ends not on a note of frozen conflict with all its continuing dangers and risks, but instead ends with genuine goodwill and peace. The United Nations should try its best to help to take this forward if and when such opportunities emerge.

Senior scholars, diplomats and statespersons of various countries, particularly Western countries, can make an important contribution to such efforts by extending their support. The peace movement worldwide should of course extend very enthusiastic support to any such initiative. 

Of course such an initiative can also start with Ukraine making a ceasefire offer. The reason why a Russian initiative has been emphasized here is that while Russia is very capable of entirely independent decision making, in the case of Ukraine, for the time-being at least, the decision making is heavily impacted by the USA in particular and therefore the chances of such an independent initiative emerging from Ukraine are much lesser.   

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, A Day in 2071 and Earth without Borders. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.       

Featured image source    

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

The World Economic Forum’s plan for global carbon surveillance is nearly complete.

Journalist Whitney Webb joins us to talk about how this is all tied together with a digital ID, CBDC’s, and removal of personal property.

 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Russia’s “Fourteen Points” for a European Security Policy: Why Was Moscow’s 2009 Proposal Rejected?

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, April 26, 2024

In 2009, Russian President Medvedev (President from May 7^th, 2008 to May 7^th, 2012) called for a new European security policy known as “Fourteen Points” as a new security treaty to be accepted to maintain European security as the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and functional integrity (this Russian draft European security treaty was originally posted on the President’s website on November 29^th, 2009).

On Record: The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal’s 2013 Indictment of the State of Israel on Charges of War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide

By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, April 26, 2024

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) reconvened on 20 November 2013 to hear two charges against Amos Yaron (first Defendant) and the State of Israel (second Defendant). The first Defendant was charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, whilst the second Defendant was charged with the crime of genocide and war crimes.

Mordechai Vanunu and Israel’s Plans to Wage Nuclear War on Iran: History of Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal

By Michael Carmichael, April 26, 2024

In 1986, an Israeli civil servant who worked in the state-owned nuclear industry flew to London where he was invited to meet with reporters working for The Sunday Times. In these press briefings, Mordechai Vanunu revealed Israel’s top secret – the Israelis had gained control of a growing stockpile of nuclear warheads.

Students Are Taking the Lead in Denouncing Gaza Atrocities

By Philip Giraldi, April 26, 2024

The current unrest of pro-Palestinian “encampments” and “liberated zones” at 33 college campuses in the US protesting against what is clearly a genocide taking place in Gaza by calling for a ceasefire and a halt to institutional investment in Israel as well as a suspension of ties to Israeli government educational bodies.

Never Forget! 1999–2024. “From Aggression to a New, Fairer World Order”. Belgrade International Conference

By Živadin Jovanović and Current Concerns, April 26, 2024

NATO armed aggression ended 25 years ago, but aggression by other means of political, economic, financial and propaganda character – continued throughout this period and since recently have been even intensified. Using UNSC’s mandate, NATO practically keeps Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija under occupation.

NATO’s “War Mongering Tentacles” to Scandinavia

By Drago Bosnic, April 25, 2024

Russia has repeatedly expressed concerns that NATO expansion to Finland would mean that assault troops and advanced weapon systems would be deployed within the country, threatening Russia’s national security interests. As previously mentioned, Finland has not only refused to reassure its eastern neighbor, but has actually doubled down on the deployment of foreign forces, particularly American.

Pfizer ‘Chose Not to’ Tell Regulators About SV40 Sequence in COVID Shots: Health Canada Official

By Noé Chartier and Matthew Horwood, April 25, 2024

A senior Health Canada official says pharma giant Pfizer made a conscious decision not to advise regulators that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contained a DNA sequence from the Simian Virus 40 (SV40).

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

In 2009, Russian President Medvedev (President from May 7^th, 2008 to May 7^th, 2012) called for a new European security policy known as “Fourteen Points” as a new security treaty to be accepted to maintain European security as the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and functional integrity (this Russian draft European security treaty was originally posted on the President’s website on November 29^th, 2009).

This treaty proposal was passed to the leaders of the Euro-Atlantic States and the executive heads of the relevant international organizations such as NATO, EU, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and the Organization of Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In this proposal, Russia stressed that it is open to any democratic proposal concerning continental security and is counting on a positive response from Russia’s (Western) partners. 

However, not so surprisingly, D. Medvedev’s call for a new European security framework (based on mutual respect and equal rights) became interpreted particularly in the USA in the fashion of the Cold War 1.0, in fact, as a plot to pry Europe from its strategic partner (USA).

Nevertheless, this program in the form of a proposal was the most significant initiative in IR by Russia since the dismissal of the USSR in 1991. From the present perspective, this proposal could save Ukrainian territorial integrity but it was rejected primarily due to Washington’s Russophobic attitude. 

As a matter of fact, Moscow since 1991, and particularly since 2000, viewed NATO as a Cold War 1.0 remnant and the EU as no more but only as a common economic-financial market with many crisis management practices. Nevertheless, Medvedev’s 2009 “Fourteen Points” was announced on November 29^th, 2009 Russia published a draft of a European Security Treaty. Medvedev’s program resembles the program drawn up by US President Woodrow Wilson (issued on January 8^th, 1918), who had emancipated peace aims in his well-known “Fourteen Points”. These two programs have two things in common:

1) Both documents advocate multilateralism in the security area and devotion to international law; and

2) They are very idealistic in terms of the tools needed for their implementation. 

The Russian proposal from 2009 is founded on existing norms of international security law according to the UN Charter, Declaration on Principles of International Law (1970), and the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975) followed by the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (1982) and the Charter for European Security (1999). 

The 2009 Russian proposal on European Security (ten years after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia) can be summarized in the following six points:

1. Parties should cooperate on the foundation of the principles of indivisible, equal, and unrelieved security;
2. A Party to the Treaty shall not undertake, participate in, or support any actions or activities significantly detrimental to the security of any other party or parties to the treaty;
3. A Party to the treaty which is a member of military alliances, coalitions, or organizations shall work to ensure that such alliances, coalitions, or organizations observe principles of the UN Charter, the Declaration of Principles of International Law, the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter for European Security followed by certain documents adopted by the OSCE;
4. A Party to the treaty shall not allow the use of its territory and shall not use the territory of any other party to prepare or carry out an armed attack against any other party or parties to the treaty or any other actions affecting significantly the security of any other party or parties to the treaty;
5. A clear mechanism is established to address issues related to the substance of this treaty and to settle differences or disputes that might arise between the parties in connection with its interpretation or application;
6. The treaty will be open for signature by all states of Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian space followed by several international organizations: the EU, the OSCE, the CSTO; NATO, and the CIS.

Russia, in fact, understood the treaty as a reaffirmation of the principles guiding security relations between states but above all respect for independence, territorial integrity, sovereignty within nation-state borders, and the policy not to use force or the threat of its use in IR.

Actually, the security issue in Europe became a strategic agenda for Russia from 2000 onward. During its whole post-Soviet history, Russia felt very uncomfortable as put on the margins of the process of the creation of a new (US/NATO-run) security order in Europe based on the NATO enlargement toward the borders of Russia. 

It has to be remembered that Moscow at that time proposed to Washington and Brussels three conditions that, if accepted by NATO, might make enlargement acceptable to Russia: 

1. A prohibition against stationing nuclear weaponry on the territory of new NATO members; 
2. A requirement for joint decision-making between NATO and Russia on any issue of European security especially where the use of military force was involved; and
3. Codification of these and other restrictions on NATO and rights of Russia in a legally binding treaty. 

However, none of these proposed conditions of NATO-Russia security cooperation in Europe was accepted.  

After this failure, a new military doctrine of the Russian Federation from 2010 accepted the reality that the existing international security architecture including its legal mechanism does not provide equal security for all states (a phenomenon of the so-called “asymmetric security”). The same doctrine clearly stressed that NATO’s ambitions to become a supreme global actor and to expand its military presence toward Russia’s borders became a focal external military threat for Russia. Surely, from 2010, it became clear to Moscow that NATO has not accepted the Russian proposal to create a common European security framework functioning on the principle of “symmetric” relations including certain duties and rights equal for both sides. 

Nevertheless, the time when Moscow suggested a new security initiative was very appropriate for the matter of the declination of both soft and hard power of the Collective West (USA/EU/NATO) as a result of the second war against Iraq and the global economic meltdown. Since the disasters of Iraq, Guantánamo, and Abu Ghraib, Washington and its Western allies lost any moral credibility and authority to claim global leadership. In addition, Western support for Georgian aggression and the corrupted regime of Mikheil Saakashvili revealed once more the Atlanticist disregard for real democracy and justice. Simultaneously, the global economic and financial crisis spelled the end of the neoliberal fiction of globalization confirming at the same time Western unsuccess in regulating global finance. Consequently, the unipolar IR around the Collective West ceased to shape and direct both global geopolitics and geoeconomics. 

The Russian (in fact, President Dmitry Medvedev’s) proposal for a new security agreement with NATO was a serious test of the honesty of the Collective West versus Russia.

Simply, the proposal called for a new treaty to implement already accepted previous declarations since the end of the Cold War 1.0 that the West and Russia are friends, security is indivisible, and nobody’s security can be enhanced at the cost of others.

Basically, the new security treaty should be founded on a multilateral system, rather than a system based on hegemony or bipolarity.

Behind the proposal was the rejection of a hegemonic role for the USA.

However, the crucial question was:

Does the USA want to participate in multilateral efforts to address issues of both European and global security challenges?

Nonetheless, very soon it became clear that this Russian agenda for a new European security concept was seen by Western policymakers as an attempt to undermine NATO and its eastward expansionistic policy.

In other words, President D. Medvedev’s proposal for the new security design in Europe was understood by the Westerners as a perfidy intention to change the terms of the debate on the future of the European security system without the participation from NATO to the direction of the new body that includes Russia as a founding member and, therefore, as a pillar of a new security framework of the Old Continent. Therefore, his proposal, as such, was unacceptable to the Collective West.

It has to be stressed that the most difficult step in the rapprochement between Russian and Western competing European security agendas after the Cold War 1.0 was and still is the politicized attitude by the pro-Western part of Europe (EU/NATO) that Russia is posing security danger to the continent. However, on the opposite side, Russia’s security fears come primarily at least from the policy of NATO’s eastward enlargement if not from the question of NATO’s existence after 1991 in general. 

 

NATO enlargement

 

After all, it appears that, in fact, the focal problem was not about keeping the status quo in terms of the European security framework, but, however, what a new security system was going to be. In other words: 

1. Should it be a NATO-centric structure (as it has been since 1991)? In this case, NATO will be turned into a forum for consultation on both European and global security questions; or
2. Should it be a new institutional framework founded on a legally framed treaty that guarantees equality and indivisibility of security of all political subjects (states)?

The Russian 2009 “Fourteen Point” security program represented at that time, actually, the first positive foreign policy initiative by Moscow since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This D. Medvedev’s initiative had both real geopolitical meaning and many diplomatic symbolic features. The initiative’s crucial value was that:

1. It advocated the formation of a new European security framework founded on new and democratic principles of the indivisibility of international security and the inclusiveness of all interested and relevant actors; and
2. The focal objectives of the initiative were to upgrade the already existing (but ineffective) European security system and to expand it into the region of Asia-Pacific for the sake of creating a common security area from Alaska to Siberia.

It was, however, obvious that the creation of such a security system would preserve primarily Russian national interests in both regions primarily in Europe but in Asia-Pacific as well. In addition, the proposal will pave the way for integrating a rising China and other countries of Asia into a complex network of the European security framework. Nonetheless, the proposal was rejected in the name of further NATO eastward expansion which was in many Western eyes the most fateful error of the US policy during the whole period of the post-Cold War 1.0 era. 

Such NATO policy, in fact, inflamed nationalistic, anti-Western, and militaristic feelings in Russia, and finally restored the policy of Cold War 1.0 into Cold War 2.0 (a renewed East-West security competition in Europe) keeping in mind the fact that in Russia, exists strong belief, based on accounts by Mikhail Gorbachev, Evgenii Primakov, and other Russian most influential policymakers, that Washington has broken its commitment not to expand NATO as a precondition for German reunification in 1989−1990.   

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

The Baltic states continue to promote racist policies against the Russian people, creating a serious atmosphere of hostility in Europe.

Latvia is planning to completely eradicate the Russian language from the school curriculum, which will certainly have catastrophic consequences for the country’s social stability, as a substantial portion of the Latvian population is ethnic Russian. In addition to unnecessarily affecting innocent people, the measure makes it clear that Russophobia will continue to be a priority for the Latvian government.

According to a recent government decision, from September 2025 on, no Latvian students will be able to learn Russian in schools. The only languages allowed to be taught in schools, in addition to the native one, will be the languages of Western European countries. The measure affects both ethnic Russian citizens and ethnic Latvians who want to study Russian as a second foreign language – English is the first mandatory foreign language in all Latvian schools.

25% of the Latvian population is ethnic Russian, while at least 36% of citizens are Russian speakers.

Russian is the most spoken language in the country after Latvian and has always been an important communication mechanism for a substantial portion of Latvians.

In practice, there has never been a distinction between knowing Russian or Latvian, with any citizen being able to use either of these languages in their public activities, but recent policies of cultural genocide are generating a true apartheid, excluding ethnic Russian citizens from social life.

Like all ex-Soviet countries, Latvia is home to many Russians. During the communist period, all socialist republics belonged to the same country. When the USSR collapsed, millions of Russians became “foreigners” in the newly created post-Soviet countries, generating one of the greatest social tragedies in recent history. In countries such as the Baltic states, the end of the USSR coincided with the rise of a chauvinistic nationalism strongly encouraged by Western powers. These Russophobic sentiments have become increasingly common and dangerous in recent years.

Since the beginning of the special military operation, the Russophobic wave in the Baltics has reached increasingly worrying levels. Russian citizens have been subjected to mandatory Latvian language proficiency tests. Unsatisfactory results in these tests legitimize the Latvian government to expel these citizens and cancel their Latvian citizenship. This has been a serious problem especially for elderly people from the Soviet era, who have lived on Latvian soil for decades and have never learned the local language, as Russian has always been widely spoken in the country. These elderly people are being the biggest victims of the Latvian linguistic apartheid, with thousands of them fearing that they will be expelled from the country at any moment.

In addition to the anti-Russian cultural genocide implemented through the language ban, other coercive measures against ethnic Russian citizens have been practiced. For example, Russian citizens were threatened with expulsion from the country for voting in the Russian Federation’s presidential elections in March. Latvian police officers simply stated that they were monitoring the areas around the Russian diplomatic facilities, making it clear that any Russian who voted would have their personal data discovered by the authorities and would lose the right to live in the country.

According to the Latvian government, the mere act of participating in Russian political life is a gesture of support for the special military operation – called an “unjustified invasion of Ukraine” in the West. In this sense, Russian citizens who wanted to vote were seen by Latvia as true criminals, having to be punished and being “unworthy” of continuing to live in the country. Clearly, by implementing such draconian racist policies, Latvia is striving to make life impossible for Russian citizens, forcing them to leave the country as quickly as possible.

Latvia basically wants 25% of its population to leave the country – or to deny their own Russian ethnicity and accept to be culturally assimilated, forcing themselves to speak Latvian and give up their original identity. These measures are obviously reprehensible from the point of view of European values. There is nothing humanitarian or democratic about promoting ethnic apartheid and cultural genocide. However, apparently, the Collective West gives carte blanche to its allies to implement any measure against Russians.

In the Latvian case, instead of an absolute eradication of Russian culture, there is more likely to be a serious social instability and crisis of legitimacy, with the local Russian people taking to the streets to protest against the government’s Nazi-like measures.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Referral Drive: Our Readers Are Our Lifeline

***

Due to the immense suffering of the people of Gaza, the attention of the entire world has understandably been concentrated more on Gaza lately. There is also the risk of escalation here. However both due to human suffering as well as the risk of escalation the situation in Ukraine should also continue to get the world’s serious attention. In fact the danger of escalation is even more serious here, and in the worst possible scenario the possibility of the ongoing Ukraine conflict blowing up ultimately into a nuclear war and the Third World War also exists. 

Even if the possibility is just about 5 to 10% just now, its implication, the destruction associated with it is so serious that this should get very serious attention from the point of view of striving to ensure that such a horribly destructive situation never arises. Russia and NATO countries have over 11000 nuclear weapons and if even 5 to 10% of these ever get actually used, this would be the end of the world as we have known it, and probably our own end as well, mine and yours, no matter where we live, even if only from the longer term impacts of the ‘nuclear winter’.

Most people would say that the big leaders would never allow such a destructive course of action to take place. However large-scale use of nuclear weapons against Soviet Russia had come up for serious consideration by a section of influential leaders of the USA and its closest ally Britain soon after the Second World War ended even though the Soviet Union had been their close ally in the War and had played such an important role in the defeat of Hitler.

Hawkish sections of US military leadership had considered use of nuclear weapons in the Korea war too, although here Truman (who had cleared the first use of two nuclear weapons against Japan) played a preventive role.

Again hawkish elements in the USA military and security establishment had argued much in favor of nuking the Soviet Union and allies at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, despite the fact that the Soviet Union had acquired its own nuclear weapons by then and would have retaliated. Ultimately it was left to the great statesmanship of two great leaders on both sides, John Kennedy and Khrushchev, to bring back the world from the brink of nuclear war. Unfortunately we do not have anyone like John Kennedy (who ultimately had to sacrifice his life for advocating the path of peace) in the western leadership today, we only have Biden, Sunak and Macron, and they have been as irrationally anti-Russia in times as anyone can possibly be.

Recently the Ukraine conflict has been going very badly for Ukraine forces. Almost everyone agrees that the ill-planned, reluctantly undertaken Ukrainian offensive last year was a big failure and after that there has been no recovery, only further losses, and this is despite all the billions poured into a highly corrupt system by western allies. As future prospects indicate the high possibility of continuing losses, the best course of action at present to prevent further loss of life, human suffering and loss of even more territory is for Ukraine to reach an agreement with Russia for immediate and unconditional ceasefire and peace. The various contentious points can be sorted out later by prolonged talks which should continue whatever the difficulties in reaching agreements. Meanwhile large-scale reconstruction and relief work should start very soon in Ukraine with the help of all countries of the world who can afford to help in this.

However this course of action, which minimizes the further sufferings of the Ukrainian people while increasing possibilities of early start of a big relief and rehabilitation effort, is unacceptable to President Zelenskyy as well as to the USA and its close allies for two reasons. Firstly, Biden has been personally very hawkish in the context of Ukraine and the strategy followed by him and his key officials has been to bleed Russia as much as possible using Ukraine as a proxy regardless of the high costs for Ukrainian ordinary people—several hundred thousand of them have died or suffered serious injuries while millions have been displaced internally and externally. The chosen path of Zelenskyy has been to follow the US-recommended path for his country—his last independent effort was to sincerely participate in a Turkey-mediated peace initiative at an early stage of the war but this was aborted by the USA and Britain.

So under the present circumstances Ukraine is most likely to continue experiencing military reverses and at some stage its military efforts may be almost in a state of collapse. The NATO members led by the USA would be aware of this on the basis of their intelligence. They would never like to see a collapse taking place, but what can they do? They have already sent their billions of dollars. They have already sent as much weapons as they could send, and more of the same may not help much. They have already even sent limited numbers of their trainers to accompany their weapon systems. It is at this stage that they may consider sending their own forces to Ukraine. Macron has already flagged this, indicating his willingness to send some French troops for special types of operations. He does not yet have the support of his own people for this, and his proposal did not get much support from other NATO members, particularly the more important ones. Despite this, it is just possible that due to the very strong reluctance on the part of the USA in particular to accept anything that looks like a defeat in Ukraine, ultimately there may be wider acceptance for what was initially criticized as a rather wild and highly escalatory proposal of Macron.

If this happens, then this would be a very dangerous beginning of direct confrontation between Russian and NATO forces.

As these forces try to destroy each other using more and more destructive weapons, where will this end? In such a situation, the chances of using nuclear weapons and moving towards the Third World War will be much higher. As such a confrontation will take place in conditions of very high suspicions and tensions, the chances of exchange of nuclear weapons taking place even on the basis of misunderstandings and misjudgment of the intentions of the other side will be a possibility. Either of the two sides can make the first strike, followed by even bigger retaliation and one does not know where this will end. As very fast delivery systems have been developed, chances of start of nuclear war based on misunderstanding and misjudgment have increased. This is also because of the possibilities of launch of certain conventional weapons being confused with the launch of nuclear weapons, in conditions of high tensions and suspicions.

Due to this possibility and potential of destruction on a very massive scale, there is great urgency of preventing the Ukraine conflict from escalating towards such much more horrible possibilities. Due to the inability of the UNO to take up big responsibilities of this kind as seen in recent times (although of course it can still play a helpful supportive role), the lead has to be taken by a renewed effort by senior, not-in-active-service diplomats and statesmen of all the involved countries, helped by fast growing peace activism, to prevent such horrible possibilities under all circumstances and to bring peace to Ukraine as early as possible.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071 and Earth without Borders. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from South Front

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Of relevance to the crimes currently committed by the Netanyahu government against the People of Palestine, we bring to the attention of our readers the 2013 Judgement of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, an initiative of former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who headed the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC).

On a personal note, I was a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War (2005). I was subsequently invited to become a member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) which was created in 2007.

I should mention that the indictment directed again the State of Israel was the object of sabotage.

One of the appointed foreign judges was a Zionist who was in “conflict of interest” with links to the State of Israel. Members of the KLWCC brought this issue to the attention of  Prof. Francis Boyle who had acted as prosecutor on behalf of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission chaired by Tun Mahathir Mohamad. The numerous witnesses from Palestine refused to provide testimony. 

The Tribunal hearings were postponed and reconvened on November 13, 2013 following the act of recusal and the appointment of a new judge.

The Kuala Lumpur Judgment is all the more significant in view of the current procedure of the International Criminal Court’s instigated by the Republic of South Africa against the State of Israel, on charges of genocide directed against the People of Palestine.

Read it carefully, particularly the testimonies. Forward this text far and wide.

In solidarity with the People of Palestine. 

Michel Chossudovsky,  January 18, 2024

---

Video. Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

Global Solidarity in Support of Palestine

November 4, 2023

---

The 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War

under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

 

Signatories of the 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration. From Left to Right: 

Francis A.Boyle, Helen Caldicott,  Denis J. Halliday, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Hans-Christof Von Sponeck, Michel Chossudovsky, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

---

.

Important Excerpt from the  2013 Judgment

What Amounts To Genocide? 

Simply put, genocide means any designated acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. The definition of genocide as given in Article 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute is taken verbatim from Articles 2 & 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which states that the following acts may by themselves or cumulatively constitute the international crime of genocide:

1. Killing members of the group

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

 

***

The State of Israel was charged on 20 November 2013

with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

 

 

The procedure was initiated by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission under the helm of the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

It was part of an initative launched in December 2005 to Criminalize War.

It involved detailed testimonies and evidence.

The Members of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) are:

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, chairman, 

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, 

Mr. Denis Halliday, 

Mr. Musa Ismail, 

Dr. Zulaiha Ismail, 

Dr. Yaacob Merican, 

Dr.  Hans von Sponeck

This indictment is supported by extensive evidence and testimony. Read the following recommendations:

As a tribunal of conscience, the Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. We have no power of enforcement. What we can do, under Article 34 of Chapter VIII of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, WHICH WE HEREBY DO, to submit this finding of conviction by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.

 The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions.

The Tribunal deplores the failure of international institutions to punish the State of Israel for its crimes and its total lack of respect of International Law and the institutions of the United Nations. It urges the Commission to use all means to publicise this judgement and in particular with respect to the Parliaments and Legislative Assemblies of the major powers such as members of the G8 and to urge these countries to intervene and put an end to the colonialist and racist policies of the State of Israel and its supporters.

Below is the full text of the procedure as well as the formal indictment against Amos Yaron and the State of Israel.

For a summary version click here

Read Complete Judgment (pdf)

On behalf of the members of The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, under the helm of Dr. Tun Mahathir Mohamad.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 18, 2020, November 8, 2023

***

THE KUALA LUMPUR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
20 – 25 NOVEMBER 2013
Case No. 3 – CHG – 2013

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Against
Amos Yaron
Case No. 4 – CHG – 2013

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission
Against
The State of Israel

Coram

Judge Tan Sri Dato’ Haji Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus
Judge Tunku Sofiah Jewa
Judge Shad Saleem Faruqi
Judge Mohd Saari Yusuf
Judge Salleh Buang
Judge John Philpot
Judge Tunku Intan Mainura

Prosecution Team

Prof. Gurdial Singh Nijar
Tan Sri Aziz Rahman
Mr. Avtaran Singh
Ms. Gan Pei Fern
Mr. Nizamuddin Hamid
Dr. Sharizal M Zin
Ms. Rafika Shari’ah
Ms. Mazlina Mahali
Ms. Diyana Sulaiman

Amicus Curiae-Defence Team

Mr. Jason Kay Kit Leon
Ms. Larissa Jane Cadd
Dr. Abbas Hardani
Prof. Dr. Rohimi Shapiee
Dr. Rohaida Nordin
Dr. Matthew Witbrodt

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) reconvened on 20 November 2013 to hear two charges against Amos Yaron (first Defendant) and the State of Israel (second Defendant). The first Defendant was charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, whilst the second Defendant was charged with the crime of genocide and war crimes.

The charge against the first Defendant is as follows –

“The Defendant Amos Yaron perpetrated War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law” 

The charge against the second Defendant is as follows –

“From 1948 and continuing to date the State of Israel (hereafter ‘the Defendant’) carried out against the Palestinian people a series of acts namely killing, causing serious bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction. 

The conduct of the Defendant was carried out with the intention of destroying in whole or in part the Palestinian people.

These acts were carried out as part of a manifest pattern of similar conduct against the Palestinian people.

These acts were carried out by the Defendant through the instrumentality of its representatives and agents including those listed in Appendices 1 and 2.

Such conduct constitutes the Crime of Genocide under international law including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’) in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said Convention. It also constitutes the crime of genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.

Such conduct by the Defendant as an occupying power also violates customary international law as embodied in the Hague Convention of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

Such conduct also constitutes War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity under international law.”

The charges (together with the particulars of the charges) had been duly served on the Defendants, and were read in open court by the Registrar as these proceedings commenced.

Neither Defendant was present in these proceedings, but both were represented by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team.

1. Preliminary objections and applications by Amicus Curiae-Defence Team

The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team filed two preliminary objections to these proceedings – the first contending that there are defects in the Charges preferred against the first Defendant, and the second contending that the State of Israel cannot be impleaded in these proceedings on the grounds of State Immunity.

In respect of its first preliminary objection the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team contends that the trend in modern international criminal tribunals is either to have jurisdiction for acts that have been committed after these tribunals have been constituted such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), or alternatively its jurisdiction is for a limited duration of time such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) or the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC).

The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submits that this Tribunal came into existence on 6 June 2008, whilst the various acts allegedly committed by the Defendant in charge no. 3 occurred in the month of September 1982, while the acts allegedly committed by the Defendant in charge no. 4 occurred since 1948 and continued up to the present day.

In respect of its second preliminary objection the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submits that there is no authority conferred by the Charter on this Tribunal to hear any action against the government of a country, for example, the government of Israel. The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team also argued that international law does not allow the “State of Israel” to be impleaded as an accused. The State of Israel is a nation state, recognised by the United Nations, and as a nation state, it has rights under international law.

The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team further submits that the State of Israel has not entered appearance in these proceedings and has therefore not submitted to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submits that the State of Israel enjoys immunity for the crimes of genocide and war crimes and therefore Charge 4 should be dismissed.

On behalf of the Prosecution Team, it was argued that with regard to the first preliminary objection, the jurisdiction issue must be established by reference to the founding Charter or statute that sets up the Tribunal. The Charter of the KL Foundation to Criminalise War states that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall be governed by the provisions of this Charter: Part 1, Article 1. There isno temporal limit. In particular, Article 7 sets no time limit. In this sense the Charter is identical to the ‘open ended’ temporal jurisdiction of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg or the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

The Prosecution Team also submitted that the Tribunal had convicted Bush and Blair of war crimes committed in 2003 – which also predates its setting up: KL War Crimes Commission v George W. Bush and Anthony L. Blair, KLWCT Reports 2011, p. 1. The verdict by the KLWCT against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld et alwent back to torture committed from 2001.

With regard to the second preliminary objection, the Prosecution Team submits, inter alia, that these two Charges are international criminal war crimes being adjudicated by an international tribunal. States have no immunity for such crimes before such tribunals.

Before these proceedings began, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team had also submitted two (2) applications to quash the charge against the two Defendants. The grounds of applications were as follows:

1. The charge is defective for duplicity, and / or latent duplicity.
2. The charge is defective for uncertainty.
3. The charge is an abuse of process and / or oppressive.

On behalf of the two Defendants, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team sought for the Tribunal to make the following orders:

1. That the charge against the two Defendants be quashed.
2. That the Prosecution against the two Defendants be permanently stayed.
3. In the alternative, that the Charges be redrafted according to the principles of criminal law.

The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team contends that there were multiple offences within one charge and multiple forms of alleged instances of criminal conduct within one charge.The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submits that the Rules against Duplicity must be strictly adhered to in a criminal proceeding.

In rebuttal, the Prosecution Team submits that this Tribunal is governed by its own Rules and these Rules are silent on the application of the Rule against Duplicity in drafting charges. This rule against duplicity, as it exists in national legal systems, does not, and cannot, apply in the same way in proceedings before international criminal courts. More importantly, the Tribunal should take into account the heinous nature of these crimes and the scale they were alleged to be perpetrated.

On the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team’s submission that the charge is defective due to uncertainty, the Prosecution Team submits that it is premature for anyone to say so without appreciating the particulars contained in the charge. The particulars in the charge are facts that the Prosecution seeks to prove in the course of the proceedings.

Having considered the Preliminary Objections raised by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team and the Two Applications filed by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team and the submissions by both the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team and the Prosecution Team in the several documents already filed with this Tribunal, and having considered further oral submissions by both parties, the Tribunal unanimously ruled that the Preliminary Objections and Two Applications have little merit and were accordingly dismissed.

A written ruling of the Tribunal was read out by Judge Tunku Sofiah Jewa on 20 November 2013.

2. Prosecution’s Case

The Prosecution’s case against the first Defendant is that the first Defendant had committed War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli-occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps. These crimes were in violation of, inter alia, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the 1948 Genocide Convention, jus cogens, International Humanitarian Law; and Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.

The Prosecution’s case against the second Defendant is that from 1948 and continuing to date the State of Israel had systematically carried out against the Palestinian people a series of acts namely killing, causing serious bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction – with the intention of destroying in whole or in part the Palestinian people.

These acts constitute the Crime of Genocide under international law including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’) in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said Convention. It also constitutes the crime of genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.

In his opening statement, the Chief Prosecutor Prof Gurdial Singh said that the Prosecution will adduce evidence to prove the counts in the indictment through oral and written testimonies of victims, witnesses, historical records, narrative in books and authoritative commentaries, resolutions of the United Nations and reports of international bodies.

3. Testimony of Witnesses

The Prosecution Team called 11 witnesses to testify on its behalf.

The Prosecution’s first witness (PW1) was Chahira Abouardini, a 54 year old resident of Camp Shatila, Beirut, Lebanon.

She testified that when the Israelis invaded Lebanon in May 1982, they attacked the area near Camp Shatila, which was then the base of the Palestinian resistance. She also testified that her father and sister were shot and killed by the Lebanese Phalangist militia.

She also said that there were a lot of dead bodies everywhere, strewn all over – bodies of men, women, children and even animals. Armed militiamen had started the killing from the houses near the sports complex where the Israeli forces were based. They entered homes and killed people. Anyone who moved was killed.

PW1 also testifed that at one location on the way to the stadium, she saw her cousin’s daughter’s body. The killers had opened her body and taken out her baby and then placed the baby on her dead body. PWI testified that the victim was actually deaf and dumb and was living in a home for the disabled.

PW1 testified that there were bodies piled up everywhere because the militiamen had collected the people together and then shot them all at one time. As a result it was difficult to identify the dead victims, and families had to dig between dead bodies to find their relatives.

PW1 said that in the 36 hours of the attack, some 3,500 people from Shatila and Sabra had been massacred. She said that the Phalangist militia who committed these atrocities worked together with the Israelis. They were puppets of the Israeli forces.

When PW1 was offered by the Prosecution to the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for cross-examination, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team declined to cross-examine the witness.

The second Prosecution witness (PW2) called by the Prosecution Team was Bayan Nuwayhed al-Hout. She gave her testimony as an expert witness through Skype. She was not physically present before the Tribunal.

The Prosecution tendered (as an exhibit) excerpt of a book titled “SABRA AND SHATILA – SEPTEMBER 1982” written by PW2 where she said “For 40 continuous hours between sunset on Thursday 16 September and midday on Saturday 18 September 1982, the massacre of Sabra and Shatila took place, one of the most barbaric of the twentieth century”.

When asked by the Prosecutor to give her comments on the published figure of 3,500 being the number of people killed, PW2 said that according to her research she estimated the figure to be around 1,350. She said that she had approaced various international organisations to collect the list of victims, but she never received them.

When PW2 was offered to the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for cross-examination, the latter also said that they have no desire to cross-examine the witness.

The Prosecution’s third witness (PW3) was Mahmoud Al Samouni, a 15 year old resident of Sammouna Street, Gaza Zaitun, Gaza City. He gave his testimony through Skype.

PW3 testified that the Israeli forces attacked his place on January 3, 2009 with bombs and missiles. He said that he saw parachutists coming down and landing on the highest buildings.

He testified that more than 50 soldiers came to his house, all with weapons. They shot at the inner walls of the house and all over his home. They demanded the owner of the house to come out and when PW3’s father came out, the soldiers shot him, killing him on the spot. The soldiers continued shooting into the house for 15 minutes, injuring his brother Ahmad and 5 other members of his family, including his sister Amal – who sustained serious injuries, including a shrapnel in her head. His brother Ahmad subsequently died.

PW3 was not cross-examined by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team.

The Prosecution’s fourth witness (PW4) was Salah Al Sammouni, a 34 year old resident of al-Zaytour neighbourhood in Gaza City. He gave his testimony through Skype.

He said that on January 3, 2009, he received information from his father’s cousin that Israeli military tanks had entered Gaza City and surrounded the al-Zaytoun neighbourhood and the surrounding areas.

He further testified that 21 members of his family were killed by the Israelis on January 5, 2009. He tendered as an exhibit a list of the names of these dead family members.

When this witness was offered to the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for cross-examination, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team declined to cross-examine him.

The Prosecution’s fifth witness (PW5) was Paola Manduca, currently residing in Genova, Italy. She gave her testimony as an expert witness through Skype.

She told the Tribunal that she had conducted and co-ordinated in 2011 two research projects relating to the impact of weapons on reproductive health arising from the Israeli attacks on Gaza. The outcome of her research reveals the degradation of the reproductive health and increase in major structural birth defects.

She also testified that 66% of Gaza parents with a birth defect child had been exposed to bombing or white phosphorus shelling during Operation Cast Lead in 2008/2009.

Her research led her to the conclusion that there is a long term effect on reproductive health associated to metal contamination by exposure to weaponry during the war and by war remnants.

When PW5 was offered to the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for cross-examination, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team declined to cross-examine her.

The Prosecution’s sixth witness (PW6) was Dr Ang Swee Chai, a consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon, currently residing in London, England. She was physically present during the proceedings and was orally examined by the Chief Prosecutor and subsequently cross-examined by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team.

She testified that she arrived in Beirut in August 1982 as part of a British medical team, volunteering her services as an orthopaedic surgeon. She started work as an orthopaedic surgeon in Gaza Hospital on August 22. The Hospital was an 11 storey building in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps, officially opened on August 23, 1982.

PW6 gave a detailed account of the events that took place from 15-22 September 1982.

On 15 September, Israeli planes flew from the sea towards the direction of the camps, and then the shelling began in all directions, clearly seen from the Gaza Hospital. On 16 September, casualties poured into the hospital, whilst shootings and shelling continued outside. Shootings continued into the night.

On 17 September, the witness said that she operated on an eleven year old boy, shot with 27 members of his family. All 27 died, but the boy survived.

On 19 September PW6 said members of the hospital medical team were able to return to Sabra and Shatila camps, where they saw dead bodies everywhere, whole families obviously shot together. She said that according to the International Red Cross, the total number of dead people was 1,500.

The witness testified that from the Israeli headquarters in the Kuwait Embassy most of the area of the massacre in the two camps could be easily seen. She was told by Palestinian survivors that they could not escape during the massacre because the Israelis had sealed off the camps. When the Norwegian Ambassador came in to try to evacuate the Norwegian medics, he told the witness that he had to get the Israeli authorities to agree.

The witness also said that from recently declassified materials from the British National Archives, she discovered that the death toll in the two camps was 3,500 people. When the Israelis surrounded and invaded the Akka Hospital on 15 September, they killed patients, nurses and doctors.

PW6 was cross-examined by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team, but her testimony remained intact and unshaken.

The Prosecution’s seventh witness (PW7) was Nabil Alissawi, a resident of Karkfa Street, Bethlehem.

The witness said that whilst he was a student of Ahliya University in 2008, he took part in a peaceful street demonstration near the Azah Refugee Camp and Paradise Hotel. At about 12.30pm whilst the demonstrators were thus engaged, he was shot by a sniper. He passed out and was taken to a hospital.

He later discovered that a dum dum bullet had pierced his stomach and then broke into 3 pieces, going into 3 different directions – 2 exiting his body but the third remained stuck in his bladder. He was hospitalised for 2 1/2 months where he underwent 3 operations. He subsequently received treatment for another 2 1/2 months where he underwent more surgical operations to repair his intestines.

As a result of his injuries, his life had been totally altered. He carried an abdominal scar, he cannot sit upright, nor can he swim competitively. He is prohibited from entering Israel, and is always in a state of fear and anxiety. He is a victim with no freedom in his own country.

The Prosecution’s 8^thwitness (PW8) was Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian and social activist. He gave his oral testimony via Skype. Author of 15 books, including “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” (2006), “Gaza in Crisis” (co-authored with Noam Chomsky, 2010) he is one of Israel’s New Historians who have been rewriting the history of Israel’s creation in 1948 and the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians in the same year. He has written that the expulsion was not decided on an ad hoc basis as other historians had argued, but constituted the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in accordance with Plan Dalet, which was drawn up in 1947 by Israel’s future leaders.

The witness testified that the people behind Plan Dalet was small group of people (about 30) comprised of generals in the Jewish military outfit, experts on Arab affairs, with the Chairman who would be the first Prime Minister of Israel. They turned this plan into a Master Plan with a blueprint for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from their country.

When asked by the Chief Prosecutor what happened to those Palestinians who refused to move, the witness said that in certain places, elder villagers were executed to intimidate the rest. And in some places, all male members were massacred. Palestine had some 800 villages. 530 villagers had their residents expelled.

The witness also testified that the villages that were occupied were wiped out physically and on the ruins they built settlements or recreational places. In the cities, the Palestinian neighbourhoods were repopulated by Jewish immigrants from Europe or from other countries.

Asked about Gaza, the witness said that Gaza is a huge prison, incarcerating 2 million people.

Cross-examined by the Defence – Amicus Team whether he would agree that the body of his work and his views “could be to assuage the guilt of being alive because of Zionism”, the witness replied that he does not feel that way. He said that because his parents were victims of genocidal policies of the Nazi, he does not want be part of the new genocide.

Responding to another question from the Defence – Amicus Team, the witness said that the Jews who escaped from Germany and Europe in the 1930s were indeed refugees looking for safe haven, but the Jews who came in 1982 and in subsequent years came as colonisers.

The Prosecution’s 9^thwitness (PW9) was Taghreeb Khalil Nimat, a resident of Nablus, West Bank. She lives with her parents and 9 siblings.

The witness testified that in 1979 or early 1980, her father was arrested by the Israeli forces and detained in prison for 18 days for singing a song about Palestinian freedom. A year later, he was again arrested and detained in prison for 21 days for the same offence.

In 1987 the witness applied for employment at the government office but her application was rejected. It was commonly understood that if any family member has a history of being detained by the Israeli government, it would be difficult to seek employment at the government office.

The witness testified that on 15 April 2004, whilst travelling from Nablus to Bethlehem (a distance of 80 km) she was stopped by an Israeli military car and then detained for 29 hours without food or water. During detention, the witness was put under interrogation and insulted verbally. Following the incident, the witness was stigmatised by her community, including her friends and colleagues.

The Prosecution’s tenth witness (PW10) was Dr. Walid Elkhatib, a resident of Beit Jalla City, Bethlehem District, West Bank. He is a qualified medical doctor, specialising in public health.

The witness testified that as a general practitioner, he worked at an emergency clinic during the first intifada, where he saw many patients with different kinds of injuries as a result of Israeli violence – gun shot wounds, exposed to tear gas and physically abused by Israeli soldiers. Over the last 17 years he had been in charge of child health and protection, social health and Palestinian child law and rights.

He also testified that the invasion of Palestinian cities by Israeli forces (including the shelling and bombing, usage of tear gas, the building of walls to separate Jerusalem and the West Bank, check points which restrict the movement of the Palestinian people) have affected Palestinian health and education, especially that of children.

The witness said that the first intifada (1987-1993) was not military in nature. It involved demonstrations against the Israeli occupation. There were then no roadblocks, no wall, no shelling and no airplane bombings.

The second intifada (2000-2009) began when Ariel Sharon went to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Palestinians protested against this visit. On that day, Israeli soldiers killed 20 people outside a mosque.

During the second intifada, the witness said that 77.8% of Palestinian families suffered mental problems. From 2001-2011, there were 2282 cases of disability – mostly due to injuries sustained by those involved in the intifada, caused by live ammunition, shrapnel, rubber bullets and explosions. Disabilities means that many of these people have less opportunities for work and they end up in poverty.

The witness testified that poverty is rife in the West Bank and Gaza, increasing from an average of 20% (prior to intifada) to 51% (during the intifada). Anemia became prevalent amongst the children (42%) as a result of imbalanced diet and amongst pregnant women (21%).

On the subject of checkpoints, the witness testified that there were about 730 checkpoints between cities, towns and villages in the West Bank. There had been many cases of pregnant women (forced to stop and wait at these places) delivering their babies at these checkpoints. There had also been many emergency cases who had been stopped at these checkpoints and prevented from going through to hospitals. In such cases, people had died at these checkpoints.

The witness also testified that before the second intifada, he believed that Israel was looking for peace with Palestinians. After the second intifada, he no longer had that belief.

The Prosecution’s eleventh witness (PW11) was Jawad Musleh, a resident of Beit Sahour, Bethlehem District. He is a program co-ordinator in a travel agency.

The witness, a Christian, testified that he was arrested in August 1985 by the Israeli authorities and released 20 months later, in March 1987. He was first detained at a prison in West Jerusalem, and later transferred to another prison in Haifa and finally to another prison in the West Bank. He was then only 15 years old, a student of a Catholic School at Beit Sahour.

The witness testified that he was tortured in the first prison in West Jerusalem, during interrogation. The Israelis used mental and psychological torture to make him confess to crimes he did not commit – that he was a member of the Palestine Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). He refused to confess but he continued to be beaten, and if not beaten, put in confinement with his hands tied behind his back and a hood over his head.

He finally confessed, after which he was detained for 20 months. He continued to be tortured when he was incarcerated. He said that there are now more than 5,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons.

The witness also testified that more Israeli colonies are being built on lands in the West Bank and Jerusalem. There are now 700,000 Jewish settlers living in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

The West Bank is now divided into 3 Areas – A, B and C. Area A are lands under the Palestinian authority and cover main cities and towns like Bethlehem, Hebron, Nablus, Ramallah, Jenin and others. Area B are small villages surrounding the main cities, where Israel is in control of security whilst civil services like health and education are the responsibility of the Palestinian authority. Area C, which is the rest of the West Bank, is under the complete control of the Israeli authorities. Checkpoints and roadblocks are set up throughout Areas A, B and C. These checkpoints are often closed arbitrarily and without prior notice, for long hours.

The witness further testified that Area C is the richest source of water supply. Water supply is therefore under the complete control of the Israeli authorities. Water is supplied to the Israeli settlers at a cheaper price, and 5 times more in volume, compared to water supplied to the Palestinians – which is often inadequate for their daily use, causing great hardship and suffering.

4. Prosecution’s closing submission

In his closing submission, the Chief Prosecutor said that he had called 11 witnesses (some of whom had testified through Skype), tendered 15 exhibits and furnished several documents and reports to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings.

He urged the Tribunal to bear in mind that this is a Tribunal of Conscience and the case before it is an extraordinary case, which Winston Churchill used to call as a “crime without a name”.

He said that the Prosecution had provided evidence of facts which, examined as a whole, will show that the perpetrators had committed acts against the Palestinians, with intent to kill, cause serious bodily or mental harms and deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinians as a whole or in part.

From the testimony of Prof Pappe (PW8) the Prosecution had shown that before 1948, before UN Resolution 47, there was already a plan in place to take over the Palestinian territory, and this plan would be activated the moment the British relinquished its mandate over the territory.

At that point in time, the Palestinians were on 94% of the land, with the Jewish population settling over a mere 6% of the land. Under the UN partition plan, more than 50% of the land was to be given to the Jews.

Plan Dalet might not legally be genocidal in form at its inception, but as it took shape the ethnic cleansing metamorphised into killing, massacre and creating impossible conditions for life for the Palestinians – either they leave or they die. The Prosecution submits this is genocide within the meaning of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention.

On Sabra and Shatila, prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW6) had testified that the Palestinian refugees in those camps had been killed by the Phalangists, aided and abetted by the Israelis who were in complete control of the two camps.

According to the Kahan Report, all of Beirut was under Israeli control, and there was clear symbiotic relationship between Israel and the Christian forces (the Lebanese Maronite Christian militia or the Phalangists or Keta’ib).

On Operation Cast Lead in 2008, the Chief Prosecutor said that the Israeli Defence Force had used all kinds of weapons, including white phosphorus – which is an incendiary weapon. The use of incendiary weapons is prohibited under Protocal III on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.

As a result of the Israeli occupation of Gaza, nowhere in Gaza is safe for civilians. 1.5 million Palestinians are now trapped in despair, their fragile economy ruined. Under the Dahiya Doctrine (October 2008), the complete destruction of Gaza is the ultimate objective, the whole place must be flattened.

The Prosecution submits that the cumulative effect of the actions taken by the Israeli government, as shown by the Prosecution witnesses and the several documents tendered to the Tribunal, have shown beyond reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (The Charter).

Co-Prosecutor Tan Sri Abdul Aziz, submitting on the first charge against Amos Yaron, said that Amos Yaron was the commanding officer in charge of the Israeli Defence Force, in charge of the area of Beirut, and camps Sabra and Shatila. He said there were two issues which he has to deal with – first, whether or not there was a large scale massacre of the residents of the two camps, and second, whether or not Amos Yaron facilitated and permitted such massacre, in violation of international law and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Charter?

On the first issue, he submitted there was a large scale massacre, as testified by PW1. She was there, and she saw the massacre with her own eyes. There was corrobating testimony by PW6, and further acknowledged in the Kahan Report.

On the second issue, Amos Yaron was in charge, to ensure that there would be peace and law and order. The Kahan Report itself concluded that anybody who knew about Lebanon would know that by releasing the Phalangists into Beirut, there would be massacre. Surely, Amos Yaron, the General in charge, must have known that by allowing the Phalangists to go into the two camps, the massacre would take place. But he decided to do nothing.

He received the reports of the killing of women and children, but he did not check the report. He did not pass the report to his superiors. The co-prosecutor submits that by ignoring all this despite knowing the circumstances, he himself had the intention of causing the death of the people in the two camps.

5. Whether the Prosecution has established a prima facie case

After the Prosecution Team had submitted its closing submission, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted there is no case to answer – as provided in Article 26 of Chapter V (Mode of Proceedings) of Part 2 of the Charter.

The Tribunal then had a short recess to enable the Judges to deliberate and consider the totality of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution.

When the Tribunal reconvened a short while later, the President of the Tribunal ruled that the Tribunal had unanimously agreed that a prima facie case had been established in both charges and the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team is therefore invited to present the defence case.

6. The Defence case

Mr. Jason Kay Kit Leon of the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that in the charges against the two Defendants, the Prosecution had listed war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. Apparently the Prosecution had abandoned these charges, concentrating only on genocide.

He said that the offence of genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention 1948, whilst the OED defines it simply as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group”.

He submitted that the charge of genocide is unique; it means that you don’t like a group, you kill them; you kill them in a grand manner. Genocide means that at the end of the act, you have a lesser number of victims than before the genocide started.

He further submitted that when one talks of “massive killing”, it is many hundreds of thousands to millions of people. To suggest that an isolated event, the unfortunate murder of 3,000 people (Sabra and Shatila) is the same as massive killing is almost disrespectful of the true horror of massive killing (as in Rwanda, where 800,000 people were killed in 100 days).

With regard to the Kahan Report, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it also identified other people as being responsible, with two other names other than Yaron still alive. The question is why only Yaron was charged? Why was Defence Minister Ariel Sharon spared?

He also submitted that the PLO had repeatedly violated the July 1981 cease-fire agreement. By June 1982, when the IDF went into Lebanon, the PLO had made life in northern Israel intolerable through its repeated shelling of Israeli towns.

On Cast Lead, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that the IDF had come out with two reports. The point is if you are going to kill people nilly willy, you do not report it.

On the issue of the wall, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that the primary consideration is one of security of the Israeli settlers. The State of Israel has a duty to defend their lives, safety and well-being.

On the issue of checkpoints, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said countries have a right to immigration laws.

With regard to Plan Dalet, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it is subject to divergent opinions, with historians on one side asserting that it was entirely defensive, while other historians assert that the plan aimed at an ethnic cleansing.

7. Finding by the Tribunal of the Charge against Amos Yaron

Sabra and Shatila Massacres

Under Charge 3, theDefendantAmosYaronis charged with WarCrimes,CrimesagainstHumanity,andGenocide. As the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982, he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission.

Israel invaded Lebanon beginning June6,1982.

The Israeli siege and bombardment of West Beirut continued throughout the summer of 1982. In spite of the devastation caused to Lebanon and the civilian population, Israel did not succeed in its goal of defeating or dislodging the Syrian and P.L.O. forces.

An agreement was brokered onAugust19, 1982 between Lebanon, the United States, France, Italy, Israel, and the P.L.O. for the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces under the auspices and protection of a multi‑national force. The agreement further provided that the Israeli Defense Forces would not attempt to enter or occupy West Beirut following the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces.

Pursuant to that agreement, the multinational American, French, and Italian force oversaw the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces until completed on September l, 1982. The multinational force left Lebanon from September l0-12, 1982, after the completion of the evacuation.

On September 14, 1982, Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel, a Phalangist, was assassinated in Beirut.

Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Prime Minister of Defense Sharon, and Chief of Staff Eitan decided that the IsraeliDefense Forces (IDF) would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut.

Pursuant to the decision, on September 15, 1982, the IDF entered West Beirut under the command of Defendant Brigadier General Amos Yaron, the Defendant in this case. The IDF established a forward command post on the roof of a seven-story building southwest of the Shatila camp, and Defendant Brigadier General Yaron commanded IDF forces from that post. The area surrounding the two camps, Sabra and Shatila, was thereafter under the command and control of the IDF, and all forces in the area, including the Phalangists, were considered to be operating under the authority of the IDF and acting according to its instructions.

The Tribunal heard detailed testimony about the events occurring between September 16 and September 18, 1982. A horrible systematic massacre of defenceless Palestinian refugees occurred with the deaths of up to 3,500, largely women and young children in the two camps.

Brigadier General Amos Yaron was commander of the operation in Beirut. He was asked by Major General Drori to coordinate the entry of Phalangist force at the forward command post.[1]

After these massacres, the Israeli government was under immense pressure set up a commission of enquiry under the chairmanship of Yitzuk Kahan (‘the Kahan Commission’), to enquire into the massacre. This commission held 60 sessions hearing 58 witnesses.[2]

The Kahan Commission made the following observations:

• Defence Minister, Ariel Sharon and Chief of Staff, Eitan declared on Sept 16 1982 before the massacres began that all of Beirut was under Israeli control and the camps were closed and surrounded.[3]
• There was a clear symbiotic relationship between Israel and the Christian forces (the Lebanese Maronite Christian militia) known as the Phalangists or Keta’ib assisted by the Israeli Mossad. Even the uniforms of the South Lebanese Army (SLA) and the Phalangists were the same as those of IDF – and provided by Israel.[4]
• The Israelis exercised some degree of control of the SLA.[5]
• The Phalangists’ plan to use force to remove Palestinians was discussed at several meetings with Israel[6].
• Three key officials of the Israel cabinet decided that the IDF under the command of Brigadier General Amos Yaron would enter West Beirut: the PM Begin, Defence Minister Sharon and Chief of Staff Eitan. The IDF would not enter the camps but rather would delegate the entry in to the camps to the Phalangists. Eitan said that he and Sharon agreed on the entry of the Phalangists into the Sabra and Shatila camps: the operational order provided: “…Searching and mopping up of the camps will be done by the Phalangists-Lebanese army”. [7]Also a summary of the Defence Minister’s instructions: “Only one element, and that is the IDF, shall command the forces in the area. For the operation in the camps the Phalangists should be sent in”.[8]
• The use of terms such as:

“purifying and purging” (NY Times, Sept 20 1982 at A6, col 5; Washington Post Sept 21 at A14, col 6);

“moppingup”(NY Times, Sept 23, 1982 at A8, col 4); and

“cleaning up” (NY Times, Sept 23 1982 at A8, col 6; Sept 26 1982, A11, col 2) the camps

shows the actual intent of the Israeli officials’ and its commanders[9]

• The camps were surrounded and under the complete control of the Israelis, preceding the killings[10]:
• The Chief of Staff Eitan, after acknowledging that the Phalangists ‘had gone too far” gave the thumbs up to continue the “mopping up’

An International Commission was set up to enquire into the reported violations of international law byIsrael during its invasion of Lebanon.

It produced a Report in 1983: Israel in Lebanon: Report of the International Commission to Enquire into Reported Violations of International Law byIsrael during its Invasion of Lebanon 196 (1983)[11]:

(a)  The Commission was chaired by Sean MacBride, former Irish Foreign Minister, and former United Nations Commissioner for Namibia and Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1974.

(b)  Four of the Commission’s six members concluded that Israel embarked on “deliberate destruction of the national and cultural rights and identity of the Palestinian people amounting to genocide”.

(c)  It concluded that:

The massacres that took place at Sabra and Shatila in September 1982 can be described as genocidal massacres, and the term “complicity in genocide” is wide enough to establish the responsibility of Israel for these acts.”

(d)   The Report placed the massacre in context:

“[Sabra and Shatila] massacres were low-technology sequels to earlier high-technology saturation bombardment by Israel from land, sea and air of every major Palestinian camp situated anywhere near the combat zone throughout southern Lebanon. The underlying Israeli objective seems clearly directed at making the Palestinian camps uninhabitable in a physical sense as well as terrorizing the inhabitants and thereby breaking the will of the Palestinian national movement, not only in the war zone of the Lebanon, but possibly even more centrally, in the occupied West Bank and Gaza”: p. 121[12],

(e)  That this represents a comprehensive policy to destroy an entire ethnic group is again illustrated by Ammon Kapeliouk, Sabra and Shatila (p. 45-6):

“Since the beginning of the war in June 1982, the Israelis have repeatedly used bulldozers to destroy homes and force the residents to flee. The refugee camps of south Lebanon were bombarded and then destroyed with explosives and bulldozers. In Israel, this operation was known as “the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure.” The objective was to prevent the Palestinians from forming a national community in Lebanon. Therefore, it was necessary to destroy not only homes, but also Palestinian institutions such as schools, hospitals, and social service centers. In addition, the Israelis sought to deprive the Palestinian population of all males by arresting thousands of men and forcing thousands more to flee.”[13]

The Defendant Amos Yaron

The Commander, Brigadier General Yaron, and the Phalangists agreed that a Phalangist Liaison Officer with communications equipment would be present at all times in the IDF command post with a Mossad Liaison officer at the Phalangist headquarters.[14]

Yaron knew about Phalangist combat ethics. He was pleased with his decision and was quite content to have the Phalangists participate and not leave the operation up to the IDF.

Yaron could not explain his lack of action or intervention by the Israeli army to protect civilians when he learnt on the first night, September 16, after the intervention of the Phalangists that massacres were occurring.[15]

Even when Israeli military authorities were well aware of the exactions by the Phalangists on Friday 17 September, they did not intervene to protect the Palestinian civilians but rather allowed them to bring in tractors to do what they wanted.[16]

The following testimony confirms that from the command posts, the Israelis, including of course Brigadier Commander Amos Yaron, could see into the camps and observe the massacres:

(a)     From the command post, it was possible to see into the camps, even into the narrow alleys. One could see the mass grave 300 meters away dug by the Phalangists and the bulldozer used to bury the hundreds of victims.[17]

(b)     Similarly, the testimony of Dr Ang Swee Chai

(c)     Reports of Senior Journalists.[18]

Washington Post, senior foreign correspondent, Jonathan Randal: noted this as an ‘obviously wrongheaded factual error’;

Israeli journalist, Ammon Kapeliouk;

Israeli newspaper Yedi’at Aharanot ridicules finding;

A New York Times article Sept 26 1982 at A9, col 2.

Loren Jenkins, Washington Post Beirut correspondent, Sept 20 1982: Israel aided and abetted.

(d)     Doctors and nurses testified they heard constant shooting and shelling from Shatila and knew later that a massacre might be taking place: NY Times Sept 20 1982 at A6, cols 3-4 [19]

(e)     Leila Shahid quotes an Israeli officer saying that watching from the roofs of one of the buildings occupied by the Israelis was like watching ‘from the front row of a theatre’. [20]

(f)      Israeli soldiers prevented Palestinian refugees from fleeing and returned them to the camps. Soldiers reported to their superiors that massacres were taking place.[21]

The United Nations condemned the Sabra Shatila killings… Security Council Resolution S/RES/521(1982): 19 September 1982 condemned the “criminal massacre. The General assembly went much farther than the Security Council. In the General Assembly Resolution 37/123: on 16 December 1982, it held:

Section D.1: Condemned in the strongest terms the large scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps (Vote: 123 -0; 23 abstentions)

Section D.2: Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide (vote: 98-19; 23 abstentions)

Legal Issues

Burden of proof

The burden of proof in this tribunal is beyond all reasonable doubt.[22] All elements of an infraction must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This applies to War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and the Crime of Genocide.

A person is guilty of genocide if he acts with an intention as described in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) at Article 2.[23]

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a)     Killing members of the group;

(b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d)     Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e)     Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This intention is known as the mens rea of specific intention in criminal law as opposed to the concept of general intention. The expression dolus specialis has been adopted by the Ad Hoc Tribunals to describe this requirement with respect to the criminal state of mind. To convict, an accused must have the intention to destroy, in whole or in part the group described in the Convention.

Proof of genocidal intent can be done by inference in the light of all the facts and does not require a specific plan.[24] This intent must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is any alternative interpretation of the state of mind of the Defendant, the Prosecution will fail. The inference must be the only reasonable inference available on the evidence.[25]

State liability is incurred if an organ of the State or a person or group whose acts are legally attributable to the state commits any of the acts described in Article III of the Convention.[26]

Evidentiary Conclusions

The findings below are only made if the Tribunal is convinced beyond all reasonable doubt of the finding.

The Status of the Israel Defence Force in Lebanon from 15 September 1982

The evidence described above shows that Israel had invaded Lebanon illegally and had become an occupying force for part of Lebanon. Defendant Yaron was in charge of the occupation. As discussed below, this amounts to a Crime against Peace incurring the criminal responsibility of the State of Israel and the Defendant Yaron.

The relationship between Lebanese militia and the Defendant

The evidence described above shows without doubt that the Defendant and the IDF collaborated with the Phalangist militias and used the militias to carry out Israeli policy of destroying the Palestinian people. The Defendant Yaron worked with the militias personally.

Victims

The evidence shows that a large number of men woman and children were killed. Most were Palestinian. There was little or no resistance to the invaders. This is a part of the Palestinian nation and as such satisfied the requirements of the Genocide Convention.

Knowledge by the Defendant and his acts and omissions

There is no room for doubt that the Defendant Yaron had a thorough knowledge of the exactions being committed by the associated militias. The Defendant actively sent these militias into the Sabra and Shatila camps knowing what they would do. As reports emerged of their killings of unarmed civilians: men, woman and children, he failed in his duty as commander of an occupying and invading force to protect civilian population.

Intention of Israeli State, Intention of Defendant Amos Yaron

This evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the Defendant Yaron consciously refused to protect the Palestinian population in the Sabra Shatila camps. His responsibility however goes much farther. He and the Israeli army used the Militias to destroy the Palestinian population in the camps. There was almost no resistance. The massacres were fully observed by the Israeli army from its vantage points. No persons could escape from the area cordoned off by the Israeli army. He was informed throughout about the progress of the massacre. The only inference reasonably possible is that Amos Yaron intended mass murder and that the Palestinian population be destroyed.

The Defence argued that Yaron did nothing to commit the crimes in Sabra and Shatila and cited exculpatory findings of the Kahan commission to attempt to clear Yaron for the charges.

This Tribunal is not bound by the Kahan Commission but its factual observations are useful in the search for truth. The Kahan Commission findings were made in Israel whereas the Tribunal is an international tribunal of opinion independent of Israel and the major powers. The Tribunal does not accept Defence arguments concerning the acts and omissions of the Defendant Yaron.

The Defence argued that the Prosecutor erred in not accusing Ariel Sharon. As for the failure to accuse Ariel Sharon, it is up to the Prosecutor to decide whom to charge, and barring abuse or oblique motive by the Prosecutor, the Tribunal cannot intervene in Prosecutorial Discretion.

The Defence objected to the use of General Assembly resolutions to prove genocide. The finding of intent (to commit genocide) by the General Assembly is soft law but is useful in the context to help to evaluate the intention of Israel and Amos Yaron.

The Tribunal considers the actions of Amos Yaron as engaging his personal criminal liability.

Command responsibility

Given the finding that Amos Yaron is personally responsible for the crimes committed, it declines to consider his liability for command responsibility.

Legal consequences

The Tribunal will examine the facts proven in the light of the crimes provided for in the Charter, namely Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, Genocide and War Crimes, provided for in articles 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter.

Cumulative convictions

The Tribunal recalls the law with respect to cumulative convictions. The Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia held at paragraph 168[27]:

168. The Appeals Chamber accepts the approach articulated in the Čelebići Appeal Judgement, an approach heavily indebted to the Blockburger decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.[28] The Appeals Chamber held that:[29]

“fairness to the Defendant and the consideration that only distinct crimes justify multiple convictions, lead to the conclusion that multiple criminal convictions entered under different statutory provisions but based on the same conduct are permissible only if each statutory provision involved has a materially distinct element not contained in the other. An element is materially distinct from another if it requires proof of a fact not required by the other.

Where this test is not met, the Chamber must decide on the basis of the principle that the conviction under the more specific provision should be upheld”.

The Tribunal will follow this principle.

Crimes Against Peace

Lebanon is a sovereign state which was invaded by Israel on 15 September 1982. Amos Yaron participated in this aggression of Lebanon and became Brigadier General of this occupation force. The Tribunal recalls the Nuremberg Principles I and VI

Principle I states, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment”.

Principle VI states,

“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a)     Crimes against peace:

(i)      Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii)     Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

We recall the terms of the Nuremberg judgement under the pen of Mr Justice Birkett states:

“The charges in the Indictment that the Defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are the charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from the other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.

The State of Israel has committed the mother of all international crimes by invading Lebanon and this has led Yaron to commit crimes against humanity and genocide.

Crimes against humanity

The Tribunal repeats the relevant parts of Article 9 of the Charter.

Crimes against humanity

For the purpose of this Charter,“crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a)         Murder;

(b)        Extermination…;

The crime of extermination is the act of killing on a large scale.[30] The expression “on a large scale” does not, however, suggest a numerical minimum.[31] In addition to the threshold mens rea requirements for all crimes against humanity, the mens rea of extermination requires that the Defendant intend to kill persons on a massive scale or to subject a large number of people to conditions of living that would lead to their deaths in a widespread or systematic manner.[32]

The Tribunal has found above that Amos Yaron (and the Israeli State) participated directly with the Lebanese Militias in the mass murder and destruction of the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila camps.

For this reason, the Tribunal finds Amos Yaron guilty of a crime against humanity as charged.

Genocide charge

As found above, the Defendant Yaron intended the mass murder and the destruction of the Palestinian population at Sabra and Shatila. This population constituted a national group as envisaged by the Genocide conventions. Not only did Amos Yaron intend the mass murder of these Palestinian refugees and their destruction as a group, he succeeded in killing of up to 3,500 Palestinians.

Amos Yaron intended the destruction of this part of the Palestinian people and therefor had the specific intent as required by Article 10 of the Charter.

The Tribunal notes that as Brigadier General of the Israeli Army occupying force, he engages the Criminal responsibility of the Israeli State implying the guilt of the Israeli State as was found in the Chapter of this judgement on Charge 4.

The Tribunal finds Amos Yaron guilty as charged of genocide.

War crimes

This tribunal will decline to consider war crimes since the crimes against humanity are more specific. A war crimes conviction would be a cumulative conviction. 

8. Finding of the Tribunal of the Charge against the State of Israel 

In relation to the charges against the State of Israel for genocide and war crimes, the Tribunal is conscious of the novelty of the issues raised. It wishes to confront these issues head-on with a view to furthering the ideals of international law and to interpret existing precedents in such a way as to make them as good as can be from the point of view of justice and morality.

We take note that the Prosecution did not pursue the charge of war crimes vigorously and instead concentrated on the charge of genocide. The Tribunal too will, therefore, confine itself to the issue of genocide.

The main legal points raised before us were the following:

Preliminary Objection About Retrospectivity Of Laws 

Learned counsel for the Defence argued that the general moral rule against retrospective laws prevents the Tribunal from hearing cases that occurred prior to its establishment on 6^th June 2008. The charges against Israel relate to facts that occurred well before 2008.

This issue was raised by the Defence as a preliminary objection and was unanimously rejected by the Tribunal for the following reason: the offences of genocide and war crimes for which the State of Israel is being charged were not created by the Charter. These offences have existed since the middle of the last century. The Charter sets up a machinery to investigate and prosecute these charges and to create a war crimes tribunal to adjudicate on them. The Charter does not specify any dates or time frames as was the case for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia (ECCC) and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL).

Defence counsel was magnanimous to concede that open ended temporal jurisdiction did indeed exist for the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Tokyo Tribunal and under the US Military Commission Act 2006 for the Guantanamo detainees.

The Tribunal holds that as our Charter does not confine the Tribunal to any time frame, it is not prevented from adjudicating on events that occurred decades ago. The Tribunal notes that almost all international tribunals that deal with genocide are created to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed well before the creation of the tribunal. The Tribunal holds that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is open-ended and not confined to any time period. The Tribunal has full jurisdiction to try this case.

Preliminary Objection That Only Natural Persons Can Be Charged 

Learned Defence counsel argued that there cannot be a charge against the State of Israel because under Article 2(1)(iii) of the Charter plus the Rules of Procedure and Evidence in Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 & 12, the Charter envisages jurisdiction only over natural persons and not against nation states. However, Defence counsel conceded that the Charter in Article 2(1)(ii) permits jurisdiction over a “government”. The Tribunal is of the view that being a tribunal of conscience, and created to investigate serious crimes, it must reject such technical and esoteric distinctions as between a “state” and a “government”. States operate through their governments. The Tribunal will not refuse jurisdiction simply on this technical ground.

Further, it rules that Chapter III Article 6(b) of its Charter explicitly lays down that “if the charge involves a sovereign state, a current head of state/government or a former head of state/government, service of a copy thereof to any relevant embassy or High Commission shall suffice…” This is conclusive proof that under its Charter, the Tribunal is empowered to try States as well as individuals.

Preliminary Objection That Israel Has Sovereign Immunity

Defence counsel submitted that international law does not allow the State of Israel to be impleaded as an accused. It was submitted that no matter what the facts may be and how serious the alleged crime may be, the State of Israel enjoys absolute immunity in international law from being impleaded in a domestic court or tribunal unless it voluntary subjects itself to such jurisdiction.

To our mind, the impugned preliminary objection of the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team raises the need for an appraisal of the dichotomy between the concept of State Immunity on the one hand and the doctrine of jus cogens on the other.

The concept of State immunity stipulates that a State is immune from jurisdiction in a foreign court unless it consents.

On the other hand, the doctrine of jus cogens refers to that body of peremptory principles or norms recognised by the international community as a whole as being fundamental to the maintenance of an international legal order and from which no derogation is permitted.

As corollary to a study of these two doctrines, the following three questions need to be considered, namely:

(a)        What principles of law, relevant to the issue at hand, constitute jus cogens?

(b)       Can the doctrine of State Immunity be considered as having acquired the status of jus cogens?

(c)        If there is a conflict between two principles of law, one being a jus cogensbut not the other, which should prevail?

Well into the middle of the twentieth century, nations had accepted the proposition that a sovereign State could not be sued before its own municipal Courts. When that dogma ceased to exist, e.g. in the UK with the passage of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, it was replaced by the equally unhelpful doctrine that a sovereign State was exempt from the jurisdiction of a foreign municipal court. The Latin maxim upon which the proposition is based was par inparem imperium non habet, i.e. an equal has no power over an equal.

This practice which provided carte blanche immunity to foreign States became known as the “Absolute State Immunity principle”.

Support for the Absolute State Immunity principle can be found in most, if not all, of the cases, appearing in Bundle 3 of the authorities submitted by learned Amicus Curiae-Defence Team in support of their preliminary objection application. These cases include The Schooner Exchange[33]; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore[34]; The Porto Alexandre Case[35]; Duff Development Co. v. Kelantan Government[36]; The Cristina Case[37], Commonwealth of Australia v Midford (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Anor [38] and Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy)[39].

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) was a 2012 International Court of Justice case where the Court, inter alia,found by a 14 to one majority, that the Italian Republic had violated its obligation to respect the immunity which the Federal Republic of Germany enjoyed under international law by allowing civil claims to be brought against it based on violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945.

At page 10 paragraph 31 of their notes on Preliminary Objection, Amicus Curiae-Defence Team, quoted a passage from the second edition of Judge Tunku Sofiah’s work, Public International Law – a Malaysian Perspective, as follows:

“Judgments of the International Court of Justice “are always considered as pronouncements of what the most authoritative international judicial body holds to be in international law on a given point, having regard to the given set of circumstances.”

The learned judge Tunku Sofiah, however, agrees with us that the outdated concept of absolute state immunity must be read along with other compelling considerations relevant to our times and especially to the situation before us.

Laws, unless they concern that of the Almighty, can neither be immutable nor static. And when justice so demands, through the passage of time, shifts and changes to laws that are unjust invariably take place.

In some countries, like China, for example, the State jealously guards the “absolute” concept of State Immunity and denies any attempt by anyone to implead a State unless that State consents.

Other States prefer a “restrictive” interpretation of the concept and allow immunity to States only in respect of the States’ “public” acts as opposed to their “private” ones.

As evidence of state practice, one can point to the example of the United States. It is to the credit of the United States Government, that through a proposal made in a letter by the U.S. State Department’s Acting Legal Adviser, Jack B. Tate, to the Acting Attorney-Generaldated 19 May 1952, there was a shift in policy of the U.S. Government fromsupport for the absolute theory of State immunity to support for the restrictive theory.

Let us now briefly turn to the subject of jus cogens. What principles of law, relevant to the issue at hand, constitute jus cogens?

If one were to look into the jurisprudence of the ICJ as well as that of national courts, there are numerous instances where the prohibition on genocide as a jus cogens norm of international law has been recognised. See, for example:

• the ICJ judgment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda(2006) at para 64;
• Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), 26 Feb. 2007 (ICJ Judgment) at paragraphs 161, 162, 173 &174. A historical account of the Convention reveals many currents and cross-currents. But what is clear is that obligations relating to the prevention and punishment of genocide are part of customary international law (para 161). The undertaking is unqualified (para 162). There is dual responsibilityon the part of individuals as well as the State. “Genocide is an international crime entailing national and international responsibility on the part of individuals and States” (A/RES/180(II)) (paras 161 &163). “Contracting parties are bound by the obligations under the Convention not to commit, through their organs or persons or groups whose conduct is attributable to them, genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III. Thus if an organ of the State, or a person or group whose acts are legally attributable to the State, commits any of the acts proscribed by Article III of the Convention, the international responsibility of that State is incurred” (para 179).
• “Duality of responsibility continues to be a constant feature of international law. This feature is reflected in Article 25, paragraph 4, of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, now accepted by 104 States: “No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law”.
• “Where crimes against international law are committed by State officials, it will often be the case that the State itself is responsible for the acts in question or for failure to prevent or punish them. In certain cases, in particular aggression, the State will by definition be involved. Even so, the question of individual responsibility is in principle distinct from the question of State responsibility. The State is not exempted from its own responsibility for international wrongful conduct by the Prosecution and punishment of the State officials who carried it out” (ILC Commentary on the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, ILC Report A/56/10,2001 Commentary on Article 58, para 3).
• Requests for Provisional Measures,13 Sept. 1993 (ICJ Rep.325) Separate Opinion of Judge Lauterpacht at para. 100.

Eminent scholars of international law, such as M. Bassiouni[40], too, have confirmed the prohibition on genocide as a jus cogens norm of international law.

So has the influential Restatement on Foreign Relations of the United States.

We can find no legal authority which states that the doctrine of State Immunity has acquired the status of jus cogens, that Latin tag which, in English, simply means “compelling law”.

On the other hand legal authorities abound that as a source of law, jus cogensis hierarchically higher.

It is also trite law that where there is a conflict between two principles of law, the one hierarchically higher in importance should prevail.

To our mind the international law doctrine against impleading a foreign state, being hierarchicallylower in importance than that of the prohibition against genocide, resulted in the Charge against the State of Israel to be maintained for full trial.

Decline Of State Sovereignty: The Distinction Between Sovereign & Commercial Acts 

By the so-called “Tate Letter”, the United States confers immunity on foreign States only for their public and governmental acts, but not their commercial activities. It is worth observing that the commission of a war crime or genocide or crime against humanity can never be a sovereign or governmental act.

This preference for restrictive State immunity was given statutory effect in the United States by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

The United Kingdomcame later in 1976 in adopting the restrictive immunity approach. That occurred in the case of The Philippine Admiral [41] where the Privy Council held that in cases where a State-owned merchant ship involved in ordinary trade was the object of a writ, it would not be entitled to sovereign immunity and the litigation would proceed.

In 1978 the State Immunity Act of 1978, adopting a restrictive approach, was enacted by the

United Kingdom. Since then, these two legislations have been served as a model for the national legislations of other countries including Australia, Canada, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa and Malaysia.

The Tribunal find it rather mind-boggling when some courts can consider commercial disputes as a reason for not allowing a State to be shielded by the State Immunity principle and yet strenuously protect such a State in cases of genocide or other war crimes. Human lives cannot be less important than financial gain!

Other Inroads Into The Concept Of State Sovereignty 

There have been other inroads into the domain of the State Immunity principle including the following:

• In 1972, the European Convention on State Immunity 1972was executed. That became the first attempt to establish an international legal regime for State immunity on the basis of the restrictive doctrine. It is already in force amongst the signatory States.
• In 2004, the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Propertywas adopted by the General Assembly but this has yet to come into force[42].
• And not too long ago, both the United States and Canada enacted legislation to permit their respective citizens or permanent residents to institute proceedings against States which harbour terrorists.
• In the law of the European Union, member States, can be subjected to hefty fines for violations of EU law. The consent or non-consent of the State is irrelevant. It is the State and not individual state actors who are defendants in EU courts. The subjection of the State to the jurisdiction of the EU courts flows automatically from membership of the EU.
• In a jurisprudential, Hohfeldian analysis, the concepts of legal right and legal duty are co-relatives of each other. If a state has legal duties under international law, then someone must have a corresponding legal right against the State. Defence counsel confirmed for us that the State of Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention. It has never repudiated the Convention. In fact it has its own law on Genocide that it enacted to conduct genocide trials in Israel like the one in the Eichmann We hold that Israel’s voluntary subjection to the Genocide Convention imposes on it enforceable duties that it cannot repudiate by simply refusing to give consent to a proceeding against it on a charge of genocide.
• Like all other areas of law, international law is not static and is evolving to meet the felt necessities of the times. The Tribunal is conscious that the concept of state sovereignty is in decline. In the human rights era in which we are living, state sovereignty is a shield against foreign aggression. It cannot be used as a sword against one’s own nationals or the nationals of another territory. If a sitting head of a sovereign State like the President of Sudan (who personifies the State of Sudan) can be indicted for certain heinous crimes against international law, then it does not make sense to submit that a sovereign state can never be held accountable in international courts without its consent. This will not be in line with modern developments in international law. Witness for example the opinion in the Bosniacase which the Tribunal referred to earlier.
• It was submitted to us that the rationale for excluding the State from prosecution and instead directing the Prosecution at natural persons is that if a State is visited with a verdict of ‘guilty’ that verdict would be onerous to the entire, innocent population of the State. Touching though this argument is, it is not consistent with a large body of international law e.g. the Charter of the United Nations where measures are prescribed which would amount to collective punishment of the entire population. Under Article 41 the Security Council may authorise complete or partial interruption of economic relations. Embargoes that may devastate innocent lives may be imposed. Under Articles 42 and 44, war measures including the use of force may be employed against a nation. Under Article 5, membership of a nation to the General Assembly can be suspended. Under Article 6, a member can be expelled.

A system of law must have coherence. Its different parts must, in the words of the great jurist Ronald Dworkin, have a “fit”. The idea of absolute State immunity from prosecution for grave crimes like genocide appears inconsistent with other wholesome developments in international law. Absolute state immunity is an antiquated doctrine and given the choice between precedents, this Tribunal is inclined to break free of the icy grip of this past dogma.

All these go to show that concerted efforts are taking place on the international scene to move towards a less restrictive State Immunity doctrine. In the words of Lord Denning:

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is based on international law. It is one of the rules of international law that a sovereign state should not be impleaded in the Courts of another sovereign state against its will. Like all rules of international law, this rule is said to arise out of the consensus of the civilised nations of the world. All nations agree upon it. So it is part of the law of nations.

To my mind [so Denning continued], this notion of a consensus is a fiction. The nations are not in the least agreed upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Courts of every country differ in their application of it. Some grant absolute immunity. Others grant limited immunity, with each defining the limits differently. There is no consensus whatever. Yet this does not mean that there is no rule of international law upon the subject.

It only means that we differ as to what that rule is. Each country delimits for itself the bounds of sovereign immunity. Each creates for itself the exceptions from it. It is, I think, for the Courts of this country to define the rule as best they can, seeking guidance from the decisions of the Courts of other countries, from the jurists who have studied the problem, from treaties and conventions and, above all, defining the rule in terms which are consonant with justice rather than adverse to it[43].

Inequitable Enforcement of International Law

Another reason why the Tribunal wishes to reject the doctrine of absolute state immunity from prosecution in matters of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is that the existing international law on war and peace and humanitarianism is being enforced in a grossly inequitable manner. Small, weak nations, mostly in Africa and Asia, are periodically subjected to devastating sanctions, military interventions and regime changes. At the same time, unbearable atrocities and brutalities that are inflicted on the militarily weak nations of Latin America, Africa and Asia by powerful nations in the North Atlantic and their allies go unscrutinised and unpunished.

We take note that the Israeli perpetrators of Sabra and Shatila were never punished and instead rewarded. We took note of the Jerusalem Poststory of Nov. 22, 2013. On January 4, 2009, 100 members of the al-Samouni family huddled inside a house. In the morning mist, an Israeli airstrike killed 21 people inside. Yet last week the Military Advocate General of the IDF informed B’Tselem (human rights group in Israel) that he had decided to close the investigation into this incident without taking any measures.

In the light of this reality that horrendous wrongs go unpunished and instead the victim is demonised and brutalised, we feel that it is time for the legal world to bring some juristic balance to our exposition of state immunity and international rights and wrongs and to expose the truth. This is what the Charter requires us to do.

What Amounts To Genocide? 

Simply put, genocide means any designated acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. The definition of genocide as given in Article 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute is taken verbatim from Articles 2 & 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which states that the following acts may by themselves or cumulatively constitute the international crime of genocide:

1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

No significant evidence was introduced by the Prosecution Team in relation to acts (d) & (e) above, but we heard 11 witnesses and examined thousands of pages of documents relating to acts (a)-(c). The Prosecution repeatedly used the words “ethnic cleansing” and the tribunal regards ethnic cleansing as part of acts (a) to (c) above.

Actus Reus

The central issue before us was whether genocidal acts took place contrary to Article 2 of the Convention (Part 1, Article 10 of the Charter).

The Tribunal heard 11 witnesses and examined documentary evidence that clearly indicated a long catalogue of incredible crimes conceived as long ago as 1945 and continuing till the present. What is significant is that these are not isolated acts in the heat of the moment but repeated pattern of atrocities committed against the inhabitants of Palestine.

• Forcible expulsion of more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes.
• Massacres of those who refused to abandon the land of their birth.
• Repeated, periodic and massive killings through air and naval strikes using the most sophisticated weaponry over the last 65 years.
• Brutal assaults on many refugee camps as for example in Sabra and Shatila. Israel’s military action in Sabra and Shatila was condemned by no other than the 1983 Israeli Kahan Report. The report found Brigadier General Yaron to be complicit in the atrocities and massacres committed by the Lebanese Phalangists. As Brigadier General Yaron was a commanding officer of the Israeli Armed Force, his culpability has to be attributed to the State of Israel. The IDF sealed the camps and prevented any Palestinians from leaving. It allowed the Phalangist militias to enter the camp and to commit mass murders. The Kahan Report notes (Prosecution document volume 3, page 291) that Brigadier General Yaron had no reservations about admitting the Phalangists into the camps; he testified that he was happy with his decision and explained his position in that “We have been fighting here for four months already, and there is a place where they can take part in the fighting, the fighting serves their purposes as well, so let them participate and not let the IDF do everything”. Credible witnesses testified to us that women and children were shot in their homes; pregnant mothers were killed and their babies extruded from the womb. Among the witnesses the Tribunal heard was the internationally respected medical doctor, Dr. Ang Swee Chai who testified to the magnitude of the atrocities and the fatalities that she witnessed first hand.
• Periodic seizure of Palestinian lands and farms and conversion of them into Israeli settlements.
• Building of a 190km long wall/fence which has been condemned by the ICJ (but whose construction has been rationalised by 2 Israeli Supreme Court decisions).
• Apartheid like conditions of affluence in the illegal settlements and extreme depravation in the Palestinian ghettos. Some roads are for the Jewish population only.
• Use of white phosphorus which tears out the insides of human bodies on the civilian population.
• Detention without trial and ill treatment of prisoners.
• Torture.
• Denial of adequate food, stealing of water resources, supply of inadequate quantum of water, and building materials.
• Land and sea blockades of Palestinian areas, especially in Gaza.
• Use of excessive force on Palestinian combatants armed with crude weapons and in some cases against children throwing stones.
• Siege and imprisonment of an entire nation.
• Daily humiliations at hundreds of checkpoints on Palestinian territory and impossible conditions of life.

The Tribunal heard moving testimony from credible witnesses that what has happened to them has happened to thousands of their brethren.

The Tribunal also took note that many of the above atrocities committed by Israel over the last 67 years were, now and then, condemned by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly and other international organisations.

Chief Counsel for the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team presented to us an ingenious argument that there is no genocide in Palestine because the population of the Palestinians is continuing to grow. Unless there is a significant decrease in population, there can be no genocide he asserted. The Tribunal finds this submission totally insensitive and inhuman. It is internationally documented that nearly 700,000 Palestinians were driven from their home to lead nomadic and deprived lives in neighbouring lands where they are not generally welcomed. The fact that the remaining population of Palestine after the ethnic cleansing in the mid 1940s continues to show modest growth has not disproved the existence of periodic killings, humiliation, and dehumanisation.

In determining whether genocide has been committed, one cannot play a game of numbers. Even if one person is killed on account of his race, ethnicity or religion with intention to kill others for the same reason, that is genocide.

It is impossible for the members of the Tribunal to disregard clear cut evidence of brutalisation, demonisation and dehumanisation of an entire population. It is incredible that in an age of human rights, such atrocities can continue to rage for more than 6 decades and that there are people in nations who trivialise such inhumanity. The Tribunal unanimously holds that the acts committed against the Palestinians amount to genocide over the last 67 years.

The Tribunal must however clarify that it takes note of the violations of international humanitarian law by some members of the Palestinian community. Their prosecution and guilt is a separate matter.

Was There Mens Rea?

As the Tribunal has stated earlier, the Tribunal heard 11 witnesses and examined documentary evidence that clearly indicated a long catalogue of incredible crimes conceived as long ago as 1945 and continuing till the present. What is significant is that these are not isolated acts in the heat of the moment but repeated pattern of atrocities committed against the dispossessed inhabitants of Palestine.

What is also significant is that the above culpable acts are systematically directed against the same group and by the same offender over the last 67 years. The scale of atrocities committed and their general nature indicate a clear genocidal intention.

Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated that the specific intent of the crime of genocide “… may be inferred from a number of facts such as the general political doctrine which gave rise to the acts possibly covered by the definition in Article IV or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts”. The Tribunal accepts evidence from various internationally respected social scientists among them Prof Ilan Pappe and John Pilger and Prof Noam Chomsky that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is a world historic tragedy that is the result of deliberate State policies of succeeding governments of Israel since 1948.

The Tribunal wishes to state that the test that it employed in determining guilt was the test of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Was it a case of Self-Defence?

The Tribunal heard significant evidence from the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team that Israeli actions of bombing, killing, maiming, other military interventions, curfews, checkpoints and “apartheid walls” were in response to continuous Palestinian terrorism.

The Tribunal agrees that there is cogent evidence of Palestinian resistance to Israeli presence, incidences of suicide bombing, and firing of crude rockets into Israeli territory by Palestinian fighters. However it is our finding that much of the Palestinian generated violence is not on Israel’s own territory, but from and on Israeli occupied Palestinian land. Much of the violence perpetrated by Palestinians is a reaction to the brutalities of the vicious racism, brutalities and genocide that is a tragic feature of Palestinian life.

Much as we condemn violence and pray for peace, it must be stated that no power on earth can douse the flame of freedom from the human spirit. As long as there is suppression, there will always be people prepared to die on their feet than to live on their knees.

We also hold that the force employed by IDF is excessive, totally disproportionate and a violation of international humanitarian law. The methods used are unspeakably inhumane and amount to war crimes.

We unanimously find the State of Israel guilty as charged.

9. Verdict

After considering the evidence adduced by the Prosecution and submissions by both the Prosecution and the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team on behalf of the two Defendants, the Tribunal is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the First Defendant, Amos Yaron, is guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide and the Second Defendant, the State of Israel is guilty of Genocide.

10. Orders

10.1   The Tribunal orders that reparations commensurate with the irreparable harm and injury, pain and suffering undergone by the Complainant War Crime Victims be paid to them. While it is constantly mindful of its stature as merely a tribunal of conscience with no real power of enforcement, this Tribunal finds that the witnesses in this case are entitled ex justitiato the payment of reparations by the two convicted parties. It is the Tribunal’s hope that armed with the Findings of this Tribunal, the witnesses (victims in this case) will, in the near future, find a state or an international judicial entity able and willing to exercise jurisdiction and to enforce the verdict of this Tribunal against the two convicted parties. The Tribunal’s award of reparations shall be submitted to the War Crimes Commission to facilitate the determination and collection of reparations by the Complainant War Crime Victims.

10.2   International Criminal Court and the United Nations, Security Council– As a tribunal of conscience, the Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. We have no power of enforcement. What we can do, under Article 34 of Chapter VIII of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, WHICH WE HEREBY DO, to submit this finding of conviction by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.

10.3   Commission’s Register of War Criminals – Further, under Article 35 of the same Chapter, this Tribunal recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of the two convicted parties herein be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and be publicised accordingly.

10.4   The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions.

10.5   The Tribunal deplores the failure of international institutions to punish the State of Israel for its crimes and its total lack of respect of International Law and the institutions of the United Nations. It urges the Commission to use all means to publicise this judgement and in particular with respect to the Parliaments and Legislative Assemblies of the major powers such as members of the G8 and to urge these countries to intervene and put an end to the colonialist and racist policies of the State of Israel and its supporters.

11. Conclusion

Having delivered its verdict and consequential orders, this Tribunal wishes to place on record its deep appreciation to both the Prosecution and the Amicus Curiae-Defence Teams for their efforts in ensuring that this resumed Hearing was able to be conducted in the best tradition of any Bar.

The Tribunal commends Co-Prosecutors Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar and Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman and the other members of their team for their thorough preparation of their case.

The Tribunal also commends every single member of the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for accepting their difficult assignment as friends of the court and for giving their all beyond their call of duty in the name of justice and fair play for their absent Defendants. Mr Jason Kay, Ms. Larissa Jane Cadd and Dr. Matthew Witbrodt, all of whom had addressed the Tribunal during the Hearing, meticulously presented the case for the Defendants with extraordinary fidelity even though none of them had met or had been instructed by the Defendants.

Finally, the Tribunal extends its thanks to members of the Malaysian public and other benefactors who had generously contributed to the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War in financing the holding of this adjourned Hearing.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

[1] The Kahan Report, Ariel Charon and the Sabra and Shatila Massacres in Lebanon : Responsablity Under International Criminal Law for Massacres of Civilian Populations, Linda A Malone, Utah Law Review, 373, herein after Malone

[2] Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, herein after the Kahan Report. February 8, 1983, p.2

[3] Kahan Report. p. 16, Malone p. 402.

[4] Malone p. 381, Kahan Report p. 7.

[5] Malone p. 372, Kahan Report. P. 7

[6] Malone p. 382-383, Kahan Report p. 8

[7] Malone p. 383, Kahan Report. P. 12

[8] Malone p. 386

[9] Malone p. 432

[10] Malone pp. 387-388

[11] The Sabra and Shatila Massacre : Eye-Witness Reports, Leila Shahid, Journal of Palestinian studies.Vol 32.     No. 1. p. 36 at p. 43

[12] cited in Shahid at p. 43

[13] Shahid. P. 44

[14] Malone p. 388

[15] Kahan Commission p. 81.

[16] Malone p. 392

[17] Malone page 384-385

[18] Malone page 384-385

[19] Malone pa. 385, fn 52

[20] Shahid, p. 44

[21] Shahid, pp. 40-41

[22] KLWCT Charter article 2, subsection (i)

[23] As adopted in Article 10 of the KLWCT Charter.

[24] Akayesu Trial Judgement, ICTR, para 560

[25] Krstic, ICTY, Appellate Judgment, 19 April 2004, para. 41

[26] Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I.C. J. Decision of 26 February 2007 para. 179

[27] Prosecutor V. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač and Zoran Vuković, Case No. It-96-23& It-96-23/1-A, Judgement, 12 June 2002

[28] Blockburger vUnited States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1931) (“The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.”).

[29] ^elebi}iAppeal Judgement, paras 412-13. Hereinafter referred to as the ^elebići test.

[30] Bagosora and Nsengiyumva ICTR, Appeal Judgement, para. 394; Rukundo Appeal Judgement, para. 185, citing Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516.

[31] Bagosora and Nsengiyumva ICTR Appeal Judgement, para. 394; Rukundo Appeal Judgement, para. 185, citingNtakirutimana Appeal Judgement, para. 516.

[32] Brđanin Appeal Judgement, ICTY para. 476; StakićAppeal Judgement, paras. 259-260; GacumbitsiAppeal Judgement, para. 86; NtakirutimanaAppeal Judgement, para. 522.

[33] The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116, 136 (1812);

[34] Mighell v. Sultan of Johore(1894), 1Q149;

[35] The Porto Alexandre Case(1920);

[36] Duff Development Co. v. Kelantan Government924] A. C. 797

[37] The Cristina Case(1938) AC 485

[38] Commonwealth Of Australia V Midford (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Anor [1990] 1 MLJ 475

[39] http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/16883.pdf

[40] M. Bassiouni, ‘International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes’(1996) Law and Contemporary Problems 58(4), p.68

[41] [1976] 2 WLR 214

[42] The Convention was open for signature by all States until 17 January 2007 and would have entered into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. As of 7 May 2013, there are 28 signatories to the Convention and 13 instruments of ratification have been deposited. (According to its Article 30, the Convention requires 30 state parties in order to come into force.)

[43] Trendtex Trading Corporation Ltd v. Central Bank of Nigeria,(at p. 888)