Global Research

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dozens of medical experts issued a warning this month about COVID-19 vaccines, slamming the jabs as “unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe” and likely to lead to “foreseeable mass deaths.”  

“In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe,” Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics said in an open letter two weeks ago. “Actors authorizing, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks.”

Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics, a group founded by Dr. Stephen Frost counts more than 160 medical experts from around the world among its signatories. Among its members are Dr. Mike Yeadon, Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi MD, former chair of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Germany and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former head of the health committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The doctors have penned multiple letters to the European Medicines Agency on COVID-19 vaccine issues and are facing censorship, though their most recent letter can be found archived here. The group also can be found on Twitter. Their testimony reflects growing calls from experts, like Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay and Dr. Peter McCullough, to halt the jabs.

‘The tip of a huge iceberg’

In their letter earlier this month, Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics emphasized serious health implications of the vaccines for both the healthy and ill, saying that the shots “are not safe, either for recipients or for those who use them or authorize their use.”

They pointed to risks of “lethal and non-lethal disruptions of blood clotting including bleeding disorders, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack,” “antibody-dependent enhancement of disease,” autoimmune reactions, and potential effects of “vaccine impurities due to rushed manufacturing and unregulated production standards.”

“Contrary to claims that blood disorders post-vaccination are ‘rare’, many common vaccine side effects (headaches, nausea, vomiting and hematoma-like ‘rashes’ over the body) may indicate thrombosis and other severe abnormalities,” the experts said. “Clotting events currently receiving media attention are likely just the ‘tip of a huge iceberg.’”

“Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure,” Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics added. “Over time, whether months or years, this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom without vaccination COVID-19 poses no substantive risk,” they argued.

“Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders, based on their molecular mechanisms of action,” they said. “Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world.”

“Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates. Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes,” the doctors said. “These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients.”

“Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19,” they continued.

The group stressed that the jabs remain technically experimental – a fact that legally precludes mandatory vaccination in many cases:

“The vaccines are experimental by definition. They will remain in Phase 3 trials until 2023. Recipients are human subjects entitled to free informed consent under Nuremberg and other protections, including the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s resolution 2361 and the FDA’s terms of emergency use authorization.”

‘Full onslaught of the immune system’

Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics particularly warned about vaccines, like those produced by Pfizer and Moderna, that rely on the novel mRNA vaccination method.

“Initial experience might suggest that the adenovirus-derived vaccines (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson) cause graver adverse effects than the mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) vaccines. However, upon repeated injection, the former will soon induce antibodies against the proteins of the adenovirus vector,” according to the doctors. “These antibodies will then neutralize most of the vaccine virus particles and cause their disposal before they can infect any cells, thereby limiting the intensity of tissue damage.”

“In contrast, in the mRNA vaccines, there is no protein antigen for the antibodies to recognize. Thus, regardless of the existing degree of immunity, the vaccine mRNA is going to reach its target — the body cells,” they said. “These will then express the spike protein and subsequently suffer the full onslaught of the immune system. With the mRNA vaccines, the risk of severe adverse events is virtually guaranteed to increase with every successive injection.”

“Their apparent preferment over the latter is concerning in the highest degree.”

Unnecessary vaccines, ‘no medium-term or long-term data’

“In most countries, most people will now have immunity to SARS-CoV-2,” the experts additionally noted, pointing out that coronavirus has an estimated 99.8% survival rate globally. “Regardless of disease severity, they will now have sufficient immunity to be protected from severe disease in the event of renewed exposure. This majority of the population will not benefit at all from being vaccinated.”

For those at risk of severe infection, the virus remains treatable, Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics said. “A convergence of evidence indicates that early treatment with existing drugs reduces hospitalization and mortality by ~85% and 75%, respectively,” they explained, highlighting “many tried and true anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and anticoagulant medications, as well as monoclonal antibodies, zinc, and vitamins C and D.”

“Natural T-Cell immunity provides stronger and more comprehensive protection against all SARS-CoV-2 strains than vaccines, because naturally primed immunity recognizes multiple virus epitopes and costimulatory signals, not merely a single (spike) protein,” they continued.

The doctors’ letter also debunked claims that vaccination is necessary to prevent viral spread through asymptomatic infection.

“The vaccines have been touted as a means to prevent asymptomatic infection, and by extension ‘asymptomatic transmission,’” Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics said. “However, ‘asymptomatic transmission’ is an artefact of invalid and unreliable PCR test procedures and interpretations, leading to high false-positive rates. Evidence indicates that PCR-positive, asymptomatic people are healthy false-positives, not carriers.”

The group cited a Chinese study of nearly 10 million people, which found that asymptomatic COVID carriers virtually never transmit the virus. “In contrast, the papers cited by the Centre for Disease Control to justify claims of asymptomatic transmission are based on hypothetical models, not empirical studies,” they said. “Plainly stated, vaccines are not necessary to prevent severe disease.”

The experts raised concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines effectiveness as well, stating that “no medium-term or long term longitudinal data” proves vaccine efficacy. They criticized the coronavirus vaccine trials, observing that the European Medicines Agency “has noted of the Comirnaty (Pfizer mRNA) vaccine that severe COVID-19 cases ‘were rare in the study, and statistically certain conclusion cannot be drawn from it.’”

“The risk-benefit calculus is therefore clear, the experimental vaccines are needless, ineffective and dangerous.” “[U]rging vaccination to ‘protect others’ therefore has no basis in fact,” their letter concluded, offering a sobering warning to those pushing the shots.

“Actors authorizing, coercing or administering experimental COVID-19 vaccination are exposing populations and patients to serious, unnecessary, and unjustified medical risks,” they said. “Vaccine manufacturers have exempted themselves from legal liability for adverse events for a reason. When vaccine deaths and harms occur, liability will fall to those responsible for the vaccines’ authorization, administration and/or coercion via vaccine passports, none of which can be justified on a sober, evidence-based risk-benefit analysis.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Dr Michael Yeadon, a former Pfizer vice president and co-founder of Doctors for COVID-19 Ethics (The Last American Vagabond / Odysee)

“What they need to do is they need to occupy the bases of the Canadian Armed Forces! They need to occupy the military hardware factories! They need to occupy their courts and stop the shipping of these weapons to apartheid Israel! Anything less than that will not actually cleanse them from the blood on their hands as Canadians!” 

– Laith Marouf, from this week’s interview

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

As of 2:00 am on May 21 by the Israel-Palestine hour this morning, or 7:00pm EDT on Thursday, the two sides of the disputing rivals had ceased hostilities – at least for the time being.[1]

By the standard account, the bitter eruption rose up on May 6 when Palestinians rose up in protest to a Supreme Court of Israel ruling on the matter of evicting six Palestinian families from their housing units in Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. This was followed the next day by Israeli police storming the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam and firing stun grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas at the worshippers in attendance.

Then on May 10, Hamas, the militant force governing over Gaza, wanted Israeli security forces removed from Sheikh Jarrah and the Temple Mount complex, location of the holiest site in Judaism which also housed Al-Aqsa Mosque. When Israel refused they fired rockets on targets in Israel. What followed was a campaign of airstrikes by Israel.

What followed was the most destructive period of violence in years.. [2]

The following clip recorded by Middle East Eye is just a sample of what the last two weeks were like:

“I don’t know what to do.”

A 10-year-old Palestinian girl breaks down while talking to MEE after Israeli air strikes destroyed her neighbour’s house, killing 8 children and 2 women#Gaza #Palestine #Israel pic.twitter.com/jnZx8wruaX

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) May 17, 2021

Regrettably, violence in the region tends to spring up from time to time. And absent being held to account for past crimes by the UN, Washington, or really anyone, Israel will most likely continue on setting up more shelters on occupied land, and besieging the beleaguered Gaza, and ignoring the human rights of their Palestinian neighbours frankly at levels well beyond the harsh treatment of Blacks in modern day America.

But something is a little different this time. Despite Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ technology taking out as many as 90 percent of rockets, some projectiles, cruise missiles no less, are punching through and hitting Israel stronger than ever. The Palestinians in Israel are themselves taking action in the streets, in businesses, and synagogues. And even in the United States, while the President continues to disappoint with his tepid remarks about the right of Israel to defend itself, sharp and popular critics in Congress such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are speaking out loudly against continuing to arm Israel despite its ongoing abuses against Palestinians.

Do these and other unique scenarios marking this 11 day period of terror mean things will be different now or in the long term? This is the question running through this Global Research News Hour and its sixty minute broadcast.

On the show in our first half hour, Richard Falk, professor emeritus of law at Princeton university talks to listeners highlighting some of the less talked about elements of the past month, including how it was incited by right wing settlers and during the Islamic holy period known as Ramadan. He also discussed attacks on media and the prospects for victory for Palestinians in the long term.

Following that, we hear from Richard Silverstein, a progressive blogger focused on the Israel-Palestine conflict. He will dwell on the growth in Hamas’ arsenal, the growth of Palestinian solidarity in Israel, and the potential ability of the International Criminal Court to wound Israel’s prospects.

Finally, Palestine activist and commentator Laith Marouf joins us again to dwell on the motives of the new Palestinian resistance, the prospects for the conflict to intensify, and the goals of Canadians wishing to show their solidarity with the damaged but determined victims of 73 years of Israeli confrontation.

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years and holds the title of professor emeritus. In 2008 he was also appointed by the UN to serve a six-year term as the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. He contributes regularly to Global Research.

Richard Silverstein is a political writer and commentator. Since 2003 he has authored the progressive Jewish blog Tikun Olam, which focuses on exposing the excesses of the Israeli national security state. He contributes regularly to Middle East Eye, and has contributed in the past to Truthout, Alternet, Haaretz, Mint Press News, Jewish Forward, Los Angeles Times, Comment Is Free and Al Jazeera English.

Laith Marouf is a long time multimedia consultant and producer and currently serves as Senior Consultant at the Community Media Advocacy Centre (www.cmacentre.org) and the coordinator of ICTV, in Canada (www.tele1.ca). Laith derives much of his understanding of Middle Eastern Affairs from his ancestral background of being both of Palestinian and of Syrian extraction. He is currently based in Beirut.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 317)

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. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time. 

Notes:

1. www.bbc.com/news/57200843
2. www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-idUSKCN2D12SV

First published on April 25, 2020

***

The most influential organization in the world with nominal responsibility for global health and epidemic issues is the United Nations’ World Health Organization, WHO, based in Geneva. What few know is the actual mechanisms of its political control, the shocking conflicts of interest, corruption and lack of transparency that permeate the agency that is supposed to be the impartial guide for getting through the current COVID-19 pandemic. The following is only part of what has come to public light.

Pandemic declaration?

On January 30 Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the UN World Health Organization declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern or PHIEC. This came two days after Tedros met with China President Xi Jinping in Beijing to discuss the dramatic rise in severe cases of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan and surrounding areas that had reached dramatic proportions. Announcing his emergency PHIEC declaration, Tedros praised the Chinese quarantine measures, measures highly controversial in public health and never before in modern times attempted with entire cities, let alone countries. At the same time Tedros, curiously, criticized other countries who were moving to block flights to China to contain the strange new disease, leading to charges he was unduly defending China.

The first three cases in Wuhan were reported, officially, on December 27, 2019, a full month earlier. The cases were all diagnosed with pneumonia from a “novel” or new form of SARS Coronavirus. Important to note is that the largest movement of people in the year, China’s Lunar New Year and Spring Festival, during which some 400 million citizens move throughout the land to join families went from January 17 through February 8. On January 23, at 2am two days before start of actual New Year festivities, Wuhan authorities declared an unprecedented lockdown of the entire city of 11 million as of 10am that day. By then, hundreds of thousands if not several million residents had fled in panic to avoid the quarantine.

By the time the WHO declared its Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January, precious weeks had been lost to contain the disease. Yet Tedros effusively praised the “unprecedented” Chinese measures and criticized other countries for placing “stigma” on Chinese by cutting travel.

In reference to the Wuhan COVID-19 spread and why WHO did not call it a pandemic, the WHO spokesman, Tarik Jasarevic, stated “There is no official category (for a pandemic)…WHO does not use the old system of 6 phases — that ranged from phase 1 (no reports of animal influenza causing human infections) to phase 6 (a pandemic) — that some people may be familiar with from H1N1 in 2009.”

Then, in an about-face, on March 11, Tedros Adhanom announced for the first time that WHO was calling the novel coronavirus illness, now renamed COVID-19, a “global pandemic.” At that point WHO said there were more than 118,000 cases of COVID-19 in 114 countries, with 4,291 deaths.

2009 WHO H1N1 Swine Flu Fake Pandemic

Since an earlier WHO fiasco and scandal in 2009 over its declaration of a global pandemic around the “swine flu” or H1N1 as it was termed, the WHO decided to drop using the term pandemic. The reason is indicative of the corruption endemic to the WHO institution.

Just weeks before first reports in 2009 of a young Mexican child being infected with a novel H1N1 “swine flu” virus in Veracruz, the WHO had quietly changed the traditional definition of pandemic. No longer was it necessary a reported disease be extremely widespread in many countries and extremely deadly or debilitating. It need only be widespread, like seasonal flu, should WHO “experts” want to declare pandemic. WHO H1N1 symptoms were the same as a bad cold.

When then-WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan officially declared a Phase 6 global Pandemic emergency, that triggered national emergency programs including billions of dollars of government purchases of alleged H1N1 vaccines. At the end of the 2009 flu season it turned out the deaths due to H1N1 were tiny relative to the normal seasonal flu. Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, was then chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic. The Netherlands Parliament as well discovered that Professor Albert Osterhaus of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the person at the center of the worldwide Swine Flu H1N1 Influenza A 2009 pandemic as the key advisor to WHO on influenza, was intimately positioned to personally profit from the billions of euros in vaccines allegedly aimed at H1N1.

Many of the other WHO scientific experts who advised Dr Chan to declare pandemic were receiving money directly or indirectly from Big Pharma including GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and other major vaccine-makers. The WHO Swine Flu Pandemic declaration was a fake. 2009-10 saw the mildest influenza worldwide since medicine began tracking it. The pharma giants took in billions in the process.

It was after the 2009 pandemic scandal that the WHO stopped using the 6 phase pandemic declaration and went to the totally vague and confusing “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.” But now, Tedros and WHO arbitrarily decided to reintroduce the term pandemic, admitting though that they are still in the midst of creating yet a new definition of the term. “Pandemic” triggers more fear than “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”

WHO’s SAGE Still Conflicted

Despite the huge 2009-10 conflict-of-interest scandals linking Big Pharma to WHO, today the WHO under Tedros has done little to clean out corruption and conflicts of interest.

The current WHO Scientific Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) is riddled with members who receive “financially significant” funds from either major vaccine makers, or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BGMF) or Wellcome Trust. In the latest posting by WHO of the 15 scientific members of SAGE, no fewer than 8 had declared interest, by law, of potential conflicts. In almost every case the significant financial funder of these 8 SAGE members included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck & Co. (MSD), Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (a Gates-funded vaccine group), BMGF Global Health Scientific Advisory Committee, Pfizer, Novovax, GSK, Novartis, Gilead, and other leading pharma vaccine players. So much for independent scientific objectivity at WHO.

Gates and WHO

The fact that many of the members of WHO’s SAGE have financial ties to the Gates Foundation is highly revealing, even if not surprising. Today the WHO is primarily financed not by UN member governments, but by what is called a “public-private partnership” in which private vaccine companies and the group of Bill Gates-sponsored entities dominate.

In the latest available financial report of WHO, for December 31, 2017, slightly more than half of the $2+ billion General Fund Budget of WHO was from private donors or external agencies such as World Bank or EU. Far the largest private or non-government funders of WHO are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation together with Gates-funded GAVI Vaccine Alliance, the Gates-initiated Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). Those three provided more than $474 million to WHO. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alone gave a whopping $324,654,317 to WHO. By comparison, the largest state donor to WHO, the US Government, gave $401 million to WHO.

Among other private donors we find the world’s leading vaccine and drug makers including Gilead Science (currently pressing to have its drug as treatment for COVID-19), GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-LaRoche, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck Sharp and Dohme Chibret and Bayer AG. The drug makers gave tens of millions of dollars to WHO in 2017. This private pro-vaccine industry support for the WHO agenda from the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma is more than a simple conflict of interest. It is a de facto high-jacking of the UN agency responsible for coordinating worldwide responses to epidemics and disease. Further, the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest at some $50 billion, invests its tax-exempt dollars in those same vaccine makers including Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline.

Against this background it should come as no surprise that Ethiopian politician, Tedros Adhanom, became head of WHO in 2017. Tedros is the first WHO director who is not a medical doctor despite his insistence on using Dr. as title. His is a doctor of philosophy in community health for “research investigating the effects of dams on the transmission of malaria in the Tigray region of Ethiopia.” Tedros, who was also Ethiopia Minister of Foreign Affairs until 2016, met Bill Gates when he was Ethiopian Health Minister and became Board Chair of the Gates-linked Global Fund Against HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.

Under Tedros, the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown. According to a recent report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in 2018 and 2019 under Tedros, the WHO Health Emergencies Program, the section responsible for the COVID-19 global response, was cited with the highest risk rating noting the “failure to adequately finance the program and emergency operations [risks] inadequate delivery of results at country level.” The ABC report further found that there has also been a “surge in internal corruption allegations across the whole of the organisation, with the detection of multiple schemes aimed at defrauding large sums of money from the international body.” Not very reassuring.

In early March Oxford University stopped using WHO data on COVID-19 because of repeated errors and inconsistencies the WHO refused to correct. The WHO test protocols for coronavirus tests have repeatedly been cited by various countries including Finland for flaws and false positives and other defects.

This is the WHO which we now trust to guide us through the worst health crisis of the past century.

*

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.

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 Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) today filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama requesting a temporary restraining order against the emergency use authorization (EUA) permitting using the COVID-19 vaccines in children under the age of 16, and that no further expansion of the EUAs to children under the age of 16 be granted prior to the resolution of these issues at trial.

The case will challenge the EUAs for the injections on several counts, based on the law and scientific evidence that the EUAs should never have been granted, the EUAs should be revoked immediately, the injections are dangerous biological agents that have the potential to cause substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease itself, and that numerous laws have been broken in the process of granting these EUAs and foisting these injections on the American people.

AFLDS Founder Dr. Simone Gold spoke about the reasons for filing the motion:

“We doctors are pro-vaccine, but this is not a vaccine,” she said. “This is an experimental biological agent whose harms are well-documented (although suppressed and censored) and growing rapidly, and we will not support using America’s children as guinea pigs.”

She continued:

“We insist that the EUA not be relinquished prematurely; certainly not before trials are complete – October 31, 2022 for Moderna and April 27, 2023 for Pfizer. We are shocked at the mere discussion of this, and will not be silent while Americans are used as guinea pigs for a virus with survivability of 99.8% globally and 99.97% under age 70.

“Under age 20 it is 99.997% – ‘statistical zero’.

“There are 104 children age 0-17 who died from COVID-19 and 287 from COVID + Influenza – out of ~72 million. This equals zero risk. And we doctors won’t stand for children being offered something they do not need and of whom some unknown percentage will suffer.”

AFLDS Pediatric Director Dr. Angie Farella explained:

“My greatest concerns with the vaccination of children under the age of 18 is the fact that there is no prior study of these individuals before December of 2020.”

She went on to say:

“Children were not included in the trials, and the adult trials do not have any long-term safety data currently available.”

AFLDS Legal Director Ali Shultz commented on AFLDS’ filing:

“Not many people could have taken this on. Dr. Simone Gold is a doctor, and a lawyer, and a fierce warrior who will stop at nothing to protect humanity.

“She has a certain finesse in developing the right team to see this medical/legal mission through.”

To read the motion and all supporting documents, click here.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Inga – stock.adobe.com

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

By hot and other means, Israeli war on Occupied Palestinians has been ongoing nonstop for 73 years.

Ebbing and flowing but never quitting, there’s no end of in prospect because of one-sided US/Western support for the worst of Israeli apartheid ruthlessness against long-suffering Palestinians their ruling regimes don’t give a damn about, never did, and won’t ahead without sustained intifada revolution for positive change unable to be achieved another way.

A permanent state of undeclared Israeli war exists like always before.

Halted Israeli aggression on Gaza and its people is temporary, never permanent. 

It’s just a matter of time before its war machine goes wild again against the Strip and its beleaguered people for whatever invented pretext its ruling regime uses to justify what’s unjustifiable.

At the same time, Israel terrorizes millions of Palestinians throughout the Territories daily — how the scourge of Zionist apartheid always operates without mercy.

Instead of upholding and enforcing the rule of law, the West, its partners, most other world community nations, and UN pay lip service alone to Palestinian rights and well-being. 

They’ve always been uncaring and dismissive toward long-suffering Palestinians under suffocating Israeli occupation.

They turn a blind eye to multiple daily incursions by Israeli soldiers and other security forces into Palestinian neighborhoods throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem — along with violent cross border raids into Gaza at Israel’s discretion.

Most often conducted pre-dawn, they burst into Palestinians homes violently, terrorizing families, traumatizing young children, arrests made solely for political reasons.

Thousands of Palestinian men, women, youths, and young children languish in Israel’s gulag as political prisoners – hundreds uncharged and untried for the “crime” of being Muslims on land Israel wants for exclusive Jewish use.

In stark contrast to how Jews are treated, a permanent state of undeclared war exists by Israel against millions of oppressed Palestinians — the world community doing nothing to challenge it.

At the same time, Israeli installed Palestinian puppet president/longstanding collaborator with the Jewish state Mahmoud Abbas acts as its enforcer against his own people.

Most PLO members are Israeli collaborators for special benefits afforded them.

Gazans have been illegally besieged for 14 years because the wrong party — Hamas — won the last democratically held Palestinian legislative election in January 2006.

Since that time, Israeli regimes banned free, fair, and open repeats of the 2006 process — with full support from the US-dominated West and partnered nations.

On Thursday, in response to a pause in Israeli war on Gaza —never a lasting halt to its aggression and state terror throughout the Territories — Biden’s impersonator delivered the following hollow remarks.

“…Palestinians and Israelis equally deserve to live safely and securely and enjoy equal measures of freedom, prosperity and democracy (sic).” 

“My (regime) will continue our quiet, relentless diplomacy toward that (sic).”

His regime blocked four Security Council statements for cessation of IDF terror-bombing and shelling of Gaza.

The White House also approved supplying Israel with $735 million worth of precision-guided missiles to continue mass-murdering Palestinian civilians.

Once again, the White House expressed full support for Israeli apartheid ruthlessness in less than so many words.

When US/Western officials express support for “Israel’s right to defend itself (sic),” it’s code language for OKing its aggression against Palestinians and neighboring states when preemptively attacking them.

Earlier on Thursday, White House press secretary Psaki said the Netanyahu regime “achieved significant military objectives” against besieged Gazans.

Saying it’s “in relation to protecting” Israelis ignored that the Jewish state’s only enemies are invented.

No real ones existed since the October 1973 Yom Kippur war.

So Israel, the US and West invent them to let their war machines run wild in defiance of peace, stability and the rule of law they abhor, ignore and consistently breach.

On Thursday, truth-telling Israeli journalist Amira Hass reported the following:

“Gaza’s destruction (by Israeli terror-bombing and shelling inflicted) an unbearable humanitarian and financial toll” on the Strip.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are needed rebuild what the Netanyahu regime destroyed or badly damaged, including housing for its residents, vital infrastructure, and restoration of terror-bombed medical facilities.

Because electrical power was destroyed or badly damaged, Gaza’s “three main desalination plants providing services for more than 400,000 people have suspended operations…”

“(M)ore than 100,000 cubic meters of untreated or partially treated wastewater are being discharged to the sea daily.” 

“In total, about 800,00 people now have no regular access to water,” Hass explained.

At least 75,000 Gazans were displaced and are now homeless or living in temporary accommodations because their residences were rendered “unfit for habitation” from terror-bombing.                                

To silence or obstruct truth-telling journalism about days of IDF aggression, the Netanyahu regime destroyed 33 media offices.

It also terror-bombed the Qatari Red Crescent office in Gaza, causing major damage to its facility.

At least 50 government-run schools were badly damaged.

So were six hospitals, 11 other medical centers, dozens of mosques, businesses, factories, government buildings, and Gaza’s agriculture sector.

It’ll take years and significant donor aid to rebuild and repair what Israeli terror-bombing destroyed or badly damaged.

Whatever is achieved won’t matter. 

It’s just a matter of time before Israel’s war machine rapes the Strip and its long-suffering people again.

It’s virtually guaranteed.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

How many Americans have died after taking the Covid vaccine?

How many Americans have died after taking the COVID vaccines? Not Americans who’ve been killed by the virus, that’s a huge number, but how many Americans have died after getting the vaccines designed to prevent the virus? Do you know the answer to that question? Do you know anything about the downside? We know a lot about the upside of the vaccine. We’ve been completely in favor of vulnerable people taking vaccines.

But what about the potential risks? You’d think you would know more about that than you do. We talk about vaccines constantly, not just on this show, but in this country. Joe Biden was on TV yesterday talking about vaccines. He wants you to get one. Everyone in authority wants you to get one. In fact, you’ve probably already had your shot, and good for you. If you haven’t had your shot, you’re under enormous pressure to get your shot. You understand that soon you may not be able to fly on commercial airplanes or go to work at the office or send your children to school if you don’t have the shot. Meanwhile, the social pressure is enormous. Friends may have already informed you that you’re not welcome at their parties or weddings if you haven’t been vaccinated. There is a lot of pressure to comply. At some point, you probably will comply. It’s just too difficult not be to vaccinated in this country.

Click here to watch the video.

But before you make the appointment: do you know anything about the potential risks? Probably you don’t know much. We all assume the risks are negligible. Vaccines aren’t dangerous. That’s not a guess, we know that pretty conclusively from the official numbers. Every flu season, we give influenza shots to more than 160 million Americans. Every year, a relatively small number of people seem to die after getting those shots. To be precise, in 2019, that number was 203 people. The year before, it was 119. In 2017, a total of 85 people died from the flu shot.

Every death is tragic, but big picture, we don’t consider those numbers disqualifying. We keep giving flu shots, and very few people complain about it. So the question is how do those numbers compare to the death rate from the coronavirus vaccines now being distributed across the country? That’s worth knowing.

We checked today. Here’s the answer, which comes from the same set of government numbers that we just listed: Between late December of 2020, and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccines in the United States. Three thousand, three hundred and sixty-two — that’s an average of 30 people every day. So, what does that add up to? By the way, that reporting period ended on April 23. We don’t have numbers past that, we’re not quite up to date. But we can assume that another 360 people have died in the 12 days since. That is a total of 3,722 deaths. Almost four thousand people died after getting the COVID vaccines. The actual number is almost certainly much higher than that — perhaps vastly higher.

The data we just cited come from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System — VAERS — which is managed by the CDC and the FDA. VARES has received a lot of criticism over the years, some of it founded. Some critics have argued for a long time that VARES undercounts vaccine injuries. A report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 concluded that “fewer than one percent of vaccine adverse events are reported” by the VARES system. Fewer than one percent. So what is the real number of people who apparently have been killed or injured by the vaccine? Well, we don’t know that number. Nobody does, and we’re not going to speculate about it. But it’s clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal. It’s not even close to what we’ve seen in previous years with previous vaccines.

Most vaccines are not accused of killing large numbers of people. The Menveo vaccine, for example, is given to people around the world, often children, to prevent bacterial meningitis. In this country, only one person died from that vaccine in the entire period between 2010 and 2015. One. So, compare that to what’s happening now. In just the first four months of this year, the U.S. government has recorded more deaths after COVID vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the United States between mid-1997 and the end of 2013. That’s a period of fifteen and a half years. Again, more people, according to VAERS, have died after getting the shot in four months during a single vaccination campaign than from all other vaccines combined over more than a decade and a half. Chart that out. It’s a stunning picture. Now, the debate is over what it means. Again, there’s a lot of criticism of the reporting system. Some people say “well, it’s just a coincidence that someone gets the shot and then dies, possibly from other causes.” No one really knows, is the truth. We spoke to one physician today who actively treats COVID patients. He described what we’re seeing now as the single deadliest mass-vaccination event in modern history. Whatever is causing it, it is happening as we speak. So you’d think someone in authority might want to know what’s going on.

If the vaccine injury reporting system is flawed — and it clearly is flawed — why hasn’t it been fixed? And more to the point, why has there not been an independent vaccine safety board to assess what’s happening. And reassure people who stumble across official government numbers on the internet. But amazingly, none of that has been done. No one even mentions the numbers. And in fact, you’re not allowed to. You’ll be pulled off the internet if you do. The people in charge do not acknowledge them. Instead, they warn us about what might happen if we don’t take the vaccine.

“People who are not fully vaccinated can still die every day from COVID -19,” Biden said. As a factual matter, that is true. But it’s also misleading. Not all Americans are at a similar risk of dying from COVID-19. Some are at relatively high risk: the old and the sick. They might want to get vaccinated, and most do. Some are at very low risk of dying: the young and the healthy. Others appear to be at essentially no risk at all: anyone who’s had COVID and recovered. Virtually all of those people are immune. That’s true for many viruses. Those second two categories — the young and healthy, and the previously infected — may add up to hundreds of millions of people in this country. The funny thing is, the White House – the official policy-makers who are designing the vaccine rollout – do not acknowledge that those categories even exist.

Health Authorities are pretending that everyone’s health and risk potential is exactly the same as everyone else’s. That’s why Joe Biden has demanded that 70 percent of all American adults — regardless of age, regardless of health condition, regardless of pre-existing antibodies — get the COVID shot by the Fourth of July two months from now, or else.

This might be an acceptable policy – it would never be an ethical policy – but it might be acceptable to the country if COVID vaccines we could show conclusively came with no risk, and if we truly understood the long-term effects of those vaccines. But neither one of those things is true. We know that according to the government reporting system, thousands of people have died after getting the shot. That is true in this country, where it’s hotly debated when it’s talked about at all, but it’s also true in European countries, whose record-keeping is, if anything, more reliable than ours. Many thousands of other people appear to have been injured after getting the vaccine. VAERS records nearly 900 non-fatal heart attacks in people who just received the shot. 2,700 people reported unexplained chest pain. In all, the vaccine, according to the government reporting system, appears to have contributed to at least 8,000 hospitalizations.

Some of the side effects defy explanation. Researcher Alex Berenson has noted that coronavirus vaccines now account for almost one-third of all tinnitus reports in the VAERS database. That’s the ringing in your ears. The American Tinnitus Association says it’s received “many questions” on the link.

Researchers at Oxford and UCLA have begun tracking coronavirus vaccine side effects across eight separate countries. They found, that “Women aged 18 to 34 years had a higher rate of deep vein thrombosis than men of the same age.” They also found that heart attacks were “common” in people aged 85 and older who had taken the vaccine. They found serious potential side effects in some children, “anaphylaxis [and] appendicitis were more common in young people.”

Vaccines are complicated medicines, and as with any drug, it can take a long time to get it precisely right. The dosage, for example. And this is not the first time people have been hurt during a vaccination campaign. That is bound to happen. What’s different this time, and so striking, is the reaction to these numbers. Here’s a contrast for you: in 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated 45 million people with a vaccine for the swine flu. Fifty-three people reportedly died after getting that shot. The U.S. government immediately halted the vaccination program. Authorities decided it was too risky, it wasn’t worth it.

Contrast that with what is happening now. This time, our health authorities have reserved their energy for anyone who dares to question vaccines. LifeSiteNews, a nonprofit news organization, just found itself permanently banned from Facebook. Why? Because it reported government numbers from the VAERS database.

When Joe Rogan asked whether healthy young people ought to get the vaccine, the media treated him like a criminal.

Almost everything they said was a lie that obscured a very simple and potentially relevant question that he asked, which is: should healthy young people receive the vaccine? We’re not precisely sure what the risks are. It is a lie to say there are no risks. There are risks in everything, including in getting a vaccine. So why not rationally weigh the risk/reward ratio, as we do with every decision we make. For that, he was denounced as an anti-vaxxer kook. A danger to public safety.

One of the very few elected officials in the country who has said a word about any of this, who has asked the obvious questions, not attacking vaccines, wondering about their effects, is Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Last week, Johnson asked Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, why so many Americans seem to be dying after the shot.

Maybe there’s a good answer for that, Collins wouldn’t even acknowledge that was happening. Instead, Collins fretted if the population focused too much on the harm from vaccines, people might be hesitant to get them.

“I challenged his use of the term ‘Vaccine Hesitancy,’” Ron Johnson told us in a conversation today. “I told him that based on the VAERS deaths, and my conversations with people who have chosen not to get vaccinated, a better description would be: ‘People who are hesitant to be coerced into participating in the largest drug trial in history.’”

Exactly. There’s a reason many states have more vaccine doses than they can use. Some people just don’t want the vaccine. That’s their right. Period. Not all of them are crazy. Health decisions used to be considered personal choices. We didn’t ask about them. They were considered personal as recently as last fall. In September of 2020, at the height of the presidential campaign, a CNN reporter asked Kamala Harris whether she’d be willing to take the coronavirus vaccine once it became available.

“Well, I think that’s going to be an issue for all of us,” Harris responded. “I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump.” A month later, at the vice presidential debate, Harris was if anything more emphatic on the subject. “If Donald Trump tells us we should take” the vaccine, she declared, “I’m not going to take it.”

Kamala Harris has, of course, since changed her mind. She’s no longer skeptical of the vaccine, nor does she tolerate the skepticism of others. Instead, she’s an enthusiastic participant in COVID theater.

Just today, Harris and her husband made a point of kissing each other in front of photographers while wearing masks. They did this despite the fact they’re married, that they live together, that they were standing outside at the time and despite the fact that they both have been vaccinated.

It doesn’t make you laugh. It makes you nervous. Why are they talking to you that way? Why are they giving you the finger on TV? No matter how many fingers they give you, it doesn’t change what remains true for the country: If American citizens are going to be forced to take this vaccine or any other medicine, they have an absolute right to know what the effects of it might be. And they have an absolute right to ask that question. Without being silenced or censored or mocked or given the finger. No amount of happy talk or coercion or appeals to false patriotism can change that. Period.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Citizen Free Press

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Tucker Carlson warned Americans to first know the potential risks of coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines before making an appointment to get vaccinated.

“We know a lot about the upside of the vaccine. We’ve been completely in favor of vulnerable people taking vaccines,” Carlson said Wednesday, May 5, during his show at Fox News. “(But) do you know anything about the downside?”

Thousands of deaths linked to COVID-19 vaccine

He asked his viewers if they know how many Americans have died after taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

The short answer is 4,178. That’s according to the latest data posted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from reports received by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as of Monday, May 3. (Related: Global pattern of vaccine injury, death and deception haunts humanity.)

Carlson noted that VAERS, which is managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has received a lot of criticisms over the years because it tends to undercount vaccine injuries. He related that a report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2010 concluded that “less than one percent of vaccine adverse events are reported” by the VAERS.

So the total number of deaths after getting the COVID-19 vaccine is likely higher than 4,178. “Perhaps vastly higher,” Carlson said.

The Fox News pundit compared the reported figures to the other reported figures from other mass vaccination drives in the country. According to Carlson, more than 160 million Americans are getting influenza vaccines every flu season. He noted that “a relatively small number of people die after getting those shots.”

There were 203 deaths being linked to the influenza vaccine in 2019, 119 in 2018 and 85 in 2017. They may have also been undercounted by VAERS, but the difference compared to COVID-19 vaccine deaths is too wide to just simply ignore.

“It’s clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal. It’s not even close to what we’ve seen in previous years with previous vaccines,” Carlson said. “Most vaccines are not accused of killing large numbers of people.”

Carlson conceded that it’s hard not to get vaccinated in the U.S.

“We talk about vaccines constantly, not just on this show, but in this country. Joe Biden was on TV yesterday talking about vaccines. He wants you to get one. Everyone in authority wants you to get one,” he said.

There’s an enormous pressure to get vaccinated. Businesses are requiring their employees to get vaccinated before returning to work. Colleges and universities are mandating their students to get vaccinated if they want to study in person.

“If you haven’t had your shot, you’re under enormous pressure to get your shot. You understand that soon you may not be able to fly on commercial airplanes or go to work at the office or send your children to school if you don’t have the shot.”

Not everyone needs a COVID-19 vaccine

But not everyone needs a COVID-19 vaccine, according to Carlson.

“Not all Americans are at a similar risk of dying from COVID-19. Some are at relatively high risk: the old and the sick. They might want to get vaccinated, and most do. Some are at very low risk of dying: the young and the healthy. Others appear to be at essentially no risk at all: anyone who’s had COVID and recovered. Virtually all of those people are immune,” Carlson explained.

“Those last two categories – the young and healthy and the previously infected – may add up to hundreds of millions of people in this country.”

According to Carlson, the White House and the official policymakers who are designing the vaccine rollout do not acknowledge that those categories even exist. That’s why President Joe Biden wants 70 percent of all American adults – regardless of age, health condition and pre-existing antibodies – to get the COVID-19 vaccine by July 4.

Biden announced that goal on Tuesday, May 4, even as the pace of daily vaccinations slows – down to an average of 2.3 million reported vaccinations per day as of May 3 from a high of 3.4 million on April 13. The new vaccination target came exactly two months from Independence Day, a date the White House hopes will mark a turning point in the pandemic.

To administer tens of millions more vaccines in the next couple of months, Biden will direct thousands of local pharmacies to provide walk-in vaccinations to people without appointments. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will also support pop-up and mobile clinics.

The White House is also preparing to mobilize immediately if the FDA gives emergency use authorization to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for people aged 12 to 15. (Related: Fauci demands America use children as human guinea pigs for COVID vaccine experiments.)

“This might be acceptable if we could show conclusively that COVID-19 vaccines come with no risk, and if we truly understood the long-term effects of those vaccines,” Carlson said. “But neither one of those things is true.”

Carlson proceeded to mention some of the adverse events linked to COVID-19 vaccines.

Aside from the reported deaths, “many thousands of other people appear to have been injured after getting the vaccine,” Carlson said.

He noted that VAERS recorded nearly 900 non-fatal heart attacks in people who just received the vaccine while approximately 2,700 people reported unexplained chest pain. COVID-19 vaccines, according to VAERS, appeared to have contributed to at least 8,000 hospitalizations.

“If American citizens are going to be forced to take this vaccine or any other medicine, they have an absolute right to know what the effects of it might be. And they have an absolute right to ask that question – without being silenced or censored or mocked,” Carlson said.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com/NewsTarget.com

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

According to a report by credit rating and risk assessment company Moody’s Investors Service, more than half of U.S.-China trade flows are subject to tariffs. Much of the cost burden American businesses deal with is caused by Washington’s high tariffs against China. Because of this, U.S. importers have shouldered more than 90% of the cost incurred by Washington on Chinese goods.

During Donald Trump’s presidency, the U.S. waged a trade war with China. Initially, Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese products, citing the need to balance the trade deficit. Later, however, Washington used the tariff as a lever of pressure in many controversial economic and political issues. At the height of the trade war, virtually all Chinese exports to the U.S. were subject to tariffs of 10% to 25%.

Beijing cannot respond symmetrically to the U.S. tariff war because of the trade deficit. Instead, Beijing imposed retaliatory tariffs on key U.S. exports to China – primarily energy and agricultural products. According to Beijing, the imposition of retaliatory tariffs will make it difficult for American farmers, who traditionally vote for conservatives, to export more than half of their produce.

Ultimately, Trump agreed to repeal or cut some of the tariffs and in return China pledged to increase purchases of American agricultural and energy products. However, according to the Moody’s report, more than 60% of Chinese goods exported to the U.S. are still subject to increased tariffs. Although President Biden openly criticized the policies of the Trump administration, he has not ended confrontations with China in the areas of tariffs and technology.

Before the U.S.-China trade war, the average U.S. tariff on Chinese goods was 3.1%, while China’s tariff on U.S. goods stood at 8%. Today, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods are on average 19.3%, while Chinese tariffs imposed on U.S. goods are around 20.7%. In 2020, the U.S. trade deficit with China was $310 billion, but before the outbreak of the trade war the figure was $375.2 billion.

Much of the cost of the tariffs has been imposed against U.S. importers, Moody’s said. Currently, U.S. importers have to pay about 18.5% more for Chinese goods, while the revenue collected by Chinese exporters is only 1.5% more per product. This is because the U.S. cannot find an alternative to many of the Chinese goods subject to the tariffs.

The opposite is true in China as U.S. goods subject to tariffs are mainly raw materials and agricultural products that can be sourced from elsewhere, such as Brazil or Russia. The Moody’s report concluded that tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on China have harmed the U.S., especially as China easily found alternative sources.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis caused by it, Washington concluded a record-high stimulus package to support the economy. This saw dollar bills be printed into circulation. Such a policy can cause high inflation though, and for this reason U.S. authorities restrained price increases on essential commodities. However, tariffs on imported goods are another factor driving prices up. Ultimately, Washington will have to adjust its China policies to the new realities.

However, when it turns to high technologies, the U.S. still maintains an advantage over China, especially as the East Asian country is heavily dependent on the purchase of high-tech American goods. Last year, amid concerns about new U.S. restrictions, Chinese companies started hoarding chips, bringing the total amount of Chinese chip imports to $380 billion. Naturally, restrictions on access to American components and technology will create problems for the development of Chinese industry, but, American companies working with China will lose out. For example, Huawei alone buys components from U.S. companies totalling more than $10 billion a year. These funds can be spent on new Research and Development to increase the competitiveness of their own domestic products. Without these funds, American companies could eventually lose their competitive edge.

The U.S. Senate approved a program to invest $100 billion over five years to develop key technologies in which the U.S. competes with China. The money, as expected, is earmarked for basic research in the areas of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, chip manufacturing, biotechnology and new energy sources. Scepticism about the program remains though – after all, historically, all innovation in the U.S. has been primarily driven by private business and market principles. However, even assuming that the U.S. is using a Chinese solution to support the largest corporations in the country, the scale of this program is still not up to the task, especially when considering China plans to spend $1.4 trillion on the development of new infrastructure by 2025.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that may be even more useful against COVID-19 than hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). However, like HCQ, use of ivermectin has been globally suppressed, discouraged and even warned against, despite decades of safe use for other ailments

In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has been calling for widespread adoption of Ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19

What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as in the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary

A scientific review funded by the WHO found ivermectin reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. It also increased viral clearance. A meta-analysis of a greater number of studies found a 68% reduction in deaths

Despite robust scientific support for ivermectin, the WHO, the U.S. FDA and NIH all refuse to recommend the drug on grounds of insufficient evidence

*

When it comes to the treatment of COVID-19, many Western nations have been hobbled by the politicization of medicine. Throughout 2020, media and many public health experts warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), despite the fact that many practicing doctors were praising its ability to save patients. Most have been silenced through online censorship. Some even lost their jobs for the “sin” of publicly sharing their successes with the drug.

Another decades-old antiparasitic drug that may be even more useful than HCQ is ivermectin. Like HCQ, ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential drugs, but its benefits are also being ignored by public health officials and buried by mainstream media.

Ivermectin is a heartworm medication that has been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro.¹ In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has been calling for widespread adoption of Ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.^2,3

In the video above, Dr. John Campbell interviews Dr. Tess Lawrie about the drug and its use against COVID-19. Lawrie is a medical doctor and Ph.D. researcher who has done a lot of work in South Africa.

She’s also the director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.,⁴ which is based in the U.K., and she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel⁵ and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference, held April 24, 2021.

Ironically, as a consultant to the World Health Organization and many other public health organizations, her largest clients are the very ones who are now actively suppressing the use of this drug.

Ivermectin Useful in All Stages of COVID

What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary.

According to Dr. Surya Kant, a medical doctor in India who has written a white paper⁶ on ivermectin, the drug reduces replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by several thousand times.⁷ Kant’s paper led several Indian provinces to start using ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and as treatment for COVID-19 in the summer of 2020.⁸

In the video, Lawrie reviews the science behind her recommendation to use ivermectin. In summary:

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

England’s NHS vaccine passport has arrived, and with it the promise of a return to international travel unencumbered by swab tests or lengthy periods of quarantine. Most people will have received this news with excitement, but it’s my job to look closer at what’s going on behind the app. And what I found is troubling.

Instead of impact assessments that provide us with reassurance that risks have been responsibly mitigated, the vaccine passport has been released with a privacy notice that appears to contradict the caution and care the UK government has so far professed to be applying to this controversial technology.

Earlier in 2021, the government acknowledged that “deep and complex issues” around vaccine passports would need addressing before their release. Critics fearful of government data grabs and unfair applications of the technology were placated by the promise that serious limitations would be placed on the application of vaccine passports – ruling out their use in pubs and restaurants, for instance.

Yet that’s not what we see in the new app service’s privacy notice – which is, in its most generous interpretation, rather sloppy. The stated purpose for the vaccine passport is to make it an integral part of “unlocking” society – but that comes with serious surveillance and discrimination concerns.

Trying out the NHS app

On April 28, the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, made the casual announcement that the NHS App – not the NHS Covid-19 app – was going to be extended to function as a vaccine passport for international travel. This was my cue to install the app and try it out.

Logging in, I discovered the app already knew about my first COVID-19 vaccination, listed alongside all my prescriptions going back 15 years – not information I would normally choose to share at border control.

My app then updated itself on May 15. A new “Check your COVID-19 vaccine record” tab had appeared, showing my vaccination information on a screen by itself – a sensible update. There was also a web version of the service, with terms of use and a privacy policy that I found reassuring in many ways.

The vaccine passport function is an extension of the NHS app – not the NHS COVID-19 app. Thomas Holt/Shutterstock

But this was not the vaccine passport functionality, it has now turned out. The next app update, on May 18, added yet another tab: “Share your COVID-19 status”. Initially it adds “for travel”, but the new privacy notice that accompanies it tells a different story:

As the country resumes normal functions, this data will be useful for further aspects of unlocking as they arise.

International travel was merely an example of how the data would be used. Here lie significant problems that critics have been concerned about for some time. For one, the broader use of vaccine passports raises issues of discrimination between those who have and have not been offered vaccinations.

But using vaccine passports in scenarios other than international travel also necessarily increases surveillance, seeing as you’ll need to prove that the vaccine certificate on your phone truly belongs to you. When we travel internationally, we’re used to carrying a passport along with flight tickets and required vaccination certificates – but for events and social gatherings, we don’t expect to have to identify ourselves.

Concerning privacy policy

The latest privacy policy also contains a long and confusing list of personal data under “The Personal Data we collect and how it is used”, some of which look worryingly sensitive – such as ethnicity, vehicle registration plate, national insurance number, employer, biometric and genetic information and criminal convictions.

The list isn’t an exhaustive collection of all types of “special category data”, which receive extra legal protection due to their sensitivity, so until we receive clarification it’s unclear why such data are even listed. The NHS has expressed that it does not collect this list of data.

The service is designed as a simple and easy means to enable users to show their covid vaccine status for international travel. It does not collect data on national insurance numbers, car registrations, employer or occupation details or any such equivalent data.

— NHS (@NHSuk) May 19, 2021

It’s possible that this confusing list of data items is just copied from a previous privacy policy and pasted into this one – a practice apparently used for some sections of the UK’s Brexit agreement, as was revealed in December 2020. If this is the case, it would reveal a privacy-as-afterthought attitude that’s at odds with how widely used and far-reaching this app looks set to become.

There is reference to a data sharing agreement in the privacy policy, which could reveal the wider scope of the vaccine passport. This data sharing could also be related to the wide range of data stored in the “COVID data store”, run by the government’s digital health agency, NHSX.

Also concerning is the fact that the data governance of the vaccine passport itself is managed by the Department for Health and Social Care rather than being left with the NHS England data service. This puts a UK government department in charge of a service that works only for England – again, it’s unclear why this is the case.

All this leaves me with enough unease about the vaccine passport that I do not intend to sign up to it unless circumstances force me to use it for international travel, and I may still prefer the paper alternative in that case.

Possible reassurances

Is there anything NHSX could do to reassure me? Absolutely. A data protection impact assessment should be produced and published. This would tell us all about what data is actually used, including an explanation of why data collection is both necessary and proportional.

I’d be looking out for an assessment of the risk of “function creep”: the widening of the scope of use, which could see our tickets for international travel converted into something more sinister and concerning. It would also need to address general impacts to rights and freedoms, such as those related to equality.

Performing such an impact assessment is actually specifically legally required, and should already have been done. Publication is unfortunately not compulsory, but we still don’t know whether one was done at all.

For now, however, it appears that the UK government has definitively abandoned its previous cautious position on vaccine passports, without providing any reassurances that would enable broad public support.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Eerke Boiten is Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computer Science and Informatics, De Montfort University.

Featured image is from Viacheslav Lopatin/Shutterstock

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The public debate about the future of the US nuclear arsenal is largely a controversy about strategy. But the outcome also has major implications for dollars and cents. The United States plans to spend more than $1.5 trillion over the next several decades to sustain and upgrade its nuclear delivery systems, associated warheads, and supporting infrastructure. The biggest bills for this effort, which are slated to hit over the next 10 to 15 years, pose a growing threat to other military and security priorities amid what most experts believe will be flat defense budgets. The cost of ongoing programs to buy new fleets of ballistic missile submarines, long-range bombers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles has generated the most attention.

Meanwhile, the exploding price tag of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s long-term plan to sustain and modernize the nuclear warheads and production facilities—now an exorbitant $505 billion—flies under the radar.

Now more than ever it’s important to scrutinize the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is a semiautonomous agency of the Energy Department. Most of the agency’s budget goes to contractors, though their contract mismanagement has repeatedly landed them on the Government Accountability Office’s high-risk list. Some projects have significantly exceeded initial cost estimates—in one case nearly eight times more than the initial price tag. While cost breaches of this magnitude at the Defense Department would have triggered a review that might have cancelled the programs, the National Nuclear Security Administration was able to waste billions with no threat of closure.

The agency’s past failures to complete major projects on time and on budget raise questions about its ability to execute a workload that has grown to unprecedented post-Cold War heights. Since the end of the Obama administration, the National Nuclear Security Administration weapon-activity spending has grown by roughly 70 percent. Last year, the agency requested a multibillion-dollar boost while sitting on $8 billion in unspent funds from past years.

Against this backdrop, nuclear-weapon hawks in Congress successfully pushed through a consequential change last year that gave the Pentagon much greater influence over the development of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s budget. This power grab will not only make it harder to rein in increasingly out-of-control agency spending but put other Energy Department national security programs at greater risk. As Congress moves to write annual defense authorization and appropriations legislation this summer, lawmakers should take steps to undo the Pentagon’s expanded authority and institute reforms in an attempt to reign in wasteful spending at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Recent budget history of the National Nuclear Security Administration. This story begins in February 2020 when the Trump administration prepared its fiscal year 2021 budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration. It requested $15.6 billion for the nuclear-weapon activities account, a staggering increase of $3.1 billion, or 25 percent, from the fiscal year 2020 appropriations and $2.8 billion more than planned a year earlier. The dramatic increase was propelled in part by cost overruns in programs inherited by the Trump administration and the cost of the additional capabilities the administration proposed.

The budget request was reportedly a controversial issue within the Trump administration and was not resolved until days before its public release on February 10, 2020. When nuclear-weapon spending boosters in Congress, along with the National Nuclear Security Administration leadership and some Pentagon officials, worried an initial version of the budget request was too low, they successfully convinced then-President Donald Trump to increase it.

One of the agency’s chief advocates, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman James Inhofe (Republican from Oklahoma), alleged that the Energy Department cut the Nuclear Weapons Council out of the budget development process until the last minute. The Nuclear Weapons Council is a powerful Pentagon body that coordinates the Defense and Energy Departments’ nuclear-weapon-stockpile responsibilities. In response to the turmoil, then-chair of the council Ellen Lord issued new planning guidance to ensure that the council reviewed the budget earlier.

Problem solved, right? Apparently not.

Inhofe, with the support of then-committee ranking member Senator Jack Reed (a Democrat from Rhode Island), included provisions in the Senate version of fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act to alter the relationship between the Energy Department and the Pentagon. Most egregiously, the provision would have given the Nuclear Weapons Council (helmed by an undersecretary of defense) the power to overrule the energy secretary (a cabinet member) on the size and scope of the National Nuclear Security Administration budget.

Inhofe claimed the aim of the legislation was to ensure greater coordination between the Defense and Energy Departments and strengthen transparency to Congress. But a plain reading of the language suggests a far more sweeping intent than streamlining nuclear bureaucracy. Namely, the legislation removed obstacles to continued astronomical National Nuclear Security Administration budget growth, even if that growth would force other Energy Department national security programs to foot the bill. Indeed, the Trump administration proposed to cut the Energy Department’s program to clean up legacy nuclear waste from the Cold War arms race to pay for a last-minute, unplanned increase. The increase also required transferring money away from the Pentagon budget, notably the Navy’s shipbuilding account.

Inhofe’s gambit sparked a flurry of bipartisan opposition in the Senate and House. The final Senate version of the authorization bill excised the language giving the council the power to veto the energy secretary on the National Nuclear Security Administration budget. The lower chamber’s authorization bill included a provision that would expand the membership of the council, and its appropriations legislation sought to bar the council from expanding its budget role.

The final version of the authorization bill, however, retained much of the Senate language, and the House provisions were dropped from the final appropriations bills.

The National Nuclear Security Administration budget must now go to the Nuclear Weapons Council before it goes to the Office of Management and Budget. The energy secretary must note any potential disagreement of the council in the final budget submission. And if the council disagrees with the proposed submission, then the council’s preferred budget must be sent to Congress along with the actual request.

If executed as written, the new law effectively makes the Nuclear Weapons Council the decision authority for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s budget. As a result, the energy secretary and the Office of Management and Budget will have reduced leverage in the development of the budget. It will also make it difficult for the president to overrule the council without getting into a messy public spat with congressional nuclear hawks about why they are going against the advice of the Pentagon.

Contrary to Inhofe’s conspiratorial claims, the main problem in need of a solution isn’t that the Defense Department is being cut out of the development of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s nuclear modernization budget or that better coordination is needed. The central problem is that the agency’s nuclear modernization budget is skyrocketing.

The growth of the agency’s weapon-activity budget almost defies belief. Projected spending on nuclear-weapon activities has risen to $505 billion, according to the agency’s 25-year plan published last December. That represents a staggering increase of $113 billion from the 2020 version of the plan.

$113 billion. In one year.

This kind of stunning growth illustrates what critics of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s excessive plans have been warning about for years: low-balled cost estimates, an inexecutable program, damaging opportunity costs, and a significant agency credibility deficit. The mounting price tag and impracticality of the scope of and scheduled goals for many of the agency’s nuclear warhead and infrastructure replacement efforts merit far greater scrutiny than Congress has provided to date.

Needed now: National Nuclear Security Administration budget reform and oversight. The Nuclear Weapons Council does not need expanded authority. Quite the opposite in fact. The council includes the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Nuclear Security Administration administrator, the undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, the undersecretary of defense for policy, and the commander of US Strategic Command. Together, these individuals oversee one slice of the total national defense budget. An increasingly large slice to be sure. But just one slice.

The council focuses on ensuring that existing nuclear-weapon sustainment and modernization plans proceed full steam ahead. Assessment of affordability and especially opportunity costs is a lower priority. As Senators Lisa Murkowski (Republican from Arkansas) and Joe Manchin (Democrat from West Virginia) wrote last year, the Nuclear Weapons Council “has a narrower focus than the Secretary of Energy, and its recommendations would likely prioritize nuclear weapons at the expense of other critical missions undertaken by” the Energy Department.

If Congress allows Pentagon leaders to add their own spending priorities to other agencies’ budgets without any requirement to propose offsets, spending on nuclear weapons will likely go in only one direction: up.

Instead of giving the Pentagon more free rein, Congress should roll back the Nuclear Weapons Council’s expanded powers and seek greater oversight of how the body generates requirements for the arsenal and for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

As former agency administrator Frank Klotz noted last year, most of the voting seats on the council belong to the Pentagon, making it “just an invitation for the [Defense Department] to constantly grade the National Nuclear Security Administration’s homework without its homework being graded in a reciprocal sort of way.”

To address this problem, the deputy energy secretary and deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget should be added to the council as full voting members. (Current law only allows the Office of Management and Budget to participate in the council’s deliberations in an advisory capacity.) This would ensure a much-needed, greater focus on affordability and balancing nuclear-weapon spending against other national security priorities.

Given that the council’s actions also impact US arms control and nonproliferation strategy, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security and the deputy national security advisor should also be added to the council as advisors.

The National Nuclear Security Administration has a long history of mismanaging its significant resources. In response, Congress should offer reform and oversight, not a blank check to steal resources from other national security priorities.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kingston Reif is the director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, in Washington, DC, where his work focuses on nuclear disarmament, preventing nuclear terrorism, missile defense, and the defense budget. Follow him on Twittter: @KingstonAReif.

Mandy Smithberger is the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight, in Washington, DC, where her work focuses on Pentagon reform and the defense budget. You can follow her work @StrausReform.

---

“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
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
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” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

US foreign policy is increasingly promoted by billionaire funded foundations.  The neoliberal era has created individuals with incredible wealth and through “philanthropy”, they flex their influence and feel good at the same time. While these philanthropists can be liberal on some issues, they universally support U.S. foreign policy and the “free market”.  Because many of these super-rich individuals made their wealth through investments and speculation, most do not like a planned economy, socialized services beyond the private sector or greater government control.

These mega wealthy individuals, and the people who run their foundations, are often intricately connected to the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Grants are given to projects, campaigns and organizations which align with their long-term goals.  In this direct way, supposedly independent ThinkTanks and NGOs are influenced if not controlled.  There is much truth in the old saying, “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.”

Independent Nicaragua

Nicaragua is a good example.  For historical and contemporary reasons, Washington is hostile to the Nicaraguan government.  The Sandinista Front ousted the US supported dictator in 1979 and governed until 1990. Then, following a decade of US sponsored “Contra” war and economic sanctions, the Sandinistas were voted out of office. Next, after 16 years of neoliberal governments, the Nicaraguan people voted to return the Sandinistas to power in 2006. Since then, the Sandinista Front (FSLN) won the election with more support in 2011 and more again, 73%, in 2016.

Nicaragua has a capitalist economy, but the government provides many social services, including health care and education, along with community-based policing and an impressive 90% food self-sufficiency. Nicaragua maintains an independent foreign policy which sometimes aligns with Cuba, Venezuela and other independent movements in Latin America.

Nicaragua has made plans for a trans-oceanic canal.  Because this would compete with the Panama Canal and be independent of heavy U.S. influence, the United States does not approve. With the financial collapse of the canal’s Chinese investor, the plans have been suspended if not cancelled.  Regardless of whether the plan is implemented, the US foreign policy establishment and associated media is hostile to the Nicaraguan government for daring to plan this project.

US Targets Nicaragua

US meddling in Nicaragua is thinly veiled behind the US funded “civil society”, a “new generation of democratic leaders” and an “ecosystem of independent media”.  In September 2016, a high USAID official told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that 2,200 youth had received leadership training.

U.S. governmental hypocrisy is quite astounding.  Imagine if Nicaragua (or Russia or any other country) trained thousands of US activists to “promote democracy” in the USA.

In December 2018, the US ratified the “Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act” which imposes sanctions and commits the US to preventing Nicaragua receiving a loan, financial or technical assistance from US dominated financial institutions.

In August 2020, journalist Ben Norton at the Grayzone reported details of a new US AID “task order” called Responsive Assistance in Nicaragua (RAIN). The document “outlines plans for a US regime-change scheme against Nicaragua’s elected leftist government”.  In short, Washington is not just hostile but actively trying to undermine, destabilize and replace the Sandinista administration.

The Foreign Policy Establishment, Nicaragua and Elliott Abrams

A key institution of the foreign policy establishment is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  Its role and importance are analyzed in the book “Wall Street’s Thinktank”. CFR events and publications, including “Foreign Affairs” magazine, give a good picture of key foreign policy priorities and debates.

Hostility to the Nicaragua government is reflected in CFR reports and publications.

One important example is an article by Elliott Abrams. Abrams has been a major foreign policy official for forty years.  He was convicted of lying to Congress yet he is a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  In September 2015 he wrote an article published at CFR titled “The Sandinistas Attack the Miskito Indians – Again”.  He ends the article with an appeal to environmental or human rights groups:

“The open question is whether anyone – groups defending the environment, or defending Indian rights or human rights more generally, or fighting against Sandinista repression – will help them.”

Seemingly in response to Elliott Abrams’ suggestion, several major foundations have financed reporting on Nicaragua emphasizing conflict and tensions in the indigenous Miskitu zone.

In March 2017 a Guardian article funded by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation described “Lush Heartlands of Nicaragua’s Miskito people spark deadly land disputes”.

In the fall of 2018, the Oakland Institute received a grant of $237,294 for “Land Dispute Project – Nicaragua” from the Howard G Buffett Foundation.  This year Oakland Institute published “Nicaragua’s Failed Revolution.” The subtitle of the report is “The Indigenous Struggle for Saneamiento”, with “saneamiento” being the final step of the process toward regaining indigenous rights.

The funding for these reports came from foundations where the key players are interconnected with the foreign policy establishment. For example, Howard W. Buffett,  the former Executive Director at the Howard G Buffett Foundation, is a member of CFR.  Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), is a writer for CFR publications and speaker at CFR events.

We do not know if they were influenced by Elliott Abrams’ appeal, but the anti-Sandinista message was likely heard way or another.  Land disputes involving indigenous groups are widespread in the Americas, including North America.  Research and reports could be done regarding almost every country. But instead of researching and reporting on indigenous land conflict in Colombia or Honduras or British Columbia, the billionaire foundations funded reports on Nicaragua.

The Miskitu indigenous in Nicaragua are not new to conflict. During the 1980’s the CIA manipulated them to advance their proxy Contra army.  Many Nicaraguans died as a result.  Now, 35 years later, people such as Elliott Abrams are trying to use the Miskitu all over again. The Miskitu may have valid issues and complaints. But are the advocates seeking a solution or are they seeking to exacerbate the conflict? There is a big difference.

Economic warfare and “Conflict Beef” 

The United States is increasingly using sanctions and economic warfare to hurt those governments deemed to be “adversaries”.  Some right wing foreign policy advisors would like to amplify the economic damage to Nicaragua. Some would like to prevent the US from importing beef from Nicaragua.

Cattle ranching is a major part of the economy in Nicaragua. Previously Nicaragua exported lots of beef to Venezuela. But with the extreme economic hardships, exports have declined.  Nicaragua has helped filled the gap by exporting larger quantities of high-quality beef to the USA.

On 21 October PBS Newshour showed a 9 minute video about “Conflict Beef”. The documentary said the increase in Nicaraguan exports is “coming at a high cost for indigenous communities that are being run off their land to make way for cattle ranches”. This accusation, and the suggestion that perhaps Nicaraguan beef should not be imported,  was a core message of the video which merged journalism with activism.

Subsequent research including interviews with indigenous leaders from the area reveal that the PBS Newshour  report is fundamentally inaccurate.  Journalist John Perry, based in Nicaragua, gives details in the article Progressive Media Promoted a False Story of Conflict Beef from Nicaragua published by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Some of the reported violence was made up; some was exaggerated. The claims of “genocide” are not credible.

The exaggerated and untrue accusations in the PBS report are based on four sources. Lottie Cunningham is an indigenous attorney who heads up the Center for Justice and Human Rights on the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua (CEJUDHCAN).  Her organization is a US AID recipient and she is close to the US Ambassador to Nicaragua. The United Nations Human Rights Commission has issued press releases based soley on her accusations. Judging by this “Conflict Beef” report, her accusations are sometimes exaggerated and sometimes untrue.

Another source for this report is Anuradha Mittal of the Oakland Institute. The Institute received a grant of nearly one quarter million dollars for their research on Nicaraguan “land conflict”.

Much of their information came from the Oakland Institute report and the claims of Lottie Cunningham, a USAID grant recipient and recipient of the Lush Spring Prize sponsored by Lush Cosmetics. Recently published interviews with numerous elected indigenous leaders from Nicaragua’s autonomous zones indicate that Lottie Cunningham is viewed with skepticism if not hostility.  The leaders believe that her organization, Center for Justice and Human Rights in the Atlantic District of Nicaragua (CEJUDHCAN), does not represent the interests of indigenous communities and is actually promoting violence and publicity for personal gain.

The lead journalist was Nate Halverson for REVEAL at the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR). CIR is well funded, with a budget around $10M, and large grants from dozens of individual foundations:  Hearst ($625K), Soros ($325K), Gates ($247k), Ford ($250K), Pierre Omidyar ($900K), etc.

Another journalist, Camilo de Castro Belli, appeared in the video.  He is the son of author and Sandinista critic Giacondo Belli and a “Central America Fellow” at the neoliberal Aspen Institute.  The Aspen Institute is funded by grants from the Rockefeller, Ford, Gates and other US philanthropy foundations.

Key allegations in the “Conflict Beef” story are untrue.  The beef for export comes from cattle that are NOT from the indigenous zones.  The cattle are individually tagged and regulated by the national IPSA (Institute for Agricultural Protection and Health) which is in turn audited by the US Dept of Agriculture. Nicaraguans are currently in discussion with European regulators in preparation for export there. This video, from one of the Nicaraguan beef producers,  gives a sense of the professionalism.

Even the introduction of the PBS video is untrue. They sensationally claim that a young Miskitu girl was shot in the face by someone “sending a message” to the community.  The girl was accidentally shot while playing with another youth who had his father’s gun.  This version is confirmed by the president of the local indigenous community who knows the family of the girl victim. The girl survived the incident, and the family accepted a bribe to fabricate the false story.

Another claim that “dozens of armed men attacked another Indigenous village in northeast Nicaragua, killing four people in the Mayangna community” is false.  A version of this same story was repeated twice in the Oakland Institute report and sent by Lottie Cunningham (CEJUDHCAN) to the United Nations Human Rights Council who dutifully issued a press release. This despite the fact the claims had been quickly exposed as false be the president of the Mayangna indigenous community.  But media quickly jumped on the story, reportedly after two phone calls from people and no verification.

When a government is targeted by Washington, as the Sandinista government clearly is, the media attitude seems to be “guilty until proven innocent”.

This story about “conflict beef” reveals how big foundations influence reports which promote the US foreign policy goals on Nicaragua:  to defame and economically punish those who are too independent.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Rick Sterling is a journalist based in the SF Bay Area. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Michal Shlapentokh-Rothman / Prezi

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

ExxonMobil is the world’s single largest producer of single-use plastics, according to a new report published today by the Australia-based Minderoo Foundation, one of Asia’s biggest philanthropies. 

The Dow Chemical Company ranks second, the report finds, with the Chinese state-owned company Sinopec coming in third. Indorama Ventures — a Thai company that entered the plastics market in 1995 — and Saudi Aramco, owned by the Saudi Arabian government, round out the top five.

Funding for single-use plastic production comes from major banks and from institutional asset managers. The UK-based Barclays and HSBC, and Bank of America are the top three lenders to single-use plastic projects, the new report finds. All three of the most heavily invested asset managers named by the report — Vanguard Group, BlackRock, and Capital Group — are U.S.-based.

“This is the first-time the financial and material flows of single-use plastic production have been mapped globally and traced back to their source,” said Toby Gardner, a Stockholm Environment Institute senior research fellow, who contributed to the report, titled The Plastic Waste Makers Index.

The report is also the first to rank companies by their contributions to the single-use plastic crisis, listing the corporations and other financiers it says are most responsible for plastic pollution — with major implications for climate change.

Graph Credit: The Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the Source of the Single-Use Plastics Crisis, Mindaroo Foundation.

“The trajectories of the climate crisis and the plastic waste crisis are strikingly similar and increasingly intertwined,” Al Gore, the former U.S. vice president, wrote in the report’s foreword. “Tracing the root causes of the plastic waste crisis empowers us to help solve it.”

The world of plastic production is concentrated in fewer hands than the world of plastic packaging, the report’s authors found. The top twenty brands in the plastic packaging world — think Coca Cola or Pepsi, for example — handle about 10 percent of global plastic waste, report author Dominic Charles told DeSmog. In contrast, the top 20 producers of plastic polymers — the building blocks of plastics — handle over half of the waste generated.

“Which I think was really quite staggering,” Charles, director of Finance & Transparency at Minderoo Foundation’s Sea The Future program, told DeSmog. “It means that just a handful of companies really do have the fate of the world’s single-use plastic waste in their hands.”

Graph Credit: The Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the Source of the Single-Use Plastics Crisis, Mindaroo Foundation.

Meanwhile, the report suggests that public policy responses to the threats posed by plastic pollution have focused further along the supply chain, where things become more fragmented.

“Government policies, where they exist, tend to focus on the vast number of companies that sell finished plastic products,” the report finds. “Relatively little attention has been paid to the smaller number of businesses at the base of the supply chain that make ‘polymers’ — the building blocks of all plastics — almost exclusively from fossil fuels.”

While there are about 300 polymer producers currently operating worldwide, just three companies — ExxonMobil, Dow, and Sinopec — combined are responsible for roughly one out of every six pounds of single-use plastic waste, the report concludes.

In 2019, for example, more than 130 million metric tons of plastic was used just once and then discarded. ExxonMobil, the report concludes, was responsible for creating 5.9 million tons of that single-use plastic waste in 2019, with Dow right behind it, generating 5.6 million tons that year.

Neither ExxonMobil nor Dow responded immediately to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, 20 of the world’s largest banks lent nearly $30 billion that was used for the production of new single-use plastics, the report finds. That funding represents about 60 percent of the commercial finance that funds single-use plastics. An additional $10 billion in investment in new single-use plastics has come from 20 institutional asset managers, like Vanguard and BlackRock.

“Through our Investment Stewardship program, Vanguard regularly engages with companies on issues that are financially material to their long-term value and sustainability, including climate issues and environmental matters,” Vanguard spokesperson Alyssa Thornton said in an email to DeSmog. “We expect company boards to oversee climate and environmental risks and provide investors with clear disclosures of their risk oversight and decision-making processes. Importantly, we do not dictate company strategy, or operational or financial decisions; rather, we hold company board’s responsible for being aware of such risks and opportunities as part of a foundation for making the most sustainable long-term decisions.”

Barclays did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Graph Credit: The Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the Source of the Single-Use Plastics Crisis, Mindaroo Foundation.

Virtually all single-use plastic comes from fossil-fuel based feedstocks, the report adds.

“One of the key findings of the report is that single-use plastics today is 98 percent fossil fuel-based,” Charles told DeSmog. “And that in itself is really, we say, the source of the plastic waste crisis. And that’s because if you’re only making new plastics from new fossil fuels, you’re taking away the commercial incentive, you’re undermining the commercial incentive to collect this plastic and to turn it into recycled plastic products.”

The report grades plastic manufacturers based on their preparation to transition away from fossil fuels and towards recycling — and found that most of the largest producers not only have made very little progress in that direction to date, they haven’t even set targets that would push them towards a “circular” model involving recycling.

“Over 50 of these companies received an ‘E’ grade — the lowest possible — when assessed for circularity, indicating a complete lack of policies, commitments, or targets,” the report found. “A further 26 companies, including ExxonMobil and Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Corporation, received a ‘D-’ due to their lack of clear targets/timelines.”

In fact, fossil fuel producers appear to be counting on that failure to move towards recycling. “Two of the biggest markets for fossil fuel companies — electricity generation and transportation — are undergoing rapid decarbonization, and it is no coincidence that fossil fuel companies are now scrambling to massively expand their third market — petrochemicals — three-quarters of which is the production of plastic,” Gore wrote. “They see it as a potential life raft to help them stay afloat, and they’re telling investors that there’s lots of money to be made in ramping up the amount of plastic in the world.”

In a statement on the report, the American Chemistry Council pointed to the use of plastics in products like solar panels and wind turbines to highlight the role that plastics — though not single-use plastics — play in renewable energy. “The world needs plastic to live more sustainably, and America’s plastic makers are leading the development of solutions to end plastic waste,” the Council said. “We’re innovating and investing in efforts to create a more circular economy, where used plastics are systematically remanufactured to make new plastics and other products. In the last three years, the private sector has announced $5.5 billion in U.S. investments to dramatically modernize plastics recycling.”

Meanwhile, the plastics industry remains on track to continue rapidly increasing the amount of new plastic it produces each year, meaning more fossil fuel use — even while other industries are seeking to trim or eliminate their reliance on fossil fuels.

“Our numbers suggest a 30 percent increase in capacity compared to 2019,” Charles told DeSmog. “Now that is not out of line with the historical rate of growth, it’s about 5 percent per year. But if we are to see 5 percent growth in fossil fuel-based, that is a real threat towards the growth of circular plastics and recycling. So I think that’s a real cause for concern.”

Marine debris collected on Midway Atoll, Photo Credit: Holly Richards, US Fish and Wildlife Service (CC Public Domain 1.0).

As of 2019, plastic producers had created 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic — and 91 percent of it was never recycled, according to one peer-reviewed study. Even from the start, a NPR and PBS Frontline investigation found, industry insiders were skeptical that recycled plastic could compete against new production, with one industry insider warning in a speech — in 1974 — that “There is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”

So where does the money for all this come from?

The financing of single-use plastics is complex, involving not only lending and investment by Wall Street fund managers and big banks, but also privately held companies. The report’s list of the top 10 equity owners of polymer producers includes not only state actors and massive asset managers like BlackRock but also private individuals like James Arthur Ratcliffe — co-founder and majority owner of INEOS, a UK-based petrochemical company.

“Transitioning away from the take-make-waste model of single-use plastics will take more than corporate leadership and ‘enlightened’ capital markets: it will require immense political will,” the report says. “This is underscored by the high degree of state ownership in these polymer producers — an estimated 30 percent of the sector, by value, is state-owned, with Saudi Arabia, China, and the United Arab Emirates the top three.”

The report calls not only for more disclosures from companies and financiers about their ties to plastic production, it also calls for global action to respond to the plastic pollution crisis — starting with a focus on the companies most responsible.

“A Montreal Protocol or Paris Agreement-style treaty may be the only way to bring an end to plastic pollution worldwide,” the report says. “The treaty must address the problem at its source, with targets for the phasing out of fossil-fuel-based polymers and encouraging the development of a circular plastics economy.”

That’s in part because the plastic waste crisis and the climate crisis share one other thing in common — their impacts are global in scope.

“The plastification of our oceans and the warming of our planet are amongst the greatest threats humanity and nature have ever confronted,” Dr. Andrew Forrest, chairman and founder of the Minderoo Foundation, said in a statement accompanying the report. “And we must act now.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sharon Kelly is an attorney and freelance writer based in Philadelphia. She has reported for The New York Times, The Guardian, The Nation, National Wildlife, Earth Island Journal, and a variety of other publications. Prior to beginning freelance writing, she worked as a law clerk for the ACLUof Delaware.

Featured image: Plastic debris on sandy waterfront, Jan. 15, 2014. Credit: Hillary Daniels (CC BY 2.0)

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Children’s Health Defense and Millions Against Medical Mandates invite parents, healthcare practitioners, military members and others to comment on their petition calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to immediately remove COVID vaccines from the market.

Amid growing safety concerns, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Meryl Nass, on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), filed a Citizen Petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking the agency to immediately revoke the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for COVID vaccines and to refrain from licensing them.

Millions Against Medical Mandates (MAMM), a coalition of health freedom organizations and individuals, joins CHD and other vaccine safety and health freedom groups in inviting the public, including healthcare workers, parents and military members, to submit comments on the petition.

CHD compiled and submitted 72 references supporting the request for revocation and restraint. To read the full petition text, download it from the FDA website or read the full petition here — then submit your comments using this form.

According to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System data, there have been 192,954 reported adverse events following COVID vaccination, including 4,057 deaths between Dec. 14, 2020 and May 7, 2021.

These numbers stand in stark contrast to those reported following the aborted 1976 swine flu vaccine campaign that ended abruptly following approximately 30 reported deaths and 400 cases of Guillain–Barré syndrome.

Citing the extremely low risk to children from COVID, the petition calls on the FDA to immediately refrain from allowing minors to participate in COVID vaccine trials and to immediately revoke all EUAs permitting vaccination of children under 18.

“It’s time for the FDA to make a dramatic course correction before more deaths and injuries occur,” said Maureen McDonnell, MAMM founder.

The petition also urges the FDA to revoke its tacit approval for pregnant women to receive COVID vaccines.

The law stipulates that to grant EUA status, no other effective intervention may exist. The petition calls upon the FDA to immediately amend its existing guidance for the use of chloroquine drugs, ivermectin and any other safe and effective drugs against COVID.

“It’s time for the FDA to make effective COVID treatments available and to revoke the vaccine EUAs,” said CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland. “It’s shocking that the FDA has ignored the unprecedented reports of injuries and deaths for five months.”

CHD and MAMM are asking the FDA to take these seven actions:

1. FDA should revoke all EUAs and refrain from approving any future EUA, NDA [new drug application] or BLA [biologics license application] for any COVID vaccine for all demographic groups because the current risks of serious adverse events or deaths outweigh the benefits, and because existing, approved drugs provide highly effective prophylaxis and treatment against COVID, mooting the EUAs.
2. Given the extremely low risk of severe COVID illness in children, FDA should immediately refrain from allowing minors to participate in COVID vaccine trials, refrain from amending EUAs to include children, and immediately revoke all EUAs that permit vaccination of children under 16 for the Pfizer vaccine and under 18 for other COVID vaccines.
3. FDA should immediately revoke tacit approval that pregnant women may receive any EUA or licensed COVID vaccines and immediately issue public guidance to that effect.
4. FDA should immediately amend its existing guidance for the use of the chloroquine drugs, ivermectin and any other drugs demonstrated to be safe and effective against COVID, to comport with current scientific evidence of safety and efficacy at currently used doses and immediately issue notifications to all stakeholders of this change.
5. The FDA should issue guidance to the secretary of the defense and the president not to grant an unprecedented presidential waiver of prior consent regarding COVID vaccines for service members under 10 U.S.C. § 1107(f) or 10 U.S.C. § 1107a.
6. The FDA should issue guidance to all stakeholders in digital and written formats to affirm that all citizens have the option to accept or refuse administration of investigational COVID vaccines without adverse work, educational or other non-health related consequences, under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(a)(ii)(III) 1 and the informed consent requirements of the Nuremberg Code.
7. Pending revocation of COVID vaccine EUAs, FDA should issue guidance that all marketing and promotion of COVID vaccines must refrain from labeling them “safe and effective,” as such statements violate 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3.

The petition is available for review and comment. CHD urges parents, healthcare practitioners, military members and others to comment and to share the comment link with friends and colleagues.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Thanks to its very name — renewable energy — we can picture a time in the not-too-distant future when our need for non-renewable fuels like oil, natural gas, and coal will vanish. Indeed, the Biden administration has announced a breakthrough target of 2035 for fully eliminating U.S. reliance on those non-renewable fuels for the generation of electricity. That would be accomplished by “deploying carbon-pollution-free electricity-generating resources,” primarily the everlasting power of the wind and sun.

With other nations moving in a similar direction, it’s tempting to conclude that the days when competition over finite supplies of energy was a recurring source of conflict will soon draw to a close. Unfortunately, think again: while the sun and wind are indeed infinitely renewable, the materials needed to convert those resources into electricity — minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, nickel, and the rare-earth elements, or REEs — are anything but. Some of them, in fact, are far scarcer than petroleum, suggesting that global strife over vital resources may not, in fact, disappear in the Age of Renewables.

To appreciate this unexpected paradox, it’s necessary to explore how wind and solar power are converted into usable forms of electricity and propulsion. Solar power is largely collected by photovoltaic cells, often deployed in vast arrays, while the wind is harvested by giant turbines, typically deployed in extensive wind farms. To use electricity in transportation, cars and trucks must be equipped with advanced batteries capable of holding a charge over long distances. Each one of these devices uses substantial amounts of copper for electrical transmission, as well as a variety of other non-renewable minerals. Those wind turbines, for instance, require manganese, molybdenum, nickel, zinc, and rare-earth elements for their electrical generators, while electric vehicles (EVs) need cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, and rare earths for their engines and batteries.

At present, with wind and solar power accounting for only about 7% of global electricity generation and electric vehicles making up less than 1% of the cars on the road, the production of those minerals is roughly adequate to meet global demand. If, however, the U.S. and other countries really do move toward a green-energy future of the kind envisioned by President Biden, the demand for them will skyrocket and global output will fall far short of anticipated needs.

According to a recent study by the International Energy Agency (IEA), “The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,” the demand for lithium in 2040 could be 50 times greater than today and for cobalt and graphite 30 times greater if the world moves swiftly to replace oil-driven vehicles with EVs. Such rising demand will, of course, incentivize industry to develop new supplies of such minerals, but potential sources of them are limited and the process of bringing them online will be costly and complicated. In other words, the world could face significant shortages of critical materials. (“As clean energy transitions accelerate globally,” the IEA report noted ominously, “and solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars are deployed on a growing scale, these rapidly growing markets for key minerals could be subject to price volatility, geopolitical influence, and even disruptions to supply.”)

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

An iceberg bigger than Majorca that calved off an Antarctic ice shelf has been spotted by satellites, and declared the world’s largest iceberg.

The finger-shaped iceberg, which is about 4320 square kilometres in size, isn’t thought to have been caused by anthropogenic climate change.

Named A-76, the iceberg broke off the Ronne ice shelf into the Weddell Sea in recent days, according to the European Space Agency. The area has been spared an influx of warm ocean water affecting other parts of western Antarctica, which is threatening to release huge glaciers such as one called Thwaites.

“It’s not an area that is undergoing any significant change because of global heating. The main message is it’s part of a natural cycle,” says Alex Brisbourne, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey.

The tabular-shape of A-76 is typical of icebergs, and the horizontal lines on it are a sign of the stresses that caused it to break from the ice sheet, says Brisbourne. The part of the ice sheet that it calved from was floating, so the iceberg shouldn’t have any impact on sea level rise.

The finger-shaped iceberg is about 4320 square kilometres in size (Source: ESA/Earth Observation)

While A-76 is the largest iceberg in the world at the moment, it wouldn’t make the pantheon of the 10 biggest icebergs in history.

“In the grand context of things this is not humungous. Of course it’s an evolution in the ice shelf,” says Mark Drinkwater of the European Space Agency.

Drinkwater says that the Ronne ice shelf is in a fairly “steady state” where it expands after losing iceberg like this. One of its biggest calving events was in 1986, with icebergs totalling 11,000 square kilometres breaking off, followed by smaller ones in 1998, 2000 and 2015.

However, the new iceberg could still have a significant impact depending on where it ends up. Another iceberg last year, A-68a, at one point appeared on a pathway that could harm wildlife on the island of South Georgia but eventually broke up.

“It’s big enough to influence the ocean, and the salinity of the ocean. Depending on the trajectory, it could be as significant as A-68a,” says Brisbourne.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Biden Ends Trump’s Sanctions

Bloomberg reports U.S. Calls Effort to Halt Nord Stream 2 Pipeline a Long Shot

The Biden administration said stopping Nord Stream 2 is a long shot now that the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany is more than 90% complete, a shift in tone that came as the U.S. held off on sanctioning the company overseeing its construction.

In a report to Congress on Wednesday, the State Department said that Nord Stream 2 AG and its chief executive Matthias Warnig are engaged in sanctionable activity under U.S. law but that the administration will waive penalties for national security reasons.

Nord Stream 2 Q&A

Q: What is Nord Stream 2?

A: A natural gas pipeline between Russia and the EU. It will bypass a Ukraine bottleneck and instead go under the Baltic Sea.

The pipeline was 90% complete with Trump objecting every step of the way while placing huge obstacles.

The irony is that instead of EU contractors building the pipeline, Russian contractors built it and got paid for it.

National Security Nonsense

Trump placed the sanctions on Russia over the pipeline citing national security.

In reality, his primary focus was to get the EU to buy US liquid natural gas at a much higher price than the EU can get from Russia.

Biden reversed Trump’s national security lie with a lie of his own, also based on national security concerns.

Curiously we placed and removed the same sanctions out of national security concerns.

Opposition Unwavering? Security Threat?

“Our opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unwavering,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement Wednesday.

“Completion of this pipeline poses a threat to U.S. security interests and the stability of our partners in the region,” Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire said in a statement. “The administration should uphold its commitment to Congress. Every option available to prevent its completion should be utilized.”

Biden Under Fire

NBC reports Biden under fire from Congress for waiving sanctions on Russian gas pipeline company.

Gaza: US and the West Support Israel’s Crimes Against Humanity

By Peter Koenig, May 20, 2021

Israel’s PM Netanyahu is a war criminal and should be held accountable for war crimes throughout his PM-ship of Israel, according to the 1945 / 1946 Nuremberg trials criteria. His crimes against humanity, against a defenseless Palestine are comparable to the Holocaust.

How America Went from “Mom-and-Pop” Capitalism to Techno-Feudalism

By Ellen Brown, May 20, 2021

The crisis of 2020 has created the greatest wealth gap in history. The middle class, capitalism and democracy are all under threat. What went wrong and what can be done?

Researchers Find 1,000 Different Proteins in AstraZeneca’s COVID Vaccine Linked to Deadly Blood Clots

By Ethan Huff, May 20, 2021

A German scientist has discovered why the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” made by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) are causing some recipients to develop deadly blood clots. According to Prof. Andreas Greinacher, a blood expert from the University of Greifswald, the two viral vector vaccines contain genetically modified (GMO) cold viruses that, upon injection, trigger an autoimmune response.

Microsoft vs Indian Farmers: Agri-Stacking the System

By Colin Todhunter, May 20, 2021

In April, the Indian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Microsoft, allowing its local partner CropData to leverage a master database of farmers. The MoU seems to be part of the AgriStack policy initiative, which involves the roll out of ‘disruptive’ technologies and digital databases in the agricultural sector.

COVID Vaccine Shots: Analysis of “Breakthrough Deaths”. Dr. Jessica Rose

By Brian Shilhavy, May 20, 2021

America’s Frontline Doctors has published a video of a presentation by Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, who has analyzed the data in the VAERS database related to the COVID shots. The presentation was for “Vaccine Choice Canada.”

NATO’s War Against Yugoslavia: The Ghost that Still Haunts Europe

By Rick Rozoff, May 20, 2021

Twenty-two years ago today the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was subjected to the 55th straight day of bombardment from the then 19-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with 23 days more to go. Many families in Belgrade, Novi Sad and Niš daily fled to bomb shelters during the aerial onslaught.

Bill Allowing 90 Percent of Idaho’s Wolves to be Killed Passes House and Senate

By Olivia Rosane, May 20, 2021

A bill allowing hunters and private contractors to kill up to 90 percent of the state’s wolves passed the Idaho House on Tuesday. The measure also passed the Idaho Senate last week, which means that the fate of around 1,000 wolves now lies with Republican Gov. Brad Little.

Israeli State Terror Throughout the Occupied Territories

By Stephen Lendman, May 20, 2021

The safety, well-being, and lives of millions of Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories are endangered by US/Western support for Israeli state terror. On day nine of preemptive Netanyahu regime war on Gaza, spokesman for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Jens Laerke said conditions in the Strip are dire.

Israel: Is this the Beginning of the End of Apartheid?

By Richard Falk, May 20, 2021

The current crisis of Palestine-Israel deepens and widens: casualties mount, smoke from destroyed buildings blacken the sky over Gaza, there’s rioting on the streets of many Israeli and West Bank towns; Israeli police disrupt worshippers in Al-Aqsa mosque while protecting extremist Jewish settlers shouting genocidal slogans – “death to the Arabs” – in inflammatory marches through Palestinian neighbourhoods.

Gaza Lives Erased: Israel Is Wiping Out Entire Palestinian Families on Purpose

By Amira Hass, May 20, 2021

The numerous incidents of killing entire families in Israeli bombings in Gaza – Parents and children, babies, grandparents, siblings – attest that these were not mistakes. The bombings follow a decision from higher up, backed by the approval of military jurists.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Israeli terror-bombing and shelling of besieged Gazans continues in its 11th day with no letup so far.

Unindicted war criminal Netanyahu says he’s “determined” to keep massacring Gazans and terrorizing Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories until his diabolical aims are achieved.

A readout of Wednesday’s conversation between him and Biden’s impersonator was more head-fake deception than a White House call for “significant de-escalation today on the path to a ceasefire (sic).”

For 73 years, the US aided, abetted, and financed the worst of Israeli high crimes of war, against humanity, slow-motion genocide of the Palestinian people, and preemptive wars against neighboring states.

In the past week, the Biden regime blocked three Security Council (SC) joint statements that called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas — showing its dominant hardliners support war, not resolution.

On Wednesday in response to a French draft SC statement, jointly supported by Egypt and Jordan — that states “(t)he shooting must stop.” 

“The time has come for a ceasefire and the UN Security Council must take up the issue,” the Orwellian response of the Biden regime’s UN mission was as follows:

“(W)e will not support (what furthers deescalation and ceasefire) actions that we believe undermine efforts to de-escalate (sic).”

According to an unnamed French source, Wednesday discussions on the above joint proposal at the UN were “very intense.”

Separately from Beirut, Lebanon,  Islamic Jihad official Ziad Nakhaleh said neither nuclear weapons, warplanes or peace agreements between Israel and some Arab states achieved regional peace and security, adding:

Gazan resistance against Israeli state terror “made miracles that you can see with your own eyes and you live them every moment when you run to shelters.”

He referred to Strip responses to longstanding Israeli state terror against millions of long-suffering Palestinians under militarized occupation.

Because of increased dispossession of Palestinians from their homes on their own land, “we had two choices, to surrender and to give them everything or fight them over everything,” he explained.

One-sided US-dominated Western support for the highest of high Israeli high crimes permits its ruling regimes to do whatever they damn please with impunity — no matter how egregiously in breach of international law.

As for long-suffering Palestinians, rhetorical Western concern for their rights and welfare is hollow.

It’s virtually never followed by actions with teeth on their behalf. 

Support for apartheid Israel has always been and remains entirely one-sided.

In January 2006, Hamas democratically won a Palestinian legislative majority over pro-Israeli puppet rule under Fatah.

Yet in October 1997 at the behest of Israel, the Clinton co-presidency false designated Hamas a “foreign terrorist organization” — what it never was and isn’t now.

At the time in response to what Israel urged, Hezbollah was falsely given the same designation.

Its officials are part of Lebanon’s elected government.

In May 2018 general elections, its candidates and allies won a 67-seat majority of parliament’s 128 seats – equally divided between Muslims and Christians. 

At the time, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah called parliamentary results a “political and moral victory” for the resistance — giving the group and its allies power to veto legislation they consider unacceptable.

For self-defense against threatened Israeli aggression, its ruling authorities maintain a military wing.

Much stronger today than during Israel’s 2006 aggression against Lebanon, embarrassing IDF ground forces at the time, it’s a force to be reckoned with if the Jewish state again preemptively attacks the Lebanese people.

In April 2019, the Trump regime falsely designated Iran’s military — the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)— a terrorist organization even though the Islamic Republic never attacked another nation preemptively or threatened one except in self-defense if attacked, the UN Charter right of all nations.

In stark contrast, aggression is what the US, NATO and Israel are guilty of time and again.

The world community of nations for peace, stability and compliance with the rule of law should designate them terrorist organizations.

Overnight Wednesday, Israel continued to terror-bomb and shell Gazan residential areas.

According to the Strip’s health ministry, at least 64 children and 38 women was massacred so far, the overall death toll around 230 — numbers that keep rising by the hour.

Interviewed on French television Wednesday, South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa said the following:

“Palestinians want their own self-determination rights.” 

“They want their own state. They want to be able to run their own affairs and have freedom, and not have to be restricted to move around.”

Israel denies them “their rights” as affirmed under international law.

It’s an “apartheid” state. “I have no other reference point to describe what the Israelis are doing against the Palestinians.”

According to political analyst Omar Baddar, “Israeli leadership understands that…they are completely free to carry on with their massive assault against Gaza’s civilian population.”

No US/Western actions against the Jewish state will follow.

For 73 years, Israel has been free to commit the most egregious high crimes with impunity.

The US-dominated West and world community never did anything to hold its ruling authorities accountable for Nuremberg-level high crimes.

Nothing punitive will follow its ongoing rape and destruction of Gaza — for the fourth time since December 2008.

Nor will anything be done to halt its state terror against Palestinian civilians throughout the Occupied Territories.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image is from The Bullet

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A very informative discussion with Beirut-based journalist and political analyst Marwa Osman, on the litany of Israeli crimes against Palestinians in Gaza during Israel’s horrifying bombardment of the besieged and densely inhabited Gaza Strip.

Marwa also speaks of the unity not only among Palestinian resistance groups, but also Resistance movements throughout the region.

“Myself as a Shia Muslim, I believe that when there are people who are oppressed, it’s not only my duty, but if I don’t help that people, then I’m complicit. This ideology has surpassed the Shi’ism ideology and has passed to a pan-Arabism ideology, the same ideology Gamal Abdel Nasser used to reiterate and emphasize when he was president of Egypt. That pan-Arabism is now being mirrored at the different factions, the different resistance, the allied forces of the resistance across west Asia, from Sana’a to Maghreb, up to Baghdad to Mosul, to the border between Iraq and Syria, to Damascus, Aleppo, to Daraa, down to Quneitra, down to south Lebanon, not forgetting the Islamic republic of Iran. This is very important, and historic. What we are seeing is the same people that the Imperial powers, starting from WW2 to today, tried to dismantle, disintegrate, and break apart, they are coming all together to stand in the face of this cancer that was prepared for us in the late 1800s….”

Follow Marwa on Twitter.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Middle East Eye

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Any sort of holiday or otherwise partial cessation of hostilities in the Middle East, and namely Syria, provides civilians with a rare chance of focusing on other issues.

In the north and toward the central regions of Syria people took to the streets after a hike in fuel prices, attributed to the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Two people were reportedly killed when SDF members opened fire on a protest, trying to disperse it.

Along with the protests in Hasaka, demonstrations happened in Deir Ezzor, Amuda, Rmelan, Al-Maabadah, Qamishli and Dayrik districts. They were all against the increases in the prices for energy resources such as natural gas, diesel oil and gasoline.

Two civilians were killed when the SDF stormed into As-Sawa village in Deir Ezzor western countryside.

Just two days earlier, SDF members stormed into a number of villages in al-Shaddadi area in Hasaka southern countryside and kidnapped many of the villagers, Syrian state media reported.

In total, the US-backed Kurdish group kidnapped 25 civilians and took them to one of the places which was turned into a prison within the city center.

The SDF cut off fuel provisions to President Bashar Al-Assad’s government nearly a month before, citing accumulating debt.

In nearby Aleppo, tensions between the Kurdish factions and the Turkish forces, and Turkish-backed militants continue.

Two members of the factions that Ankara backs were killed in an explosion in the vicinity of one of their armed headquarters in Rajo district in Afrin city.

The Damascus government blames Turkey and the militants it backs for stealing electricity, wheat and oil from northern Syria, while Ankara in its turn blames the SDF for that.

Meanwhile, both Ankara and Washington are actually smuggling resources away from northern Syria, causing their lack and the hikes in prices.

Civilian suffering is something that currently is taking place in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

A convoy of international aid trucks that started rolling into Gaza through Karem Abu Salem was stopped.

Israel briefly opened the crossing, then, closed it again, because alleged Hamas shelling lightly injured a soldier of the Israel Defense Forces. This warranted the stopping of any and all humanitarian aid.

At least 218 Palestinians, including 63 children, have been killed in Gaza since the attacks began. About 1,500 Palestinians have been wounded. Twelve people in Israel have died, including two children, while at least 300 have been wounded.

The situation in Gaza appears to be nowhere near resolved, with none of the collective West willing to undertake any tangible action or even sternly demand an end to violence. All that’s present are light calls for a ceasefire that fall on deaf ears.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For the past year, I’ve been offering compelling evidence that: no one has proven SARS-CoV-2 exists. [1]

I’ve explained that the virus was never isolated. In fact, researchers use the word “isolated” to mean its very opposite: “We ASSUME we have the virus surrounded by, and embedded in, a great deal of other material, and we never extract it or purify it.”

No isolation=no discovery of a virus.

I’ve explained that it’s impossible to put together the genetic sequence of a virus that has never been found. Unless, of course, you’re lying.

I’ve published an article in which Dr. Andrew Kaufman [2] took apart, step by step, a typical published study in which the authors described how they isolated SARS-CoV-2. Dr. Kaufman tore this description to pieces and revealed how absurd it is. [3]

When confronted with a mountain of so-called science plus sheer propaganda, most people find it impossible to accept the fact that, at the core of the mountain, there is…

NOTHING.

Absolutely nothing.

“Oh, that couldn’t be. There has to be SOMETHING, and the something must be a virus.”

This is on the order of a child saying, “There has to be a ghost in the closet every night when I go to sleep.”

All that fear, and there is nothing? No, no.

But in the medical universe, there are actually several huge institutions that are based on nothing.

Here is one: PSYCHIATRY.

The official bible of the psychiatric profession, the DSM, lists, describes, and labels some 300 separate and distinct mental disorders.

If you plow through the bible, you will notice that NONE of these mental disorders has a defining laboratory test. No saliva, blood, hair, urine test. No brain scan. No genetic assay. NOTHING.

Yes, people have problems, troubles. People experience suffering and pain. But that is quite, quite different from arbitrarily carving up all that suffering into 300 academic and clinical categories called “mental disorders.”

And on top of the astonishing scientific con, the patients who are diagnosed are given toxic drugs, some of which push them over the edge into committing suicide and murder.

All based on a scientific nothing.

(A warning: Suddenly withdrawing from psychiatric drugs can be very dangerous, even life-threatening. Withdrawal should be done gradually, supervised by a caring professional who knows what he’s doing. See breggin.com.) [4]

In a PBS Frontline episode, Does ADHD Exist? [5], Dr. Russell Barkley, an eminent professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, unintentionally spelled out the fraud.

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY: That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid.

Oh, indeed, that does make them invalid. Utterly and completely. All 300 mental disorders. Because there are no defining tests of any kind to back up the diagnosis.

We are looking at a science that isn’t a science. That’s called fraud. Rank fraud.

Here is one more newsflash: The so-called “chemical-imbalance” theory of mental illness is dead.

Dr. Ronald Pies, the editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, laid the theory to rest in the July 11, 2011, issue of the Times with this staggering admission:

“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban legend — never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists.” [6]

Boom.

Dead.

However…urban legend? No. For decades the whole basis of psychiatric drug research, drug prescription, and drug sales has been: “we’re correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

The problem was, researchers had never established a normal baseline for chemical balance. So they were shooting in the dark. Worse, they were faking a theory. Pretending they knew something when they didn’t.

In his 2011 piece in Psychiatric Times, Dr. Pies tries to protect his colleagues in the psychiatric profession with this fatuous remark:

“In the past 30 years, I don’t believe I have ever heard a knowledgeable, well-trained psychiatrist make such a preposterous claim [about chemical imbalance in the brain], except perhaps to mock it…the ‘chemical imbalance’ image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.”

Absurd. First of all, many psychiatrists have explained and do explain to their patients that the drugs are there to correct a chemical imbalance.

And second, if all well-trained psychiatrists have known, all along, that the chemical-imbalance theory is a fraud…

…then why on earth have they been prescribing tons of drugs to their patients…

…since those drugs are developed on the false premise that they correct a chemical imbalance?

The chemical-imbalance theory is a fake.

The entire branch of medicine called psychiatry is based on NOTHING.

But again, people find that difficult, if not impossible, to accept. They prefer to believe there must be SOMETHING. That’s what they want to believe. That’s what they’ve been trained to believe.

“Well, you see, every effect has a cause, and that cause is actually the effect of an earlier cause, and you can go back farther and farther in the chain…”

And this idea is somehow the basis for assuming that, if a pandemic is announced, there must be a virus.

“I’ve got to have a virus. I NEED a virus.”

“I fear the virus. I want the virus. I love the virus.”

There are all sorts of variations on the theme.

“The pandemic? There must be something at the core of it. There must be.”

THERE IS NOTHING.

And if someone responds with the familiar battle cry, “Then why are all these people dying?”, I’ve covered that issue from stem to stern in a dozen articles or so. [7]

The entirety of illness and death attributed to the “pandemic” can be explained by multiple factors (not one), and none of those factors involves a virus.

“People dying equals a virus” is about as convincing as “all-cause mortality rising is the result of plane crashes.”

As sure as I’m writing this sentence, someone somewhere will think, “Hmm, plane crashes. I should look into that…”

And he will. He’ll look into planes flying through underground caves, carrying passengers intent on exploring the center of the Earth, where doctors are producing a longevity drug that extends life for 500 years. But the planes are having accidents.

That level of fantasy is on the same bookshelf as “the virus is causing the pandemic.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Notes

[1] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/?s=SARS-CoV-2+exists&submit=Search

[2] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/04/21/isolation-of-sars-cov-2-refuted-in-step-by-step-analysis-of-claim/

[4] https://breggin.com/

[5] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/experts/exist.html

[6] https://web.archive.org/web/20160720061355/https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/psychiatry-new-brain-mind-and-legend-chemical-imbalance

[7] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/dying/

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The numerous incidents of killing entire families in Israeli bombings in Gaza – Parents and children, babies, grandparents, siblings – attest that these were not mistakes. The bombings follow a decision from higher up, backed by the approval of military jurists.

Fifteen Palestinian nuclear and extended families lost at least three, and in general more, of their members, in the Israeli shelling of the Gaza Strip during the week from May 10 through to Monday afternoon. Parents and children, babies, grandparents, siblings and nephews and nieces died together when Israel bombed their homes, which collapsed over them. Insofar as is known, no advance warning was given so that they could evacuate the targeted houses.

On Saturday, a representative of the Palestinian Health Ministry brought listed the names of 12 families who were killed, each one at its home, each one in a single bombing. Since then, in one air raid before dawn on Sunday, which lasted 70 minutes and was directed at three houses on Al Wehda Street in the Rimal neighborhood of Gaza, three families numbering 38 people in total were killed. Some of the bodies were found on Sunday morning. Palestinian rescue forces only managed to find the rest of the bodies and pull them out from the rubble only on Sunday evening.

Wiping out entire families in Israeli bombings was one of the characteristics of the war in 2014. In the roughly 50 days of the war then, UN figures say that 142 Palestinian families were erased (742 people in total). The numerous incidents then and today attest that these were not mistakes: and that the bombing of a house while all its residents are in it follows a decision from higher up, backed by the examination and approval of military jurists.

An investigation by the human rights group B’Tselem that focused on some 70 of the families who were eradicated in 2014, provided three explanations for the numerous nuclear and extended families that were killed, all at once, in one Israeli bombing on the home of each such family. One explanation was that the Israeli army didn’t provide advance warning to the homeowners or to their tenants; or that the warning didn’t reach the correct address, at all or on time.

In any case, what stands out is the difference between the fate of the buildings that were bombed with their residents inside, and the “towers” – the high-rise buildings that were shelled as of the second day of this latest conflict, during the daytime or early evening.

Reportedly, the owners or the concierge in the towers got prior warning of an hour at most that they must evacuate, usually via phone call from the army or Shin Bet security service, then “warning missiles” fired by drones. These owners/concierges were supposed to warn the other residents in the short time remaining.

Not only highrises were involved. On Thursday evening Omar Shurabji’s home west of Khan Yunis was shelled. A crater formed in the road and one room in the two־story building was destroyed. Two families, with seven people altogether, live in that building.

About 20 minutes before the explosion, the army called Khaled Shurabji and told him to tell his uncle Omar to leave the house, per a report by the Palestinian center for human rights. It is not known whether Omar was there, but the residents of the house all hastened to get out, so there were no casualties.

This very fact that the Israeli army and Shin Bet trouble to call and order the evacuation of the homes shows that the Israeli authorities have current phone numbers for people in each structure slated for destruction. They have the phone numbers for relatives of the people suspected or known to be activists for Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

The Palestinian population registry, including that of Gaza, is in the hands of the Israeli Interior Ministry. It includes details such as names, ages, relatives and addresses.

As the Oslo Accords require, the Palestinian interior ministry, through the civil affairs ministry, transfers current information regularly to the Israeli side, especially concerning births and newborns: The registry data must receive Israeli approval, because without that, Palestinians cannot receive an identity card when the time comes, or in the case of minors – they can’t travel alone or with their parents through border crossings controlled by Israel.

It is clear, then, that the army knows the number and names of children, women and elderly who live in every residential building it bombs for any reason.

B’Tselem’s second explanation for why whole families were erased in 2014 is that the army’s definition of an attackable “military target” was very broad, and it included the homes of Hamas and Islamic Jihad people. These houses were described as operational infrastructure, or command and control infrastructure of the organization or terror infrastructure – even if all it had was a telephone, or just hosted a meeting.

The third explanation in the B’Tselem analysis from 2014 was that the army’s interpretation of “collateral damage” is very flexible and broad. The army claimed and claims that it acts according to the principle of “proportionality” between harm to uninvolved civilians and achieving the legitimate military goal, in other words, that in every case the “collateral damage” caused to Palestinians is measured and considered.

But once the “importance” of a Hamas member is considered high and its residence is defined as a legitimate target for bombing – the “allowable” collateral damage, in other words the number of uninvolved people killed, including children and babies – is very broad.

In the intensive bombing of three residential buildings on Al Wehda Street in Gaza, before dawn on Sunday, the Abu al Ouf, Al- Qolaq and Ashkontana families were killed. In real time, when the number of dead from one family is so great – it is hard to find and encourage a survivor to tell about each family member, and their last days.

So one must make do with their names and ages, as listed in the daily reports of the human rights organizations that collect the information and even note, when they know, if any family member belonged to any military organization. So far, it is not know whether and who among the residents of the Al Wehda buildings was considered such an important target, that “permitted” the obliteration of entire families.

The members of the abu al Ouf family who were killed are: The father Ayman, an internal medicine doctor in Shifa Hospital, and his two children: Tawfiq, 17, and Tala, 13. Another two female relatives were also killed – Reem, 41, and Rawan, 19. These five bodies were found shortly after the bombing. The bodies of another eight members of the Abu al Ouf family were removed from the ruins only in the evening, and they are: Subhiya, 73, Amin, 90, Tawfiq, 80, and his wife Majdiya, 82, and their relative Raja (married to a man from the Afranji family) and her three children: Mira, 12, Yazen, 13, and Mir, 9.

During the air raid on those buildings, Abir Ashkontana was also killed, 30, and her three children: Yahya, 5, Dana, 9, and Zin, 2. In the evening, the bodies of two more girls were found: Rula, 6, and Lana, 10. The Palestinian center’s report does not mention whether these two children are Abir’s daughters.

In the two neighboring buildings 19 members of the Al-Qolaq family were killed: Fuaz, 63 and his four children; Abd al Hamid, 23, Riham, 33, Bahaa, 49 and Sameh, 28, and his wife Iyat, 19. Their baby Qusay, six months old, was also killed. Another female member of the extended family, Amal Al-Qolaq, 42, was also killed and three of her children were killed: Taher, 23, Ahmad, 16, and Hana’a – 15. The brothers Mohammed Al-Qolaq, 42, and Izzat, 44, were also killed, and Izzat’s children: Ziad, 8, and three-year-old Adam. The women Doa’a Al-Qolaq, 39, and Sa’adia Al-Qolaq, 83, were also killed. In the evening, the bodies of Hala Al-Qolaq, 13, and her sister Yara, 10, were rescued from under the rubble. Palestinian center’s report does not mention who their parents were and whether they were also killed in the bombing.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The high hopes that many had for a radical improvement of the situation in the Horn of Africa just a few short years ago have been shattered by a combination of internal and international conflicts centered on Ethiopia, but it might be premature to predict that the region won’t ever recover since Prime Minister Abiy could drastically turn everything around once more should he have the political will to do so.

What Went Wrong?

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed‘s ascent to power in Africa’s second most populous country a few years back inspired high hopes for a radical improvement of the situation in the Horn of Africa. His rhetoric was regarded as an almost revolutionary departure from his predecessors’ and he quickly set out to patch up his country’s years-long conflict with neighboring Eritrea, for which he later was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This makes it all the more surprising to many observers that the region is once again beset by a slew of internal and international conflicts centered on his country, making them wonder whether something had went wrong or if they hadn’t properly assessed the situation to begin with. The answer to this question is complex, but the present analysis will attempt to address it in a relatively simple way for the sake of everyone’s understanding.

Background Briefing

To bring unaware readers up to speed, they’re encouraged to read the author’s prior works on this topic:

• 25 June 2019: “Ethiopia’s Failed Coup Attempt Almost Pushed The Country To The Edge Of Collapse”
• 26 October 2020: “Ethiopia’s Internal Contradictions Might Lead To Its Collapse”
• 24 November 2020: “The Consequences Of Ethiopia’s Civil Conflict Will Be Acute”

The rest of the analysis will reference and build upon the insight above.

Ethiopia’s Glasnost & Perestroika Experiment

The problems that have popped up in recent years weren’t exactly unexpected. For instance, Ethiopia’s federal system was always considered to be imperfect though nevertheless manageable under its prior leaders after the end of the civil war. Some internal borders didn’t match up with the ethnic demographics on the ground, thereby planting the seeds for future conflict but delaying their growth until a time that the central government became comparatively weaker than it used to be. That moment arrived with Abiy after he preached his political gospel of changing the state of political affairs in his country, particularly by loosening the reins of power that the ruling coalition held over practically all matters. This combination of Ethiopian-style glasnost and perestroika was well-intended but risked spiraling out of control exactly as its Soviet forerunner did.

Trouble With The TPLF

Instead of sitting back and letting centrifugal forces tear his cosmopolitan nation apart as he feared would inevitably happen, Abiy reacted by reversing his liberal vision and reviving some of the centralization tendencies of his predecessors. The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), formerly the most powerful member of the ruling coalition, broke with Abiy and threatened an insurgency in their eponymous region that was powerfully crushed by the central government over the past half-year to much international criticism. The ongoing conflict continues to rage at a lower intensity than before and has caused much concern among observers about its humanitarian consequences which currently remain unclear due to a lack of access by independent observers.

“Balkanization” Fears

The alternative to war was always to continue with the track that he’d previously set with his rhetoric of loosening the reins up to the point of redefining the nature of Ethiopia’s federal system, but Abiy believed that this might “Balkanize” his country, hence why he reacted the way that he did. There’s no turning back the clock and doing things differently so that decision will go down in history as a pivotal moment for better or for worse. Critics claim that he returned Ethiopia to its dictatorial ways while supporters praise him for decisively safeguarding national unity and therefore setting an example to the other separatist groups that are active all across the country. In any case, considering the fact that the conflict remains unresolved and continues to reverberate throughout society, it can be said that the short-term consequences were destabilizing.

Eritrea’s Speculative Influence Over Ethiopia

It’s important to point out that neighboring Eritrea with whom Ethiopia had only recently entered into a rapid rapprochement dispatched troops to the rebellious Tigray region where they reportedly remain despite having promised to officially withdraw. This development internationalized Ethiopia’s internal conflict and therefore raised the stakes of its outcome. It also fueled speculation that long-ruling President Afwerki is secretly puling Abiy’s strings and might have even succeeded in imposing his desired vision upon the region as expressed by Al Jazeera contributor Goitom Gebreluel in his op-ed about “The Tripartite Alliance Destabilizing The Horn Of Africa”. The expert drew attention to other destabilizing trends such as the de facto changes to some of Ethiopia’s internal borders following the Amhara Region’s military occupation of parts of Tigray.

Geopolitical Competition Between China & The GCC

Gebreluel is also against what he described as the widespread disregard for international humanitarian law and the sharp decline in multilateral diplomacy. These are pertinent points and his concerns should be taken seriously. Missing from his detailed analysis, however, is reference to how the Horn of Africa has recently become an object of competition between rising powers. Chinese investments are now challenged by those from the GCC, particularly Saudi Arabia and especially the UAE. Beijing’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) ambitions risk being dealt a massive blow by the latest round of multi-sided destabilization in the region, which can create strategic opportunities for the GCC. It also deserves mention that the US is no longer exerting is post-Old Cold War leadership over the region. It’s unclear what the impact of this is though since it hasn’t been studied much.

The GERD Dispute

The heated dispute over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) continues to afflict the region and provoke fears of a conventional military clash between Ethiopia on one side and GCC-backed Egypt and Sudan on the other. Observers should also remember that Ethiopia and Sudan have recently revived their old territorial dispute, potentially creating the pretext for another conflict that could actually serve as a smokescreen for either of them going to war over the GERD. As for Somalia, which is also mentioned in Gebreluel’s piece, its leader finally relented on his prior attempt to postpone elections that was responsible for provoking a brief round of bloodshed. He also repaired his country’s relations with Kenya too. Ironically, while Somalia is regarded as the least stable of the region’s countries, its recent actions were actually stabilizing.

The Role Of Leadership Over Regional Events

What can be learned from the Somali case is that a lot depends on the political decisions made by the region’s leaders. This is evidenced by everything going on in Ethiopia related to its internal and international conflicts. Abiy made the fateful decision to militarily intervene in Tigray, which created a humanitarian crisis that continues to this day even if national unity was preserved, albeit in a more centralized fashion than the decentralized one that his supporters had earlier expected. The GERD dispute is also largely due to the relevant leaders being unable to reach a pragmatic compromise. To be fair, there are serious ecological, economic, geopolitical, and strategic issues at play which take precedence over the personal opinions of any given leader, but these heads of state are ultimately responsible for it remaining unresolved.

Ethiopia’s Strategic Centrality

Ethiopia’s regional centrality leads one to conclude that “as Ethiopia goes, so goes the region”, which is proven by empirical evidence. The country’s recent round of multi-sided destabilization (regardless of whomever or whatever one attributes this to) has powerfully reverberated all throughout the Horn of Africa. The centralization trend that Abiy nowadays obviously supports sends the signal that decentralization trends, especially those advanced through the use of arms like Tigray’s was, will be militantly opposed by the region’s other leaders. At the same time, however, there’s no denying that decentralization is an objectively observable global trend and one that does indeed have some merits in the Horn of Africa. Alas, it won’t see any success in the immediate future considering the fear that Abiy has of it inadvertently provoking “Balkanization”.

Redrawing Internal Administrative Borders

Going forward, however, responsibly managed decentralization should be seriously considered by him and others as a compromise solution for resolving myriad internal issues, especially those of an ethnic nature. Ethiopia’s internal borders remain imperfect, but they shouldn’t be de facto redrawn through one region’s partial military occupation of another like the Amhara Region is presently doing to Tigray. This leads to the large-scale exodus of local people which can arguably be described as ethnic cleansing even if that wasn’t the intent. Replicating this model deeper in the Ethiopian heartland around the Oromo periphery for example could be disastrous for the country and potentially spell its doom in the worst-case scenario. From the opposite view, however, the peaceful resolution of such heated disputes could set an excellent example for the region.

The Most Powerful Man In Africa

What everything ultimately comes down to is the influence of leadership, especially in the Horn of Africa. For better or for worse depending on one’s perspective, Abiy is the most powerful man in the region, which thus makes him among Africa’s most powerful leaders today. His decisions set the trend that all neighboring countries follow. With this in mind, there’s still hope for the Horn of Africa, but it all depends on what Abiy decides to do. As seen from the example set by the neighboring Somali leader, backtracking on a controversial decision might improve the situation in one’s country, but Somalia is of course very different than Ethiopia so the comparison is admittedly imperfect. Nevertheless, this still shows that the region’s leaders exert powerful influence over national affairs, once again for better or for worse. Abiy could for example eventually take steps to restore the de facto collective leadership model that he inherited from the TPLF, though only if he cares to.

From A Party To A Person Being “The First Among Equals”

To explain, the post-civil war ruling coalition was largely modeled off of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Despite its faults, it succeeded in retaining stability in this very diverse country and controlling its centrifugal tendencies, albeit through heavy handed measures. Abiy retained that strict style of leadership but attempted to reform the dynamics of the ruling coalition, which in turn inadvertently destabilized the country since it was so unprecedented in the post-civil war period. Instead of the TPLF being “the first among equals”, it became him personally who fulfilled that role. His outsized influence over all matter of governing affairs has been felt by everyone, again for better or for worse. In a sense, it’s a return to history, but his evolving leadership model must continue adjusting to contemporary realities, especially the dynamics that he’s responsible for unleashing.

Ethiopia’s Most Immediate Priorities

Preserving superficial decentralization while in practice increasing centralization trends risks worsening domestic dissent, especially among the majority-minority Oromo and smaller groups around the country’s periphery. Abiy is unlikely to ever follow the Somali model of much broader decentralization for each region but some substantive movement in that direction with time might help placate some of those who’ve been provoked by his leadership style. The most immediate priority though is stopping the growing inter-ethnic violence of the past year which is driven to a large extent by various groups trying to redraw internal borders to more closely align with demographic realities on the ground. Only once this is brought under control can the state seriously start discussing the adjustment of those contentious frontiers.

The Tigrayan Tinderbox Risks Spreading Throughout Ethiopia

It mustn’t be driven by inertia into letting events unfold “naturally” and creating fait accomplis lest the resultant violence worsen the country’s already tragic humanitarian situation. Although Abiy is trying to regain control of these centrifugal dynamics, critics allege that he might secretly be turning a blind eye to some of the violence out of speculative favoritism for one or another group. This risks deepening the country’s ethnic divisions as well as the growing gap between the central government and some of the governed. What’s happening right now in Tigray might therefore spread throughout the rest of the country as Ethiopia flirts with its own so-called “Great Reset”, albeit related to redrawing internal borders and continuing Abiy’s centralization trends instead of the socio-economic outcomes generally associated with that concept (i.e. “Fourth Industrial Revolution”).

An Outsider’s Proposed Solutions

From an outsider’s perspective, Ethiopia must immediately regain control over the security situation in all parts of the country without exception, though being careful not to overreact to certain conflicts. Then Abiy must compellingly articulate his envisioned governance model to the masses. Ideally, credible representatives from each region will either support him or offer constructive critiques to whatever he proposes with an aim to improve perceived shortcomings. Only after that happens can the country then consider redrawing some of its internal borders, though that process will of course be controversial and not everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. Amid all of this, Abiy must balance between the competing external forces shaping his decision making, particularly Eritrea and the GCC, while retaining Ethiopia’s traditionally excellent relations with China.

Concluding Thoughts

For as dramatic of a comparison as it may be, Abiy’s Ethiopia has many parallels with Gorbachev’s Soviet Union. Both visionary leaders sought to revolutionize their systems of governance but inadvertently opened up a Pandora’s Box of domestic crises. Unlike the USSR, however, Ethiopia still has a chance of surviving as a unified state, though it must eventually make meaningful reforms in the direction of substantive decentralization after stabilizing the security situation throughout the country. Abiy might also do well to consider returning to more of a collective leadership model than the one that he presently rules over where he personally wields the most power as the so-called ‘first among equals”. In any case, it all comes down to leadership, and everyone’s hopes are resting on his shoulders to see what he’ll do next.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The current crisis of Palestine-Israel deepens and widens: casualties mount, smoke from destroyed buildings blacken the sky over Gaza, there’s rioting on the streets of many Israeli and West Bank towns; Israeli police disrupt worshippers in Al-Aqsa mosque while protecting extremist Jewish settlers shouting genocidal slogans – “death to the Arabs” – in inflammatory marches through Palestinian neighbourhoods.

Underlying this entire eruption of tensions between the oppressor and the oppressed were the flimsy legalised evictions of six Palestinian families long resident in Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood in occupied East Jerusalem. These evictions epitomised the long Palestinian ordeal of persecution and banishment in what remains their homeland.

While this mayhem continues, the lights have remained scandalously dim at the UN. Western leaders pathetically call for calm on both sides as if both sides shared equal blame, while perversely affirming the one-sidedness of “Israel’s right to defend itself”, which supposes that Israel had been attacked out of the blue.

Is this but one more cycle of violence exhibiting the unresolvable clash between a native people overwhelmed by a colonial intruder emboldened by a unique religiously grounded settler sense of entitlement?

Or are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the century-long struggle by the Palestinian people to defend their homeland against the unfolding Zionist project that stole their land, trampled on their dignity, and made Palestinians victimised strangers in what had been their national home for centuries?

Only the future can fully unravel this haunting uncertainty. In the meantime, we can expect more bloodshed, death, outrage, grief, injustice, and continuing geopolitical interference.

The spirit of resistance

Last week’s events have made clear that the Palestinians are withstanding prolonged oppression with their spirit of resistance intact, and refuse to be pacified regardless of the severity of the imposed hardships.

We also are made to appreciate that the Israeli leadership and most of its public is no longer in the mood even to pretend receptivity to a peaceful alternative to the completion of their settler-colonial undertaking despite its dependence on a weaponised version of apartheid governance.

For Israelis and much of the West, the core narrative continues to be the violence of a “terrorist” organisation, Hamas, challenging the peaceful state of Israel with destructive intent, making the Israeli response seem reasonable. It is thus framed as not only a response to Hamas’ rockets but also as a harsh punitive lesson for the people of Gaza, designed to deter future attacks.

The Israeli missiles and drones are deemed “defensive” while the rockets are acts of “terrorism”, even though Israeli human targets are seldom hit, and despite the fact that it is Israeli weaponry that causes 95 percent of the widespread death and destruction among the over two million civilian Palestinians in Gaza. They have been victims of an unlawful and crippling blockade that since 2007 has brought severe suffering to the impoverished, crowded and traumatised enclave, with unemployment levels above 50 percent.

In the current confrontation, Israel’s control of the international discourse has succeeded in de-contextualising the timeline of violence, thus leading those with little knowledge of what induced the flurry of Hamas rockets to believe falsely that the destruction in Gaza was a retaliatory Israeli reaction to hundreds of rockets launched by Hamas and Gaza armed groups.

With abuses of language that might even surprise Orwell, Israel’s state terrorism is airbrushed by the world along with the rebuff of Hamas’ peace diplomacy over the past 15 years that has repeatedly sought a permanent ceasefire and peaceful coexistence.

Symbolic victories

For Palestinians and those in solidarity with their struggle, Israel knowingly allowed the subjugated population of occupied East Jerusalem to experience a series of anguishing humiliations to occur during the holy period of Muslim religious observances in Ramadan, rubbing salt in the wounds recently opened by the Sheikh Jarrar evictions. This had the inevitable effect of refreshing Palestinian memories of their defining experiences of ethnic cleansing days before the annual observance of the Nakba on 15 May.

This amounted to a metaphoric reenactment of that massive crime of expulsion accompanying the establishment of Israel in 1948, which culminated in the bulldozing of several hundred Palestinian villages that signalled a firm Israeli intention to make the banishment permanent.

Unlike South Africa, which never claimed to be a democracy, Israel legitimated itself by presenting itself as a constitutional democracy. This resolve to be a democracy came with a high price tag of deception and self-deception, necessitating to this day a continuing struggle to make apartheid work to secure Jewish supremacy while hiding Palestinian subjugation.

For decades, Israel was successful in hiding these apartheid features from the world because the legacy of the Holocaust lent uncritical credence to the Zionist narrative of providing sanctuary for the survivors of the worst genocide known to humanity.

Additionally, the Jewish presence “was making the desert bloom“, while at the same time virtually erasing Palestine grievances, further discounted by hasbara visions of Palestinian backwardness as contrasting with Israeli modernising prowess, and later on by juxtaposing a political caricature of the two peoples, portraying Jewish adherence to Western values as opposed to the Palestinian embrace of terrorism.

Recent developments in the symbolic domains of politics that control the outcome of “Legitimacy Wars” have scored several victories for the Palestinian struggle. The International Criminal Court has authorised the investigation of Israeli criminality in Occupied Palestine since 2015 despite vigorous opposition from the leadership of the Israeli government, fully supported by the United States. The investigation in The Hague, although proceeding with diligent respect for the legalities involved, was not openly engaged by Israel, but rather immediately denounced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “pure antisemitism”.

Beyond this, allegations of Israeli apartheid were unequivocally confirmed in an academic report commissioned by the UN, concluding that Israeli policies and practices were designed to ensure Palestinian subjugation and Jewish domination. This too was similarly denounced by Israeli leaders.

A citizen of Gaza: “Today I did the strangest thing; I gave 2 of my kids to my brother and took 2 of his. This way if (the Israelis) kill an entire one of our families something will still remain of all of us.”#GazaUnderAttackغزة https://t.co/X11oCIUv4J

— Ahdaf Soueif (@asoueif) May 18, 2021

In the past few months both B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights NGO, and Human Rights Watch, have issued carefully documented studies that reach the same startling conclusion that Israel indeed administers an apartheid regime within the whole of historic Palestine, that is, the Occupied Palestinian Territories plus Israel itself.

While these two developments do not alleviate Palestinian suffering or the behavioural effects of enduring denial of basic rights, they are significant symbolic victories that stiffen the morale of Palestinian resistance and strengthen the bonds of global solidarity. The record of struggles against colonialism since 1945 support reaching the conclusion that the side that wins a legitimacy war will eventually control the political outcome, despite being weaker militarily and diplomatically.

‘Then you win’

The endgame of South African apartheid reinforces this reassessment of the changing balance of forces in the Palestinian struggle. Despite having what appeared to be effective and stable control of the African majority population through the implementation of brutal apartheid structures, the racist regime collapsed from within under the combined weight of internal resistance and international pressure.

Outside pressures included a widely endorsed BDS campaign enjoying UN backing and military setbacks in Angola against Cuban and liberation forces. Israel is not South Africa in a number of key aspects, but the combination of resistance and solidarity was dramatically ramped upwards in the past week.

Israel has already long lost the main legal and moral arguments, almost acknowledging this interpretation by their defiant way of changing the subject with reckless accusations of antisemitism, and is in the process of losing the political argument.

Israel’s own sense of vulnerability to a South African scenario has been exposed by this growing tendency to brand supporters of BDS and harsh critics as “antisemites” which seems in the context of present development best described as “a geopolitical panic attack”.

I find it appropriate to recall Gandhi’s famous observation along these lines: “First, they ignore you, then they insult you, then they fight you, then you win.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. In 2008 he was also appointed by the UN to serve a six-year term as the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

Featured image: Palestinian take cover as Israeli forces fire at protesters at the Gaza border on 14 December 2018 [Mohammed Asad/Middle East Monitor]

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

With the conviction of former police officer Derek Chauvin in the brutal murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, many had hoped that this rare legal occurrence represented a turning point in holding law-enforcement agents accountable for their use of lethal force involving interactions with Black and Brown peoples.

Nonetheless, on the same day as the guilty verdict was announced in Minneapolis, a 16-year-old youth, Ma’Khia Bryant, was gunned down in Columbus, Ohio by cops.

Corporate news reports on the killing of Bryant brought a plethora of so-called experts on police services and culture to express their opinions that the gunman was once again justified in using deadly weapons. Many of these talking heads said that each case of police use of firearms against civilians should be viewed individually, that most officers are trained to respond in such situations and there is no pattern of racial bias.

Chauvin’s defense lawyers in their appeal were expected to suggest that the jury was tainted due to the presence of one person at a March on Washington during August 2020, which commemorated the 57th anniversary of the 1963 gathering addressed by leading African Americans such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., A. Philip Randolph, Mahalia Jackson, Odetta, Josephine Baker, Daisy Bates, Bayard Rustin, among others.

Could the presence of one African American at the rally in 2020 be considered by the defense to be enough to disqualify participation on a jury which decided the fate of Chauvin? A commemoration of the March on Washington was conveniently categorized as a “Black Lives Matter” activity, evoking the right-wing demonization of the Movement as a threat to policing across the United States.

Yet BLM and all antiracist campaigns since 2020 have been of a mass character. People have participated through a myriad of expressions which includes marches, rallies, letter writing, car caravans, bicycle rides, leafleting, social media posts, public debates and cultural work. The murder of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Hakim Littleton and a long list of victims of police brutality were covered by media outlets locally, nationally and internationally.

It is almost impossible that anyone living in or outside the U.S. would not be aware of these killings, the demonstrations which arose in response to the unjustified murders of African Americans and the prosecutorial investigations into the legality of these acts of state sponsored repression and violence. The fact that Chauvin’s defense lawyer would consider raising such issues illustrates the desperation of racist cops to ensure that their conduct on the job is not subjected to any scrutiny.

However, the actual efforts aimed at winning a new trial for Chauvin are based on a number of issues such as pretrial publicity, the alleged unfairness of the proceedings to the former police officer and the failure to grant a change of venue in the case since the defense is arguing that their client could not receive a fair trial in Minneapolis.

According to an article published by the Associated Press on May 5 it outlines some of the issues raised by Chauvin’s defense lawyer Eric Nelson. The article says:

“Nelson also took issue with Cahill’s refusal to sequester the jury for the trial or warn them to avoid all media, and with his refusal to allow a man who was with Floyd at the time of his arrest to testify. Nelson said Cahill also abused his discretion when he submitted jury instructions that Nelson said failed to accurately reflect the law on the murder charges and use of force, permitted the state to present cumulative evidence on use of force, and ordered the state to lead witnesses on direct examination, among other things.” (See this)

In an even more outrageous claim filed by Chauvin’s attorney, this same reports notes that:

“Nelson also asked the judge for a hearing to impeach the verdict on the grounds that the jury committed misconduct, felt race-based pressure, felt intimidated or threatened, and/or failed to adhere to jury instructions, though the filing did not include details about that assertion. To impeach a verdict is to question its validity. The brief did not mention recent reports that one of the jurors participated in an Aug. 28 march in Washington, D.C., to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.”

Some legal analysts believe that the likelihood of Chauvin having the verdicts impeached or being granted a new trial is almost nil. Nevertheless, objectively it was the strength of the antiracist movement in the U.S. and worldwide which created the political atmosphere for the indictments of Chauvin and three other former police officers.

Absent of the mass demonstrations, rebellions and other forms of protests, it is highly unlikely that the Chauvin trial, his convictions on three counts of murder and the subsequent federal indictments by the Justice Department, would have ever taken place. People are routinely killed by the police in the U.S., and it is extremely rare that the perpetrating officers are charged with any crimes.

Andrew Brown, Jr. Killing Deemed Justified by North Carolina Authorities

In another high-profile police killing of an African American, Andrew Brown, Jr, 42, on April 21, in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, the family and lawyers for the victim have been attempting to obtain the release of all police body cam footage of the incident. Brown, who was unarmed, was shot several times in the back, including the head, while he was driving away from his home.

The Pasquotank County District Attorney Andrew Womble said on May 18 that the officers’ behavior was justified since they were attempting to apprehend what he described as a violent felon who was utilizing his vehicle as a dangerous weapon. Such language is typical in prosecutorial investigations of police misconduct particularly when African Americans and other people of color are involved as victims.

A lawyer for the family of Brown, Atty. Wayne Kendall, told the media in response to the DA’s decision not to prosecute the police that a local judge:

“[D]id not allow all of the defense team to see the videos. He only allowed one representative who was a North Carolina-licensed attorney to view that 19-minute segment of the four or five bodycam videos. And what our representative who saw those videos stated to us was that Andrew Brown had his hands visible on the wheel of the vehicle when the videos began and his hands were clearly visible at all times. The deputies shouted commands to him. He backed his car up and drove across a vacant lot, which is next door to his home, and they were shooting into the vehicle. According to our representative, the shots started before he ever put the vehicle in reverse to try to flee that particular scene. So there is a discrepancy between what our representative said he saw and what the district attorney indicated yesterday in his press conference that was on the videos. So we don’t know until we see all of the videos in their entirety as to what those videos actually show.” (See this)

On May 19, another lawyer for the Brown family, Atty. Chance D. Lynch, announced that a civil lawsuit was being filed for the wrongful death of the victim. Lynch said that he had already filed a petition demanding the release of all related police videos of the entire encounter between the officers and Brown.

Police Reform Must Be Comprehensive Nationally

More people in the U.S. are advocating the defunding and even dismantling of police forces as they currently exist. Some reforms such as de-escalation tactics and the curtailing of traffic stops have been instituted in some cities.

In Newark, New Jersey, city officials working under Mayor Ras Baraka, say that due to changes in policing practices, officers did not fire their weapons at all during 2020. Baraka also stated in a recent “60 Minutes” CBS News program that crime has been reduced by 50% due to changes in the conduct of police.

Despite this seemingly improvement in police-community relations in Newark, in other regions of the U.S. the overall conditions are worsening. The Justice Department has been raised by the attorneys for the family of Andrew Brown, Jr. seeking their intervention to investigate whether federal civil rights laws were violated. The Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland announced in April that consent judgments were being leveled against several municipalities including Minneapolis where Floyd was killed and Louisville, the home of Breonna Taylor, shot to death in her apartment in an apparent case of mistaken identity.

The origins of policing in the U.S. are to be found within the war against Indigenous, African and working class people. Consequently, it will take far more than policy reforms to end police brutality. The entire system of oppression and exploitation as a whole must be eliminated.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Elizabeth City protests demanding justice for Andrew Brown, Jr. (All images in this article are from the author)

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The crisis of 2020 has created the greatest wealth gap in history. The middle class, capitalism and democracy are all under threat. What went wrong and what can be done?

In a matter of decades, the United States has gone from a largely benign form of capitalism to a neo-feudal form that has created an ever-widening gap in wealth and power. In his 2013 bestseller Capital in the 21st Century, French economist Thomas Piketty declared that “the level of inequality in the US is probably higher than in any other society at any time in the past anywhere in the world.” In a 2014 podcast about the book, Bill Moyers commented:

Here’s one of its extraordinary insights: We are now really all headed into a future dominated by inherited wealth, as capital is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, giving the very rich ever greater power over politics, government and society. Patrimonial capitalism is the name for it, and it has potentially terrifying consequences for democracy.

Paul Krugman maintained in the same podcast that the United States is becoming an oligarchy, a society of inherited wealth, “the very system our founders revolted against.” While things have only gotten worse since then thanks to the economic crisis of 2020, it’s worth retracing the history that brought us to this volatile moment.

Not the Vision of Our Founders

The sort of capitalism on which the United States was originally built has been called mom-and-pop capitalism. Families owned their own farms and small shops and competed with each other on a more or less level playing field. It was a form of capitalism that broke free of the feudalistic model and reflected the groundbreaking values set forth in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including the rights to free speech, a free press, to worship and assemble; and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

It was good in theory, but there were glaring, inhumane exceptions to this idealized template, including the confiscation of the lands of indigenous populations and the slavery that then prevailed. The slaves were emancipated by the US Civil War; but while they were freed in their persons, they were not economically free. They remained entrapped in economic serfdom. Although Black and Indigenous communities have been disproportionately oppressed, poor people were all trapped in “indentured servitude” of sorts — the obligation to serve in order to pay off debts, e.g. the debts of Irish workers to pay for passage to the United States, and the debts of “sharecroppers” (two-thirds of whom were white), who had to borrow from landlords at interest for land and equipment. Today’s U.S. prison system has also been called a form of slavery, in which free or cheap labor is extracted from poor people of color.

To the creditors, economic captivity actually had certain advantages over “chattel” slavery (ownership of humans as a property right). According to an infamous document called the Hazard Circular, circulated by British banking interests among their American banking counterparts during the American Civil War:

Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are glad of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages.

Slaves had to be housed, fed and cared for. “Free” men housed and fed themselves.  Free men could be kept enslaved by debt by paying them wages that were insufficient to meet their costs of living.

From ‘Industrial Capitalism’ to ‘Finance Capitalism‘

The economy crashed in the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s government revived it and rebuilt the country through a public financial institution called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. After World War II, the US middle class thrived. Small businesses competed on a relatively level playing field similar to the mom-and-pop capitalism of the early pioneers. MMeanwhile, larger corporations engaged in “industrial capitalism,” in which the goal was to produce real goods and services.

But the middle class, considered the backbone of the economy, has been progressively eroded since the 1970s. The one-two punch of the Great Recession and what the IMF has called the “Great Lockdown” has again reduced much of the population to indentured servitude; while industrial capitalism has largely been displaced by “finance capitalism,” in which money makes money for those who have it, “in their sleep.” As economist Michael Hudson explains, unearned income, not productivity, is the goal. Corporations take out cheap 1% loans, not to invest in machinery and production, but to buy their own stock earning 8% or 9%; or to buy out smaller corporations, eliminating competition and creating monopolies. Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis explains that “capital” has been decoupled from productivity: businesses can make money without making profits on their products.  As Kevin Cahill described the plight of people today in a book titled Who Owns the World?:

These latter day pharaohs, the planet owners, the richest 5% – allow the rest of us to pay day after day for the right to live on their planet. And as we make them richer, they buy yet more of the planet for themselves, and use their wealth and power to fight amongst themselves over what each possesses – though of course it’s actually us who have to fight and die in their wars.

The 2020 Knockout Punch 

The final blow to the middle class came in 2020. Nick Hudson, co-founder of a data analytics firm called PANDA (Pandemics, Data and Analysis),  argued in an interview following his keynote address at a March 2021 investment conference:

Lockdowns are the most regressive strategy that has ever been invented. The wealthy have become much wealthier. Trillions of dollars of wealth have been transferred to wealthy people. … Not a single country did a cost/benefit analysis before imposing these measures.

Policymakers followed the recommendations of the World Health Organization, based on predictive modeling by the Imperial College London that subsequently proved to be wildly inaccurate. Later studies have now been done, at least some of which have concluded that lockdowns have no significant effects on case numbers and that the costs of lockdowns substantially outweigh the benefits, in terms not just of economic costs but of lives.

On the economic front,  global lockdowns eliminated competition from small and medium-sized businesses, allowing monopolies and oligopolies to grow. “The biggest loser from all this is the middle class,” wrote Logan Kane on Seeking Alpha. By May 2020, about one in four Americans had filed for unemployment, with over 40 million Americans filing jobless claims; and 200,000 more businesses closed in 2020 than the historical annual average. Meanwhile, US billionaires collectively increased their total net worth by $1.1 trillion during the last 10 months of 2020; and 46 people joined the billionaire class.

The number of “centi-billionaires”– individuals with a net worth of $100 billion or more – also grew. In the US they included:

• Jeff Bezos, soon-to-be former CEO of Amazon, whose net worth increased from $113 billion in March 2020 to $182 billion in March 2021, up by $70 billion for the year;
• Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, whose net worth increased from $25 billion in March 2020 to $164 billion in March 2021, up by $139 billion for the year; and
• Bill Gates, formerly CEO of Microsoft and currently considered the “global vaccine czar,” whose net worth increased to $124 billion in March 2021, up by $26 billion for the year.

Two others are almost centi-billionaires:

• The net worth of Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, grew from $55 billion in March 2020 to $95 billion in March 2021, up by $40 billion for the year; and
• The net worth of Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway grew from $68 billion in March 2020 to $95 billion in March 2021, up by $27.6 billion for the year.

These five individuals collectively added $300 billion to their net worth just in 2020. For perspective, that’s enough to create 300,000 millionaires, or to give $100,000 to 3 million people.

Philanthro-capitalism

The need to shield the multibillionaire class from taxes and to change their predatory corporate image has given rise to another form of capitalism, called philanthrocapitalism. Wealth is transferred to foundations or limited liability corporations that are designated as having charitable purposes but remain under the ownership and control of the donors, who can invest the funds in ways that serve their corporate interests. As noted in The Reporter Magazine of the Rochester Institute of Technology:

Essentially, what we are witnessing is the transfer of responsibility for public goods and services from democratic institutions to the wealthy, to be administered by an executive class. In the CEO society, the exercise of social responsibilities is no longer debated in terms of whether corporations should or shouldn’t be responsible for more than their own business interests. Instead, it is about how philanthropy can be used to reinforce a politico-economic system that enables such a small number of people to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth.

With $100 billion, nearly anything can be bought – not just land and resources but media and journalists, political influence and legislation, regulators, university research departments and laboratories. Jeff Bezos now owns The Washington Post. Bill Gates is not only the largest funder of the World Health Organization and the Imperial College London but the largest owner of agricultural land in the US. And Elon Musk’s aerospace manufacturer SpaceX has effectively privatized the sky. Astronomers and stargazers complain that the thousands of satellites it has already launched, with many more in the works, are blocking their ability to see the stars. Astronomy professor Samantha Lawler writes in a piece for The Conversation:

SpaceX has already received approval for 12,000 Starlink satellites and is seeking approval for 30,000 more. Other companies are not far behind […] The point of the Starlink mega-constellation is to provide global internet access. It is often stated by Starlink supporters that this will provide internet access to places on the globe not currently served by other communication technologies. But currently available information shows the cost of access will be too high in nearly every location that needs internet access. Thus, Starlink will likely only provide an alternate for residents of wealthy countries who already have other ways of accessing the internet […] With tens of thousands of new satellites approved for launch, and no laws about orbit crowding, right-of-way or space cleanup, the stage is set for the disastrous possibility of Kessler Syndrome, a runaway cascade of debris that could destroy most satellites in orbit and prevent launches for decades…. Large corporations like SpaceX and Amazon will only respond to legislation — which is slow, especially for international legislation — and consumer pressure […] Our species has been stargazing for thousands of years, do we really want to lose access now for the profit of a few large corporations?

Public advocacy groups, such as the Cellular Phone Task Force,  have also objected due to health concerns over increased electromagnetic radiation. But the people have little say over public policy these days. So concluded a study summarized in a January 2021 article in Foreign Affairs. Princeton professor and study co-author Martin Gilens wrote:

[O]rdinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. … Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences … of economic elites and of organized interests.

Varoufakis calls our current economic scheme “postcapitalism” and “techno-feudalism.” As in the medieval feudal model, assets are owned by the few. He notes that the stock market and the businesses in it are essentially owned by three companies – the giant exchange-traded funds BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. Under the highly controversial “Great Reset” envisioned by the World Economic Forum, “you will own nothing and be happy.” By implication, everything will be owned by the techno-feudal lords.

Getting Back on Track

The capitalist model has clearly gone off the rails. How to get it back on track? One obvious option is to tax the uber-rich. As Chuck Collins, author of The Wealth Hoarders: How Billionaires Pay Millions to Hide Trillions (2021), writes in a March 2021 article:

A wealth tax would reverse more than a half-​century of tax cuts for the wealthiest households. Billionaires have seen their taxes decline roughly 79 percent as a percentage of their wealth since 1980. The “effective rate” on the billionaire class—the actual percentage paid—was 23 percent in 2018, lower than for most middle-​income taxpayers.

He notes that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-​Mass.) and co-authors recently introduced legislation to levy a 2 percent annual tax on wealth starting at $50 million, rising to 3 percent on fortunes of more than $1 billion:

The tax, which would apply to fewer than 100,000 U.S. residents, would raise an estimated $3 trillion over the next decade. It would be paid entirely by multi-​millionaires and billionaires who have reaped the lion’s share of wealth gains over the last four decades, including during the pandemic.

 Varoufakis contends, however, that taxing wealth won’t be enough. The corporate model itself needs an overhaul. To create a “humanist” capitalism, he says, democracy needs to be brought to the marketplace.

Politically, one adult gets one vote. But in corporate elections, votes are weighted according to financial investment: the largest investors hold the largest number of voting shares. Varoufakis argues that the proper principle for reconfiguring the ownership of corporations for a market-based society would be one employee, one share (not tradeable), one vote. On that basis, he says, we can imagine as an alternative to our post-capitalist model a market-based democratic society without capitalism.

Another proposed solution is a land value tax, restoring at least a portion of the land to the “commons.” As Michael Hudson has observed:

There is one Achilles heel in the globalists’ strategy, an option that remains open to governments. This option is a tax on the rental income – the “unearned income” – of land, natural resources and monopoly takings.

Reforming the banking system is another critical tool. Banks operated as a public utility could allocate credit for productive purposes serving the public interest. Other possibilities include enforcement of anti-monopoly legislation and patent law reform. Perhaps, however, the flaw is in the competitive capitalist model itself. The winners will inevitably capture and exploit the losers, creating an ever-growing gap in wealth and power. Studies of natural systems have shown that cooperative models are more efficient than competitive schemes. That does not mean the sort of “cooperation” coerced through iron-fisted totalitarian control at the top. We need a set of rules that actually levels the playing field, rewards productivity, and maximizes benefit to society as a whole, while preserving the individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was first posted on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.  

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In April, the Indian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Microsoft, allowing its local partner CropData to leverage a master database of farmers. The MoU seems to be part of the AgriStack policy initiative, which involves the roll out of ‘disruptive’ technologies and digital databases in the agricultural sector.

Based on press reports and government statements, Microsoft would help farmers with post- harvest management solutions by building a collaborative platform and capturing agriculture datasets such as crop yields, weather data, market demand and prices. In turn, this would create a farmer interface for ‘smart’ agriculture, including post-harvest management and distribution.

CropData will be granted access to a government database of 50 million farmers and their land records. As the database is developed, it will include farmers’ personal details, profile of land held (cadastral maps, farm size, land titles, local climatic and geographical conditions), production details (crops grown, production history, input history, quality of output, machinery in possession) and financial details (input costs, average return, credit history).

The stated aim is to use digital technology to improve financing, inputs, cultivation and supply and distribution.

It seems that the blueprint for AgriStack is in an advanced stage despite the lack of consultation with or involvement of farmers themselves. Technology could certainly improve the sector but handing control over to powerful private concerns will merely facilitate what they require in terms of market capture and farmer dependency.

Such ‘data-driven agriculture’ is integral to the recent farm legislation which includes a proposal to create a digital profile of cultivators, their farm holdings, climatic conditions in an area, what is grown and average output.

Of course, many concerns have been raised about this, ranging from farmer displacement, the further exploitation of farmers through microfinance and the misuse of farmer’s data and increased algorithmic decision-making without accountability.

The displacement of farmers is not lost on the Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE) which, in a three-part series of articles, explains how neoliberal capitalism has removed peasant farmers from their land to facilitate an active land market for corporate interests. The Indian government is trying to establish a system of ‘conclusive titling’ of all land in the country, so that ownership can be identified and land can then be bought or taken away.

Taking Mexico as an example, RUPE says:

“Unlike Mexico, India never underwent significant land reform. Nevertheless, its current programme of ‘conclusive titling’ of land bears clear resemblances to Mexico’s post-1992 drive to hand over property rights… The Indian rulers are closely following the script followed by Mexico, written in Washington.”

The plan is that, as farmers lose access to land or can be identified as legal owners, predatory institutional investors and large agribusinesses will buy up and amalgamate holdings, facilitating the further roll out of high-input, corporate-dependent industrial agriculture – which has already helped fuel wide-scale financial distress among farmers and a deep-rooted agrarian and environmental crisis.

By harvesting (pirating) information – under the benign-sounding policy of data-driven agriculture – private corporations will be better placed to exploit farmers’ situations for their own ends: they will know more about their incomes and businesses than individual farmers themselves.

Open letter

Some 55 civil society groups and organisations have written to the government expressing these and various other concerns, not least the perceived policy vacuum with respect to the data privacy of farmers and the exclusion of farmers themselves in current policy initiatives.

In an open letter, they state:

“At a time when ‘data has become the new oil’ and the industry is looking at it as the next source of profits, there is a need to ensure the interest of farmers. It will not be surprising that corporations will approach this as one more profit-making possibility, as a market for so-called ‘solutions’ which lead to sale of unsustainable agri-inputs combined with greater loans and indebtedness of farmers for this through fintech, as well as the increased threat of dispossession by private corporations.”

They add that any proposal which seeks to tackle the issues that plague Indian agriculture must address the fundamental causes of these issues. The current model relies on ‘tech-solutionism’ which emphasises using technology to solve structural issues.

There is also the issue of reduced transparency on the part of the government through algorithm-based decision-making.

The 55 signatories request the government holds consultations with all stakeholders, especially farmers’ organisations, on the direction of its digital push as well as the basis of partnerships, and put out a policy document in this regard after giving due consideration to feedback from farmers and farmer organisations. As agriculture is a state subject, the central government should consult the state governments also.

They state that all initiatives that the government has begun with private entities to integrate and/or share multiple databases with private/personal information about individual farmers or their farms be put on hold till an inclusive policy framework is put in place and a data protection law is passed.

It is also advocated that the development of AgriStack, both as a policy framework and its execution, should take the concerns and experiences of farmers as the prime starting point.

The letter states that if the new farm laws are closely examined, it will be evident that unregulated digitalisation is an important aspect of them.

There is the strong possibility that monopolistic corporate owned e-commerce ‘platforms’ will eventually control much of India’s economy given the current policy trajectory. From retail and logistics to cultivation, data certainly will be the ‘new oil’, giving power to platforms to dictate what needs to be manufactured and in what quantities.

Those farmers who remain in the system will be tied to contracts and told how much production is expected, how much rain is anticipated, what type of soil quality there is, what type of inputs are required and when the produce needs to be ready – and how much money they will receive.

Handing over all information about the sector to Microsoft and others places power in their hands – the power to shape the sector in their own image.

The data giants and e-commerce companies will not only control data about consumption but also hold data on production, logistics, who needs what, when they need it, who should produce it, who should move it and when it should be moved.

Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta and traditional agribusiness will work with Microsoft, Google and the big-tech giants to facilitate AI-driven farmerless farms and e-commerce retail dominated by the likes of Amazon and Walmart. A cartel of data owners, proprietary input suppliers and retail concerns at the commanding heights of the economy, peddling toxic industrial food and the devastating health impacts associated with it.

And elected representatives? Their role will be highly limited to technocratic overseers of these platforms and the artificial intelligence tools that plan and determine all of the above.

As for farmers, many if not most will be forced to leave the sector. Tens of millions unemployed and underemployed ‘collateral damage’ stripped of their means of production.

Centuries’ old knowledge of cultivation and cultural practices passed on down the generations – gone. The links between humans and the land reduced to an AI-driven technocratic dystopia in compliance with the tenets of neoliberal capitalism.

As it currently stands, AgriStack will help facilitate this end game.

The open letter referred to can be read on the website of the Alliance For Holistic and Sustaibable Agriculture. For a summary of the recent farm legislation and the implications see this segment by Colin Todhunter on UK-based KTV.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Giving a heart-breaking appeal to the world to take note of the “Israeli brutality”, a grieving Palestinian father while holding his little son killed in Gaza bombing posed some chilling questions to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Netanyahu and the Minister of Defense, is this child your target?” the bereaved father asked, holding his dead son, Ibrahim Al-Rantisi, who has been killed in Israeli airstrike in Rafah.

“Will you show your power over our children and women?” he further asked in Arabic.

As many as 137 Palestinians, including 36 children, have been killed in #Israeli bombardment over #Gaza in the last five days. Holding the body of his dead son, a Palestinian father asks the world for how long will it remain a mute spectator to this barbarism. #Gaza_Under_Attack pic.twitter.com/pS3hiWOc32

— AleemFaizee (@aleemfaizee) May 15, 2021

“What did my child do to bomb our house over our heads without even warning us? Why are you violently bombing our homes and destroying them completely?” he asked in the video shared by Safa – Palestinian press agency.

“Iron Dome”

Israel is pounding Gaza with bombs, allegedly having deadly chemicals, since last five days in response to what it called “Hamas barrage of rockets” and to “save its citizens.”

However, according to Israel Defense Forces (IDF), most of over 1,750 rockets so far fired by Hamas into Israeli territory have been either intercepted by “Iron Dome” – the much talked about Israeli defense system or fallen in open grounds without causing any major damage.

Yet as many as 10 Israelis have been killed as a result of the rockets fired by Hamas which rules Gaza, as per Israeli media reports.

Along with aerial attacks, Israel has also moved its ground troops near Gaza. Witnesses and Palestinian security sources told Xinhua that Israeli army artillery on Friday struck the eastern area of Gaza city with tanks, killing at least two.

Tanks hit the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahia, killing a mother and her four children, according to medical sources.

“Our message to the whole world”

The bereaved Palestinian father asked the world to wake-up and take note of the brutal and continued bombing over Gaza that has so far killed over 137 Palestinians including 36 children and at least 20 women.

“This innocent child killed in Israeli bombing is our message to the whole world”, he said in the video.

“What sin has this infant committed to be killed with such brutality?” he asked.

“Israel is an oppressive, unjust and a killer country founded on injustice, persecution”, he said.

“How long will you remain silent”

The bereaved father also questioned the silence of the world over what he called Israeli “brutality”, “oppression” and “injustice”.

“O world! O free people all over the world, why is this injustice? I am just asking the world how long will you keep silent about our pain, oppression, and injustice?” he asked.

The fighting between Israel and Hamas was triggered by days of escalating clashes between Palestinians and Israeli police at Al-Aqsa compound in East Jerusalem. The site is revered by both Muslims, who call it the Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary), and Jews, for whom it is known as the Temple Mount.

Hamas demanded Israel remove police from there and the nearby predominantly Arab district of Sheikh Jarrah, where Palestinian families face eviction by Jewish settlers. Hamas launched rockets when its ultimatum went unheeded.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from ummid.com

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Children as young as six are being referred to a mental health project run by counter-terrorism police as part of the UK government’s controversial Prevent strategy, according to a report by medical human rights researchers published on Wednesday.

Researchers said the project, in which health workers “monitored” thousands of people identified through Prevent referrals, raised “serious ethical concerns” and blasted it for “gross Islamophobic disproportionality”.

Drawing on documents obtained through freedom of information requests, the report argues that “pre-crime” security concerns are influencing medical treatment.

Case studies show that medical professionals have been encouraged to monitor patients based on concerns related to them being a “convert to Islam”.

The documents also appear to show potentially coercive practices, including mental health assessments conducted in the presence of police.

The report by Medact, a medical human rights organisation, comes as what are known as Vulnerability Support Hubs are rolled out nationwide.

REPORT: We expose major ethics concerns with "Vulnerability Support Hubs" – a secretive project run by UK counter-terrorism police – showing that Prevent’s often spurious and racist pre-crime security concerns are influencing treatment.

👉 https://t.co/2HkIRgBkpw#EndPrevent pic.twitter.com/DmAzXb9ABb

— Medact (@Medact) May 19, 2021

Medact has called for the hubs to be scrapped along with the entire Prevent programme in healthcare.

Police vetting

Established in 2016, Vulnerability Support Hubs embedded National Health Service (NHS) mental health professionals within counter-terrorism units to assess people referred to Prevent who police suspect may have mental health conditions.

Psychiatrists, psychologists and mental-health nurses working in the units are required to undergo rigorous police vetting to obtain the security clearance necessary to access highly sensitive intelligence.

Over a five-year period, more than 3,000 people, many of them teenagers, have been referred to the hubs, which were piloted in regional counter-terrorism police units in England’s three biggest urban areas: London, Birmingham and Manchester.

Common diagnoses include psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, personality disorders, mood disorders and autistic spectrum disorders, as well as learning difficulties.

The hubs were introduced a year after the British government in 2015 imposed a duty on all public-sector workers requiring them to report to Prevent anyone they deemed to be “vulnerable to radicalisation”.

While the government regards Prevent as the flagship programme of its counter-terrorism strategy, it has attracted controversy over the years. Critics say its emphasis on detecting “signs” of so-called extremism has criminalised Muslims for perfectly legitimate behaviour, silencing dissent and stigmatising religious practice.

As individuals are referred to Prevent on the basis of suspicion, rather than for committing any crime, the duty has also been accused of opening the door to racial bias and Islamophobia on the part of public-sector workers.

Drawing on case studies contained in hub evaluation documents, the authors of “Racism, Mental Health and Pre-crime Policing: The Ethics of Vulnerability Support Hubs” say that such nebulous indicators of “extremism” as used in Prevent are unduly influencing mental-health interventions.

With the overwhelming majority of Prevent referrals turning out to be false, the report’s authors say the hubs are acting to ensnare people in a vast dragnet before funnelling them into the mental-health sector.

One document describes a situation where “Mr X was referred… following concerns that he had converted to Islam”.

In another example, the case of a 58-year-old man is escalated because of “extreme right-wing” comments that were deemed to be “out of character because the subject was a convert to Islam”.

After the police-led hub contacted mental-health services, monitoring to ensure the man took his medication was intensified.

And in another case, a man with schizophrenia who had previously refused to take part in the Channel programme, the “deradicalisation” scheme within Prevent, was sectioned under the Mental Health Act after suffering a schizophrenic episode in which he made racist remarks.

“While acting on police information is not necessarily a departure from normal psychiatric practice, the kinds of behaviours which prompted the police-led hubs to contact mental-health services, resulting in escalations of treatment plans, are concerning,” the report says.

“It is clear that counter-terrorism policing’s often spurious and racialised pre-crime concerns have influenced mental-health care,” the report says.

‘Pervasive racial bias’

Speaking to Middle East Eye, Amanda Williams, a professor of clinical health psychology at University College London (UCL), said there was no proven link between pre-radicalisation and mental health.

“This whole notion that you can identify a state of pre-radicalisation or vulnerability and associate that with mental-health problems is unproven,” she says.

“There are people with mental-health problems at a diagnosable level being referred to the hubs, whereas in other cases, the referral is just based on a stereotype.”

Like counter-terrorism, the report says that mental health is “inflected with pervasive racial bias”.

Race is an important factor at every stage – from access to mental-health care, through to diagnosis and treatment, the report says. Meanwhile, people of colour are more likely to be subjected to coercion and violence when experiencing mental distress.

Figures show that Black communities are three times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia than average, while Muslims have recovery rates much lower than the national average for psychological therapies (three per cent versus eight per cent).

Yet despite the existence of racism in counter-terrorism and mental health, researchers said the hub documents were silent on the potency of combining these two areas.

“Such ‘colour blindness’ – the pretence that racial discrimination does not exist – serves to reproduce the egregious racism apparent in the hub statistics,” the report says.

This potency, the authors argue, has allowed for the over-representation of marginalised racial groups in the hubs. For instance, at a hub based within Greater Manchester Police’s counter-terrorism unit, the combined total of referrals from different ethnic groups (41.2 per cent) was almost equal to the number of white referrals (41.7 per cent).

At the same hub, some 48 per cent of referrals were people born outside of the UK.

The lack of acknowledgement of racial disproportionality has allowed hubs to use data on ethnicity to draw conclusions about the typical profile of referrals. One hub stated that “the most recurrent profile of person referred… is of Asian ethnicity”.

Hub data also shows evidence of “gross Islamophobic disproportionality”, the authors say.

More than half of those referred were categorised as presenting signs of “Islamist extremism”.

Remarkably, despite the exponential growth of far-right groups in recent years, the authors say that “a racialised Muslim is at least 23 times more likely to be referred to a mental-health hub for ‘Islamism’ than a white British individual is for ‘far-right extremism”.

Tarek Younis, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Middlesex and one of the report’s co-authors, said that the figures did not bode well for Black Muslims in particular, who were caught between the disproportionate focus of counter-terrorism policies on Muslim communities and a mental-health sector facing complaints of institutional racism.

“Racialised blackness and Muslimness together is something that is a huge blind spot that we’re really not considering,” he told MEE. “There is an intersectional dimension.”

Younis said Vulnerability Support Hubs were a symptom of an increasingly more “securitised state”.

“What the state is doing… is trying to have total access to all information. Prevent is another example of that and vulnerability mental health hubs is a further expansion of this.”

“It’s not just police structures entering the NHS, it’s a symbiotic relationship between police and the NHS. People might not know the NHS has been securitised when they attend it.”

Project Cicero

According to the report, counter-terrorism police have attended clinical assessments, questioning patients.

“The police presence is concerning because Prevent questioning and intelligence gathering can itself cause significant psychological stress and be experienced as stigmatising and traumatic,” it says.

“The explicit role of policing imbues the therapeutic encounter with a distinct element of coercion, rendering the veracity of consent deeply questionable.”

Guidance from the Royal College of Psychiatrists warns, “subtle pressures” such as “psychiatric examination in the presence of… security staff” may lead health professionals to “vary their normal medical practice to fit in with security considerations”.

The Royal College had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. The British Psychological Society, the representative body for psychologists, told MEE that they would raise the report’s findings within its ethics committee.

Both organisations made a commitment to tackling racial inequalities in the mental-health sector in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests that erupted last year.

Williams said:

“We should be really making our services far more accessible and responsive and sensitive to the needs of people from minority populations and, instead, we’re giving them every cause for being really suspicious about being referred or asking for help.”

The report draws on evaluations of Vulnerability Support Hubs piloted between 2016 and 2017. Its publication comes as counter-terrorism police begin to roll out the scheme nationwide under the name “Project Cicero”.

Chief Superintendent Nik Adams, counter-terrorism policing’s national Prevent coordinator, denied that the support hubs scheme was secretive and said all staff adhered to “existing ethical and clinical standards”.

“Through our partnership between policing and health specialists, we are getting better at identifying and understanding the complex individual needs that are driving harmful behaviour and vulnerability to radicalisation. This helps us intervene in the right way, at the right time, to stop those who are vulnerable from criminalising themselves, or suffering serious harm,” he said.

Counter-terrorism police on Tuesday tweeted a document highlighting the wider roll-out of the support hubs.

Learn more about our Prevent colleagues’ work with NHS mental health teams through the Vulnerability Support Service ⬇️

— Counter Terrorism Policing UK (@TerrorismPolice) May 18, 2021

“This partnership is designed to improve the health and criminal justice outcomes for individuals referred into Prevent and, by doing so, help mitigate the risk of terrorism to communities,” it says.

The document also includes a list of unethical practices which it says the hubs “will not do”, including having clinical staff undertake policing duties.

However, the Medact report’s authors say that “all of these practices do in fact appear to have taken place at the hubs” and that there was no evidence such “malpractice” had been rectified since the scheme was piloted.

Hilary Aked, one of the report’s co-authors and the research manager at Medact, said that the project combined “mental-health stigma with Islamophobia” while “co-opting health workers into activities beyond their remit, including surveillance and criminalisation”.

They added:

“Counter-terrorism police tried to keep the project secret because it’s so ethically dubious, but they’re now rolling it out nationwide despite a complete lack of independent evaluation. The health community must call for an end to the scheme, along with the whole Prevent programme in healthcare.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Israel’s demolition of a 12-storey tower block in Gaza, housing the US Associated Press (AP) news agency and Qatar’s Al Jazeera, forced the Biden administration to call for, at least  some restraint  in the aerial bombardment that has targeted other multi-storey buildings in the beleaguered Strip  and killed dozens of Palestinian civilians.  Israel’s tactic is to warn inhabitants of buildings to be taken down before missiles strike so they have time to get to safety while their possessions are blown to bits.

During a phone call to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, US President Joe Biden reiterated his support for “Israel’s right to self-defence”, condemned Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns, and expressed concern over the deaths of “Israeli and Palestinian civilians” and the safety of journalists.  Later, White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted that the Biden administration has “communicated to the Israelis that ensuring the safety and security of journalists and independent media is a paramount responsibility”. That is:  Rather than the safety and security of Palestinian and international civilians living in Gaza.

Little wonder that after speaking to Biden, Netanyahu concluded he had a green light to proceed with its offensive and announced that Israel would carry on unhindered with its air, land and sea offensive against Gaza, eliciting Hamas’ response in flights of rockets from Gaza.

The AP, the main US global agency, had been based in the Jalaa tower for 15 turbulent years, including during Israel’s 2008-09 and 2014 all-out onslaughts on Gaza.  Both  the Associated Press and  Al Jazeera chose this building because its height and location had given journalists an overall view of activity in the air and events on the ground during brief eruptions of violence and full-scale warfare.

AP chief Gary Pruitt pointed out, “The world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened …We are shocked and horrified that the Israeli military would target and destroy the building housing AP’s bureau and other news organisations in Gaza.” He also argued that during the time AP was operating from the building, the agency did not believe, as Israel claimed as its pretext for the strikes, there were Hamas military or intelligence operatives based there.

Whether or not this is a false pretext, Israel is guilty of a war crime.  According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), targeting a purely “civilian object” is prohibited and “civilian objects must not be attacked unless they have become military objectives”.

Furthermore, the ICRC says when military objectives are targeted, civilians and civilian ”objects” must be spared collateral damage as far as possible and damage must not be excessive when assessing the military advantage gained by striking a specific target. “Such use of excessive force quite clearly violates the law of armed conflict and is a war crime,” states the ICRC. Indeed, it says carrying out mass disproportionate attacks — like those perpetrated in Israel’s earlier and latest campaigns against Gaza — is a war crime.

Several legal experts argue that targeting journalists is in itself a war crime while Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, said this attack “raises the spectre that the Israel Defence Forces [IDF] is deliberately targeting media facilities in order to disrupt coverage of the human suffering in Gaza”.

Pruitt, who received a call from Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the targeting of AP, should not have been shocked and horrified at the action of the Israeli military. The building was struck precisely because journalists there were reporting in real time what is happening in Gaza. Israel’s actions in this conflict do not polish Israel’s image and Israel cares a great deal about its image abroad, notably in the US and Europe. It has slavishly followed the US example by saying Israel has the right to defend itself but does not grant that right to Palestinians.

The other news organisations housed in the destroyed building included the photographer of Middle East Eye, a London-based website dealing with regional affairs.  News organisations and journalists tend to clump together in front line areas like Gaza for safety and the need to cooperate in the event of power cuts, internet loss, or satellite outage.

Lone correspondents and independent stringers working for several outlets would have thought Israel would not bring down a block hosting AP, in particular, and would choose to its building for their offices. The loss of equipment could deprive them of the means to carry out their profession. Israel gave the residents of the tower one hour to evacuate and refused to grant journalists an extra 10 minutes to shift some of their remaining equipment. Nothing has been said about the equipment and records in the other offices in Al Jalaa tower or the household furnishings and possessions of residents. They do not count as they are,presumably, Palestinians.

Israel has never had any regard for journalists who expose its nefarious activities and brutal actions. Therefore, collapsing a tower block hosting journalists in Gaza is a good way to  disrupt their reports and curb their opportunities to collect information.

The fact that an all too brief hullabaloo has been made over the destruction of Al Jalaa building on May 15th is only due to the presence of the AP offices there. Western double standards, nearly always applied to reporting events in this region, apply once again.

Israel’s demolition of two other high rises, Al Jawhara and Al Shorouk buildings, on May  11th and 12th, where journalists were also based, received little or no attention.  Residents were told to evacuate Al Jawhara by text message and two warning shots were fired at Al Shorouk before Israel’s missiles were fired. The BBC reported that there had been “civilian deaths” in the former strike.  Journalists housed in these two buildings reported for Arab outlets unfriendly to Israel. Its pretext was the same as for Al Jalaa tower.

On the demolition of these two buildings, the Committee to Protect Journalists’ Middle East and North Africa representative, Ignacio Miguel Delgado, declared,“It is utterly unacceptable for Israel to bomb and destroy the offices of media outlets and endanger the lives of journalists, especially since Israeli authorities know where those media outlets are housed… [The] Israeli  authorities must ensure that journalists can do their jobs safely without fear of being injured or killed.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A German scientist has discovered why the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” made by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) are causing some recipients to develop deadly blood clots.

According to Prof. Andreas Greinacher, a blood expert from the University of Greifswald, the two viral vector vaccines contain genetically modified (GMO) cold viruses that, upon injection, trigger an autoimmune response.

Stray proteins, Greinacher says, along with a preservative used specifically in the AstraZeneca jab known as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), are directly responsible for causing the blood clots, he says.

Greinacher and his team identified more than 1,000 human-derived cell proteins in the injections that they believe are getting into people’s bloodstreams and clamping onto a blood component known as platelet factor 4, or PF4, where they form complexes that activate the production of antibodies.

This then generates an inflammatory response throughout the body, as the immune system is tricked into believing that it has been infected with bacteria. The immune system then overreacts and goes nuts, essentially, causing deadly bleeding and clotting.

Greinacher compares the way the injections trigger this otherwise dormant immune response to “awakening a sleeping dragon.” And all for a virus with a 99.9-plus percent survival rate.

Covid vaccines kill, but the establishment still wants you injected

Prof. John Kelton from McMaster University in Canada says he and his team have replicated and confirmed Greinacher’s findings, though they are unsure if his causal theory is accurate.

Greinacher, meanwhile, is hoping the two respective vaccine makers will cooperate in nailing down whether or not his causal theory is correct.

“We strongly support raising awareness of the signs and symptoms of this very rare event, and we are currently exploring a potential collaboration with Dr. Greinacher,” a J&J spokesperson is quoted as saying.

Numerous other peer-reviewed studies have likewise confirmed Greinacher’s findings, reiterating that the type of blood clotting being observed from J&J and AstraZeneca injections is known as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT.

Most of the science hubs investigating the clotting issue, which was first identified back in March, focus on a similar condition known as heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, or HIT, which has near-identical symptoms and outcomes to VITT.

“With HIT,” The Wall Street Journal reported, “the blood-thinning drug heparin causes clots paired with an abnormal decrease in the blood’s natural clotting agents.”

Other scientists have speculated that the vaccine adenoviruses themselves may be directly triggering the blood clotting, while still others are blaming the “genetic predispositions” of recipients so as to shift the blame away from Big Pharma.

Prof. Eric van Gorp from Erasmus University in the Netherlands also says that the flu-like symptoms many recipients of the vaccines experience post-injection could also be the result of autoimmune-provoking inflammation.

The reason why none of this has ever been reported in the past is because viral vector vaccine technology has never before been administered at scale. In other words, these shots, just like their mRNA counterparts, are entirely experimental.

The only viral vector vaccine that even comes close is the Ebola injection developed by J&J, which was only given to about 60,000 people as of last July.

Meanwhile, the Journal and other mainstream media outlets are continuing to push the narrative that deadly blood clots are “rare,” and that people should still rush out and get injected as soon as possible to “save lives.”

“The symptoms are exactly the same as preclinical scurvy,” a commenter of ours wrote. “Vitamin C is essential to combat this.”

To keep up with the latest news about injuries and deaths caused by Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) injections, be sure to check out ChemicalViolence.com.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Vaccine Injury News

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

America’s Frontline Doctors has published a video of a presentation by Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, who has analyzed the data in the VAERS database related to the COVID shots. The presentation was for “Vaccine Choice Canada.”

Dr. Jessica Rose has a BSc in Applied Mathematics and completed her MSc in Immunology at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada. She completed her PhD in Computational Biology at Bar Ilan University and then did her first Post Doctorate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Molecular Biology.

She is now doing a second Post Doctorate at the Technion where she will explore the structure and function of transport proteins in bacteria from both experimental and computational points of view. (Source.)

Dr. Rose challenges the “official” position of the political health authorities who keep telling the public that these thousands of reported deaths, and hundreds of thousands of adverse events reported to VAERS, have nothing to do with the COVID shots.

Her presentation of the statistics clearly shows that this cannot possibly be true, although she welcomes others to challenge her findings.

She concludes:

This work summarizes VAERS data to date and serves as information for the public and a reminder of the relevance of any adverse events, including deaths, that likely occurred as a direct result of vaccine administration.

Based on analysis of the VAERS numbers, it may appear that AEs are not currently imposing a significant burden on the fully vaccinated population; however, the weekly releases of VAERS data do not include all of their reports made to date — they are all the reports the CDC has processed to date — and the backlog is likely to be staggering.

Thus, due to both the problems of under-reporting and the lag in report processing, this analysis reveals a strong signal from the VAERS data that the risk of suffering an SAE following injection is significant and that the overall risk signal is high.

Analysis suggests that the vaccines are likely the cause of reported deaths, spontaneous abortions, and anaphylactic reactions in addition to cardiovascular, neurological and immunological AEs.

Based on the precautionary principle, since there is currently no precedent for predictability with regards to long-term effects from mRNA injections, extreme care should be taken when making a decision to participate in this experiment. mRNA platforms are new to humans with regard to mass injection programs in the context of viruses.

There is currently no way to predict potential detrimental outcomes with regards to SAE occurrences in the long-term.

Also, with regards to short-term analysis, this data is limited based on reporting that likely significantly underestimates actual events. (Source.)

I learned a few new things from Dr. Rose’s analysis.

She isolated the “breakthrough” cases of COVID recorded in VAERS. “Breakthrough” is the term they are using to describe people who come down with COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated.

According to Dr. Rose, 6% of all the breakthrough cases resulted in death.

This is significant, because one of the main reasons people are encouraged to get one of the experimental COVID shots is to prevent death. The drug companies have admitted that the injections are not proven to stop transmission of COVID, but supposedly the symptoms are supposed to be lessened among those getting the injections.

When 6% of those who get the shots end up dying with COVID, that challenges their claims. Dr. Rose did state that the statistics show that the majority of these deaths are among the elderly.

And there are statistically more breakthrough cases for the Pfizer shot, than the other two.

Of particular concern, were the “spontaneous abortions” immediately following the injections.

This was published on Dr. Rose’s YouTube channel.

If we were to embed it into this article and drive a lot of traffic to it, most likely YouTube would remove it, so we also have it on our Rumble and Bitchute channels.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Health Impact News

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This is a summary of a study by Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc. BSC, recently completed, submitted for publication, and accepted, entitled: A report on the U.S. Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) of the COVID-19 Messenger RNA (mRNA) biologicals.

The goal is make the public aware of the soaring Adverse Event reports in the context of the COVID-19 biologicals being administered en-masse prior to scientifically respectable safety and efficacy studies being completed.

The study concludes:

“This work summarizes VAERS data to date and serves as information for the public and a reminder of the relevance of any adverse events, including deaths, that likely occurred as a direct result of vaccine administration.

“Based on analysis of the VAERS numbers, it may appear that AEs are not currently imposing a significant burden on the fully vaccinated population; however, the weekly releases of VAERS data do not include all of there reports made to date — they are all the reports the CDC has processed to date — and the backlog is likely to be staggering.

“Thus, due to both the problems of under-reporting and the lag in report processing, this analysis reveals a strong signal from the VAERS data that the risk of suffering an SAE following injection is significant and that the overall risk signal is high.

“Analysis suggests that the vaccines are likely the cause of reported deaths, spontaneous abortions, and anaphylactic reactions in addition to cardiovascular, neurological and immunological AEs.

“Based on the precautionary principle, since there is currently no precedent for predictability with regards to long-term effects from mRNA injections, extreme care should be taken when making a decision to participate in this experiment. mRNA platforms are new to humans with regard to mass injection programs in the context of viruses. There is currently no way to predict potential detrimental outcomes with regards to SAE occurrences in the long-term. Also, with regards to short-term analysis, this data is limited based on reporting that likely significantly underestimates actual events.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from America’s Frontline Doctors

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease.

They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).

The trick is in their reporting of what they call “breakthrough infections” – that is people who are fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.

Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:

1. False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)
2. Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.

Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.

Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected “breakthrough infections”.

From the CDC’s instructions for state health authorities on handling “possible breakthrough infections” (uploaded to their website in late April):

For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)

Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the world going into the 40s.

Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).

But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.

Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”.

That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.

From their website:

As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. Previous case counts, which were last updated on April 26, 2021, are available for reference only and will not be updated moving forward.

Just like that, being asymptomatic – or having only minor symptoms – will no longer count as a “Covid case” but only if you’ve been vaccinated.

The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people.

Consider…

The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.

To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019, there would never have been a pandemic at all.

If you apply them only to the vaccinated, but keep the old rules for the unvaccinated, the only possible result can be that the official records show “Covid” is much more prevalent among the latter than the former.

This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimise the other.

What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A bill allowing hunters and private contractors to kill up to 90 percent of the state’s wolves passed the Idaho House on Tuesday.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Turkey has reduced the flow of the Euphrates River from 500 m3 per second to less than 200 m3 per second. This will have a major consequence on Syria – a threat of drought with summer only around the corner. Ankara is effectively weaponizing water to pressure Damascus and Kurdish-held cities. 

Syrians have noticed a major drop in the river’s level, almost a total of five meters in some places. Osama Khalaf, spokesman for the Raqqa municipal council, explained that “fishery is affected and the health consequences are starting to be felt. Desertification is progressing. This is a deliberate strategy on Turkey’s part.”

The 2,780-kilometer-long Euphrates River, where some of the earliest city-states and civilizations emerged from in the early Bronze Age, has its source in Turkey’s Anatolian basin. As a result, the Turkish government has a formidable weapon to pressure and weaken the Syrian State, as well as the Kurdish-led and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The long-term strategy of Turkey is to establish another geopolitical lever, besides the military, to use against its neighbors. Turkey in July 2020 cut off the supply of drinking water to the Syrian city of al-Hasakeh and has previously reduced the flow of the Euphrates, depriving thousands of Syrians of electricity and preventing them from irrigating their crops. Human Rights Watch then alerted international authorities on the humanitarian consequences of water shortages in the region. Given the Kurdish presence in eastern Syria, this flow reduction is anything but trivial.

Turkish authorities want to prevent Kurdish insurgents from being able to establish a permanent autonomous unit in Syria as it will strengthen calls for an autonomous Kurdistan within Turkey’s own borders, or perhaps even independence. Fighting against the SDF, Turkey has launched three military operations since 2017. The “Euphrates Shield Operation” was launched in March 2017 and dislodged Kurdish forces from the border. The second, dubbed “Olive Branch Operation,” allowed Turkish forces to establish themselves militarily in Syria by seizing the strategic zone of Afrin in March 2018. The third, “Operation Peace Spring,” began in October 2019 and was an extension of the second operation.

Although Turkey has the military strength, especially with the utilisation of thousands of Syrian militants, water control is an additional tool of pressure that can be equally devastating without risking the lives of Turkish personnel. Another Turkish military operation, especially as global pressure and condemnation mounts, would attract too much attention, especially from Washington. Since the arrival of Joe Biden to the White House, Washington has been at odds with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Several advisers to the new American administration are ardent defenders of the Kurdish cause, like the coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the National Security Council, Brett McGurk, or the director for the Syria and Iraq file to the same National Security Council, Zehra Bell.

Turkey is therefore using water as an alternative means to project its power as it can play a role in negotiations with the Kurds and/or Damascus. The waters of the Euphrates have regularly been a source of tension between Syria and Turkey. In 1991, the two countries were on the verge of war after Ankara blocked water flows to fill the newly constructed Atatürk Dam. In retaliation, Damascus began supporting the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) to destabilize Turkey.

In the 1960s, Turkey embarked on the construction of several dams. Today, it aims to build 22. The GAP (Güneydogu Anadolu Projesi) project was to enhance irrigation, hydropower, education and forestry, thus turning Turkey into the “breadbasket” of the region. The project, which was to be completed by 2005, was postponed to 2029 due to a lack of funding for the $32 billion needed to complete it. Turkey’s idea of becoming a “breadbasket” was during the brief period that it was attempting to have amicable relations with all its neighbors – but this idea was quickly abandoned by neo-Ottomanism with the advent of the Syrian War in 2011.

88% of the Euphrates flow comes from Turkey, meaning that with ease, Ankara can hinder other riparian states of the watercourse, namely Syria and Iraq. Turkey would be able to use water as a lever of influence vis-à-vis its Syrian and Iraqi neighbors. However, if Turkey manufactures a drought crisis, which it is slowly heading towards, it can provoke a casus belli and force Iraq and Syria to confront Turkey which is already occupying large areas of both countries without approval from Damascus or Baghdad.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Reflections on Al-Nakba that Deserve Remembering

By Jack Dresser, May 19, 2021

May 15 marked Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic) Day, Palestinians’ annual mourning of British withdrawal in 1948 leaving them helpless – having been disarmed by the British in the late 1930s – against a blitzkrieg of ethnic cleansing by Zionist terrorism with mass expulsions, property seizures and over 30 massacres.

R2P “Humanitarian Interventions” and “Regime Change”: Not Applicable to Israel

By Gavin OReilly, May 19, 2021

Over the past two weeks, the world has looked on in ominous horror as the military might of Israel, fully supported by both the US and Britain, has waged a relentless onslaught on the citizens of the besieged Gaza Strip; with what had initially begun as protests against the eviction of six Palestinian families from the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of East Jerusalem, and the subsequent storming of the al-Asqa Mosque by Israeli police the following day, soon escalating into a full-fledged military assault on Gaza, one which has already drawn comparisons with the 2014 war which resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 Palestinians in the space of 7 weeks.

Video: The Carrot but No Stick in US Policy Towards Israel

By South Front, May 19, 2021

If any observer were to wonder, why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is so certain that Tel Aviv’s pounding of the West Bank will continue, one of the reasons seems to have surfaced.

In Rush for Regulatory Approval of COVID Vaccines, Do We Need More Data?

By Dr. Peter Doshi, May 19, 2021

After rollout under emergency authorisation, manufacturers of COVID vaccines now have their sights on regulatory approval — but should we rush approval based on only six months’ worth of data from unblinded trials?

Ten Year Old Palestinian Girl Crying in Desperation.

By Peter Koenig, May 19, 2021

This one-minute video clip is a recording depicting a ten-year old Gaza girl, crying in desperation not knowing what to do – about the continuous destruction around her – the merciless killing and mass murder committed by the Israeli military, IDF – all directed by the already indicted criminal Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Watch: Uniformed Troops Go to Bars & 7-Eleven in Dallas to Randomly Vaccinate “Younger Crowd”

By Zero Hedge, May 19, 2021

For much of the past month national media has been replete with headlines decrying “vaccine hesitancy” as coronavirus infection rates continue on the decline. Amid dire “warnings” this may “hinder” herd immunity goals, local and federal health agencies are busy pouring vast resources into vaccine-promoting ad campaigns.

Ex-Israeli Pilot: ‘Our Army Is a Terrorist Organisation Run by War Criminals’

By Middle East Monitor, May 19, 2021

Captain Shapira who had resigned from the Israeli army in 2003 at the height of the Palestinian Second Intifada explained in an exclusive interview with Anadolu News Agency why he realized after joining the army that he was “part of a terrorist organisation”.

Arms Trade: Which Countries and Companies Are Selling Weapons to Israel?

By Frank Andrews, May 19, 2021

For over a week, Israel has pounded the Gaza Strip with bombs, claiming it is targeting Hamas “terrorists”. But residential buildings, book stores, hospitals and the main Covid-19 testing lab have also been flattened. Israel’s ongoing bombardment of the besieged enclave, which has now killed at least 213 people, including 61 children, likely constitutes a war crime, according to Amnesty International.

Video: The Corona Crisis and the Engineered Destabilization of the Global Economy. Michel Chossudovsky.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Taylor Hudak, May 19, 2021

Independent Journalist Taylor Hudak interviews Prof. Michel Chossudovsky. The topic of discussion are the many different ways in which the people are being deceived regarding COVID-19. The interview largely focusses on the process of economic destabilization and how it affects people’s lives Worldwide.

F-35s Bombing Gaza

By Manlio Dinucci, May 19, 2021

Israeli Forces spokesman Zilberman announced the start of the bombing of Gaza, specifying that “80 fighters are taking part in the operation, including the advanced F-35s” (The Times of Israel, May 11, 2021). It is officially the baptism of fire for the US Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation fighter, whose production Italy also participates in as a second-level partner.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The safety, well-being, and lives of millions of Palestinians throughout the Occupied Territories are endangered by US/Western support for Israeli state terror.

On day nine of preemptive Netanyahu regime war on Gaza, spokesman for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Jens Laerke said conditions in the Strip are dire.

Tens of thousands of Gazans fled homes for safety not gotten anywhere in the world’s largest open-air prison where they’re trapped by Israel’s blockade.

Much of Gaza’s infrastructure was destroyed or badly damaged.

Scores of residential and commercial buildings were demolished or rendered unusable.

Thousands of families are homeless. 

Many of their loved ones were killed or wounded from Israeli terror-bombing and shelling — countless numbers of children traumatized.

According to the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNWRA), displaced Palestinians sought shelter in its schools despite no provisions to care for their needs.

They’re “in classrooms without mattresses or blankets and without the provision of essential services, such as sufficient drinking water, food and adequate toilets,” according to the Al Mezan human rights group, adding:

They’re “most(ly) liv(ing) on what little food they brought with them, or on food given them by neighboring residents or provided by charitable associations and popular committees for refugees.”

They’re “threatened by a health and humanitarian disaster” from Israeli aggression without mercy — multiple daily crimes of war, against humanity, and slow-motion genocide against Palestinians throughout the Territories.

They include willfully and maliciously blasting a crater into the main artery leading to Al-Shifa Hospital, Gaza’s largest medical facility.

According to the Al-Haq human rights group, inflicting significant damage to the road adversely impacts the facility’s ability to provide vitally needed medical services to the sick and wounded.

Israel’s action is “a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”

The IDF also terror-bombed Gaza’s health ministry, damaging it and wounding medical staff inside, some critically.

According to the WHO, Israel terror-bombed or shelled 19 medical facilities in the Strip — limiting to what extent they’re able to treat wounded Gazans.

Strip power and water facilities were heavily damaged.

The Biden regime and its Western co-conspirators support Israeli crimes of war, against humanity, and slow-motion genocide against millions of Palestinians in harm’s way.

A joint statement by Columbia University Palestine Studies Centers members said the following:

“We are as committed as ever to to help the Palestinian people…in their just struggle for freedom and liberation.” 

“We strongly condemn the Israeli ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem and the brutal Israeli violation of the sacred Haram al-Sharif and al-Aqsa mosque, which are not just religious but also national symbols of the Palestinian struggle.”

“We ask the world to immediately intervene to stop the callous Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, which costs the lives of many civilians – among them children – and end the blockade immediately.” 

“We ask the world to protect the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and inside Israel from the brutal force of the police and the violence of Israeli settlers and their supporters.”

“Only when Israel treats Palestinians inside Israel as equal citizens, recognizes the right of the Palestinian refugees to return and the right of the Palestinians to live free of colonization and occupation, will there be hope for peace and reconciliation in historic Palestine.”

As long as US/Western countries support the worst of Israeli crimes — rejecting accountability for Nuremberg-level ones — Palestinians will continue being oppressed, including by extremist armed settlers, free to commit violence in cahoots with security forces.

South African Reverend Allan Boesak earlier said the following about Israeli apartheid:

“It is worse (than what existed in his country), not in the sense that apartheid was not an absolutely terrifying system in South Africa, but in the ways in which the Israelis have taken the apartheid system and perfected it…sharpened it.” 

“(W)e had Bantustans, and we had the Group Areas Act. and we had the separate schools…but I don’t think it ever even entered the mind of any apartheid planner to design a town in such a way that there is a physical wall that separates people and that that wall denotes your freedom of movement, your freedom of economic gain, of employment, and at the same time is a tool of intimidation and dehumanization.” 

“We carried passes as the Palestinians have their ID documents, but that did not mean that we could not go from one place in the city to another place in the city.” 

“The judicial system was absolutely skewed of course.”

“All the judges in their judgements sought to protect white privilege and power and so forth, and we had a series of what they called ‘hanging judges’ in those days, but they did not go far as to openly, blatantly have two separate justice systems as they do for Palestinians — tried in Israeli military courts.” 

“So in many ways the Israeli system is worse.”

“Another thing that makes it even worse is that when we fought our battles, even if it took us a long time, we could in the end muster and mobilize international solidarity on a scale that enabled us to be more successful in our struggle.” 

“The Palestinians cannot do that. The whole international community almost conspires against them” because of US/Western pressure. 

“The UN, which played a fairly positive role in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, takes the disastrous position of not wanting to offend its strong members like the US that protect Israel.” 

“So even in the UN, where international law ought to be the framework wherein all these things are judged, where international solidarity is not an assumption but is supposed to be the very foundation upon which the UN builds its views on things and its judgements as to which way it goes, the Palestinians don’t even have that.”

“Palestinians are mocked in a way that South Africans were not.” 

“In a sense, the UN tried in our case to follow up on its resolutions to isolate the apartheid regime.” 

“Here, now, they make resolutions against Israel one after the other, and I don’t detect even a sense of shame that they know there is not going to be any follow up.” 

What’s going on in Occupied Palestine is “scandalous.”

Israeli “apartheid is more (ruthless and terrifying than the worst of how South Africa’s version) ever was.”

Along with one-sided US-led Western support, Israeli barbarity remains the cross borne by one Palestinian generation after another with no relief in prospect — no end to the misery they endure.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image is an old photo of Gaza

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

May 15 marked Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic) Day, Palestinians’ annual mourning of British withdrawal in 1948 leaving them helpless – having been disarmed by the British in the late 1930s – against a blitzkrieg of ethnic cleansing by Zionist terrorism with mass expulsions, property seizures and over 30 massacres.

The 70-80% dispossessed and expelled population have never been allowed to return, with those remaining within Israel in 1948, and those later colonized in 1967, repressed under brutal and degrading occupations and denied basic civil and human rights in varying degrees to this day.

Israel has predictably used the occasion this year for yet another genocidal onslaught against Gaza while President Biden smiles and signs yet another U.S. Treasury check to the genocidaires involuntarily underwritten by American taxpayers. Israeli PM Netanyahu smiles beside him in a photo-op for the Israeli electorate demonstrating their highly effective, long-standing lobby power openly boasted in 2001 by then-Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, “We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.”

Fortunately, Sharon didn’t speak for all “Jewish people” as Jewish Voice for Peace and other anti-Zionist Jewish organizations are making clear. But they need to ramp up their opposition, since the anti-Zionist diaspora probably holds the key to any acceptable solution. The simplest and best solution, an integrated democratic state which I believe inevitable, and better sooner than later, was proposed over 30 years ago by a great Palestinian leader, Dr. Haider Abdul Shafi.

Good efforts by good people

I profoundly appreciate distinguished international attorneys such as Richard Falk, Marjorie Cohn and John Dugard who have repeatedly condemned Israel’s relentless “violations of international humanitarian law” and sought legal redress through UN channels that are invariably blocked by U.S. threats, financial leverage, UN Security Council vetoes, and manipulations of international institutional machinery.

But there are too many syllables (17) in that familiar phrase to capture or evoke what we psychologists call “appropriate affect,” aka gut feelings.  Perhaps the most dedicated legal advocate for Palestine has been University of Illinois professor of international law Francis Boyle, who beyond articulate condemnation has painstakingly disentangled the elaborate strategies and deceptions used by Israel to evade international justice, and does not conceal his contempt for these devices and for American enablers who collude with Israel under guise of neutral mediation.

Even were it is actually practiced, the pretense of neutrality is disingenuous at its base.  A murder, rape or armed robbery is not defined as a “conflict.”  There are “two sides” to be sure, but criminal rather than civil law is the applicable remedy.  In his agonizing account of Israel’s foundation following declassification of Israeli archives in the 1980s, titled The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe unequivocally designated the Nakba “a crime against humanity” that must be named as such and treated as a crime.

Dr. Boyle’s book, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, continues this story of the ongoing Nakba, describing his legal consultation with the Palestinian delegation preceding Oslo and his deep respect for the delegation’s leader. This wise, principled and articulate Gaza physician, Dr. Haidar Abdul Shafi, offered Israel in his 1991 Madrid speech the peace it has always claimed it wanted, but to no avail since it also included the justice Israel has never wanted.

Before this moment, Palestinians had quite properly but futilely demanded that Israel return the land it stole, allow the refugees to return as specified by UN Resolution 194 under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and pledged by Israel as a condition of its UN admission in 1949, and get out.  But for the first time, a prominent Palestinian leader agreed to accept the invasive Jewish presence in Palestine however illegitimate in origin, share the land and establish a true democracy with equal citizenship and civil rights for all.

Opportunities squandered for greed and racism

But Israel ignored this entirely, met in Oslo with Arafat excluding Dr. Abdul Shafi, and engineered the Oslo Accords that included all the loopholes Boyle had advised the Palestinians to beware. The rest is history to date, as Israeli settlers under protection of IDF martial law and the ruse of conditionality pending “final settlement negotiations” have gobbled up more and more Palestinian land, dispossessed more and more Palestinian citizens, committed wholesale violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and entirely disregarded the Fourth Geneva Convention which specifies the duties and limitations of an occupying power.

In a great historic irony, the democratic one-state solution offered by Dr. Abdul Shafi had been the solution envisioned by the majority of members of UNSCOP (UN Special Committee on Palestine) established in 1947 in response to the problems anticipated upon the announced British withdrawal.  However, elaborate manipulations by the Zionist lobby supported by U.S. financial extortion – described in detail by contemporary observer Alfred Lilienthal in his 1953 book, What Price Israel – resulted in recommendation to the UN General Assembly, adopted as UNGA 181 in November 1947, that two-thirds of Palestine be given to the 30% Jewish population who owned less than 7% of the land.

In the discarded plan, Jerusalem would have been reserved as an international corpus separatum sacred to the three Abrahamic faiths under UN administration, which would likely have avoided the ethnic cleansing inferno we see there today.

UNGA 181 was never ratified by the UN Security Council, which was instead developing a 5-year UN trusteeship plan when Zionist terrorist militias, recognizing that they would not get what they wanted from the UN, launched their long- and well-prepared “Plan Dalet” operation to take over by force.  In a final deception as British troops shipped out for home, Zionist leaders declared themselves a new country and requested diplomatic recognition from President Truman by assuring him that Israel would be a secular state.  But the document cabled to Truman self-identified as the “new Jewish state,” which Truman modified by hand to read the “state of Israel.”

Intransigence or maturation ahead?

No matter.  Israel proceeded to do what it pleased irrespective of U.S. or international opinion and has done so ever since.  But ultimately, the only outcome consistent with international law and human rights is the original plan envisioned by UNSCOP and later proposed by Dr. Abdul Shafi, a solution prevented by the U.S. roadblock and Israeli unwillingness to abandon its racist policies of Jewish supremacy and entitlement. Their obstinacy blinds perception that the transformation of Israel into a multi-ethnic democracy from internal apartheid with some 65 laws that discriminate against non-Jews, and a UN-designated “belligerent occupation” next door, would benefit both parties.

Despite the daunting obstacles inflicted by Israel, Palestinians are a well-educated and admirably resilient people. Together, Israel/Palestine could become a great country instead of a festering sore in the Middle East. As a secular, egalitarian unity, Israel would predictably repel its racist settlers and attract better, smarter, more open and tolerant Jewish and other citizens.  Until then, from my viewpoint as an advocate for international law and justice, I see no historical basis to view Israel as anything but an illegal political interloper “on a lunatic course” headed for self-destruction as forecast by French Israeli Michel Warschawski in his 2004 book, “Toward an Open Tomb.”  The entire land between the Mediterranean and Jordan River – not simply the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza – remains 73-year occupied Palestine that urgently needs thorough de-occupation. But Israel persistently continues along its narcissistic path of self-isolation behind its own apartheid walls – both physical and psychological.

Neither Israel nor the U.S. has special entitlement to drive on the wrong side of the street, although both do so at will.  The world at large seems to agree.  International opinion polls consistently view the U.S. as the greatest threat to world peace, and United Nations member states are nearly uniform in condemning Israel.  We have vetoed 45 UN Security Council resolutions to censure or discipline Israel, in 44 of which we were joined by none of the other 14 member states.  The UN General Assembly has passed dozens of resolutions against Israel by overwhelming margins, with Israel, the U.S. and three South Pacific island U.S. principalities the only reliable votes supporting Israel each time. Much of the world has suffered under settler and/or economic colonialism and wants no more of it.

For our non-profit al-Nakba Awareness Project, I produce an annual calendar each year. The cover image I found for our 2020 calendar seems Nakba-relevant this month.  It evokes the layered beauty and vitality of historic Palestine (Jaffa) in the foreground, where it belongs.  Palestine was the western arc of the fertile crescent sharing the origins of Eurasian civilization, hardly a “land without a people.” Jesus was a Palestinian. Gaza, Jaffa, Haifa and Acre were ancient Mediterranean ports. Tiberius and Jericho were ancient cities in the fertile Jordan Valley. Safad and Hebron anchored trade routes connecting Egypt, Persia and East Asia to each other and the Mediterranean.  Palestinians have had various and successive cultures and cosmologies over some 4,000 years.  In this calendar cover we see ordinary modern Tel Aviv, a grafted intrusion, in the background where it should humbly remain.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jack Dresser, Ph.D. is a retired psychologist and NIH-funded research scientist associated with Oregon Research Institute, where he served as Principal Investigator on projects developing and evaluating high-risk behavior prevention and early intervention programs.  Before these studies he directed several projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education developing drug and alcohol abuse prevention and early intervention programs for school districts in northern and southern California and Oregon.  He began his professional career as a U.S. Army psychologist during the Vietnam War, and is national vice-chair of the Veterans for Peace working group on Palestine and the Middle East.  For several years he has co-hosted a weekly radio show titled “Racism, Empire and Survival” on www.kepw.org in Eugene, Oregon that focuses on the propaganda fueling and maintaining violent U.S./NATO/Israeli imperialism and the false histories packaged as education that provide the framing into which government and media propaganda is seamlessly fitted. For the past year he has focused intensively on the covid-19 debacle, which displays the characteristic earmarks of imperial psyops.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Olive tree (Source: Middle East Eye)

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The stone streets of Jerusalem’s Old City are silent. Shutters with peeling paint are firmly rolled down.

In Haifa, Jewish cafes are serving coffee. Beside them, Palestinian-run businesses have their lights turned off.

Across Israel, the clanking, sawing and drilling sounds from construction sites have disappeared. There are no Palestinian labourers manning the scaffolds now.

Millions of Palestinians have gone on strike.

In Israel, occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Palestinians have downed tools or stayed away from their desks in just the latest example of pan-Palestinian solidarity following days of Israeli crackdowns and ferocious bombing on Gaza.

“I cannot recall, for years, Palestinians of all backgrounds, factions, Muslims, Christians, atheists, being united under one goal,” Inas Abbad, a political science researcher and activist from East Jerusalem, told Middle East Eye.

“This is the first time since the Second intifada that Palestinian parties, together with all Palestinians of the occupied territories of 1948, have issued a joint statement and a unified call for a strike.”

Shutdown in Israel

Schools, businesses, shops and official institutions have heeded the call, first raised on Sunday by the Arab Follow-up Committee, which coordinates between political parties inside Israel.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) in the occupied West Bank, too, encouraged participation in the action, labelled the Karameh (Dignity) Strike.

Around 1.93 million Palestinians are citizens of Israel, a fifth of the country’s population. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem are some three million, some of whom travel over to Israel every day to work on construction.

Though the strike has shut down large parts of all of their economies, there is no quietude.

Israeli forces arrested scores of Palestinians as they took to the streets to peacefully express their opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza (MEE/Latifeh Abdellatif)

Thousands of Palestinians are protesting in cities and towns across historic Palestine, raging against Israeli raids in al-Aqsa Mosque, attempted expulsions in East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah, deadly far-right violence in Israel and a punishing bombardment in Gaza that has killed 212, including 60 children.

In Haifa, a northern Israel city known for its mix of Jewish and Palestinian citizens, the Palestinian flag has been raised on several buildings, and residents have taken to the streets chanting in solidarity.

“My feeling is that this strike is important to each and every one of us, so that we can put a stop to this brutality and the constant assault on us in all walks of life,” Hazar Hijazi, a 45-year-old education therapist, said in Haifa.

“Enough attacks on people in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, Lod, everywhere. Enough attacks on our homes, our daily life and displacement. The displacement and erasure of our existence on our land needs to stop, we’ve experienced enough repression, arrests and threats to our homeland and our futures.”

Israeli forces have violently cracked down on Palestinian protests in Jerusalem, both inside the Old City and around the Damascus Gate.

Israeli police beat, pepper sprayed and removed the hijab of MEE correspondent Latifeh Abdellatif while she was filming the detention of a young boy.

Palestinians on the scene stepped in to protect Abdellatif, scuffling with the Israeli officers. A number of them were arrested as a result.

قوات الاحت.ـلال تعتدي على المصورة الصحفية المقدسية لطيفة عبد اللطيف وتنزع حجابها أثناء قيامها بعملها في باب العامود pic.twitter.com/380Sus3h1h

— ميدان القدس (@MaydanAlquds) May 18, 2021

Fatima Khadir, an activist from Jerusalem at the Damascus Gate, underlined the feeling of unity across all Palestinian communities.

“We gave so many sacrifices during this past year, many of our children were killed in Jerusalem and Gaza, and we don’t want to return to the past. Our children and families are being destroyed and have no chance of living in dignity under occupation,” she said.

“Who will protect us from the settlers and the Israeli forces? Who will protect Sheikh Jarrah from eviction?” she asked.

“We have no one.. I really hope that the international community stands with us. Shame on the Arab countries that normalise with Israel and see the Palestinian women being beaten by the army. Biden is a Zionist, the arms that are used in Gaza are coming from the US.”

Nashwa Amir, a resident of Gaza city, said the strike could impact Israel’s economy as it grapples with fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, and force it into negotiations.

“The strike is aimed to expressing unity in the Palestinians cause and struggle, and show an absolute rejection of Israeli attempts to deal with central issues of the conflict separately,” she said.

Much of Jerusalem was quiet as Palestinians respected a strike held across historic Palestine (MEE/Latifeh Abdellatif)

Shabtai, a Jewish Israeli in his 60s in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Baqaa, has had to take the day off because none of the Palestinian labourers working on his construction site turned up for work.

“I hope this does not last. The longer the Arabs strike, the more money we will lose because the building projects will be frozen,” he told MEE.

“I’ve called them several times to try and convince them to come to work. Even the ones that want to work say they cannot because of the shame and popular pressure.”

West Bank solidarity

In the West Bank city of Ramallah, hundreds of Palestinians have gathered in the main streets and squares.

The crowd includes teachers, bank clerks and doctors, repeatedly chanting “we will return to Haifa, Jaffa, Ramle and Lydd”. Anger is palpable over the international community and Arab states’ inability to stop the bombing of Gaza, where today the health ministry said Israel is preventing the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from accessing certain health facilities.

“This is the start of a new era, one united aim for all Palestinians, wherever they may reside. Our demand is that we want to live freely and in peace,” said one protester.

Demonstrations have also begun in Bethlehem and the Bedouin village of Tulkum. They are expected to be followed this evening by ones in Jenin and Nablus.

Israel forces shot a Palestinian man dead in Hebron on Tuesday morning. The military said Fayyad Zahda, 31, was carrying weapons as he approached soldiers near a settlement.

At least one Palestinian was killed in the occupied West Bank, where Israeli forces used brute force to disperse a large demonstration against the bombardment of Gaza (MEE/Latifeh Abdellatif)

East of Ramallah in the town of Silwad, Shahla Hammad, 60, told Middle East Eye that the nine-day bombing campaign on Gaza has resurfaced traumatic memories.

“The air strikes bring back memories of the West Bank during the Intifada, when people were opposing the Israeli attacks,” she said.

“Today’s air strikes, just like the air strikes during the Intifada, unite us as Palestinians and brings us closer together and in cohesion.

“It helps us remember one another’s pain and the pain of parents in Gaza who face Israeli aggression, and the pain of people in Jerusalem who are under threat of displacement,” she added.

A group of experts with the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) urged the international community to unite in calls for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and Israel on Monday, and to then work to end Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

The experts said that “the denial of collective and individual rights of the Palestinian people” was the “underlying source” of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Shuttered Palestinian businesses in Jerusalem (MEE/Latifeh Abdellatif)

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Over the past two weeks, the world has looked on in ominous horror as the military might of Israel, fully supported by both the US and Britain, has waged a relentless onslaught on the citizens of the besieged Gaza Strip; with what had initially begun as protests against the eviction of six Palestinian families from the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of East Jerusalem, and the subsequent storming of the al-Asqa Mosque by Israeli police the following day, soon escalating into a full-fledged military assault on Gaza, one which has already drawn comparisons with the 2014 war which resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 Palestinians in the space of 7 weeks.

Although the ongoing violence has garnered worldwide media attention, an unusual occurrence of events in the Middle East, one glaring double-standard remains so far in all mainstream media coverage; the lack of calls for sanctions, regime change and a ‘humanitarian intervention’ that would be trumpeted by every corporate media outlet had Israel been a country opposed to the aims of the US-NATO hegemony, cases in point being both Libya and Syria.

In Feburary 2011, following Muammar Gaddafi’s decision to pursue a ‘Gold Dinar’ currency, one which would have ended any reliance by Tripoli on the US Dollar, a regime change operation was quickly launched by then-US administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden which saw the arming, funding and training of Salafist terrorists (linked to al Qaeda) seeking to overthrow the Libyan Arab Jamarihiya.

Lauded as ‘freedom fighters’ and ‘rebels’ by the Western corporate media, these groups soon overran the North African country; with a ‘humanitarian intervention’ and No-Fly Zone subsequently being launched by NATO in March 2011 in response to alleged ‘human rights abuses’ by Tripoli; ultimately resulting in the capture, brutalisation, and murder of Gaddafi by US-backed terrorist groups in October of that year, his once thriving nation left in ruins and still remaining in turmoil a decade later.

Similar to Libya, a regime change operation was also launched in Syria in March 2011, this time in response to Bashar al-Assad’s 2009 refusal to allow Western-allied Qatar to build a pipeline through his country, and which also seen the arming of Salafist terrorist groups, seeking to depose Assad’s secular leadership, by the Obama administration alongside David Cameron’s Tory government in Britain.

Unlike Tripoli however, Damascus has successfully withstood the onslaught of NATO-backed terrorists over the past decade, with an Iranian intervention in 2013 on behalf of the Arab Republic, and a further Russian intervention in 2015, again at the request of Damascus, both playing a key role in the defence of the Middle Eastern nation.

The ire of Washington’s neocons would soon be drawn however, both in 2017 and 2018, when two separate false-flag chemical attacks led to calls from the Western corporate media, in full compliance with the Military Industrial Complex, for a ‘humanitarian intervention’ against Damascus; calls which almost came to fruition on both occasions when the Trump administration launched cruise missile attacks and air strikes against Syrian government targets, just stopping short of a full-scale Libya-style intervention which could have easily sparked a wider conflict between the United States and Russia.

When it comes to the documented violence that Israel has inflicted on the Gaza Strip over the past fortnight however, no such calls have been made by the Western media for a No-Fly Zone to be imposed by NATO over the Palestinian held territory in a bid to protect its inhabitants, or for US Navy Destroyers to fire Cruise Missiles towards Tel Aviv.

With the United States being a key ally of Israel since its establishment in 1948, the Zionist lobby has long played a decisive role in guiding Washington’s foreign policy; with lobbying for the Iraq war being done by Benjamin Netanyahu himself in the run-up the 2003 US-led invasion of the Arab country – Israeli involvement has also played a key role in the Syrian regime change project, with Damascus being a long-time opponent of the Zionist State.

Therefore, it is this long-time partnership between Tel Aviv and Washington that will see the current outrage by the Western media towards Israeli atrocities in Gaza amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric – a far different response to the calls for sanctions and military action that would currently be taking place had Israel been a nation refusing to kowtow to US-NATO Imperialist demands.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Gavin O’Reilly is an activist based in Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the impacts of British and US Imperialism. He is Secretary of the Dublin Anti-Internment Committee, a campaign group set up to raise awareness of Irish Republican political prisoners in British and 26 County jails. His work has previously appeared on American Herald Tribune, The Duran, Al-Masdar and MintPress News.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The concept of “negative nationalism”, or basing one’s nationalism based on what they are not, is a potent means of political mobilization in Central & Eastern Europe as evidenced by countries such as Ukraine obsessing over their identity differences – whether real, imagined, or exaggerated – with Russia.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

If any observer were to wonder, why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is so certain that Tel Aviv’s pounding of the West Bank will continue, one of the reasons seems to have surfaced.

According to the Washington Post, on May 5th, 5 days before the bombardment of Israel began, and 2 days before the protests in Mount Temple went out of control, US Congress was notified of a $735 million sale of high-precision weapons to Israel.

The approval of the sale by US President Joe Biden became known on May 17.

Clearly, this serves as an impetus for Tel Aviv.

On May 17th, alongside the aerial and ground bombardment, the battle switched to the naval area.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reportedly thwarted an underwater drone attack.

The Israeli military destroyed the autonomous submarine of Hamas before it left the coast and struck the car used by the operators who launched it.

Moreover, Israeli military planes targeted the main operative center of the Internal Security Force of the Hamas movement in the north of the Gaza Strip.

The Al-Quds Brigades also confirmed the death of Husam Abu Harbid, the commander of the Northern Brigade at Saraya al-Quds, who was killed “during the raid”.

Many other targets were also struck.

Israel maintains that these are only military targets, but many civilian casualties keep mounting.

So far, at least 212 Palestinians, including 61 children, have been killed in Gaza since the violence began.

Some 1,500 Palestinians have been wounded.

Israel has reported 10 dead, including two children.

On the morning of May 18th, explosions were heard and balls of fire and plumes of smoke were seen rising from several buildings in Gaza City, alongside the sunrise.

In support of Gaza, 6 rockets were fired from Lebanon towards Israeli territory, the IDF reported.

All 6 launches failed and landed within Lebanese territory.

Still, the Israeli military responded by shelling the purported locations from which the launches occurred.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II spoke to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and said it was Israel’s “recurrent provocative” actions against Palestinians that have led to the ongoing escalation.

It is unlikely that this support will turn into any more tangible assistance for the Palestinians.

A direction where actual support may come from is Syria.

On the day hostilities began in the West Bank, the IDF used a combat helicopter to strike a house in Syria’s al-Quneitra.

One of the soldiers who were wounded in the attack died in the morning of May 17th.

Israel’s regular raids on various targets throughout Syria are likely warranting of a response, which Damascus is yet to carry out.

Casualties are piling up, Israel is continuing its attacks, Hamas and others are responding as best they can.

So far, none of the Palestinians Arabic allies have undertaken any actions other than providing supportive rhetoric.

US President Joe Biden has held three phone calls with Netanyahu saying that he’s supportive of a “ceasefire” but a more than $700 million weapon sale shows that any course of action is permitted.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

After rollout under emergency authorisation, manufacturers of COVID vaccines now have their sights on regulatory approval — but should we rush approval based on only six months’ worth of data from unblinded trials?

In April 2021, Pfizer and Moderna announced efficacy results at the six-month mark from the phase 3 trials of their respective COVID-19 vaccines.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said the company’s data “confirm the favourable efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine and position us to submit a Biologics License Application to the U.S. FDA [Food and Drug Administration].” And on May 7 it formally initiated that application which, if successful, will earn the Pfizer-BioNTech product, BNT162b2, the distinction of becoming the first COVID-19 vaccine approved by the FDA.

Because lest we forget, all COVID-19 vaccines currently in use in the U.S. are available under emergency access only.

The situation is similar in Europe, where four COVID-19 vaccines have been granted “conditional marketing authorisations,” a fast track mechanism that can be used in emergencies. These can be converted into standard “marketing authorisations” pending positive data after authorisation, but this has not yet happened for any COVID-19 vaccine being administered.

As hundreds of millions of people around the world get vaccinated, it may seem like wordsmithing to highlight the fact that none of the COVID-19 vaccines in use are actually “approved.” Through an emergency access mechanism known as Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), the products being rolled out still technically remain “investigational.” Factsheets distributed to vaccinees are clear: “There is no FDA approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19.”

The approval-authorisation distinction is often misunderstood by the media, even in the scientific press. But it was the focus of much discussion back in September 2020. With large phase III trials by Pfizer and Moderna well under way, and the November U.S. presidential election looming, many worried about political pressure resulting in the rollout of an unsafe or ineffective vaccine.

The FDA had already come under fire, accused of bending to the White House in granting EUAs for two COVID-19 treatments, hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma. But those fears largely dissipated when the FDA published a guidance document in early October outlining its expectations for the EUA. According to the document, at least half of a trial’s participants would need to be followed for at least two months. This alone made it all but certain no vaccine could cross the line before the election.

The FDA also said it would want a vaccine at least 50% effective (with a confidence interval reaching no lower than 30%) against a primary endpoint of preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 disease of any severity — parameters it had previously defined as necessary for approval. Even for non-clinical parameters, like manufacturing quality, the FDA characterised its expectations for the EUA as “very similar” to those for approval.

Six months: enough?

One key difference between EUA and approval (also called “licensure,” and which for vaccines is known as a BLA (Biologics License Application) was the expected length of follow-up of trial participants. Unlike its clear articulation of two months for an EUA, the FDA has not committed to a clear minimum for approval.

Cody Meissner, a professor of paediatrics at Tufts University and member of the FDA’s advisory committee, was curious. “Is it possible to predict or estimate when conditions of safety and efficacy might be satisfied for BLA?” Meissner asked at the agency’s December 10 meeting which had been convened to consider the FDA’s first emergency authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Doran Fink responded: “I couldn’t predict, but I will say that we typically ask for at least six months of follow-up in a substantial number of clinical trial participants to constitute a safety database that would support licensure.”

An approval based on six months of data would represent one of the fastest for a novel vaccine in FDA history. Among the six “first in disease” vaccines approved by the FDA since 2006, pre-licensure pivotal trials were a median of 23 months in duration, according to a recent analysis.

Six months also seems substantially shorter than previously conceptualised expectations. A World Health Organization expert group on COVID-19 vaccines (which included FDA regulators) in August 2020 called for follow-up “until at least month 12, or until an effective vaccine is deployed locally.” Another group, composed of industry and academic authors, similarly wrote in October 2020: “we recommend longer term follow-up of all participants … for at least a year after randomisation.”

On paper, the phase III studies by Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen are all of two years’ duration. But the FDA’s official position on minimum follow-up before licensure is unclear at best.

In its formal guidance last June, the agency said that for licensure applications, it wanted participants followed for COVID-19 outcomes for “as long as feasible, ideally at least one to two years” after the first injection. But the same document states that safety assessments for “serious and other medically attended adverse events” should be studied “for at least six months after completion of all study vaccinations. Longer safety monitoring may be warranted for certain vaccine platforms.”

Asked to clarify whether its guidance is asking for follow-up of at least six months or one year, a spokesperson told The BMJ: “We do not have any further information beyond what is in the guidance document.”

Unblinded and without a control group — what about safety?

Duration of protection is not the only question that longer, placebo controlled trials can address. They also address vaccine safety.

“Very often, it’s the fact that we have that placebo controlled follow-up over time, that gives us the ability to say that the vaccine didn’t cause something at a longer period of time after vaccination,” the FDA’s Philip Krause explained last December.

Yet there is a gap — currently of unknown size but growing — between any expectation of blinded placebo controlled data, and the reality that within weeks of the vaccines receiving an EUA the unblinding of trials commenced as placebo recipients were offered the chance to get vaccinated.

Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University, told the FDA in an invited presentation last December, “Once a vaccine is made widely available and encouraged, maintaining a double blinded control group for more than a nominal period is no longer in the investigator’s (or regulator’s) control and undue pressure to do so may undermine the entire vaccine testing enterprise.”

Goodman’s recommendation was to rapidly convert the trials into crossover studies, enabling those on placebo to get vaccinated (and vice versa), while maintaining the blind. The companies challenged the feasibility, calling it “onerous,” and a crossover never occurred.

The BMJ asked Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) what proportion of trial participants were now formally unblinded, and how many originally allocated to placebo have now received a vaccine. Pfizer declined to say, but Moderna announced that “as of April 13, all placebo participants have been offered the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and 98% of those have received the vaccine.” In other words, the trial is unblinded, and the placebo group no longer exists.

Janssen told The BMJ: “We do not have specific figures on how many of our study participants have received a vaccine at this time.” But the company confirmed it was implementing an amended protocol across all countries to unblind all participants in its two phase III trials, the earlier of which passed the median of two month follow-up mark in January.

How the FDA will weigh the loss of blinding and placebo controlled follow-up is unclear, but just months ago the agency said these trial properties were vital.

“Continuation of placebo controlled follow-up after EUA will be important and may actually be critical to ensure that additional safety and effectiveness data are accrued to support submission of a licensure application as soon as possible following an EUA. … Once a decision is made to unblind an ongoing placebo controlled trial, that decision cannot be walked back. And that controlled follow-up is lost forever,” the FDA said last October.

At its next advisory committee in December 2020, the FDA reiterated the importance of the placebo group: “Placebo controlled follow-up can be very important in showing that whatever happened in the vaccine group also happened in the placebo group. Because that’s our best way of knowing.

What’s the rush?

The U.S.’s “Operation Warp Speed” delivered on its promise to get a novel vaccine into arms in record time. Millions of doses of vaccines are being administered daily across the U.S., making clear that lack of FDA approval is no barrier to access. So just what benefit is there in seeking, and granting, a BLA?

The BMJ asked the manufacturers why they were seeking a BLA. Moderna did not respond and Janssen only confirmed it intended to apply for a BLA “later in 2021.” Pfizer likewise did not answer but instead quoted an FDA webpage on medical devices, which stated: “Sponsors of EUA products are encouraged to follow up the EUA with a pre-market submission so that it can remain on the market once the EUA is no longer in effect.” But EUAs have no built-in expiry date — in fact, 14 EUAs for Zika diagnostic tests remain active despite the public health emergency expiring in 2017.

Cody Meissner told The BMJ he saw some distinct advantages of a BLA over EUA. An approved vaccine, for one, would provide “an element of assurance,” increasing public trust in the vaccines, particularly for those currently sitting on the fence. It would also pave the way for claims of vaccine injury to be routed through a more established compensation programme, and for adding the vaccine to government funded schemes to reach children in financial need.

Finally, it may affect the potential for vaccine mandates: “It is unlikely these vaccines will be mandated while an EUA is in place. Remember that currently these vaccines are still considered experimental.”

While still under EUA, an increasing number of educational and other institutions have already mandated vaccines, but debates over the legality of these actions has hinged on the distinction between authorisation and approval.

But approving a vaccine in order to legally support mandates or convince people of its safety arguably puts the cart before the horse. Meissner responded that a BLA would not be issued until the FDA is convinced of the short and long term safety of these vaccines.

No new biodistribution studies for COVID-19 vaccines

Officials have consistently emphasised that despite shaving years off traditional timelines for producing vaccines, no compromises in the process were taken. However one type of study, tracking the distribution of a vaccine once injected in the body, was not conducted using any of the three vaccines currently authorised in the U.S.

Such biodistribution studies are a standard element of drug safety testing but “are usually not required for vaccines,” according to European Medicines Agency policy, which adds, “However, such studies might be applicable when new delivery systems are employed or when the vaccine contains novel adjuvants or excipients.”

In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, regulators accepted biodistribution data from past studies performed with related, mostly unapproved compounds that use the same platform technology.

Janssen told The BMJ its COVID-19 vaccine leverages the same technology as its Ebola vaccine, which received licensure last June. “Our confidence in our adenovirus vector Ad26 is based on our experience with this vector.”

Pfizer and Moderna did not respond to The BMJ’s questions regarding why no biodistribution studies were conducted on their novel mRNA products, and none of the companies, nor the FDA, would say whether new biodistribution studies will be required prior to licensure.

notes:

Competing interests PD gave a public statement at the October and December FDA advisory committee meetings mentioned in this article (transcripts here:

https://faculty.rx.umaryland.edu/pdoshi/#publications, and may continue to engage in public input towards regulatory decision making around COVID-19 vaccines.

PD is also employed by a university that has mandated COVID-19 vaccines for all faculty, staff, and students. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of the University of Maryland.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This one-minute video clip is a recording depicting a ten-year old Gaza girl, crying in desperation not knowing what to do – about the continuous destruction around her – the merciless killing and mass murder committed by the Israeli military, IDF – all directed by the already indicted criminal Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

The video clip says it all.

And the western world – the European Union, vassal of murderer-supporting USA – is still just watching – silently watching – witnessing Israeli genocide and saying nothing.

"I don't know what to do."

A 10-year-old Palestinian girl breaks down while talking to MEE after Israeli air strikes destroyed her neighbour's house, killing 8 children and 2 women#Gaza #Palestine #Israel pic.twitter.com/jnZx8wruaX

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) May 17, 2021

And this is the story of a 14-year-old Palestinian boy – who has successively lost his entire family, two brothers and dad – and now his mom – to Israeli war criminals. He commits suicide in despair:

Fourteen-year-old Palestinian child in Gaza committed suicide!

Hamza threw himself from the 8th floor last night.

Hamza lost his entire family in the recent wars on Gaza.

In 2009, his little brother was killed by an Israeli missile while playing football.

In the 2012, his older brother was killed.

In 2014, his father was killed.

Due to this severe trauma, Hamza became very close to his mother, his last surviving family member, who was killed in an Israeli bombing this week.

Shortly after, he ended his life.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The King of Jordan, Abdallah II, spoke with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and said that the repeated Israeli actions and provocations against the Palestinian people have led to the current escalations.  The royal court wrote on Twitter on Monday that Israeli actions are pushing the region towards more tension.

Jordan and Israel have a peace treaty signed between them and successfully lasting for 27 years.  King Abdullah II said that there is no alternative to a political solution of a just and comprehensive peace based on the two-state solution and guarantee the establishment of an independent, sovereign, and viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The King drew attention to Sheikh Jarrah, a neighborhood in East Jerusalem, of Palestine refugees, who lost both their original homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. In 1956, these refugee families moved into Sheikh Jarrah with the support of the Jordanian government and material assistance from the UN following their displacement. They have resided in their homes for nearly seventy years, but are now at risk of being displaced by the Israeli government in a forced eviction which is ethnic cleansing.

Jordan’s Queen Rania is Palestinian, and the population is overwhelmingly ethnically Palestinian.

Ambassador Munir Akram, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations:

“The solidarity required by our Palestinian brothers today is a solidarity based on principle. Israel has no business to be in the occupied territories of Palestine; to be in E-Jerusalem; to attack Gaza; to launch fascist movements, lynching and killing Palestinians.”

The Gaza-based Hamas movement said its actions were a response to the Israeli policy of forced displacement of Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem and the storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque by Israeli forces last week, followed by Israel missing a Hamas deadline to withdraw its forces from the mosque compound.

Israeli airstrikes and artillery barrages on Gaza killed at least 198 Palestinians, including 93 women and children, between last Monday and Sunday evening, with more than 1,000 wounded. In Israel, at least 10 were killed, including two children.

Israeli officials and society are surprised at the brutal clashes between Jews and Israeli-Arabs.  21% of the population of Israel is made up of non-Jewish citizens who are Palestinian Christians and Muslims. Israel had hoped their Arabs had forgotten their Palestinian ethnicity while living since 1948 in Israel, but the civilian suffering in Gaza and the Occupied West Bank awakened their solidarity with their countrymen and has now fanned fears of civil war.

Fr. Ibrahim Faltas, of the Franciscan order, and director of the Christian schools of the Holy Land, said

“We are on the verge of a civil war” while we are witnessing “helpless in the face of unprecedented man against man violence” that explodes “with all the anger on both sides, young Israelis and young Arabs.”

Faltas blames the violence on the failure of the 1967 resolutions and the indifference of the international community, and suggests we are now faced with an angry population, on both sides, trying to obtain justice, but in the absence of an impartial judge.

Cars have been burned, people lynched, houses burned, stones thrown and places of worship attacked in Haifa, Nazareth, Ramle, Lod, Cana, Askelon Tel Aviv, Nablus, Bethlehem, Jenin, Bethany, and Hebron.  Faltas said,

“It’s a real war between Jewish settlers and Israeli Arabs, in Israeli cities, and the same is happening in the occupied areas of the West Bank”.

General strikes are planned for Tuesday in Arab towns within Israel and Palestinian towns in the West Bank.

Egypt is looking to repeat its successful mediation which resulted in a ceasefire in the 2014 conflict between Israel and Gaza. Egypt also has a peace treaty with Israel, successfully lasting 42 years. Egypt, Jordan, and the rest of the Arab world are committed to a two-state solution for Palestine, in line with the UN resolutions.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appealed for a ceasefire in Sunday’s UN Security Council meeting, the third in a week. However, the US blocked a joint statement calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which was the third such block by the US. The unsuccessful negotiations were led by Norway, China, and Tunisia, with China previously urging the US to be fair, but the US chose to be the sole dissenting voice on the issue.

The US Biden administration approved the potential sale of $735 million in precision-guided weapons to Israel, and the US Congress is expected to approve the deal, regardless of the raging conflict, and significant loss of civilian lives.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, said while in Denmark yesterday, that while the US was not demanding a ceasefire, they were ready to help should Israel and Hamas come to an end in hostilities.  US President Biden, and Blinken, are determined to steer clear of any US involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, instead of wanting to focus on Russia and China issues.

On Saturday, Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and stated the US supports Israel’s right to self-defense and focused on the Israeli civilians killed by rocket attacks, despite the Palestinian civilian deaths being 20 times more than Israeli.  Left-leaning Democrats have complained that Biden did not use the call to urge a ceasefire.

Senator Bernie Sanders has criticized Israeli’s attack on Gaza.  He tweeted on Sunday,

“The devastation in Gaza is unconscionable. We must urge an immediate ceasefire. The killing of Palestinians and Israelis must end. We must also take a hard look at nearly $4 billion a year in military aid to Israel. It is illegal for US aid to support human rights violations.”

Americans marched in support of Palestine in cities across the US over the last weekend.  Younger Americans are demanding human rights for Palestinians, and are aware of the Human Rights Watch report of April 27 labeling Israel an Apartheid state.  While the older American generations were comfortable with turning a blind eye to the suffering in Palestine, the younger generation who are the leaders of tomorrow are demanding justice.

Multiple Israeli military strikes may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity according to Amnesty International who has asked the International Criminal Court to open an investigation on residential strikes without prior warning.

“Under international humanitarian law, all parties must distinguish between military targets and civilian objects and direct their attacks only at military objectives. When carrying out attacks, parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians,” said Saleh Higazi, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

An Israeli airstrike on Saturday destroyed a 12-story building in Gaza which was home to the Associated Press and Al Jazeera new agencies. Israel faced global condemnation and accusation of preventing the freedom of the press.  Israeli officials claimed the building housed terrorist assets, but Netanyahu provided no evidence of that, and Blinken also said he had not seen any evidence that Hamas was in the building.

The Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain in 2020. At the time, Israel was at peace under Netanyahu, and his only big problem was avoiding conviction in a corruption trial and possible jail sentence.  Recently, the Israeli police, under Netanyahu’s direction brutally cracked down on peaceful unarmed protesters in East Jerusalem protesting ethnic cleansing. That escalated into the current conflict with rockets met with airstrikes, and the Israeli citizenry divided.

The Trump administration had encouraged Netanyahu to pursue agreements with Arab countries, instead of solving its domestic conflict with Palestinians. Further agreements with Arab countries now look impossible, and the current conflict has brought a renewed sense of unity among Arabs from Yemen to Morocco.

In a last-ditch effort to cling to power, and fend off the corruption cases against him, Netanyahu sought allies among the Israeli far-right, which is insisting on further land grabs and ethnic cleansing, and that was the spark that ignited the current conflict.  In the end, Netanyahu’s self-preservation tactic may be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For much of the past month national media has been replete with headlines decrying “vaccine hesitancy” as coronavirus infection rates continue on the decline. Amid dire “warnings” this may “hinder” herd immunity goals, local and federal health agencies are busy pouring vast resources into vaccine-promoting ad campaigns. “The United States has a surplus of coronavirus vaccine doses on its hands, and long gone are the days when people waited hours to get jabbed. Dwindling demand has forced governors and mayors to get creative,” The Washington Post observed this week.

But one initiative in Dallas County in Texas is going far beyond anything we’ve seen thus far, and as many on social media have observed, it is downright creepy and bizarre in its brazenly coercive optics. Texas has long been fully opened and bars and restaurants are now packed, but vaccine sites are not, apparently. So naturally Dallas County Health and Human Services (DCHHS) thought it would be a good idea to go to the bars with the vaccines… along with uniformed US Army National Guard soldiers.

We’re going out tonight too administering the #COVID19 💉 to bar goers in Deep Ellum. By getting vaccinated you’ll be able to enjoy going out again knowing that you’re safe & protected. Register today: https://t.co/ktULSgeNlN @JudgeClayJ @CBSDFW @NBCDFW @wfaa pic.twitter.com/dZgX380zFP

— Dallas County HHS (@DCHHS) May 15, 2021

On a busy Friday night in a Dallas neighborhood widely dubbed the “live music capital of North Texas” US military personnel entered popular venues, including random convenience stores (as seen in the video), to coerce coax unvaccinated individuals to get the jab on the spot.

“So right now we are going to give a COVID vaccine to someone inside a 7-Eleven – this is what community service looks like and getting the community vaccinated,” a video narrator states.

The Dallas County HHS featured its efforts in a short social media clip showing a couple of US Army solders in full camouflage fatigues flanking a top Dallas health official.

“We’re going out tonight too administering the COVID-19 to bar goers in Deep Ellum,” the Twitter post said.

“By getting vaccinated you’ll be able to enjoy going out again knowing that you’re safe & protected” – except of course the people in the popular nightlife area this past weekend were already clearly quite comfortable “going out again” to have a good time. A local CBS-DFW news clip said of the new Dallas HHS-National Guard campaign that Dallas County is hoping to attract the “younger crowd”.

Not only were multiple uniformed federal troops manning a “pop-up” vaccine table on a Deep Ellum street, but they were filmed going into the venues to confront encounter people.

The local CBS affiliate emphasized the campaign “targets” young people (as the above local news coverage of the initiative spells out exactly).

“Specifically where the younger people are,” as “this week the FDA announced it’s expanding emergency use authorization for Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for those 12 and up,” CBS said. And one top Dallas health official told the broadcaster: “That’s why we are here” …as uniformed soldiers stood behind him.

One 7-11 clerk who agreed to receive the shot was asked by the troops: “How do you feel that you got the vaccine right here, at work, by US soldiers?”

They was walking around Deep Ellum last night randomly trying to vaccinate people and bar goers who haven’t been vaccinated yet in dallas pic.twitter.com/AQ3dH44Lbj

— TRIPLE D DAT!!!!!! (@TRIPLED4LIFE) May 16, 2021

The man then extolls the benefits of being a US citizen – which given the weird optics of the whole encounter between the jab-proffering Army personnel and an apparently somewhat recent immigrant to the US, brings up some serious questions…

For starters, when a “vaccine crew” of literal uniformed soldiers randomly walks up to citizens saying they “need to get vaxxed”… do the individuals understand it’s entirely an option and not an authoritative mandate? And would (in the example of the video) a recent immigrant to the country or even new American citizen understand the nature of the encounter?

But of course this appears to be the entire point…

“Since Feb. 24, it [Dallas] has served as one of several federal vaccination sites run by the U.S. military and Federal Emergency Management Agency aimed at increasing immunity in underserved and highly vulnerable communities,” The Dallas Morning News wrote previously.

With vaccine hesitancy on the rise, and with President Biden’s new bizarre announcement that “Those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price” – is the new “creative” strategy all about putting “muscle” in terms of serious federal authority in the room (or on busy nightlife venue streets) for added pressure?

PRES. BIDEN: "Those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price." pic.twitter.com/qQ7cAyoYUW

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 17, 2021

Are vaccine-bearing troops coming to a neighborhood near you?

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from Zero Hedge

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A former Israeli Air Force pilot, Yonatan Shapira, has described the Israeli government and army as “terrorist organisations” run by “war criminals.”

Captain Shapira who had resigned from the Israeli army in 2003 at the height of the Palestinian Second Intifada explained in an exclusive interview with Anadolu News Agency why he realized after joining the army that he was “part of a terrorist organisation”.

I realised during the Second Intifada what the Israeli Air Force and Israeli military are doing are war crimes, terrorising a population of millions of Palestinians. When I realised that, I decided to not just leave but to organise other pilots that will publicly refuse to take part in these crimes, he said.

“As a child in Israel, you are being brought up in very strong Zionist militaristic education. You don’t know almost anything about Palestine, you don’t know about the 1948 Nakba, you don’t know about ongoing oppression,” Shapira said.

Ever since leaving the Israeli army, Shapira has launched a campaign that encouraged other military members to disobey orders to attack Palestinians.

The campaign has led 27 other army pilots to be discharged from their posts in the Israeli Air Force since 2003.

In the last week, Israeli warplanes have waged hundreds of airstrikes against the Palestinian civilians in the besieged Gaza Strip, killing at least 188 Palestinians including 55 children and 33 women and wounding 1,230 people.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Another attack on Gaza: Israel squeezing the life of Gaza – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For over a week, Israel has pounded the Gaza Strip with bombs, claiming it is targeting Hamas “terrorists”. But residential buildings, book stores, hospitals and the main Covid-19 testing lab have also been flattened.

Israel’s ongoing bombardment of the besieged enclave, which has now killed at least 213 people, including 61 children, likely constitutes a war crime, according to Amnesty International.

Hamas’ thousands of indiscriminate rockets fired north from Gaza, which have killed 12 people, may also be a war crime, according to the rights group.

But while Hamas has bombs mostly put together from homemade and smuggled materials, which are dangerous because they are unguided, Israel has state of the art, precision weaponry and its own booming arms industry. It is the eighth biggest arms exporter on the planet.

Israel’s military arsenal is also propped up by imports of billions of dollars worth of weapons from abroad.

These are the countries and companies supplying Israel with weapons, despite its track record of war crimes accusations.

United States

The United States is by far the biggest exporter of arms to Israel. Between 2009-2020, more than 70 percent of the arms Israel bought came from the US, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) Arms Transfers database, which only includes major conventional weapons.

According to Sipri numbers, the US has exported arms to Israel every year since 1961.

It’s harder to track arms that have actually been delivered, but between 2013-2017, the US delivered $4.9bn (£3.3bn) in arms to Israel, according to the UK-based Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT).

US-made bombs have been photographed in Gaza in recent days, too.

The exports have increased despite the numerous times that Israeli forces have been accused of committing war crimes against Palestinians.

The US continued to export weapons to Israel when it emerged in 2009, for example, that Israeli forces had indiscriminately used white phosphorus shells on Palestinians – a war crime, according to Human Rights Watch.

In 2014, Amnesty International accused Israel of the same charge for disproportionate attacks that killed scores of civilians in Rafah, southern Gaza. The following year, the export value of US weapons to Israel almost doubled, according to Sipri figures.

US President Joe Biden “expressed his support for a ceasefire” on Monday, under pressure from Senate Democrats. But it also emerged earlier in the day that his administration had recently approved $735m in weapons sales to Israel, the Washington Post reported. Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are expected to request the administration delay the sale pending review.

And under a security assistance agreement spanning 2019-2028, the US has agreed – subject to congressional approval – to give Israel $3.8bn annually in foreign military financing, most of which it has to spend on US-made weapons.

That’s around 20 percent of Israel’s defence budget, according to NBC, and almost three-fifths of US foreign military financing worldwide.

But the US also sometimes gives additional funds, on top of its annual contribution. It has given an extra $1.6bn since 2011 for Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system, with parts that are made in the US.

“Israel has a very advanced arms industry that could likely sustain the bombardment for at least a short period of time,” Andrew Smith of CAAT told Middle East Eye.

“However, its major combat aircraft come from the US,” he added, referring to US F-16 fighter jets, which continue to pummel the Strip. “Even if the capacity to build them exists in Israel, they would obviously take a long time to assemble.

“In terms of munitions, a lot of these are imported, but I’d expect they could be produced in Israel. Obviously, in this hypothetical scenario, the transition to domestically produce arms would take time and would not be cheap.”

“But arms sales should not be seen in isolation. They are underpinned by a deep political support,” Smith added. “The support of the US, in particular, is invaluable in terms of upholding the occupation and legitimising bombing campaigns like we have seen over recent days.”

The long list of private US companies involved in supplying Israel with arms includes Lockheed Martin, Boeing; Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Ametek, UTC Aerospace, and Raytheon, according to CAAT.

Germany

The second-biggest exporter of weapons to Israel is Germany, which accounted for 24 percent of Israel’s arms imports between 2009-2020.

Germany does not provide data on the weapons it delivers, but it issued licences for arms sales to Israel worth 1.6 billion euros ($1.93bn) from 2013-2017, according to CAAT.

Sipri figures show Germany sold weapons to Israel throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and has done so every year since 1994.

The first defence talks between the two countries date back to 1957, according to Haaretz, which noted that in 1960, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion met in New York with German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and emphasised “Israel’s need for small submarines and anti-aircraft missiles”.

While the US has helped with many of Israel’s air defence needs, Germany still provides submarines.

German shipbuilder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems has built six Dolphin submarines for Israel, according to CAAT, while the German-headquartered company Renk AG helps equip Israel’s Merkava tanks.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel voiced “solidarity” with Israel in a call with Netanyahu on Monday, according to her spokesperson, reaffirming the country’s “right to defend itself” against rocket attacks from Hamas.

Italy

Italy is next, having provided 5.6 percent of Israel’s major conventional arms imports between 2009-2020, according to Sipri.

From 2013-2017, Italy delivered €476m ($581m) worth of arms to Israel, according to CAAT.

The two countries have done deals in recent years whereby Israel has got training aircraft in return for missiles and other weapons, according to Defense News.

Italy joined other European countries in criticising Israeli settlements in Sheikh Jarrah and elsewhere earlier in May, but the country continues to export weapons.

Port workers in Livorno refused on Friday to load a ship carrying weapons to the Israeli port of Ashdod, after being notified by Italian NGO The Weapon Watch of the contents of its cargo.

“The port of Livorno will not be an accomplice in the massacre of the Palestinian people,” the Unione Sindicale di Base said in a statement.

Weapon Watch urged Italian authorities to suspend “some or all Italian military exports to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict areas”.

AgustaWestland, a subsidiary of Italian firm Leonardo, makes components for Apache attack helicopters used by Israel, according to CAAT.

United Kingdom

The UK, though not in Sipri’s database in recent years, also sells weapons to Israel, and has licensed £400m in arms since 2015, according to CAAT.

The NGO is calling for the UK to end weapons sales and military support to Israeli forces and investigate if UK arms have been used to bomb Gaza.

The actual amount the UK exports to Israel is far higher than publicly available numbers, due to an opaque system of weapons sales, “open licences”, basically permissions to export, which keep the value of arms and their quantities secret.

Smith of CAAT told MEE that roughly 30-40 percent of UK arms sales to Israel are likely done under open licence, but “we simply don’t know” which weapons they are or how they are used.

“Unless the UK Government launches its own investigation, then there isn’t any other way of determining which weapons have been used, other than relying on photos emerging from one of the worst conflict zones in the world – which is not an appropriate way for the arms industry to be held to account,” said Smith.

“The way we find out about these atrocities is either relying on people in war zones to be taking photos of weapons which are falling around them or on journalists,” Smith said.

“And that means that we can always assume huge amounts of weapons are used which we’ll never know about.”

Private British companies that help supply Israel with arms or military hardware include BAE Systems; Atlas Elektronik UK;  MPE; Meggitt, Penny + Giles Controls; Redmayne Engineering; Senior PLC; Land Rover; and G4S, according to CAAT.

What’s more, the UK spends millions of pounds annually on Israeli weapons systems. Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms producer, has several subsidiaries in the UK, as do several US arms manufacturers.

One of their factories in Oldham has been a target for pro-Palestine protesters in recent months.

Many of the weapons exported by the UK to Israel – including aircraft, drones, grenades, bombs, missiles and ammunition – “are the kind of arms that are likely to be used in this sort of bombing campaign”, according to a CAAT statement, referring to the ongoing bombardment.

“It would not be the first time,” it added.

A government review in 2014 found 12 licences for arms likely used in that year’s bombardment of Gaza, while in 2010, then-Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that arms made in the UK had “almost certainly” been used in Israel’s 2009 bombing campaign of the enclave.

“We know that UK-made arms have been used against Palestinians before, but that has done nothing to halt the flow of weapons,” said Smith.

“There must be a suspension of arms sales and a full review into whether UK weapons have been used and if they are implicated in possible war crimes.”

“For decades now, successive governments have talked about their commitment to peacebuilding, while continuing to arm and support Israeli forces,” Smith added. “These arms sales do not just provide military support, they also send a clear sign of political support for the occupation and blockade and the violence that is being inflicted.”

Canada

Canada accounted for around 0.3 percent of Israel’s imports of major conventional weapons between 2009-2021, according to Sipri numbers.

Jagmeet Singh of Canada’s New Democratic Party last week called for Canada to halt arms sales to Israel in light of recent events.

Canada sent $13.7m in military hardware and technology to Israel in 2019, equating to 0.4 percent of total arms exports, according to The Globe and Mail.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: File photo provided by Wikipedia shows Israel’s nuclear-capable Jericho II missile carrying the Shavit rocket, which is used for launching satellites into orbit.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

South Africans, along with international humanity,​ ​raise the battle cry Mayihlome in solidarity with the Palestinian people’s just resistance—our anger rises for the battle. There can be no neutrality in the fight for freedom and justice.

Nakba Day—73 years since the onset of the ‘catastrophe,’ with Israel having believed Palestinian memories would have faded away has witnessed unity and courage of a people unbowed, relentlessly fighting for their land and rights, and resisting the last of the colonial monsters.

As in all anti-colonial struggles there is an agonising high price to pay. The death toll rises hourly in Gaza, the West Bank and throughout occupied Palestine.  The international community cannot remain indifferent, and it has been uplifting for the beleaguered Palestinian people to see they are not alone in their struggle for survival.

Humanity’s voice and resolve must rise in sustained anger and to mourn and mobilize as the best way to respect the dead and wounded​, the families grieving over the corpses of mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, venerable elders and broken bodies of children some still infants. At times virtually entire families obliterated.  The spreading of awareness and the truth is necessary to break through Zionist Israel’s false narrative, the impunity provided by the West for its heinous crimes, and mainstream media ​disinformation​. ​Our resolve​ is more vital with the barbaric onslaught on the people of Palestine as Israel warmongers—and a corrupt, desperate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—threaten unrestrained war and a final solution.  This is a time for rededication as never before. We must protest our outrage at Apartheid Israel’s war crimes, recognised as such in international law. By Sunday night:  188 Palestinians slaughtered, including 55 children – and 10 Israelis. As office blocks in Gaza are turned to rubble, one housing Associated Press and Al Jazeera offices, Israel’s intentions to obliterate media outlets along with Palestinian lives show its fear of the extent of its crimes reaching the outside world. So much for the claim that it is the Middle East’s sole democracy.

Palestinian comrades have asked us to break the criminal international support and appeasement of Israel and match their courage. It is imperative we confront the shameless complicity passed on from Trump to Biden, the legacy of USA administrations since 1948. How macabre this Joe Biden is, asserting that Israel is justified in bombing Gaza in self-defence. How insidious the connivance of perfidious Britain, hypocritical France, shameless Germany​,​ the ​repugnant regimes​ from Austria, Brazil, Hungary to India, Lithuania and Poland; the white domains of Australia and Canada;​ along with the treachery of spineless Arab states.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Egypt has once again been thrust onto the forefront of brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi remarked on Monday that a ceasefire might still be within reach. 

As he put it, “Egypt is going to great lengths to reach a ceasefire between the Israelis and Palestinians — and hope still exists.” A report in the right-wing Jewish paper Algemeiner also shares this opinion. 

The paper said there is “growing pressure” on Israel from the Biden Administration, and it is “mulling the terms of a ceasefire agreement… A halt could be forthcoming in the near future now that the IDF (armed forces) and Israel’s security cabinet have completed a number of objectives, including destroying a Hamas tunnel network and eliminating senior members of the organisation.”  

Equally, the White House readouts of President Joe Biden’s successive calls with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday hinted that Washington is seeking a swift end to the conflict. 

While repeating the old cliche “Israel-has- the-right-to-defend-itself”, Biden ended the conversation with Netanyahu voicing his “support for steps to enable the Palestinian people to enjoy the dignity, security, freedom, and economic opportunity that they deserve and affirmed his support for a two-state solution.” 

In the conversation with Abbas, Biden “highlighted the recent U.S. decision to resume assistance to the Palestinian people, including economic and humanitarian assistance to benefit Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza. The President also underscored his strong commitment to a negotiated two-state solution as the best path to reach a just and lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” 

These were calming words. What takes the breath away is the statement made by Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, US Representative to the United Nations at the UN Security Council Briefing on Sunday regarding the Situation in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. 

The ambassador, a former career diplomat, holds a Cabinet-level position and her statement, as delivered, would carry the imprimatur of the White House. The salience of the statement lies in its marked shift away from any unilateral, unequivocal expressions of US support for Israel. Arguably, it spoke disapprovingly of Israel’s behaviour in the current conflict situation. 

Specifically, it urged Israel to avoid “evictions – including in East Jerusalem – demolitions, and settlement construction east of the 1967 lines. And critically, all parties need to uphold and respect the historic status quo at the holy sites”.  

However, when the crunch time came at the United Nations Security Council, the United States once more blocked even a statement calling for a ceasefire. On the other hand, Netanyahu struck a defiant stance in a televised address on Sunday saying, “Our campaign against the terrorist organisations is continuing with full force. We are acting now, for as long as necessary, to restore calm and quiet to you, Israel’s citizens. It will take time.”

Indeed, it was a Bloody Sunday in Gaza, with “the highest number of victims” in just one day since the start of conflict. The updated toll is 218 Palestinian victims, including 58 minors and 34 women, more than 1230 injured. The toll in West Bank is at least 21 Palestinians killed. Clearly, The UN Security Council meeting has ended with nothing. 

Evidently, Netanyahu remains confident that Israel still holds the diplomatic blank check that the US gave it all through past decades to pursue its policies of occupation and repression and continue with the steady annexation of Palestinian territory and expansion of Israeli settlements that brings it closer to the one-state reality — that is, a Jewish state. 

The Council on Foreign Relations president and former State Department director of policy planning, Richard Haass said Monday,

“Netanyahu has come to believe that he can ignore Joe Biden, he can ignore any president of the United States, because, at the end of the day, he has Congress, he has Orthodox Jews, he has evangelical Christians and they can box in a president of the United States.”

But this is also applicable to Europe. The British historian and former ambassador Craig Murray framed the paradigm in this stark way:

“Western politicians obviously believe that the Palestinians should accept apartheid quietly, and should have the good grace silently to wither away… It is absolutely plain there is no political process of any kind in train to alleviate the Palestinian plight, that even those “liberal” western politicians who floated the idea of a “two state solution” meant, at best, internationally recognised apartheid and bantustans.” 

Yet, from all indications, this is not a preplanned conflict by either Israel or Hamas. Neither side wants a full-fledged war. At the end of the day, the Biden Administration too may not want the clashes to continue as it could have ramifications for its larger regional strategies, especially the negotiations over Iran nuclear deal. 

What emerges is that Israel is pressing ahead with its objective to weaken the Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But Hamas is showing that it still retains the capability to retaliate. Hamas announced today a new wave of massive rocket bombardments of Israeli cities and army bases in response to Israel’s strikes. Overall, 3200 rockets have ben fired at Israel from Gaza in the past 8-day period. 

Even if the Israeli military objective is realised, it can only be a Pyrrhic victory insofar as it is the Iran-led resistance movement that eventually stands to gain. Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh has turned toward the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — its Quds Force Commander Brig. Gen. Esmail Qaani — and Ali Akbar Velayati, advisor to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. 

Surely, Hamas will further boost its deterrent capability. In political terms too, Hamas has broken the glass ceiling. Its appeal is expanding among Palestinians in Jerusalem, West Bank and elsewhere within Israel. The moment is arriving where Hamas becomes the voice of all Palestinians, not simply the Palestinians in Gaza. The international community will have to gradually deal with the consequences of that eventuality. 

For Israel, on the other hand, the current clashes highlight that there is no “peace” and no “new Middle East.” It would now be inconceivable that the Saudi leadership could contemplate normalising ties with Israel in the near term. Again, the Abraham Accords did nothing to resolve underlying conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Libya — or the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The region “remains the same blood-soaked mess as ever”, as Washington Post columnist Max Boot put it.

Above all, in the court of world opinion, sympathy tips in favour of the Palestinians. Unsurprisingly, Hamas is portrayed as the guardian of Palestinians, whereas, Israel with its indiscriminate missile attacks against civilian targets in Gaza is perceived as the aggressor.

Meanwhile, the public opinion in the US has also been steadily becoming favourable to the Palestinians. A Gallup poll published in March found that 30 percent of Americans held a favorable opinion of Palestinians, up from 21 percent in 2018. Among Democrats, 53 percent want the US to pressure Israel more — the first time a majority has taken that position. Substantial pressure on Biden to act is coming also from the progressive Democrats who strive to elevate support for the Palestinian cause from the fringes to the mainstream.

But although Americans are warming to the Palestinians, they still favour Israel by wide margins. Evidently, Biden is walking a fine line. It goes to the credit of Biden that he did not exacerbate the conflict, as Donald Trump might have done. But call it inertia or passivity or low-key approach, Biden may also have exposed that the US has become an ineffectual power in the Middle East and that its influence is rapidly waning. This will have consequences. 

To be sure, Netanyahu is the winner. The escalation of violence with the Palestinians has stoked nationalist passions inside Israel, which virtually shuts the door on an opposition coalition replacing him. Netanyahu gains immunity from prosecution on corruption charges so long as he remains prime minister. 

The right-wing lawmaker and a key figure in the negotiations between the opposition factions, Naftali Bennett, who heads the pro-settler Yamina party, seems to be already moving toward resuming negotiations with Netanyahu to form the next coalition government.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Building housing the offices of Associated Press and other media collapses after Israeli airstrike, Gaza City, May 15, 2021. (Source: Indian Punchline)

Vaccine Passports and “Medical Paternalism”

By Dr. Birsen Filip, May 18, 2021

Vaccine passports have been implemented, or are being developed, in a number of countries around the world. In February 2021, Israel introduced its “Green Pass,” which becomes “effective the week after receiving the second dose” of the vaccine and expires after six months. It was followed by China, which launched its digital “International Travel Health Certificate” in March. Subsequently, in April, Denmark implemented its “Coronapas” and Estonia introduced its “VaccineGuard.”

Severe Reactions in Healthy Teens from COVID-19 Shot

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 18, 2021

Healthy teenagers have been hospitalized, and at least one death in a teen has been reported, following experimental COVID-19 vaccinations being distributed under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted to vaccine manufacturers by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The adverse events are especially tragic since COVID-19 has a 99.997% survival rate among children and teens,³ making the necessity of vaccination highly questionable.

“The Human Bomb”: Effects of mRNA “Vaccination” on Unvaccinated People?

By Theara Truth news, May 18, 2021

Hundreds of people NOT “VACCINATED” report having “side effects” from Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but WITHOUT being vaccinated. April 2021, United States: Reports of women having problems with bleeding, abnormal periods, miscarriages, very serious symptoms.

Crimes against Humanity: Israel Kills 58 Palestinian Children in 7 Days

By Khaled Mouammar, May 18, 2021

The death toll in Gaza jumped today to 192, including 58 Palestinian children most of whom were killed when Israeli air strikes levelled four high-rise residential buildings. On May 15, Israel destroyed a 12-storey building where the Associated Press and the Al Jazeera TV network had offices, aiming to prevent the reporting of the atrocities it is committing.

Honor to the Palestinian Resistance Fighters!

By Bruno Guigue, May 18, 2021

What is most revolting in the Palestinian conflict is, of course, the brutality of the occupier, its colonial arrogance, its contempt for the lives of others, its aplomb in the murder, its arrogance as a winner with an easy victory, his lack of conscience when he pulls the trigger, his cowardice when he murders civilians, his addiction to crime.

Covid-19 Vaccines: Isn’t it Time for Real Truth Telling?

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, May 18, 2021

As of this week, over 194 million doses of the Covid-19 vaccines have been administered in the US. Consequently, a growing majority of Americans are delighted that life may return to normal because most believe they are now protected from infection. Clearly that is not the case.

Video: We Can Defeat the Corporate Media’s War to Snuff Out Independent Journalism

By Jonathan Cook, May 18, 2021

I wanted to use this opportunity to talk about my experiences over the past two decades working with new technology as an independent freelance journalist, one who abandoned – or maybe more accurately, was abandoned by – what we usually call the “mainstream” media. 

The Mask of “Liberal Democracy” Falls with a Bang

By Pepe Escobar, May 18, 2021

Nakba, May 15, 2021. Future historians will mark the day when Western “liberal democracy” issued a graphic proclamation: We bomb media offices and destroy “freedom of the press” in an open air concentration camp while we forbid peaceful demonstrations under a state of siege in the heart of Europe.

Indigenous Fisheries vs. Mob Rule. The Rights of First Nations

By J. B. Gerald, May 18, 2021

On September 17, 2020, the Sipekne’katik First Nation of Nova Scotia opened its independent fishery, affirming the Band’s rights under Canada’s Supreme Court ruling of 1999 (the Marshall Decision), which allowed the Band to fish for a moderate living under its own regulations.

Escaping the Brave New World: Transhumanism, Utopias and Eugenics

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, May 18, 2021

During this podcast, David and Matt review this sweeping battle by taking a close look at the 1900 Conference on the Future of Mathematics which saw mathematicians Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert demand the creation of a new all-encompassing closed system logic to impose upon the entire universe and human systems.

The Super-Capitalists’ Depopulation Agenda

By Peter Koenig, May 17, 2021

We are at the cross-roads of falling into the fangs of a diabolical super-capitalist “cult” that wants to decimate massively our world population. In fact, it has already started. And what these “diabolical elites” usually do, is to announce their “horror plans” in advance in the form of  “scenario planning” and “simulations”. And they did. We cannot say we were not told.

Video: The Corona Crisis And The Big Lie

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Michael Bloom, May 17, 2021

The fear campaign was sustained by political statements and media disinformation. People are frightened. They are encouraged to do the PCR test, which is flawed. A positive PCR test does not mean that you are infected and/or that you can transmit the virus.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Israeli Forces spokesman Zilberman announced the start of the bombing of Gaza, specifying that “80 fighters are taking part in the operation, including the advanced F-35s” (The Times of Israel, May 11, 2021). It is officially the baptism of fire for the US Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation fighter, whose production Italy also participates in as a second-level partner.

Israel has already received twenty-seven F-35s from the US, and last February decided to buy no longer fifty F-35s but seventy-five. To this end the government has decreed a further allocation of 9 billion dollars: 7 were granted by a US to Israel free military “aid” of 28 billion, 2 were granted as a loan by the US Citibank.

While Israeli F-35 pilots were being trained by the U.S. Air Force in Arizona and Israel, the US Army Engineers built in Israel special hardened hangars for the F-35s, suitable for both fighters’ maximum protection on the ground, and their rapid take-off on attack. At the same time, the Israeli military industries (Israel Aerospace and Elbit Systems) in close coordination with Lockheed Martin enhance the fighter renamed “Adir” (Powerful): above all its ability to penetrate enemy defenses and its range of action which was nearly doubled.

These capabilities are certainly not necessary to attack Gaza. Why then are the most advanced fifth-generation fighters used against Palestinians? Because it serves to test F-35s fighters and their pilots in real war action using Gaza homes as targets on a firing range. It does not matter if in the target houses there are entire families.

The F-35s, added to the hundreds of fighter-bombers already supplied by the US to Israel. are designed for nuclear attack particularly with the new B61-12 bomb. The United States will shortly deploy these nuclear bombs in Italy and other European countries, and will also provide them to Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East with an arsenal estimated at 100-400 nuclear weapons. If Israel doubles the range of F-35 fighters and is about to receive eight Boeing Pegasus tankers from the US for refueling the F-35s in flight, it is because it is preparing to launch an attack, even nuclear, against Iran.

The Israeli nuclear forces are integrated into the NATO electronic system within the “Individual cooperation program” framework with Israel. Although not a member of the Alliance, Israel is integrated with a permanent mission in the NATO headquarters in Brussels. In the same framework, Germany supplied Israel with six Dolphin submarines. modified for launching nuclear missiles (as Der Spiegel documented in 2012).

Italy’s military cooperation with Israel has become a law of the Republic (Law No. 94 of May 17, 2005). This law establishes comprehensive cooperation, both between armed forces and military industries, including activities that remain secret because they are subject to the “Security Agreement” between the two parties.

Israel has supplied Italy with the Opsat-3000 satellite, which transmits very high-resolution images for military operations in distant war theaters. The satellite is connected to three centers in Italy and, at the same time, to a fourth center in Israel, as a proof of the increasingly close strategic collaboration between the two countries.

Italy supplied Israel with thirty Leonardo Aermacchi fighters for pilot training. Now it can provide Israel with a new version of the M-346 FA (Fighter Attack), which – Leonardo Industry specified – serves at the same time for training and for “ground attack missions with 500-pound drop ammunition, and precision-guided ammunitions capable of increasing the number of targets to hit at the same time “. The new version of the fighter – Leonardo Industry underlined – is particularly suitable for “missions in urban areas”, where heavy fighters “are often used in low-paying missions with high operating costs”. The ideal for the next Israeli bombings of Gaza, which can be carried out with “a cost per flight hour that is reduced by up to 80%”, and will be very ” cost-effective “, that is, they will kill many more Palestinians.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On May 12, 2021, the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to recommend the investigational  Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Pfizer shot to children ages 12 to 15.

The ACIP also voted to end restrictions around co-administration with other vaccines even though there has not been a single clinical trial administering any of the shots with any other vaccine. More on this below.

COVID-19 shots do not prevent hospitalization or death in adults

Why are young teens being targeted with EUA shots?

This is an age group that does not tend to be susceptible to severe infection, and CDC says from March of 2020 through April 2021, those aged 12-17 made up just 9% of the reported cases, and very few of the hospitalizations. As with adults, children with underlying health issues are more at risk. Most children experience low to no symptoms and likely develop long-lasting robust immunity.

Source

FDA states about the Pfizer’s clinical trial with 12-15 year olds:

An analysis of cases of COVID-19 occurring among participants, 12 through 15 years of age, seven days after the second dose was also conducted. In this analysis, among participants without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, no cases of COVID-19 occurred among 1,005 vaccine recipients and 16 cases of COVID-19 occurred among 978 placebo recipients; the vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19. At this time, there are limited data to address whether the vaccine can prevent transmission of the virus from person to person. In addition, at this time, data are not available to determine how long the vaccine will provide protection.

Just like with adults, the studies were not designed to find out if the shots prevent infection or transmission, only if they prevent mild to moderate symptoms, and it’s unknown how long any personal protection afforded might last.

It’s very clear that the shots don’t prevent infection, serious disease, or fatalities. In an alarming and highly unscientific move, the CDC has decided to stop telling the public the full number of breakthrough cases reported, and only pass on the numbers of fully vaccinated individuals who get COVID-19 anyway and are hospitalized or die.

Source

These numbers are nearly a month old (April 26, 2021) and the most recent being provided.

The CDC admits: “It is important to note that reported vaccine breakthrough cases will represent an undercount. This surveillance system is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments which may not be complete.  Also, not all real-world breakthrough cases will be identified because of lack of testing. This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness. These surveillance data are a snapshot and help identify patterns and look for signals among vaccine breakthrough cases.”

Does the CDC not see those numbers as signals of product failure?

Intentional deception with RRR rather than ARR

For this most recent EUA, Pfizer’s claim, repeated by the CDC, that the shot is “100%” effective in 12-15 year olds might accurate for the study outcome (although the term “efficacy” is more appropriate), but it’s also very deceptive. 100% is the RRR — the Relative Risk Reduction. That’s how many kids showed “evidence of infection” in the Pfizer shot group verses the saline placebo group, from 7 days post the second shot until the cutoff date (length of time varied per participant, depending on when they got the shot).

But the risk of getting COVID-19 at all was already very small. How much did the shot reduce the risk of getting sick? That’s the ARR–the Absolute Risk Reduction. While the FDA advises ARR to always be reported with RRR so that individual and public policy decisions can be soundly made, ARR is rarely every mentioned.

In this case, between 7 days post the second dose and the cutoff date, the control group had 16 cases out of 978 kids, which is 0.016 of the kids. The shot group had no cases, so 0.00 of the kids. To get ARR you subtract the shot number from the control number and you get 0.016. Expressed as a percent that’s 1.6%.

So the shot–in this short, limited study–reduced the risk of getting COVID by 1.6%.

If we can trust the data. The general public has no idea that all of the studies are conducted by the manufacturers who stand to profit, and they turn in their data to the FDA. It is an honor-system among entities that have a history of criminal fraud.

Co-administration dangers

As unethical as it is to expose children who are not at high risk of severe outcomes to infection to investigational liability-free products that have seen unprecedented level of adverse reactions and deaths reported, when the ACIP opened up the shots to be co-administered with other vaccines, including those with adjuvants, they stepped fully into crimes against humanity.

Not a single clinical trial has been done administering the COVID-19 shots with any other vaccine. There is zero safety data. The Pfizer EUA Fact Sheet states:

Source

Below is the image of a slide captured during the live ACIP Meeting. The last two bullet points were added by the committee after hearing the grave concerns in several public comments.

Watch this video to hear the public comments.

After the 14-0 vote with one abstention to recommend the Pfizer EUA shot to 12-15 year olds, with no restriction on co-administration with other shots, some ACIP members gave their reason.

They only had one.

They don’t want to miss an opportunity to vaccinate.

That’s it. Science be hanged, safety unknown, by gosh, they didn’t want doctors to miss an opportunity to give other vaccines.

I will repeat. Zero safety studies.

What happens when a 12-year-old is injected with Gardasil with its highly reactogenic aluminum AAHS adjuvant in one arm and the Pfizer mRNA shot in the other?

We have no idea.

What on earth were the members of the ACIP thinking? Why would they make a recommendation based on zero safety science?

FiercePharma, the drug industry’s insider online magazine, provided a likely answer within hours of the ACIP’s vote:

As revenues for several Big Pharma players slumped to start the year, execs blamed part of the problem on the accelerating COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The CDC had recommended people don’t get another shot within two weeks of their COVID-19 vaccine, hitting sales for key products.

Now, the CDC is doing away with that suggestion entirely in an effort to boost routine immunizations among teens. The move could spell financial rewards for leading vaccine companies such as Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer.

During the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on Wednesday, experts endorsed the COVID-19 shot from Pfizer and BioNTech in adolescents aged 12 to 15 and additionally tossed out the agency’s two-week restriction on administering other vaccines.

Over the past few years, vaccine safety reform and medical freedom advocates have attempted to show the public and local public health agencies examples of ACIP votes that have put the public at risk. Nothing has come close to the atrocity of this blatant handing of the American public, and America’s children, to the drug industry.

Call to action

We need your help letting parents know that the EUA recommendation to children is based on very limited data, and the co-administration of the EUA shots with other vaccines has zero safety studies. Please share this article everywhere. Send it to your legislators & major media, provide the link in comments to social media posts for the local and national news agencies. Post wherever parents can be found.

Tell the world, and ACIP, our children are not for sale.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Bernadette Pajer is ICWA Public Policy Director.

Featured image is from Informed Choice Washington

O porta-voz das Forças Israelitas, Zilberman, anunciando o início do bombardeamento de Gaza, especificou que “80 caças, incluindo o F-35 avançado” (The Times of Israel, 11 de Maio de 2021) estão a participar na operação. É oficialmente o baptismo de fogo dos aviões de caça da quinta geração da Lockheed Martin dos EUA, em cuja produção a Itália também participa como parceiro de segundo nível.

Israel, que já recebeu 27 caças F-35s dos EUA, decidiu em Fevereiro passado comprar não 50 mas 75. Para este fim, o governo decretou uma nova atribuição de 9 biliões de dólares: 7 da “ajuda” militar gratuita de 28 biliões concedida pelos EUA a Israel, 2 biliões concedidos como empréstimo do Citibank dos EUA. Enquanto os pilotos israelitas dos F-35 estão a ser treinados pela Força Aérea dos EUA, no Arizona e em Israel, o Corpo de Engenheiros do Exército dos EUA está a construir hangares especiais reforçados em Israel para o F-35, adequados tanto para a máxima protecção dos caças em terra como para a sua rápida descolagem quando vão ao ataque. Ao mesmo tempo, as indústrias militares israelitas (Israel Aerospace and Elbit Systems), em estreita coordenação com a Lockheed Martin, estão a reforçar o caça, rebaptizado “Adir” (Poderoso): sobretudo, a sua capacidade de penetrar nas defesas inimigas e o seu raio de acção, que foi quase duplicado. Capacidades certamente não necessárias para atacar Gaza. Porque são então os mais avançados caças de quinta geração utilizados contra os palestinianos? Porque serve para testar os F-35 e os pilotos em guerra real, usando as casas de Gaza como alvos para campo de tiro. Pouco importa se, nos edifícios alvo, estiverem famílias inteiras.

Os F-35A, que se juntam às centenas de caças-bombardeiros já fornecidos pelos EUA a Israel, foram concebidos para ataques nucleares, em particular com a nova bomba B61-12 que os Estados Unidos, para além de, em breve, alojarem em Itália e noutros países europeus, fornecerão também a Israel, a única potência nuclear do Médio Oriente, com um arsenal estimado em 100-400 armas nucleares. Se Israel duplica o raio de acção do F-35 e está prestes a receber dos EUA, 8 aviões-cisterna Boeing Pegasus para reabastecimento em voo dos F-35, é porque se prepara para lançar um ataque, incluindo um ataque nuclear, contra o Irão. As forças nucleares israelitas estão integradas no sistema electrónico da NATO, no quadro do “Programa de Cooperação Individual” com Israel, um país que, embora não seja membro da Aliança, está integrado com uma missão permanente no quartel general da NATO, em Bruxelas. No mesmo âmbito, a Alemanha forneceu a Israel 6 submarinos Dolphin modificados para lançar mísseis nucleares (como documentado pelo Der Spiegel em 2012).

A cooperação militar da Itália com Israel tornou-se uma lei da República (Lei n.º 94 de 17 de Maio de 2005). Estabelece uma ampla cooperação, tanto entre as forças armadas como entre as indústrias militares, incluindo actividades que permanecem secretas porque estão sujeitas ao “Acordo de Segurança” entre as duas partes. Israel forneceu à Itália o satélite Opsat-3000, que transmite imagens de muito alta resolução para operações militares em teatros de guerra distantes. O satélite está ligado a três centros em Itália e, ao mesmo tempo, a um quarto centro em Israel, demonstrando a cooperação estratégica cada vez mais estreita entre os dois países. A Itália forneceu a Israel 30 aviões de caça Leonardo Aermacchi para treino de pilotos. Agora pode fornecer uma nova versão, a M-346 FA (Fighter Attack), que – especifica a Leonardo – é utilizada tanto para treino como para “missões de ataque terrestre com 500 lb. de queda e munições de precisão capazes de aumentar o número de alvos a serem atingidos simultaneamente”. A nova versão do combatente – sublinha a empresa Leonardo – é particularmente adequada para “missões em áreas urbanas”, onde os combatentes pesados “são frequentemente utilizados em missões de baixo pagamento com custos operacionais elevados”. É ideal para os próximos bombardeamentos israelitas em Gaza, que podem ser realizados com “um custo por hora de voo que é reduzido até 80%”, e serão muito “muito bem pagos”, ou seja, matarão muito mais palestinianos.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Gli F-35 bombardano Gaza

il manifesto, 18 de Maio de 2021

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Webpage: NO WAR NO NATO