All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
On February 7, 2024, a U.S. drone strike assassinated an Iraqi militia leader, Abu Baqir al-Saadi, in the heart of Baghdad. This was a further U.S. escalation in a major new front in the U.S.-Israeli war on the Middle East, centered on the Israeli genocide in Gaza, but already also including ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Syria, and the U.S. and U.K.’s bombing of Yemen.
This latest U.S. attack followed the U.S. bombing of seven targets on February 2, three in Iraq and four in Syria, with 125 bombs and missiles, killing at least 39 people, which Iran called “a strategic mistake” that would bring “disastrous consequences” for the Middle East.
At the same time, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been touring the shrinking number of capitals in the region where leaders will still talk to him, playing the United States’ traditional role as a dishonest broker between Israel and its neighbors, in reality partnering with Israel to offer the Palestinians impossible, virtually suicidal terms for a ceasefire in Gaza.
What Israel and the United States have proposed, but not made public, appears to be a second temporary ceasefire, during which prisoners or hostages would be exchanged, possibly leading to the release of all the Israeli security prisoners held in Gaza, but in no way leading to the final end of the genocide. If the Palestinians in fact freed all their Israeli hostages as part of a prisoner swap, it would remove the only obstacle to a catastrophic escalation of the genocide.
When Hamas responded with a serious counter-proposal for a full ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Biden dismissed it out of hand as “over the top,” and Netanyahu called it “bizarre” and “delusional.”
The position of the United States and Israel today is that ending a massacre that has already killed more than 27,700 people is not a serious option, even after the International Court of Justice has ruled it a plausible case of genocide under the Genocide Convention. Raphael Lemkin, the Polish holocaust survivor who coined the term genocide and drafted the Genocide Convention from his adopted home in New York City, must be turning in his grave in Mount Hebron Cemetery.
The United States’ support for Israel’s genocidal policies now goes way beyond Palestine, with the U.S. expansion of the war to Iraq, Syria and Yemen to punish other countries and forces in the region for intervening to defend or support the Palestinians. U.S. officials claimed the February 2 attacks were intended to stop Iraqi Resistance attacks on U.S. bases. But the leading Iraqi resistance force had already suspended attacks against U.S. targets on January 30th after they killed three U.S. troops, declaring a truce at the urging of the Iranian and Iraqi governments.
A senior Iraqi military officer told BBC Persian that at least one of the Iraqi military units the U.S. bombed on February 2nd had nothing to do with attacks on U.S. bases. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani negotiated an agreement a year ago to clearly differentiate between Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) units that were part of the “Axis of Resistance” fighting a low-grade war with U.S. occupation forces, and other PMF units that were not involved in attacks on U.S. bases.
Tragically, because the U.S. failed to coordinate its attacks with the Iraqi government, al-Sudani’s agreement failed to prevent the U.S. from attacking the wrong Iraqi forces. It is no wonder that some analysts have dubbed al-Sudani’s valiant efforts to prevent all-out war between U.S. forces and the Islamic Resistance in his country as “mission impossible.”
Following the elaborately staged but carelessly misdirected U.S. attacks, Resistance forces in Iraq began launching new strikes on U.S. bases, including a drone attack that killed six Kurdish troops at the largest U.S. base in Syria. So the predictable effect of the U.S. bombing was in fact to rebuff Iran and Iraq’s efforts to rein in resistance forces and to escalate a war that U.S. officials keep claiming they want to deter.
From experienced journalists and analysts to Middle Eastern governments, voices of caution are warning the United States in increasingly stark language of the dangers of its escalating bombing campaigns. “While the war rages in Gaza,” the BBC’s Orla Guerin wrote on February 4, “one false move could set the region alight.”
Three days later, Orla would be surrounded by protesters chanting “America is the greatest devil,” as she reported from the site of the U.S. drone assassination of Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Baqir al-Saadi in Baghdad – which could prove to be exactly the false move she feared.
But what Americans should be asking their government is this: Why are there still 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq? It is 21 years since the United States invaded Iraq and plunged the nation into seemingly endless violence, chaos and corruption; 12 years since Iraq forced U.S. occupation forces to withdraw from Iraq at the end of 2011; and 7 years since the defeat of ISIS, which served as justification for the United States to send forces back into Iraq in 2014, and then to obliterate most of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, in 2017.
Successive Iraqi governments and parliaments have asked the United States to withdraw its forces from Iraq, and previously scheduled talks are about to begin. But the Iraqis and Americans have issued contradictory statements about the goal of the negotiations. Prime Minister al-Sudani and most Iraqis hope they will bring about the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, while U.S. officials insist that U.S. troops may remain for another two to five years, kicking this explosive can further down the road despite the obvious dangers it poses to the lives of U.S. troops and to peace in the region.
Behind these contradictory statements, the real value of Iraqi bases to the U.S. military does not seem to be about ISIS at all but about Iran. Although the United States has more than 40,000 troops stationed in 14 countries across the Middle East, and another 20,000 on warships in the seas surrounding them, the bases it uses in Iraq are its closest bases and airfields to Tehran and much of Iran. If the Pentagon loses these forward operating bases in Iraq, the closest bases from which it can attack Tehran will be Camp Arifjan and five other bases in Kuwait, where 13,500 U.S. troops would be vulnerable to Iranian counter-attacks – unless, of course, the U.S. withdraws them, too.
Toward the end of the Cold War, historian Gabriel Kolko observed in his book Confronting the Third World that the United States’ “endemic incapacity to avoid entangling, costly commitments in areas of the world that are of intrinsically secondary importance to [its] priorities has caused U.S. foreign policy and resources to whipsaw virtually arbitrarily from one problem and region to the other. The result has been the United States’ increasing loss of control over its political priorities, budget, military strategy and tactics, and, ultimately, its original economic goals.”
After the end of the Cold War, instead of restoring realistic goals and priorities, the neocons who gained control of U.S. foreign policy fooled themselves into believing that U.S. military and economic power could finally triumph over the frustratingly diverse social and political evolution of hundreds of countries and cultures all over the world. In addition to wreaking pointless mass destruction on country after country, this has turned the United States into the global enemy of the principles of democracy and self-determination that most Americans believe in.
The horror Americans feel at the plight of people in Gaza and the U.S. role in it is a shocking new low in this disconnect between the humanity of ordinary Americans and the insatiable ambitions of their undemocratic leaders.
While working for an end to the U.S. government’s support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people, Americans should also be working for the long-overdue withdrawal of U.S. occupying forces from Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Moscow has never refused to hold talks on Ukraine and is confident that the conflict will sooner or later end in peace and relations between the two countries’ people will be restored, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with Tucker Carlson published on the US journalist’s website. The Russian leader also did not rule out that US national Evan Gershkovich, charged with espionage in Russia, might be released, and shared his opinion of celebrity entrepreneur Elon Musk.
TASS has gathered the key takeaways from the president’s interview.
On talks on Ukraine
Russia has never refused to engage in dialogue on Ukraine but after the Istanbul talks were suspended in March 2022, Moscow has no intention of taking the first step. “Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else’s mistakes?”
The conditions for resolving the issue, including the option of keeping the situation where it is now, need to be discussed. “It is a subject matter for the negotiations no one is willing to conduct or, to put it more accurately, they’re willing, but do not know how to do it. I know they want to. It is not just I see it, but I know they do want it, but they are struggling to understand how to do it.”
On why London disrupted Istanbul talks
“Who knows. I don’t understand it myself. There was a general starting point. For some reason, everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield. Because of arrogance, because of a pure heart, but not because of a great mind.”
On future relations with Ukrainians
The West is wrong when it thinks that “the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever”: “Sooner or later it will result in an agreement.” “This probably sounds strange given the current situation but the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt anyway. It will take a lot of time, but they will heal.”
On Ukraine’s borders
Ukraine is an artificial state in a sense, “shaped at Stalin’s will” particularly of Hungarian, Polish and Romanian lands. Putin said he had never discussed a possible return of the Hungarian lands, which had been handed over to Ukraine under Stalin, with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban. As for the Black Sea region, it “had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.”
On responsibility for Ukrainian crisis
“I know one can say it is our mistake. It was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014, in Donbass. As I have already said, by means of weapons.” However, NATO’s expansion in breach of earlier promises is also something to remember. “Let us go back to the coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless, though, isn’t it? We may go back and forth endlessly.”
On ‘Russian threat’
Allegations of the “Russian threat” are aimed at intimidating common people: “We have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. <…> It’s just threat mongering.”
On possible conversation with Biden
Putin has repeatedly warned US President Joe Biden that he is “making a huge mistake of historic proportions <…> by pushing Russia away.” Russia and the US currently maintain contact at the level of various government agencies with Moscow saying that Washington needs to stop supplying weapons to Kiev and “it will be over within a few weeks.”
On Gershkovich case
Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was definitely engaged in espionage. Moscow is ready to release him if its “partners take reciprocal steps:” “We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them.” Russian and US intelligence agencies are in talks. “I do not rule out that <…> Mr. Gershkovich may return to his motherland.” There are some people jailed in the West who, according to Moscow, “are not connected with special services,” including “a person (it may be alleged Russian national Vadim Krasikov convicted in Germany – TASS), who, “due to patriotic sentiments, eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals.”
On Nord Stream pipelines
Russia has not presented the evidence it has with regard to the Nord Stream pipeline explosions because “in the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world’s media and many European media.” “So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. <…> It is clear to the whole world what happened.”
On cooperation with China
Allegations that cooperation with China is dangerous for Russia are nothing but boogeyman stories. Europe maintains even closer cooperation with China. “Ask Europeans, are they afraid?”
On Russia in NATO
Moscow inquired into the possibility of joining NATO and invited Washington to build a common missile defense system together. US presidents supported the initiatives but their administrations rejected them. “And then they just told us to get lost. <…> We created hypersonic systems with intercontinental range, and we continue to develop them.”
Washington kept putting pressure on Moscow particularly because there were too many experts on confrontation with the Soviet Union in the US. “It is necessary to get rid of this. There should be new, fresh forces, people who look into the future and understand what is happening in the world.”
On US policies
Washington’s policy does not depend on who the country’s president is. “It is not about the personality of the leader. It is about the elites’ mindset.” Today, the United States is trying unsuccessfully to adapt to the changing world by using force but “the tools that the US uses don’t work.” The world will “change regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end.” The US position in the world will also change, and “the only question is how this will happen, painfully and quickly or gently and gradually.”
On technologies and Elon Musk
Humanity needs to make agreements on regulating the field of artificial intelligence, genetic research and other research activities that are “impossible to stop.”
“There are reports that Elon Musk has already had a chip implanted in the human brain. <…> I think there’s no stopping Elon Musk. He will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you’ll need to find some common ground with him. Search for ways to persuade him.”
Vladimir Putin answered questions from Tucker Carlson, a journalist and founder of Tucker Carlson Network.
On February 22, 2022, you addressed your country in your nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States through NATO might initiate a quote, “surprise attack on our country”. And to American ears that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?
Vladimir Putin: It’s not that the United States was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia, I didn’t say so. Are we having a talk show or serious conversation?
Tucker Carlson: That was a good quote. Thank you, it’s formidably serious!
Vladimir Putin: You were initially trained in history, as far as I know?
Tucker Carlson: Yes.
Vladimir Putin: So if you don’t mind I will take only 30 seconds or one minute of your time for giving you a little historical background.
Tucker Carlson: Please.
Vladimir Putin: Let’s look where our relationship with Ukraine started from. Where does Ukraine come from?
The Russian state started to exist as a centralized state in 862. This is considered to be the year of creation of the Russian state because this year the townspeople of Novgorod (a city in the North-West of the country) invited Rurik, a Varangian prince from Scandinavia, to reign. In 1862, Russia celebrated the 1000th anniversary of its statehood, and in Novgorod there is a memorial dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the country.
In 882, Rurik’s successor Prince Oleg, who was, actually, playing the role of regent at Rurik’s young son because Rurik had died by that time, came to Kiev. He ousted two brothers who, apparently, had once been members of Rurik’s squad. So, Russia began to develop with two centers of power, Kiev and Novgorod.
The next, very significant date in the history of Russia, was 988. This was the Baptism of Russia, when Prince Vladimir, the great-grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity. From this time the centralized Russian state began to strengthen. Why? Because of a single territory, integrated economic ties, one and the same language and, after the Baptism of Russia, the same faith and rule of the Prince. The centralized Russian state began to take shape.
Back in the Middle Ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise introduced the order of succession to the throne, but after he passed away, it became complicated for various reasons. The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince who had passed away to his brother, then to his sons in different lines. All this led to the fragmentation and the end of Rus as a single state. There was nothing special about it, the same was happening then in Europe. But the fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by Genghis Khan. His successors, namely, Batu Khan, came to Rus, plundered and ruined nearly all the cities. The southern part, including Kiev, by the way, and some other cities, simply lost independence, while northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty. They had to pay tribute to the Horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its centre in Moscow.
The southern part of the Russian lands, including Kiev, began to gradually gravitate towards another ”magnet“ – the centre that was emerging in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was even called the Lithuanian-Russian Duchy, because Russians were a significant part of its population. They spoke the Old Russian language and were Orthodox. But then there was a unification, the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. A few years later, another union was signed, but this time already in the religious sphere. Some of the Orthodox priests became subordinate to the Pope. Thus, these lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian state.
During decades, the Poles were engaged in the ”Polonization“ of this part of the population: they introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe (u kraya) they were “Ukrainians”. Originally, the word ‘Ukrainian’ meant that a person was living on the outskirts of the state, near the fringe, or was engaged in border service. It didn’t mean any particular ethnic group.
So, the Poles were trying in every possible way to polonize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly. All that led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be observed and that people be commissioned here, including to Kiev…
Tucker Carlson: I beg your pardon, can you tell us what period… I am losing track of where in history we are?
Vladimir Putin: It was in the 13th century.
Now I will tell what happened later and give the dates so that there is no confusion. And in 1654, even a bit earlier, the people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian lands, addressed Warsaw, I repeat, demanding their rights be observed that they send to them rulers of Russian origin and Orthodox faith. When Warsaw did not answer them and in fact rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow so that Moscow took them away.
So that you don’t think that I am inventing things… I’ll give you these documents…
Tucker Carlson: It doesn’t sound like you are inventing it, but I am not sure why it’s relevant to what’s happened two years ago.
Vladimir Putin: But still, these are documents from the archives, copies. Here are letters from Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld, and after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. There are copies of these documents. I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian, you can translate it into English later.
Russia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming that the war with Poland would start. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Pan-Russian Assembly of top Clergy and Landowners headed by the Tsar (Zemsky Sobor), which was the representative body of power of the Old Russian state, decided to include a part of the Old Russian lands into the Moscow Kingdom.
As expected, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then in 1654, a truce was concluded. And 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland, which they called ”eternal peace,“ was signed. And these lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, went to Russia, and the whole right bank of the Dnieper remained in Poland.
Under the rule of Catherine the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west. This all lasted until the Revolution. Before World War I, Austrian General Staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainianization and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization. Their motive was obvious. Just before World War I they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favourable conditions in the border area. So the idea which had emerged in Poland that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belonged to a special ethnic group, Ukrainians, started being propagated by the Austrian General Staff.
As far back as the 19th century, theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared. All those, however, claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship with Russia. They insisted on that. After the 1917 Revolution, the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood, and the Civil War began, including the hostilities with Poland. In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed, and under that treaty, the right bank of the Dnieper River once again was given back to Poland.
In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler — it did collaborate with Hitler, you know —Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship and alliance (we have all the relevant documents in the archives), demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so-called Danzig Corridor, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and Konigsberg. After World War I this territory was transferred to Poland, and instead of Danzig, a city of Gdansk emerged. Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but they refused. Still they collaborated with Hitler and engaged together in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.
Tucker Carlson: May I ask… You are making the case that Ukraine, certain parts of Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, in fact, has been Russia for hundreds of years, why wouldn’t you just take it when you became President 24 years ago? Your have nuclear weapons, they don’t. It’s actually your land. Why did you wait so long?
Vladimir Putin: I’ll tell you. I’m coming to that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it explains many things.
Tucker Carlson: It’s not boring.
Vladimir Putin: Good. Good. I am so gratified that you appreciate that. Thank you.
So before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler and although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler. As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1 September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.
By the way, the USSR — I have read some archive documents — behaved very honestly. It asked Poland’s permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet planes flew over Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the war began, and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia, as under the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, part of that territory, including western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia. Thus Russia, which was then named the USSR, regained its historical lands.
After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War II, all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR. As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation, the lands which had originally being German: the eastern parts of Germany (these are now western lands of Poland). Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic sea, and Danzig, which was once again given its Polish name. So this was how this situation developed.
In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.
Tucker Carlson: Right.
Vladimir Putin: Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities. For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.
Even if we go as far back as 1654, when these lands returned to the Russian Empire, that territory was the size of three to four regions of modern Ukraine, with no Black Sea region. That was completely out of the question.
Tucker Carlson: In 1654?
Vladimir Putin: Exactly.
Tucker Carlson: You have, I see, encyclopedic knowledge of this region. But why didn’t you make this case for the first 22 years as president, that Ukraine wasn’t a real country?
Vladimir Putin: The Soviet Ukraine was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called “New Russia” or Novorossiya. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR, and for unknown reasons again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not bad in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created.
After World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania (today known as Western Ukraine). So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Ukraine and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.
Tucker Carlson: Do you believe Hungary has a right to take back its land from Ukraine? And that other nations have a right to go back to their 1654 borders?
Vladimir Putin: I am not sure whether they should go back to the 1654 borders, but given Stalin’s time, so-called Stalin’s regime — which as many claim saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states – one may say that they could claim back those lands of theirs, while having no right to do that, it is at least understandable…
Tucker Carlson: Have you told Viktor Orbán that he can have a part of Ukraine?
Vladimir Putin: Never. I have never told him. Not a single time. We have not even had any conversation on that, but I actually know for sure that Hungarians who live there wanted to get back to their historical land.
Moreover, I would like to share a very interesting story with you, I’ll digress, it’s a personal one. Somewhere in the early 80’s, I went on a road trip on a car from then-Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) across the Soviet Union through Kiev, made a stop in Kiev, and then went to Western Ukraine. I went to the town of Beregovoye, and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in a language I didn’t understand – in Hungarian . In Russian and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian – in Russian and in Hungarian.
I was driving through some kind of a village and there were men sitting next to the houses and they were wearing black three-piece suits and black cylinder hats. I asked, ”Are they some kind of entertainers?“ I was told, ”No, they’re not entertainers. They’re Hungarians. ‘I said, ‘What are they doing here?’ — ‘What do you mean? This is their land, they live here.’ This was during the Soviet time, in the 1980’s. They preserve the Hungarian language, Hungarian names, and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians and they feel themselves to be Hungarians. And of course, when now there is an infringement….
Tucker Carlson: And there’s a lot of that though, I think. Many nations feel upset about — there are Transylvanians as well as you, others, you know — but many nations feel frustrated by their re-drawn borders after the wars of the 20th century, and wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you mention, but the fact is that you didn’t make this case in public until two years ago in February, and in the case that you made, which I read today, you explain a great length that you thought a physical threat from the West and NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that’s what got you to move. Is that a fair characterization of what you said?
Vladimir Putin: I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of an interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning: ”Are we going to have a serious talk or a show?“ You said — a serious talk. So bear with me please.
We are coming to the point where the Soviet Ukraine was established. Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. And everything that Russia had generously bestowed on Ukraine was ”dragged away“ by the latter.
I’m coming to a very important point of today’s agenda. After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership. I do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by at the time, but I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine.
First, I think that the then Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine were: in fact, a common language — more than 90 percent of the population there spoke Russian; family ties — every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties; common culture; common history; finally, common faith; co-existence within a single state for centuries; and deeply interconnected economies. All of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relations inevitable.
The second point is a very important one. I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed, voluntarily and proactively, to the collapse of the Soviet Union and believed that this would be understood by the so-called (now in scare quotes) ”civilized West“ as an invitation for cooperation and associateship. That is what Russia was expecting both from the United States and the so-called collective West as a whole.
There were smart people, including in Germany. Egon Bahr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union that a new security system should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should also be established to include the United States, Canada, Russia, and other Central European countries. But NATO needs not to expand. That’s what he said: if NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia’s borders. That’s all. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once (we have a record of this conversation in our archives): ”If, he said, you don’t listen to me, I’m never setting my foot in Moscow once again.“ He was frustrated with the Soviet leadership. He was right, everything happened just as he had said.
Tucker Carlson: Well, of course, it did come true, and you’ve mentioned it many times. I think, it’s a fair point. And many in America thought that relations between Russia and United States would be fine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, at the core. But the opposite happened. But have never explained why you think that happened, except to say that the West fears a strong Russia. But we have a strong China that the West doesn’t seem to be very afraid of. What about Russia, what do you think convinced the policymakers to take it down?
Vladimir Putin: The West is afraid of a strong China more than it fears a strong Russia because Russia has 150 million people, and China has a 1.5 billion population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds — over five percent a year, it used to be even more. But that’s enough for China. As Bismark once put it, potentials are most important. China’s potential is enormous — it is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the United States, quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid clip.
Let’s not talk about who is afraid of whom, let’s not reason in such terms. And let’s get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of ”civilized nations,“ nothing like this happened. You tricked us (I don’t mean you personally when I say ”you“, of course, I’m talking about the United States), the promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times, there were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that, we were trying to persuade them, we were saying: ”Please don’t, we are as bourgeois now as you are, we are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let’s negotiate.“ Moreover, I have also said this publicly before (let’s look at Yeltsin’s times now), there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States, remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: ”God bless America“. Everything he said were signals — let us in.
Remember the developments in Yugoslavia, before that Yeltsin was lavished with praise, as soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs, and we couldn’t but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes underway there, I do. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs, because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation, with Orthodox culture and so on. It’s a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States do? In violation of international law and the UN Charter it started bombing Belgrade.
It was the United States that let the genie out of the bottle. Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said? The UN Charter and international law have become obsolete. Now everyone invokes international law, but at that time they started saying that everything was outdated, everything had to be changed.
Indeed, some things need to be changed as the balance of power has changed, it’s true, but not in this manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything, I assure you.
Well, I became President in 2000. I thought: okay, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let’s reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through. And moreover, I’ve said it publicly, I can reiterate. At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing President Bill Clinton, right here in the next room, I said to him, I asked him, ” Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen?“ Suddenly he said: ”You know, it’s interesting, I think so.“ But in the evening, when we had dinner, he said, ”You know, I’ve talked to my team, no-no, it’s not possible now.“ You can ask him, I think he will watch our interview, he’ll confirm it. I wouldn’t have said anything like that if it hadn’t happened. Okay, well, it’s impossible now.
Tucker Carlson: Were you sincere? Would you have joined NATO?
Vladimir Putin: Look, I asked the question, ”Is it possible or not?“ And the answer I got was no. If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership’s position was…
Tucker Carlson: But if he would say yes, would you have joined NATO?
Vladimir Putin: If he had said yes, the process of rapprochement would have commenced, and eventually it might have happened if we had seen some sincere wish on the side of our partners. But it didn’t happen. Well, no means no, okay, fine.
Tucker Carlson: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know, you’re clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?
Vladimir Putin: You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it’s not bitterness, it’s just a statement of fact. We’re not the bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it’s not about those kinds of matters in such circumstances. We just realised we weren’t welcome there, that’s all. Okay, fine. But let’s build relations in another manner, let’s look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leader. I can only guess why: too big a country, with its own opinion and so on. And the United States – I have seen how issues are being resolved in NATO.
I will give you another example now, concerning Ukraine. The US leadership exerts pressure, and all NATO members obediently vote, even if they do not like something. Now, I’ll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008, although it’s being discussed, I’m not going to open a secret to you, say anything new. Nevertheless, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways. For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we were building relations with the United States in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner.
I repeatedly raised the issue that the United States should not support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus. But they continued to do it anyway. And political support, information support, financial support, even military support came from the United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus.
I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the President of the United States. He says, ”It’s impossible! Do you have proof?“ I said, ”Yes.“ I was prepared for this conversation and I gave him that proof. He looked at it and, you know what he said? I apologise, but that’s what happened, I’ll quote. He says, ”Well, I’m gonna kick their ass“. We waited and waited for some response – there was no reply.
I said to the FSB Director: ”Write to the CIA. What is the result of the conversation with the President?“ He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive. The CIA replied: ”We have been working with the opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right thing to do and we will keep on doing it.“ Just ridiculous. Well, okay. We realised that it was out of the question.
Tucker Carlson: Forces in opposition to you? Do you think the CIA is trying to overthrow your government?
Vladimir Putin: Of course, they meant in that particular case the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus. That’s who they called the opposition. This is the second point.
The third moment, a very important one, is the moment when the US missile defense (ABM) system was created. The beginning. We persuaded for a long time not to do it in the United States. Moreover, after I was invited by Bush Jr.’s father, Bush Sr. to visit his place on the ocean, I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team. I proposed that the United States, Russia and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that, we believe, if created unilaterally, threatens our security, despite the fact that the United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran. That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system. I suggested working together – Russia, the United States, and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, ”Are you serious?“ I said, “Absolutely”.
Tucker Carlson: May I ask what year was this?
Vladimir Putin: I don’t remember. It is easy to find out on the Internet, when I was in the USA at the invitation of Bush Sr. It is even easier to learn from someone, I’m going to tell you about.
I was told it was very interesting. I said, ”Just imagine if we could tackle such a global, strategic security challenge together. The world would change. We’ll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world.“ He says, ”Yes.“ And asks: ”Are you serious?“. I said, ”Of course.“ ”We need to think about it,“ I’m told. I said, ”Go ahead, please.“
Then Secretary of Defense R.Gates, former Director of the CIA, and Secretary of State C.Rice came here, in this cabinet. Right here, at this table, they sat on this side. Me, the Foreign Minister, the Russian Defense Minister – on that side. They said to me, ”Yes, we have thought about it, we agree.“ I said, ”Thank God, great.“ – ”But with some exceptions.“
Tucker Carlson: So, twice you’ve described US presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their agency heads. So, it sounds like you’re describing a system that is not run by the people who are elected, in your telling.
Vladimir Putin: That’s right, that’s right. In the end they just told us to get lost. I am not going to tell you the details, because I think it is incorrect, after all, it was a confidential conversation. But our proposal was declined, that’s a fact.
It was right then when I said: ”Look, but then we will be forced to take counter measures. We will create such strike systems that will certainly overcome missile defense systems.“ The answer was: ”We are not doing this against you, and you do what you want, assuming that it is not against us, not against the United States“. I said, ”Okay.“
Very well, that’s the way it went. And we created hypersonic systems, with intercontinental range, and we continue to develop them. We are now ahead of everyone – the United States and other countries – in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems, and we are improving them every day.
But it wasn’t us, we proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back.
Now, about NATO’s expansion to the East. Well, we were promised, no NATO to the East, not an inch to the East, as we were told. And then what? They said, ”Well, it’s not enshrined on paper, so we’ll expand.“ So there were five waves of expansion, the Baltic States, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on.
And now I come to the main thing: they have come to Ukraine ultimately. In 2008 at the summit in Bucharest they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open.
Now about how decisions are made there. Germany, France seemed to be against it as well as some other European countries. But then, as it turned out later, President Bush, and he is such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, ”He exerted pressure on us and we had to agree.“ It’s ridiculous, it’s like kindergarten. Where are the guarantees? What kindergarten is this, what kind of people are these, who are they? You see, they were pressed, they agreed. And then they say, ”Ukraine won’t be in NATO, you know.“ I say, ”I don’t know, I know you agreed in 2008, why won’t you agree in the future?“ ”Well, they pressed us then.“ I say, ”Why won’t they press you tomorrow? And you’ll agree again.“
Well, it’s nonsensical. Who’s there to talk to, I just don’t understand. We’re ready to talk. But with whom? Where are the guarantees? None.
So, they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever is there, I have told you the background, how this territory developed, what kind of relations there were with Russia. Every second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia. And during the elections in already independent, sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence as a result of the Declaration of Independence, and, by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state, and in 2008 suddenly the doors or gates to NATO were open to it. Oh, come on! This is not how we agreed. Now, all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine, they’ve relied on an electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or another. This is the south-east of Ukraine, this is a large number of people. And it was very difficult to desuade this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia.
Viktor Yanukovych came to power, and how: the first time he won after President Kuchma – they organised a third round, which is not provided for in the Constitution of Ukraine. This is a coup d’état. Just imagine, someone in the United States wouldn’t like the outcome…
Tucker Carlson: In 2014?
Vladimir Putin: Before that. No, this was before that. After President Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovich won the elections. However, his opponents did not recognize that victory, the US supported the opposition and the third round was scheduled. What is this? This is a coup. The US supported it and the winner of the third round came to power. Imagine if in the US, something was not to someone’s liking and the third round of election, which the US Constitution does not provide for, was organized, Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine. Okay, Viktor Yushchenko who was considered a pro-Western politician, came to power. Fine, we have built relations with him as well. He came to Moscow with visits, we visited Kiev. I visited it too. We met in an informal setting. If he is pro-Western, so be it. It’s fine, let people do their job. The situation should develop inside the independent Ukraine itself. As a result of Kuchma’s leadership, things got worse and Viktor Yanukovich came to power after all.
Maybe he wasn’t the best President and politician. I don’t know, I don’t want to give assessments. However, the issue of the association with the EU came up. We have always been lenient to this: suit yourself. But when we read through that treaty of association it turned out to be a problem for us, since we had a free-trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine which, under this association, had to open its borders for Europe, which could have led to flooding of our market.
We said, “No, this is not going to work. We shall close our borders with Ukraine then”. The customs borders, that is. Yanukovich started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose and said to his European partners: “I need more time to think before signing”. The moment he said that, the opposition began to take destructive steps which were supported by the West. It all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.
Tucker Carlson: So, he did more trade with Russia than with the EU? Ukraine did…
Vladimir Putin: Of course. It’s not even the matter of trade volume, although for the most part it is. It is the matter of cooperation ties which the entire Ukrainian economy was based on. The cooperation ties between the enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet Union. One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine and vice versa. There used to be very close ties.
A coup d’etat was committed, although, I shall not delve into details now as I find doing it inappropriate, the US told us, “Calm Yanukovich down and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation unfold in the scenario of a political settlement”. We said, “Alright. Agreed. Let’s do it this way”. As the Americans requested us, Yanukovich did use neither the Armed Forces, nor the police, yet the armed opposition committed a coup in Kiev. What is that supposed to mean? “Who do you think you are?”, I wanted to ask the then US leadership.
Tucker Carlson: With the backing of whom?
Vladimir Putin: With the backing of CIA, of course. The organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. Maybe we should thank God they didn’t let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis-à-vis, in the sense that I served in the First Main Directorate – Soviet Union’s intelligence service. They have always been our opponents. A job is a job.
Technically they did everything right, they achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake. Surely, it was political leadership’s miscalculation. They should have seen what it would evolve into.
So, in 2008 the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup, they started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup, they created a threat to Crimea which we had to take under our protection. They launched a war in Donbass in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it started. There is a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large-scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO’s doors.
How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side, this would have been a culpable negligence – that’s what it would have been. It’s just that the US political leadership pushed us to the line we could not cross because doing so could have ruined Russia itself. Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith and, in fact, a part of Russian people, in the face of this “war machine”.
Tucker Carlson: So, that was eight years before the current conflict started. What was the trigger for you? What was the moment where you decided you had to do this?
Vladimir Putin: Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict.
By the way, back then the representatives of three European countries – Germany, Poland and France – arrived. They were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the Government of Yanukovich and the opposition. They signed it as guarantors. Despite that, the opposition committed a coup and all these countries pretended that they didn’t remember that they were guarantors of peaceful settlement. They just threw it in the stove right away and nobody recalls that.
I don’t know if the US know anything about that agreement between the opposition and the authorities and its three guarantors who, instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field, supported the coup. Although, it was meaningless, believe me, because President Yanukovich agreed to all conditions, he was ready to hold early election which he had no chance to win, frankly speaking, Everyone knew that. Then why the coup, why the victims? Why threatening Crimea? Why launching an operation in Donbass? This I do not understand. That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the Deputy Secretaries of State said that it cost a large sum of money, almost 5 billion. But the political mistake was colossal! Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea. We would have never considered to even lift a finger, if it hadn’t been for the bloody developments on Maidan.
Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union our borders should be along the borders of former Union’s republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO’s expansion and moreover we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us. For decades we kept asking: don’t do this, don’t do that.
And what triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk Agreements, which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014, in Minsk, where the plan of peaceful settlement in Donbass was set forth. But no, the current Ukrainian leadership, Foreign Minister, all other officials and then President himself said that they don’t like anything about the Minsk Agreements. In other words, they were not going to implement it. A year or a year and a half ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they indeed signed the Minsk Agreements but they never intended to implement them. They simply led us by the nose.
Tucker Carlson: Was there anyone free to talk to? Did you call the US President, Secretary of State and say if you keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, we are going to act?
Vladimir Putin: We talked about this all the time. We addressed the United States’ and European countries’ leadership to stop these developments immediately, to implement the Minsk Agreements. Frankly speaking, I didn’t know how we were going to do this but I was ready to implement them. These Agreements were complicated for Ukraine; they included lots of elements of those Donbass territories’ independence. That’s true. However, I was absolutely confident, and I am saying this to you now: I honestly believed that if we managed to convince the residents of Donbass – and we had to work hard to convince them to return to the Ukrainian statehood – then gradually the wounds would start to heal. When this part of territory reintegrated itself into common social environment, when the pensions and social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place.
No, nobody wanted that, everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only. But we could not let that happen. And the situation got to the point, when the Ukrainian side announced: ”No, we will not do anything“. They also started preparing for military action. It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.
Tucker Carlson: Do you think you have stopped it now? I mean have you achieved your aims?
Vladimir Putin: No, we haven’t achieved our aims yet, because one of them is denazification. This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements. This is one of the problems that we discussed during the negotiation process, which ended in Istanbul early last year, and it was not our initiative, because we were told (by the Europeans, in particular) that ”it was necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents“. My counterparts in France and Germany said, ”How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kiev. ‘I said, ‘All right.’ We withdrew the troops from Kiev.
As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin and got prepared for a longstanding armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. That is how the situation has developed. And that is how it looks now.
Tucker Carlson: What is denazification? What would that mean?
Vladimir Putin: That is what I want to talk about right now. It is a very important issue.
Denazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity. And it came up with nothing better than to build this identity upon some false heroes who collaborated with Hitler.
I have already said that in the early 19th century, when the theorists of independence and sovereignty of Ukraine appeared, they assumed that an independent Ukraine should have very good relations with Russia. But due to the historical development, these territories were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted and treated quite brutally as well as were subject to cruel behavior. There were also attempts to destroy their identity.
All this remained in the memory of the people. When World War II broke out, part of this extremely nationalist elite collaborated with Hitler, believing that he would bring them freedom. The German troops, even the SS troops made Hitler’s collaborators do the dirtiest work of exterminating the Polish and Jewish population. Hence this brutal massacre of the Polish and Jewish population as well as the Russian population too. This was led by the persons who are well known – Bandera, Shukhevich. It was these people who were made national heroes – that is the problem. And we are constantly told that nationalism and neo-Nazism exist in other countries as well. Yes, there are seedlings, but we uproot them, and other countries fight against them. But Ukraine is not the case. These people have been made into national heroes in Ukraine. Monuments to these people have been erected, they are displayed on flags, their names are shouted by crowds that walk with torches, as it was in Nazi Germany. These were the people who exterminated Poles, Jews and Russians. It is necessary to stop this practice and prevent the dissemination of this concept.
I say that Ukrainians are part of the one Russian people. They say, ”No, we are a separate people.“ Okay, fine. If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so, but not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology.
Tucker Carlson: Would you be satisfied with the territory that you have now?
Vladimir Putin: I will finish answering the question. You just asked a question about neo-Nazism and denazification.
Look, the President of Ukraine visited Canada. This story is well known, but is silenced in the Western countries: The Canadian parliament introduced a man who, as the speaker of the parliament said, fought against the Russians during the World War II. Well, who fought against the Russians during World War II? Hitler and his accomplices. It turned out that this man served in the SS troops. He personally killed Russians, Poles, and Jews. The SS troops consisted of Ukrainian nationalists who did this dirty work. The President of Ukraine stood up with the entire Parliament of Canada and applauded this man. How can this be imagined? The President of Ukraine himself, by the way, is a Jew by nationality.
Tucker Carlson: Really, my question is: What do you do about it? I mean, Hitler has been dead for eighty years, Nazi Germany no longer exists, and it’s true. So, I think, what you are saying, you want to extinguish or at least control Ukrainian nationalism. But how do you do that?
Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. Your question is very subtle.
And can I tell you what I think? Do not take offense.
Tucker Carlson: Of course!
Vladimir Putin: This question appears to be subtle, it is quite pesky.
You say Hitler has been dead for so many years, 80 years. But his example lives on. People who exterminated Jews, Russians and Poles are alive. And the president, the current president of today’s Ukraine applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, gives a standing ovation! Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology if what we see is happening today? That is what denazification is in our understanding. We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it – that is what denazification is. That is what we mean.
Tucker Carlson: Right. My question is almost specific, it was, of course, not a defense of Nazism. Otherwise, it was a practical question. You don’t control the entire country, you don’t seem like you want to. So, how do you eliminate that culture, or an ideology, or feelings, or a view of history, in a country that you don’t control? What do you do about that?
Vladimir Putin: You know, as strange as it may seem to you, during the negotiations in Istanbul we did agree that – we have it all in writing – neo-Nazism would not be cultivated in Ukraine, including that it would be prohibited at the legislative level.
Mr. Carlson, we agreed on that. This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation process. And there is nothing humiliating for Ukraine as a modern civilized State. Is any state allowed to promote Nazism? It is not, is it? That is it.
Tucker Carlson: Will there be talks? And why haven’t there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine? Peace talks.
Vladimir Putin: They have been. They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side (Ukraine) threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of Western countries, European countries and the United States to fight Russia to the bitter end.
Moreover, the President of Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating with Russia. He signed a decree forbidding everyone to negotiate with Russia. But how are we going to negotiate if he forbade himself and everyone to do this? We know that he is putting forward some ideas about this settlement. But in order to agree on something, we need to have a dialog. Is not that right?
Tucker Carlson: Well, but you would not be speaking to the Ukrainian president, you would be speaking to the American president. When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?
Vladimir Putin: I cannot remember when I talked to him. I do not remember, we can look it up.
Tucker Carlson: You do not remember?!
Vladimir Putin: No, why? Do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do. We have domestic political affairs.
Tucker Carlson: But he is funding the war that you are fighting, so I think that would be memorable?
Vladimir Putin: Well, yes, he funds, but I talked to him before the Special Military Operation, of course. And I said to him then, by the way – I will not go into details, I never do – but I said to him then: ”I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing Russia away.“ I told him, told him repeatedly, by the way. I think that would be correct if I stop here.
Tucker Carlson: What did he say?
Vladimir Putin: Ask him, please. It is easier for you, you are a citizen of the United States, go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.
Tucker Carlson: But you haven’t spoken to him since before February of 2022?
Vladimir Putin: No, we haven’t spoken. Certain contacts are been maintained though. Speaking of which, do you remember what I told you about my proposal to work together on a missile defense system?
Tucker Carlson: Yes.
Vladimir Putin: You can ask all of them. All of them are safe and sound, thank God. The former President, Condoleezza is safe and sound, and, I think, Mr. Gates, and the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Burns, the then Ambassador to Russia, in my opinion, a very successful Ambassador. They were all witnesses to these conversations. Ask them.
Same here, if you are interested in what Mr. President Biden responded to me, ask him. At any rate, I talked to him about it.
Tucker Carlson: I am definitely interested. But from the other side it seems like it could devolve, evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict, and could initiate a nuclear launch, and so why don’t you just call Biden and say “let’s work this out”?
Vladimir Putin: What’s there to work out? It’s very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership: ”If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That’s it. And then we can agree on some terms before you do that, stop.“
What’s easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what? ”You’re going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I’m afraid, I’m afraid, please don’t.“ What is there to talk about?
Tucker Carlson: Do you think NATO was worried about this becoming a global war or nuclear conflict?
Vladimir Putin: At least that’s what they’re talking about. And they are trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat. This is an obvious fact. And thinking people, not philistines, but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart people understand perfectly well that this is a fake. They are trying to fuel the Russian threat.
Tucker Carlson: The threat I think you were referring to is Russian invasion of Poland, Latvia – expansionist behavior. Can you imagine a scenario where you send Russian troops to Poland?
Vladimir Putin: Only in one case: if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest. Its just threat mongering.
Tucker Carlson: Well, the argument, I know you know this, is that, well, he invaded Ukraine – he has territorial aims across the continent. And you are saying unequivocally, you don’t?
Vladimir Putin: It is absolutely out of the question. You just don’t have to be any kind of analyst, it goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of global war. And a global war will bring all of humanity to the brink of destruction. It’s obvious.
There are, certainly, means of deterrence. They have been scaring everyone with us all along: tomorrow Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, tomorrow Russia will use that, no, the day after tomorrow. So what? These are just horror stories for people in the street in order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia in the Ukrainian theatre of war. The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible.
Tucker Carlson: One of our senior United States senators from the State of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian effort or US soldiers, citizens could wind up fighting there. How do you assess that?
Vladimir Putin: This is a provocation, and a cheap provocation at that.
I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from the United States there. The biggest number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States in second place, and mercenaries from Georgia in third place. Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity on the brink of a very serious, global conflict. This is obvious.
Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory! Don’t you have anything better to do?
You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt – more than 33 trillion dollars. You have nothing better to do, so you should fight in Ukraine? Wouldn’t it be better to negotiate with Russia? Make an agreement, already understanding the situation that is developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end. And, realizing this, actually return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests and look for certain solutions. It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational.
Tucker Carlson: Who blew up Nord Stream?
Vladimir Putin: You, for sure. (L a u g h i n g.)
Tucker Carlson: I was busy that day. I did not blow up Nord Stream.
Vladimir Putin: You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.
Tucker Carlson: Do you have evidence that NATO or CIA did it?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I won’t get into details, but people always say in such cases: ”Look for someone who is interested“.
But in this case we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities. Because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carrying out this explosion. These two components should be connected: who is interested and who is capable of doing it.
Tucker Carlson: But I am confused. I mean, that’s the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever and it’s the largest emission of CO₂ in history. Okay, so, if you had evidence and presumably, given your security services, your intel services, you would, that NATO, the US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn’t you present it and win a propaganda victory?
Vladimir Putin: In the war of propaganda it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world’s media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don’t you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results. It is clear to the whole world what happened, and even American analysts talk about it directly. It’s true.
Tucker Carlson: Yes. But here is a question you may be able to answer. You worked in Germany, famously. The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, that they damaged their economy greatly – it may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That is very confusing to me. Why wouldn’t the Germans say something about it?
Vladimir Putin: This also confuses me. But today’s German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests, otherwise it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nord Stream-1, which was blown up, and Nord Stream-2 was damaged, but one pipe is safe and sound, and gas can be supplied to Europe through it, but Germany does not open it. We are ready, please.
There is another route through Poland, called Yamal-Europe, which also allows for a large flow. Poland has closed it, but Poland pecks from the German hand, it receives money from pan-European funds, and Germany is the main donor to these pan-European funds. Germany feeds Poland to a certain extent. And they closed the route to Germany. Why? I don’t understand. Ukraine, to which the Germans supply weapons and give money.
Germany is the second sponsor after the United States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine. There are two gas routes through Ukraine. They simply closed one route, the Ukrainians. Open the second route and, please, get gas from Russia. They do not open it. Why don’t the Germans say: ”Look, guys, we give you money and weapons. Open up the valve, please, let the gas from Russia pass through for us.
We are buying liquefied gas at exorbitant prices in Europe, which brings the level of our competitiveness, and economy in general down to zero. Do you want us to give you money? Let us have a decent existence, make money for our economy, because this is where the money we give you comes from“. They refuse to do so. Why? Ask them. (Knocks on the table.) That is what it is like in their heads. Those are highly incompetent people.
Tucker Carlson: Well, maybe the world is breaking into two hemispheres. One with cheap energy, the other without it. And I want to ask you that, if we are now a multipolar world, obviously we are, can you describe the blocs of alliances? Who is in each side, do you think?
Vladimir Putin: Listen, you have said that the world is breaking into two hemispheres. A human brain is divided into two hemispheres: one is responsible for one type of activities, the other one is more about creativity and so on. But it is still one and the same head. The world should be a single whole, security should be shared, rather than meant for the ”golden billion“. That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable and predictable. Until then, while the head is split into two parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition. It is a period of a severe disease that the world is now going through.
But I think that, thanks to honest journalism — this work is akin to work of the doctors, this could somehow be remedied.
Tucker Carlson: Well, let’s just give one example — the US dollar, which has, kind of, united the world in a lot of ways, maybe not to your advantage, but certainly to ours. Is that going away as the reserve currency, the universally accepted currency? How have sanctions, do you think, changed the dollar’s place in the world?
Vladimir Putin: You know, to use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership. The dollar is the cornerstone of the United States’ power. I think everyone understands very well that, no matter how many dollars are printed, they are quickly dispersed all over the world. Inflation in the United States is minimal. It is about 3 or 3.4 per cent, which is, I think, totally acceptable for the US. But they won’t stop printing. What does the debt of 33 trillion dollars tell us about? It is about the emission.
Nevertheless, it is the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power across the world. As soon as the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power. I would not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid thing to do, and a grave mistake.
Look at what is going on in the world. Even the United States’ allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves. But the fact that the United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets, etc., causes grave concern and sends a signal to the whole world.
What did we have here? Until 2022, about 80 per cent of Russia’s foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars and euros. US dollars accounted for approximately 50 per cent of our transactions with third countries, while currently it is down to 13 per cent. It was not us who banned the use of the US dollar, we had no such intention. It was the decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in US dollars. I think it is a complete foolishness from the point of view of the interests of the United States itself and its tax payers, as it damages the US economy, undermines the power of the United States across the world.
By the way, our transactions in Yuan accounted for about 3 per cent. Today, 34 per cent of our transactions are made in Rubles, and about as much, a little over 34 per cent, in Yuan.
Why did the United States do this? My only guess is self-conceit. They probably thought it would lead to a full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Moreover, other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in yuan. Do you even realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in the United States realize this? What are you doing? You are cutting yourself off… all experts say this. Ask any intelligent and thinking person in the United States what the dollar means for the US? You are killing it with your own hands.
Tucker Carlson: I think that is a fair assessment. The question is what comes next? And maybe you trade one colonial power for another, much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power? Is the BRICS, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese economy? In a way that is not good for their sovereignty. Do you worry about that?
Vladimir Putin: We have heard those boogeyman stories before. It is a boogeyman story. We are neighbours with China. You cannot choose neighbours, just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of 1000 kilometers with them. This is number one.
Second, we have a centuries-long history of coexistence, we are used to it.
Third, China’s foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive, its idea is to always look for compromise, and we can see that.
The next point is as follows. We are always told the same boogeyman story, and here it goes again, though in a euphemistic form, but it is still the same bogeyman story: the cooperation with China keeps increasing. The pace at which China’s cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese-Russian cooperation. Ask Europeans: aren’t they afraid? They might be, I do not know, but they are still trying to access China’s market at all costs, especially now that they are facing economic problems. Chinese businesses are also exploring the European market.
Do Chinese businesses have small presence in the United States? Yes, the political decisions are such that they are trying to limit their cooperation with China.
It is to your own detriment, Mr Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China, you are hurting yourself. It is a delicate matter, and there are no silver bullet solutions, just as it is with the dollar.
So, before introducing any illegitimate sanctions — illegitimate in terms of the Charter of the United Nations — one should think very carefully. For decision-makers, this appears to be a problem.
Tucker Carlson: So, you said a moment ago that the world would be a lot better if it were not broken into competing alliances, if there was cooperation globally. One of the reasons you don’t have that is because the current American administration is dead set against you. Do you think if there was a new administration after Joe Biden that you would be able to re-establish communication with the US government? Or does it not matter who the President is?
Vladimir Putin: I will tell you. But let me finish the previous thought. We, together with my colleague and friend President Xi Jinping, set a goal to reach 200 billion dollars of mutual trade with China this year. We have exceeded this level. According to our figures, our bilateral trade with China totals already 230 billion, and the Chinese statistics says it is 240 billion dollars.
One more important thing: our trade is well-balanced, mutually complementary in high-tech, energy, scientific research and development. It is very balanced.
As for BRICS, where Russia took over the presidency this year, the BRICS countries are, by and large, developing very rapidly.
Look, if memory serves me right, back in 1992, the share of the G7 countries in the world economy amounted to 47 per cent, whereas in 2022 it was down to, I think, a little over 30 per cent. The BRICS countries accounted for only 16 per cent in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7. It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This is due to the trends of global development and world economy that I mentioned just now, and this is inevitable. This will keep happening, it is like the rise of the sun — you cannot prevent the sun from rising, you have to adapt to it. How do the United States adapt? With the help of force: sanctions, pressure, bombings, and use of armed forces.
This is about self-conceit. Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing (under objective circumstances), and in order to preserve your level — even if someone aspires, pardon me, to the level of dominance — you have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely manner.
Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and, say, other countries, are counterproductive. This is an obvious fact; it has already become evident.
You just asked me if another leader comes and changes something. It is not about the leader, it is not about the personality of a particular person. I had a very good relationship with, say, Bush. I know that in the United States he was portrayed as some kind of a country boy who does not understand much. I assure you that is not the case. I think he made a lot of mistakes with regard to Russia, too. I told you about 2008 and the decision in Bucharest to open the NATO’s doors to for Ukraine and so on. That happened during his presidency. He actually exercised pressure on the Europeans.
But in general, on a personal human level, I had a very good relationship with him. He was no worse than any other American, or Russian, or European politician. I assure you, he understood what he was doing as well as others. I had such personal relationships with Trump as well.
It is not about the personality of the leader, it is about the elites’ mindset. If the idea of domination at any cost, based also on forceful actions, dominates the American society, nothing will change, it will only get worse. But if, in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has been changing due to objective circumstances, and that one should be able to adapt to them in time, using the advantages that the U.S. still has today, then, perhaps, something may change.
Look, China’s economy has become the first economy in the world in purchasing power parity; in terms of volume it overtook the US a long time ago. The USA comes second, then India (one and a half billion people), and then Japan, with Russia in the fifth place. Russia was the first economy in Europe last year, despite all the sanctions and restrictions. Is this normal, from your point of view: sanctions, restrictions, impossibility of payments in dollars, being cut off from SWIFT services, sanctions against our ships carrying oil, sanctions against airplanes, sanctions in everything, everywhere? The largest number of sanctions in the world which are applied – are applied against Russia. And we have become Europe’s first economy during this time.
The tools that the US uses don’t work. Well, one has to think about what to do. If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes, then the first person of the state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from this person. Then maybe something will change.
Tucker Carlson: But you are describing two different systems. You say that the leader acts in the interests of the voters, but you also say that these decisions are not made by the leader – they are made by the ruling classes. You have run this country for so long, you have known all these American presidents. What are those power centers in the United States, do you think? And who actually makes the decisions?
Vladimir Putin: I don’t know. America is a complex country, conservative on the one hand, rapidly changing on the other. It’s not easy for us to sort it all out.
Who makes decisions in the elections – is it possible to understand this, when each state has its own legislation, each state regulates itself, someone can be excluded from the elections at the state level. It is a two-stage electoral system, it is very difficult for us to understand it.
Certainly there are two parties that are dominant, the Republicans and the Democrats, and within this party system, the centers that make decisions, that prepare decisions.
Then, look, why, in my opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an erroneous, crude, completely unjustified policy of pressure was pursued against Russia? After all, this is a policy of pressure. NATO expansion, support for the separatists in the Caucasus, creation of a missile defense system – these are all elements of pressure. Pressure, pressure, pressure.
Then, dragging Ukraine into NATO is all about pressure, pressure, pressure. Why? I think, among other things, because excessive production capacities were created. During the confrontation with the Soviet Union, there were many centers created and specialists on the Soviet Union, who could not do anything else. It seemed to them, they convinced the political leadership: it is necessary to continue ”chiseling“ Russia, to try to break it up, to create on this territory several quasi-state entities and to subdue them in a divided form, to use their combined potential for the future struggle with China. This is a mistake, including the excessive potential of those who worked for the confrontation with the Soviet Union. It is necessary to get rid of this, there should be new, fresh forces, people who look into the future and understand what is happening in the world.
Look at how Indonesia is developing? 600 million people. Where can we get away from that? Nowhere, we just have to assume that Indonesia will enter (it is already in) the club of the world’s leading economies, no matter who likes or dislikes it.
Yes, we understand and are aware that in the United States, despite all the economic problems, the situation is still normal with the economy growing decently, the GDP is growing by 2.5 percent, if I am not mistaken.
But if we want to ensure the future, then we need to change our approach to what is changing. As I already said, the world would nevertheless change regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end. The world is changing. In the United States themselves, experts write that the United States are nonetheless gradually changing their position in the world, it is your experts who write that, I just read them. The only question is how this would happen – painfully and quickly or gently and gradually. And this is written by people who are not anti-American; they simply follow global development trends. That’s it.
And in order to assess them and change policies, we need people who think, look forward, can analyze and recommend certain decisions at the level of political leaders.
Tucker Carlson: I just have to ask. You have said clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you were all made in the 1990s. It is a threat to your country. Right before you sent troops into Ukraine the Vice-President of the United States spoke at the Security Conference and encouraged the President of Ukraine to join NATO. Do you think that was an effort to provoke you into military action?
Vladimir Putin: I repeat once again, we have repeatedly, repeatedly proposed to seek a solution to the problems that arose in Ukraine after the 2014 coup d’etat through peaceful means. But no one listened to us. And moreover, the Ukrainian leaders who were under the complete US control, suddenly declared that they would not comply with the Minsk agreements, they disliked everything there, and continued military activity in that territory.
And in parallel, that territory was being exploited by NATO military structures under the guise of various personnel training and retraining centers. They essentially began to create bases there. That’s all.
Ukraine announced that the Russians were (a law was adopted) a non-titular nationality, while passing laws that limit the rights of non-titular nationalities in Ukraine. Ukraine, having received all these southeastern territories as a gift from the Russian people, suddenly announced that the Russians were a non-titular nationality in that territory. Is it normal? All this put together led to the decision to end the war that neo-Nazis started in Ukraine in 2014.
Tucker Carlson: Do you think Zelensky has the freedom to negotiate the settlement to this conflict?
Vladimir Putin: I don’t know the details, of course it’s difficult for me to judge, but I believe he has, in any case, he used to have. His father fought against the fascists, Nazis during World War II, I once talked to him about this. I said: “Volodya, what are you doing? Why are you supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine today, while your father fought against fascism? He was a front-line soldier.” I will not tell you what he answered, this is a separate topic, and I think it’s incorrect for me to do so.
But as to the freedom of choice – why not? He came to power on the expectations of Ukrainian people that he would lead Ukraine to peace. He talked about this, it was thanks to this that he won the election overwhelmingly. But then, when he came to power, in my opinion, he realized two things: firstly, it is better not to clash with neo-Nazis and nationalists, because they are aggressive and very active, you can expect anything from them, and secondly, the US-led West supports them and will always support those who antagonize with Russia – it is beneficial and safe. So he took the relevant position, despite promising his people to end the war in Ukraine. He deceived his voters.
Tucker Carlson: But do you think at this point – as of February 2024 – he has the latitude, the freedom to speak with you or government directly, which would clearly help his country or the world? Can he do that, do you think?
Vladimir Putin: Why not? He considers himself head of state, he won the elections. Although we believe in Russia that the coup d’etat is the primary source of power for everything that happened after 2014, and in this sense, even today’s government is flawed. But he considers himself the president, and he is recognized by the United States, all of Europe and practically the rest of the world in such a capacity – why not? He can.
We negotiated with Ukraine in Istanbul, we agreed, he was aware of this. Moreover, the negotiation group leader, Mr. Arakhamia is his last name, I believe, still heads the faction of the ruling party, the party of the President in the Rada. He still heads the Presidential faction in the Rada, the country’s parliament, he still sits there. He even put his preliminary signature on the document I am telling you about. But then he publicly stated to the whole world: “We were ready to sign this document, but Mr. Johnson, then the Prime Minister of Great Britain, came and dissuaded us from doing this saying it was better to fight Russia. They would give everything needed for us to return what was lost during the clashes with Russia. And we agreed with this proposal.“ Look, his statement has been published. He said this publicly.
Can they return to this or not? The question is: do they want it or not?
Further on, President of Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us. Let him cancel that decree and that’s it. We have never refused negotiations indeed. We hear all the time: is Russia ready? Yes, we have not refused! It was them who publicly refused. Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into negotiations. We have never refused.
And the fact that they obeyed the demand or persuasion of Mr. Johnson, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous and very sad to me. Because, as Mr. Arakhamia put it: “We could have stopped these hostilities, this war a year and a half ago already. But the British persuaded us, and we refused this.” Where is Mr. Johnson now? And the war continues.
Tucker Carlson: That is a good question. Why did he do that?
Vladimir Putin: Hell knows. I don’t understand it myself. There was a general starting point. For some reason, everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield. Because of arrogance, because of a pure heart, but not because of a great mind.
Tucker Carlson: You have described the connection between Russia and Ukraine; you have described Russia itself, a couple of times as Orthodox – that is central to your understanding of Russia. What does that mean for you? You are a Cristian leader by your own description. So what effect does that have on you?
Vladimir Putin: You know, as I already mentioned, in 988 Prince Vladimir himself was baptized following the example of his grandmother, Princess Olga, and then he baptized his squad, and then gradually, over the course of several years, he baptized all the Rus. It was a lengthy process – from pagans to Christians, it took many years. But in the end, this Orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, deeply rooted itself in the consciousness of the Russian people.
When Russia expanded and absorbed other nations who profess Islam, Buddhism and Judaism, Russia has always been very loyal to those people who profess other religions. This is her strength. This is absolutely clear.
And the fact is that the main postulates, main values are very similar, not to say the same, in all world religions I’ve just mentioned and which are the traditional religions of the Russian Federation, Russia. By the way, Russian authorities were always very careful about the culture and religion of those peoples who came into the Russian Empire. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of the Russian statehood – all the peoples inhabiting Russia basically consider it their Motherland.
If, say, people move over to you or to Europe from Latin America – an even clearer and more understandable example – people come, but yet they have come to you or to European countries from their historical homeland. And people who profess different religions in Russia consider Russia their Motherland, they have no other Motherland. We are together, this is one big family. And our traditional values are very similar. I’ve just mentioned one big family, but everyone has his/hers own family, and this is the basis of our society. And if we say that the Motherland and the family are specifically connected with each other, it is indeed the case, since it is impossible to ensure a normal future for our children and our families unless we ensure a normal, sustainable future for the entire country, for the Motherland. That is why patriotic sentiment is so strong in Russia.
Tucker Carlson: Can I say, the one way in which religions are different is that Christianity is specifically a non-violent religion. Jesus says “Turn the other cheek, don’t kill”. How can a leader who has to kill, of any country, how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?
Vladimir Putin: It is very easy: when it comes to protecting oneself and one’s family, one’s homeland. We won’t attack anyone.
When did the developments in Ukraine start? Since the coup d’etat and the hostilities in Donbass began, that’s when they started. And we are protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland and our future.
As for religion in general.
You know, it’s not about external manifestations, it’s not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart. And our culture is so human-oriented. Dostoevsky, who is very well known in the West as the genius of Russian culture, Russian literature, spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul.
After all, Western society is more pragmatic. Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values. I don’t know, maybe you won’t agree with me, but Western culture is more pragmatic after all.
I’m not saying this is bad, it makes it possible for today’s “golden billion” to achieve good success in production, even in science, and so on. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’m just saying that we kind of look the same, but our minds are built a little differently.
Tucker Carlson: So do you see the supernatural at work? As you look out across what’s happening in the world now, do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself: these are forces that are not human?
Vladimir Putin: No, to be honest, I don’t think so. My opinion is that the development of the world community is in accordance with the inherent laws, and those laws are what they are. It’s always been this way in the history of mankind. Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more numerous, and then left the international stage, losing the status they had accustomed to. There is probably no need for me to give examples, but we could start with Genghis Khan and the Horde conquerors, the Golden Horde, and then end with the Roman Empire.
It seems that there has never been anything like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually grew, as did their population. In general, the barbarians were getting stronger and began to develop economically, as we would say today. This eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the regime imposed by the Romans. However, it took five centuries for the Roman Empire to fall apart. The difference with what is happening now is that all the processes of change are happening at a much faster pace than in Roman times.
Tucker Carlson: So when does the AI empire start do you think?
Vladimir Putin: (Laughing) You are asking increasingly more complicated questions. To answer them, you need to be an expert in big numbers, big data and AI.
Mankind is currently facing many threats. Due to genetic researches, it is now possible to create a superhuman, a specialized human being – a genetically engineered athlete, scientist, military man.
There are reports that Elon Musk has already had a chip implanted in the human brain in the USA.
Tucker Carlson: What do you think of that?
Vladimir Putin: Well, I think there’s no stopping Elon Musk, he will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you need to find some common ground with him, search for ways to persuade him. I think he’s a smart person, I truly believe he is. So you need to reach an agreement with him because this process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain rules.
Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest developments in genetics or in AI. One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen. Once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons, all nuclear nations began to come to terms with one another since they realized that negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction.
It is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today, just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day. But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI, or genetics, or any other fields, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.
Tucker Carlson: I appreciate all the time you’ve given us. I just want to ask you one last question and it’s about someone who is very famous in the United States, probably not here. Evan Gershkovich who is the Wall Street Journal reporter, he is 32 and he’s been in prison for almost a year. This is a huge story in the United States and I just want to ask you directly without getting into details of your version of what happened, if as a sign of your decency you’ll be willing to release him to us and we’ll bring him back to the United States?
Vladimir Putin: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner. However, in theory, we can say that we do not rule out that we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps.
When I talk about the “partners”, I, first of all, refer to special services. Special services are in contact with one another, they are talking about the matter in question. There is no taboo to settle the issue. We are willing to solve it, but there are certain terms being discussed via special services channels. I believe an agreement can be reached.
Tucker Carlson: So, typically, I mean, this stuff has happened for, obviously, centuries. One country catches other spy within its borders and trades it for one of its own intel guys in other country. I think what makes it, and it’s not my business, but what makes it different is that this guy is obviously not a spy, he is a kid and maybe he was breaking a law in some way but he is not a superspy and everybody knows that and he has been held hostage and exchange, which is true, with respect, it’s true and everyone knows it’s true. So maybe he is in a different category, maybe it’s not fair to ask for somebody else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.
Vladimir Putin: You know, you can give different interpretations to what constitutes a “spy”, but there are certain things provided by law. If a person gets secret information, and does that in a conspiratorial manner, then this is qualified as espionage. And that is exactly what he was doing. He was receiving classified, confidential information, and he did it covertly. Maybe he had been implicated in that, someone could have dragged him into that, maybe he did that out of carelessness, or on his own initiative. Considering the sheer facts, this is qualified as espionage. The fact has been proven, as he was caught red-handed when he was receiving this information. If it had been some far-fetched excuse, some fabrication, something not proven, it would have been a different story then. But he was caught red-handed when he was secretly getting confidential information. What is it, then?
Tucker Carlson: But are you suggesting he was working for the US government or NATO? Or he was just a reporter who was given material he wasn’t supposed to have? Those seem like very different, very different things.
Vladimir Putin: I don’t know who he was working for. But I would like to reiterate that getting classified information in secret is called espionage, and he was working for the U.S. special services, some other agencies. I don’t think that he was working for Monaco, as Monaco is hardly interested in getting that information. It is up to the special services to come to an agreement. Some groundwork has been laid. There are people who, in our view, are not connected with special services.
Let me tell you a story about a person serving a sentence in an allied country of the U.S. That person, due to patriotic sentiments, eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals. During the events in the Caucasus, do you know what he [bandit] was doing? I don’t want to say that, but I will do it anyway. He was laying our soldiers, taken prisoner, on the road and then he drove his car over their heads. What kind of a person is that? Can he be even called a human? But there was a patriot who eliminated him in one of the European capitals. Whether he did that of his own volition or not, that is a different question.
Tucker Carlson: Evan Gershkovich, that’s a completely different, I mean, this is a thirty-two year old newspaper reporter.
Vladimir Putin: He committed something different.
Tucker Carlson: He is just a journalist
Vladimir Putin: He is not just a journalist, I reiterate, he is a journalist who was secretly getting confidential information.
Yes, it is different, but still, I am talking about other people who are essentially controlled by the U.S. authorities wherever they are serving a sentence. There is an ongoing dialogue between the special services. This has to be resolved in a calm, responsible and professional manner. They are keeping in touch, so let them do their work.
I do not rule out that the person you referred to, Mister Gershkovich, may return to his motherland. By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia. We want the U.S. special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing. We are ready to talk. Moreover, the talks are underway, and there have been many successful examples of these talks crowned with success. Probably this is going to be crowned with success as well, but we have to come to an agreement.
Tucker Carlson: I hope you’ll let him out. Mister President, thank you!
Vladimir Putin: I also want him to return to his homeland at last. I am absolutely sincere. But let me say once again, the dialogue continues. The more public we render things of this nature, the more difficult it becomes to resolve them. Everything has to be done in a calm manner.
Tucker Carlson: I wonder if that’s true with the war though also, I mean, I guess I want to ask one more question which is, and maybe you don’t want to say so for strategic reasons, but are you worried that what’s happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible and how motivated are you just to call the US government and say “let’s come to terms”?
Vladimir Putin: I already said that we did not refuse to talk. We are willing to negotiate. It is the Western side, and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the U.S. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening.
The financial support, 72 billion U.S. dollars, was provided. Germany ranks second, then other European countries come. Dozens of billions of U.S. dollars are go to Ukraine. There is a huge influx of weapons.
In this case you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to the negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree. We did not refuse.
Tucker Carlson: Well, sure, you have already said it — I didn’t think you meant it as an insult — because you have already said, correctly, it’s been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating peace settlement by the former British prime-minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration. Of course, it’s our satellite, big countries control small countries, that’s not new. And that is why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not president Zelensky of Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin: Well, if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume that they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it, let it find a delicate excuse so that no one is insulted, let it come up with a way out. It was not us who made this decision, it was them, so let them go back on it. That is it.
However, they made the wrong decision and now we have to look for a way out of this situation, to correct their mistakes. They did it so let them correct it themselves. We support this.
Tucker Carlson: So, I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding what you are saying — and I don’t think that I am — I think you are saying you want a negotiated settlement to what’s happening in Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin: Right. And we made it, we prepared a huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He affixed his signature to some of the provisions, not to all of it. He put his signature and then he himself said: “We were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, eighteen months ago. However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talked us out of it and we missed that chance.” Well, you missed it, you made a mistake, let them get back to that, that is all. Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else’s mistakes?
I know one can say it is our mistake, it was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbas, as I have already said, by means of weapons. Let me get back to further in history, I already told you this, we were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991 when we were promised that NATO would not be expanded, to 2008 when the doors to NATO opened, to the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine creating threats for us. Let us go back to coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless though, isn’t it? We may go back and forth endlessly. But they stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else is needed?
Tucker Carlson: Do you think it is too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?
Vladimir Putin: I said let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will.
Up until now there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition, it is never going to happen. It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.
Tucker Carlson: Would you be willing to say, ”Congratulations, NATO, you won?“ And just keep the situation where it is now?
Vladimir Putin: You know, it is a subject matter for the negotiations no one is willing to conduct or, to put it more accurately, they are willing but do not know how to do it. I know they want. It is not just I see it but I know they do want it but they are struggling to understand how to do it. They have driven the situation to the point where we are at. It is not us who have done that, it is our partners, opponents who have done that. Well, now let them think how to reverse the situation. We are not against it.
It would be funny if it were not so sad. This endless mobilization in Ukraine, the hysteria, the domestic problems – sooner or later it all will result in an agreement. You know, this will probably sound strange given the current situation but the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt anyway. It will take a lot of time but they will heal.
I will give you very unusual examples. There is a combat encounter on the battlefield, here is a specific example: Ukrainian soldiers got encircled (this is an example from real life), our soldiers were shouting to them: “There is no chance! Surrender yourselves! Come out and you will be alive!” Suddenly the Ukrainian soldiers were screaming from there in Russian, perfect Russian, saying: “Russians do not surrender!” and all of them perished. They still identify themselves as Russian.
What is happening is, to a certain extent, an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever. No. They will be reunited. The unity is still there.
Why are the Ukranian authorities dismantling the Ukranian Orthodox Church? Because it brings together not only the territory, it brings together our souls. No one will be able to separate the soul.
Shall we end here or there is anything else?
Tucker Carlson: Thank you, Mr. President.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In addition to the weather modification going on around the world, militaries around the world are also routinely dispersing tiny bits of aluminum-coated fiberglass and plastic — known as “chaff” — into the air column, to shield aircraft and ships from enemy radar. Not surprisingly, this has been done for decades, without clear evidence that it’s safe for humans and the environment.
This tragic story of Jennifer and Rob is unique, because we have confirmation that Jennifer and Rob took the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA booster shots together. If they had a bad vaccine batch, a “hot lot”, both of them would have been developing internal damage.
These developments in Birmingham are reflective of the vast socio-economic problems impacting the working class and poor in Britain. During 2023, a series of large-scale strikes by trade unions in the transportation, healthcare, education, civil service and other sectors of the labor force revealed the level of discontent among millions of the people around the country.
Blackdot has recently examined the claim that Yemen’s Ansar Allah plans to cut off 99% of the world’s internet following the circulation of the news on different social media platforms, and eventually refuted it and confirmed its falsity.
The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on Monday revealed yet another facet of the Biden Administration’s sprawling censorship system that targeted dissenting books. It appears that, as with social media companies, it succeeded in getting the company not to promote disfavored books.
US President Joe Biden is facing the most difficult election campaign of his life. His opponent, former President Donald Trump is leading in the polls, and most analysts expect that Trump will win in November 2024 by a landslide against Biden.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
[This article was originally published in December 2023.]
As the Israeli attack on Gaza, Lebanon and Syria intensifies, the U.S. public watch on aghast. A new poll finds that Americans support a permanent ceasefire by a more than 2:1 ratio (including the vast majority of Democrats and a plurality of Republicans).
And yet, despite this, only 4% of elected members of the House support even a temporary ceasefire, and the United States continues to veto U.N. resolutions working towards ending the violence. Walter Hixson, a historian concentrating on U.S. foreign relations, told MintPress News:
Unfettered support for Israel and the lobby consistently puts the United States at odds with international human rights organizations and the vast majority of nations over Israel’s war crimes and blatant violations of international law. The current U.N. vote on a ceasefire in Gaza [which the U.S. vetoed] is just the latest example.”
Here, Hixson is referring to the pro-Israel lobby, a loose connection of influential groups that spend millions on pressure campaigns, outreach programs, and donations to American politicians, all with one goal in mind: making sure the United States supports the Israeli government’s policies full stop, including backing Israeli expansion, blocking Palestinian statehood and opposing a growing boycott divestment and sanctions movement (BDS) at home.
Internationally, Israel has lost virtually all its support. But it still has one major backer: the United States government. Part of this is undoubtedly down to the extraordinary lengths the lobby goes to secure backing, including showering U.S. politicians with millions of dollars in contributions. In this investigation, MintPress News breaks down the top ten currently serving politicians who have taken the most pro-Israel cash since 1990.
#1 Joe Biden, $4,346,264
The largest recipient of Israel lobby money is President Joe Biden. From the beginning of his political career, Biden, according to his biographer Branko Marcetic, “established himself as an implacable friend of Israel,” spending his Senate career “showering Israel with unquestioning support, even when its behavior elicited bipartisan outrage.” The future president was a key figure in securing record sums of U.S. aid to the Jewish state and helped block a 1998 peace proposal with Palestine.
The support for Israeli policies has continued into the present, with his administration insisting that there are “no red lines” that it could cross that would cause it to lose American support. In essence, Biden has given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a carte blanche to break any rules, norms or laws he wishes to.
This has included ethnic cleansing and war crimes such as the bombing of schools, hospitals and places of worship using banned weapons like white phosphorous munitions. The arms Israel is using come supplied directly by the U.S. In November, the Biden administration rubber-stamped another $14.5 billion military aid package to Israel, ensuring the carnage would continue.
For his staunch support, Biden has received more than $4.3 million from pro-Israel groups since 1990.
#2 Robert Menéndez, $2,483,205
The New Jersey senator has received nearly $2.5 million in contributions and, in the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7, has been a key figure in drumming up support for Israel. Describing Operation Al-Aqsa Flood as “barbaric atrocities” that were an “affront to humankind itself,” Menéndez gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor where he addressed Biden directly, stating:
Mr. President, in the face of unspeakable evil, we must not mince words. We must not waver in our resolve. Every single one of us in this chamber has a moral responsibility to speak out — unequivocally and unapologetically — as we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel and her people. I’ve been staunchly devoted to this cause for 31 years in Congress.”
He went on to claim that Israel and the United States are intrinsically linked and were founded on the same principles.
Menéndez also courted controversy after he demanded that the U.S. help Israel “wipe Hamas from the face of the Earth,” even as Israel was leveling Gaza by carpet bombing it.
In October, he co-sponsored a Senate resolution “standing with Israel against terrorism” that passed unanimously, without dissent.
#3 Mitch Mcconnell, $1,953,160
The Senate Minority Leader is one of the most powerful politicians in America and has used his influence to attempt to force through legislation criminalizing BDS. He has described the peaceful tactic as “an economic form of anti-Semitism that targets Israel.”
McConnell is known to be very close to Prime Minister Netanyahu and supported a bill condemning the United Nations and calling on the U.S. to continue to veto any U.N. resolution critical of Israel. Last month, he strongly opposed steps taken towards applying basic U.S. and international law on weapons shipments to Israel.
Under current U.S. law, Washington is duty-bound to stop supplying arms to nations committing serious human rights violations. McConnell, however, said that applying these standards to Israel would be “ridiculous,” explaining that:
Our relationship with Israel is the closest national security relationship we have with any country in the world, and to condition, in effect, our assistance to Israel to their meeting our standards it seems to me is totally unnecessary… This is a democracy, a great ally of ours, and I do not think we need to condition the support that hopefully we will give to Israel very soon.”
McConnell has received nearly $2 million from pro-Israel groups.
#4 Chuck Schumer, $1,725,324
Next on the list is McConnell’s Democratic opponent, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who had taken over $1.7 million from Israel lobbying groups. In recent weeks, Schumer has taken the lead in steering the public conversation away from Israel’s crimes and towards a supposed rise in anti-Semitism across America. “To us, the Jewish people, the rise in anti-semitism is a crisis. A five-alarm fire that must be extinguished,” the New York Senator said, adding that “Jewish-Americans are feeling singled out, targeted and isolated. In many ways, we feel alone.”
The idea that anti-Semitic hate is exploding across the United States comes largely from a report published by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which claims that anti-Semitic incidents have risen by 337% since October 7. Buried in the small print, however, is the fact that 45% of these “anti-Semitic” incidents the ADL has tallied are pro-Palestine, pro-peace marches calling for ceasefires, including ones led by Jewish groups like If Not Now or Jewish Voice for Peace. (MintPress recently published an investigation into the ADL’s fudged numbers and its history of working for Israel and spying on progressive American groups.)
Schumer, however, has deliberately tried to conflate opposition to Israel’s bombardment of its neighbors with anti-Jewish racism, writing:
Today, too many Americans are exploiting arguments against Israel and leaping toward a virulent antisemitism. The normalization and intensifying of this rise in hate is the danger many Jewish people fear most.”
He has even gone so far as to label Dave Zirin – a Jewish journalist who supports justice for Palestinians – as an anti-Semite.
As Senate Majority Leader, Schumer has used his influence to push through military aid packages to Israel, even as it carries out actions many have labeled war crimes, writing that:
One of the most important tasks we must finish is taking up and passing a funding bill to ensure we, as well as our friends and partners in Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific region, have the necessary military capabilities to confront and deter our adversaries and competitors.”
He added that “Senators should be prepared to stay in Washington until we finish our work” and that they should expect to work “long days and nights, and potentially weekends in December,” until the deal was done.
#5 Steny Hoyer, $1,620,294
The former House Majority Leader is one of Israel’s most vocal supporters in the House of Representatives. Hoyer has demanded that “Congress must immediately and unconditionally fund Israel,” thereby giving the Netanyahu administration the green light to do whatever it pleases.
An ardent Zionist, the Maryland native explained that he believes it is:
…[T]he world’s duty that set aside a land, a land that Israel has occupied for millennia, and said: this is your place of security, this is your place of sovereignty, this is your place of safety.”
Hoyer speaks at the Jewish Community Relations Council’s Stand with Israel event on October 13, 2023. Photo | House.gov
Earlier this month, Hoyer also voted in favor of a bill stating that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic, thereby declaring all criticism of Israel to be invalid and racist.
Hoyer has received more than $1.6 million in donations from pro-Israel lobbying groups.
#6 Ted Cruz, $1,299,194
Over his career, the Texas Republican has received $1.3 million from the Israel lobby. After October 7, Cruz sprang into action, announcing that it was “critical” that every American supports Israel “100 percent.” “Israel is going to be demonized by Democrats in the current corrupt corporate media. We need to make clear that Hamas is using human shields and Israel has a right to defend itself,” Cruz said, hitting many of the classic pro-Israel talking points.
Cruz also went above and beyond in his defense of Israeli crimes in a bizarre interview with Breaking Points’ Ryan Grim. When asked if he opposes Israeli officials suggesting a nuclear attack on Gaza, Cruz replied:
I condemn nothing that the Israeli government is doing. The Israeli government does not target civilians; they target military targets… There is no military on the face of the planet, including the U.S. military, that goes to the lengths that the Israeli military goes to avoid civilian casualties.”
When confronted with statements from the IDF directly refuting his point, noting that their focus is on damage, not precision, Cruz flipped his answer around, replying, “Yes, damage to Hamas, to terrorists.” And when Grim gave him more statements from senior IDF officials explicitly contradicting his previous statement, Cruz retorted, “That’s simply not true. They are targeting the terrorists,” thereby defending the IDF even from itself.
#7 Ron Wyden, $1,279,376
Senator Ron Wyden (D—OR) has long been one of Israel’s staunchest advocates in Washington, supporting President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and opposing BDS in all its forms.
In 2017, he co-sponsored a bill that made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum prison sentence of 20 years, for Americans to participate in or even encourage boycotts against Israel and illegal Israeli settlements.
On the settlements, he was one of the most vigorous opponents of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which describes them as a “flagrant violation” of international law.
For his troubles, Wyden has received $1,279,376 from pro-Israel groups.
#8 Dick Durbin, $1,126,020
In some ways, Dick Durbin owes his political career to the Israel lobby. In 1982, the then-obscure college professor benefitted enormously from AIPAC money to defeat incumbent Paul Findley, a strong proponent of the Palestinian people.
The Illinois Democrat has called for immediate military aid to Israel and co-signed a Senate resolution reaffirming Washington’s support for Israel’s “right to self-defense” in the wake of October 7.
Despite this, he has angered some in the pro-Israel crowd by supporting President Obama’s initiatives to reduce tensions with Iran and has now come out in favor of a ceasefire in Gaza.
#9 Josh Gottheimer, $1,109,370
Despite only being in office since 2017, Gottheimer has already received more than $1.1 million from pro-Israel lobbying groups. The New Jersey Congressman has served as a pro-Israeli attack dog in Washington, co-sponsoring the bill equating opposition to Israeli government policy with anti-Semitism and introducing legislation to block and criminalize boycotting the state of Israel.
In the wake of October 7, Gottheimer has attempted to cancel a number of public figures. Earlier this month, for instance, he tried to pressure Rutgers University into calling off an event on Palestine featuring former CNN anchor Marc Lamont Hill and organizer and journalist Nick Estes, both of whom support Palestinian rights and statehood.
Gottheimer has even caused rifts within his own party, attacking the small, progressive wing of Democrats who have failed to toe the line on Israel and Hamas. “Last night, 15 of my Democratic colleagues voted AGAINST standing with our ally Israel and condemning Hamas terrorists who brutally murdered, raped, and kidnapped babies, children, men, women, and elderly, including Americans. They are despicable and do not speak for our party,” he wrote, making a number of highly incendiary and questionable assertions.
#10 Shontel Brown, $1,028,686
Perhaps no other political case reveals the power of the Israel lobby than Shontel Brown. In 2021, Nina Turner, a democratic socialist, national co-chair of Bernie Sanders’ 2020 election campaign, and an outspoken advocate for justice in Palestine, ran for election in Ohio’s 11th congressional district. Her opponent was the little-known but strongly pro-Israel Brown.
Brown received more pro-Israel money than any other politician nationwide during that two-year election cycle, helping her overcome a double-digit polling deficit to defeat Turner. Over $1 million was spent plastering Cleveland with attack ads against Turner. In her acceptance speech, Brown praised Israel and later thanked the Jewish community for “help[ing] me get over the finish line”
Since then, she has supported Israeli actions in Gaza and rejected the idea of Israel as an apartheid state, writing:
Let’s be clear: Israel is not an apartheid state. Any mischaracterizations otherwise attempt to delegitimize Israel, a robust democracy, and will only serve to fuel rising antisemitism. I will always advocate for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship founded on our shared values.”
Check out the bag dropping ahead of tomorrow's #OH11 primary. DMFI has spent more opposing Nina Turner than nearly all other outside spending combined. pic.twitter.com/2QC8py0sWu
The most well-known and likely most influential group in the loose coalition referred to as the Israel lobby is AIPAC. With a staff of around 400 people and annual revenues that frequently top over $100 million, the organization is a huge, conservative force in American politics, flooding the system with gigantic amounts of money. Worse still, the group does not disclose the sources of its funding.
To make America’s friendship with Israel so robust, so certain, so broadly based, and so dependable that even the deep divisions of American politics can never imperil that relationship and the ability of the Jewish state to defend itself.”
Yet Israel is widely recognized by international bodies such as the United Nations and human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as an apartheid state. It has near total control over the Gaza Strip, which, even before the latest attack, was an “unlivable” “open-air prison.” It is this state and these injustices that AIPAC and others seek U.S. support for.
American intransigence on Israel has helped make it a pariah nation, one that constantly has to veto U.N. resolutions and has lost its voting rights at UNESCO.
Not only does it give more money to Republicans than Democrats, but AIPAC also floods conservative Democrats’ coffers with funds, especially when they are up against progressive, pro-Palestine challengers.
In 2022, it spent $2.3 million in a (failed) bid to stop leftist Summer Lee from being elected to Congress. However, it fared better in North Carolina, where $2 million was given to Valeria Foushee over Nida Allam, the director of Sanders’ 2016 campaign. Meanwhile, $1.2 million in donations to Henry Cuellar might have been the deciding factor in an extremely close win over progressive activist Jessica Cisneros in Texas’ 28th congressional district. And a number of prominent Michigan Democrats have come forward claiming that AIPAC offered them $20 million each to primary Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American in Congress.
“Certainly the lobby can influence elections, but it doesn’t win them all,” Hixson, the author of “Architects of Repression: How Israel and Its Lobby Put Racism, Violence and Injustice at the Center of US Middle East Policy,” said, adding:
It targets the aforementioned House progressives every two years but can’t always dictate the outcome of localized elections. They do better with broader canvasses; hence, no one in the Senate other than Bernie takes them on. When it comes to Israel, most American politicians are craven hypocrites.”
Yet Sanders’ recent refusal to endorse a permanent ceasefire (a position held by virtually the entire world) has earned him AIPAC’s praise.
— AIPAC | Text ISRAEL to 24722 | #StandWithIsrael (@AIPAC) December 10, 2023
Is the Tail Wagging the Dog?
As such, AIPAC acts as a bulwark against progressive political change. In such a divisive political environment, few political issues unite Democrats and Republicans, as well as Israel and shutting down anti-establishment figures. As Hixson told MintPress:
Other than a handful of progressives (Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, etc.), the U.S. Congress invariably gives the lobby everything it wants, namely massive regular funding for Israeli militarism and an endless series of resolutions condemning Israel’s international foes and domestic critics.”
The question that arises from this is why? Why does Israel always seem to receive full support from Washington? Is the lobby really that effective? Why do so many U.S. politicians go along with it? Mazin Qumsiyeh, a professor at Bethlehem University, characterized Washington as full of amoral careerists, telling MintPress that:
They [Senators and Congresspersons] do not buy the Zionist argument. It is strictly personal interest: money and good media coverage and avoiding blackmail, as the Zionists have their dirty secrets which they could expose if they step out of line.”
Yet Israel also serves a vital purpose for the American empire. The region is not only geographically strategic but home to the world’s largest resources of hydrocarbons. Washington has always made it a top priority to control the flow of oil around the world, and Israel helps them do this. Militarily, Israel serves as a conduit the U.S. can work through, farming out its dirty work to Tel Aviv. It, therefore, represents an unofficial and beneficial “51st state.” As Joe Biden said in 1986 and has regularly repeated, Israel is the best investment the U.S. makes. “Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect our interests in the region,” he added.
Many other nations or industries have lobbied in Washington, D.C. But few have proven to be as organized or effective as the pro-Israel one. Nevertheless, public opinion, particularly among young people, has begun to drift away from it. The Overton Window is shifting; Professor Qumsiyeh told MintPress. “When I first went to the U.S. in 1979, the average citizen did not know anything about Palestine or knew only a negative, distorted picture driven by Hollywood and biased media. Things [have] changed,” he said.
Things have indeed changed. The streets of America have been filled with demonstrations against Israeli aggression. Millions of Americans have participated in Palestine solidarity protests, including hundreds of thousands in Washington, D.C. alone. Celebrities have spoken out against injustice. And social media is filled with posts showing sympathy for Gazans. There, too, Israel and pro-Israel groups have attempted to use their financial clout to influence the conversation, but to limited effect.
Fortunately for Israel, for now, at least, they can still rely on the unwavering support of senior American politicians, their pockets filled with AIPAC money, turning the other way as Israel carries out another genocide against Palestine.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: President Joe Biden participates in a restricted bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Hotel Kempinski in Tel Aviv, Israel, Wednesday, October 18, 2023. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Israel’s military onslaught has devastated built and natural environments in Gaza.
Palestinians continue to suffer in Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza – thousands killed and tens of thousands of others wounded.
One of the most intense bombing campaigns since World War II will leave not just a legacy of grief for Gaza’s people, but one of lasting physical damage to the environment.
Sanitation and water treatment systems have been destroyed.
Thousands of Israeli and Western-supplied bombs pollute the air and ground.
The war is leaving a new layer of toxic chemicals in Gaza’s soil, adding to those left behind after the many wars Israel has waged before.
Can Gaza recover?
Presenter: Adrian Finighan
Guests:
Nada Majdalani – Palestinian director of EcoPeace Middle East, an organisation that brings together Jordanian, Palestinian, and Israeli environmentalists
Marwan Bardawil – Head of Gaza Programme Coordination Unit of the Palestinian Water Authority
Hadeel Ikhmais – Director general of the Climate Change Section of the Palestinian Authority’s Environment Quality Authority
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Israel-U.S. Genocide against the People of Palestine
.
by
Michel Chossudovsky
Introduction
From the outset on October 7, 2023, “A Tissue of Lies” has served to justify the killings in the Gaza Strip of more than 30,000 civilians, of which 70% are women and children. The atrocities committed against the People of Palestine are beyond description. At the time of writing, at least 13,000 children have been killed:
Military operations are invariably planned well in advance.
Had Hamas’ “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” been a “surprise attack” as parroted by the media, Netanyahu’s “State of Readiness For War” could not have been spontaneously carried out (at short notice) on that same day, namely October 7, 2023. The “State of Readiness” etiquette (revealed on October 7) points to a carefully prepared plan.
It is now well established that Israel’s Operation “State of Readiness for War” which consisted in “Wiping Gaza Off the Map” was carefully coordinated with U.S. military and intelligence. It is part of a broader joint Israel-U.S. military agenda.
Washington not only supports the Genocide, it oversees the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Although South Africa’s legal initiative was directed against the State of Israel, the conduct of the genocide is a joint Israel-U.S. project, with U.S. military and intelligence operatives collaborating directly with their Israeli counterparts.
This collaboration is also supported by an extensive flow of military aid.
The Criminalization of International Law
What is at stake is the criminalization of the international judicial process. The ICJ not only refused to propose a “Cease Fire”, which was part of South Africa’s demand, its January 26, 2024 Judgment failed to question the role of the Netanyahu coalition government, which was largely responsible for the planning prior to October 7 of a comprehensive military agenda directed against Palestine, with the support of Washington.
Although the Republic of South Africa’s ICJ accusation was directed against the State of Israel, it is now confirmed, amply documented that the Genocide against the People of Palestine was a joint Israel-U.S. operation.
WhileArticle 2 of the ICJ Statute (p.212) “provides that the court should be comprised of independent judges”, the practice of recusal of a judge, specifically with regard to the President of the ICJ is almost impossible. Nonetheless, the issue of “conflict of interest” must be raised. Judge Joan Donoghue takes her instructions from Washington.
“Escalate the Genocide”
The ICJ has granted Israel –with the full endorsement of the Biden Administration– with a de facto “green light” (carte blanche) to continue and“escalate the genocide”.
The ICJ’s January 26, 2024 Judgment has set in motion a new wave of atrocities directed against the People of Palestine.
On that same day (January 26), Netanyahu confirmed that the genocide was ongoing and would continue.
“We will not compromise on anything less than total victory. That means eliminating Hamas, …”
While rhetorical condemnations against Israel prevail, what the peace movement fails to acknowledge is that no legal obstruction or hindrance was formulated by the World Court in its January 26, 2024 Judgment.
The Occupied West Bank, Jewish Settlements in Gaza
Criminal acts are now being committed in the occupied West Bank, coupled with an increase in the deployment of IDF forces.
In Gaza, IDF commanders have ordered soldiers to “Setting fire to homes belonging to non-combatant civilians, for the mere purpose of punishment”.
Moreover, barely a few days after the January 26, ICJ Judgment, plans were announced to establish a cohesive network of Jewish settlements in Gaza.
Israel’s Plan: Mass Starvation
The Biden administration responding to Netanyahu has ordered to cut funding to theUN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is indelibly slated to result in famine and the total collapse of social services:
UNRWA provides food, shelter, health care, education … for the 5.7 million UNRWA-registered Palestinian refugees in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
The curtailment of UNRWA funding is an integral part of the Netanyahu government’s carefully designed project to trigger mass starvation throughout the Gaza Strip.
“Gaza is experiencing mass starvation like no other in recent history. Before the outbreak of fighting in October, food security in Gaza was precarious, but very few children – less than 1% – suffered severe acute malnutrition, the most dangerous kind. Today, almost all Gazans, of any age, anywhere in the territory, are at risk.
There is no instance since the second world war in which an entire population has been reduced to extreme hunger and destitution with such speed. And there’s no case in which the international obligation to stop it has been so clear.”
These facts underpinned South Africa’s recent case against Israel at the international court of justice. The international genocide convention, article 2c, prohibits “deliberately inflicting [on a group] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. (Guardian)
Documentation of the Atrocities Committed against the People of Palestine
The atrocities are carefully documented in Sarah Abushaar’s courageous video production entitled
“How much persecution and human cruelty Palestinians have suffered for generations — for the inalienable right to life.
Since israel’s establishment through the ethnic cleansing and massacre of Palestinians from Palestine — persisting in its massacre, mass expulsion, abduction, torture and terror of indigenous Palestinians.
The theft of land, life and human rights.
Israel’s unconscionable slaughter of 13,000 children, extermination of 30,000 civilians, destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system as it wounds 60,000 and mass starvation of 2.3 million, part of what it’s been committing on Palestinian life for decades – continuing its ongoing genocide now on hyperdrive.
Palestinians massacred and held hostage in the hundreds of thousands, terrorized in the millions under illegal siege, violent occupation and vicious apartheid. A person’s stance on Palestine says everything about their moral compass.
You are either for or against genocide. For or against ethnic cleansing. For or against violent illegal occupation and vicious apartheid.
For or against systems of supremacy – the persecution of human life.. the denial of millions of people their life, freedom, and fundamental human rights.
There is no middle ground. It’s not complicated. In the same way the Holocaust is not complicated. Slavery or Apartheid are not complicated.
But they persisted because of those who didn’t see.
There’s a horrific persecution and oppression that has lasted for 8 decades.
An oppressor and an oppressed. It’s impossible for human beings of conscience or morals to know the truth on Palestine and to uphold this for human life.
It goes against all law, morality and our very humanity.
What we condemn in history and in every other context, what’s been committed on Palestinian life for decades…
As with all systems built on human persecution and oppression, this will not survive. All the inhumanity in the world in this, Palestine is fighting for all of our humanity and for all the world’s justice.”
The authenticity and purpose of this report remain to be confirmed. It was released a week after October 7, 2023. It nonetheless confirms the military actions which are currently being implemented against the People of Palestine. Was it intended to be in the public domain?
What the intelligence document recommends is:
“The forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”,
The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023 assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip …
“It recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. …”
“… assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip … It recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. …”
“1. The State of Israel is required to bring about a significant change in the civilian reality in the Gaza Strip in light of the Hamas crimes that led to the “Iron Swords” war, therefore it must decide on a political objective regarding the civilian population in Gaza, which should be pursued concurrently with the overthrow of the Hamas regime.
2. The objective defined by the government requires intensive action to harness the United States and other countries to support this goal.
3. Fundamental guidelines for every policy [A, B, C]:
a. Overthrow of Hamas’ rule.
b. Evacuation of the population outside of the combat zone for the benefit of the citizens of the Gaza Strip.
c. It is necessary to plan for and channel international aid to reach the area in accordance with the chosen policy.
d. In every policy, it is necessary to carry out a deep process of implementing an ideological change (de-Nazification).
e. The selected policy will support the state’s political goal regarding the future of the Gaza Strip and the final picture of the war.
In this document, three possible options [A, B, and C] will be presented as a policy of the political echelon in Israel regarding the future of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip.
[Option C below is the recommended and chosen Option of the Memorandum which is currently being implemented.]
The Memorandum’s “Option C”: The Evacuation of the Civilian Population from Gaza to Sinai.
“Option C – The option that will yield positive,long-term strategic outcomes for Israel, and is an executable option.
It requires determination from the political echelon in the face of international pressure, with an emphasis on harnessing the support of the United States and additional pro-Israeli countries for the endeavor.
At first glance, this option, involving significant population displacement, may present challenges in terms of international legitimacy.
Operational
1. A call for the evacuation of the non-combatant population from the combat zone of the Hamas attack.
2. In the first stage, operations from the air with a focus on the north of Gazato allow a ground invasionin an area that is already evacuated and does not require fighting in a densely populated civilian area.
3. In the second stage, a gradual ground invasion of the territory in the north and along the border until the occupation of the entire Strip and cleansing of the underground bunkers of Hamas fighters.
4. The ground invasion stage will be less time-consuming compared to options A and B and therefore will reduce the exposure time to opening the northern front simultaneously with the fighting in Gaza.
5. It is important to leave the travel routes to the south open to enable the evacuation of the civilian population toward Rafah.
International/legal legitimacy
In our assessment, post-evacuation combat is likely to result in fewer casualties among the civilian population compared to the expected casualties if the population remains (as presented in options A and B).
a. This is a defensive war against a terrorist organization that conducted a military invasion into Israel. [false flag justification]
b. The demand for the evacuation of the non-combatant population from the area is a widely accepted method that saves lives, and it was the approach used by the Americans in Iraq in 2003.
c. Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow the passage of the population.
6. Israel must act to promote a broad diplomatic initiative aimed at countries that will support assisting the displaced population and agree to absorb them as refugees.
7. A list of countries that are suitable for this initiative can be found in Appendix A to this document.
8. In the long run, this option will gain broader legitimacy because it involves a population that will be integrated within a state framework with citizenship.” (emphasis added)
Video: “Wiping Gaza Off the Map”
This Interview was produced on October 16, 2023
Was It A False Flag Operation?
“As a former intelligence officer, I find it impossible to believe that Israel did not have multiple informants inside Gaza as well as electronic listening devices all along the border wall which would have picked up movements of groups and vehicles.
In other words, the whole thing might be a tissue of lies as is often the case. (Philip Giraldi, October 2023)
U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack.
“One would have to be almost hopelessly naïve to buy the corporate state media line that the Hamas invasion was an Israeli “intelligence failure”. Mossad is one of, if not the, most powerful intelligence agencies on the planet.”
Israel’s plan to wage an all out war against Palestine had beenenvisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”.
This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite.
Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Al Aqsa Hamas attack.
“Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews … The approximately 40-page document, which the Israeli authorities code-named “Jericho Wall,” outlined, point by point, exactly the kind of devastating invasion that led to the deaths of about 1,200 people. (emphasis added)
According to the NYT, “Israeli officials dismissed it as aspirational and ignored specific warnings”. Nonsense. Israel’s intelligence apparatus was fully cognizant of what was going on, well in advance. It was part of their “False Flag” Agenda.
Let us be under no illusions, Israel’s “false flag” operation is a complex military-intelligence undertaking, carefully planned, in liaison and coordination with US intelligence and the Pentagon. Israel is a de facto member of NATO (with a special status) since 2004, involving active military and intelligence coordination as well as consultations pertaining to the occupied territories.
In this section we will provide evidence pertaining to the False Flag Operation waged by the Netanyahu government.
We will focus on the following topics:
The History of Israeli False Flags
Corroborating Mea Culpa Statements by Netanyahu
Testimonies by Members of Israel’s IDF
1. The History of Israeli False Flags
Numerous Israeli False Flags have been carried out in the course of the last 25 years. They are on record: carefully documented. While they are of a criminal nature, resulting in the deaths of innocent Israelis, they have barely been acknowledged by Western governments and the media. The historical record confirms that the intent of these false flags is to trigger Israeli deaths as a means to justify attacks against Palestinians. See below:
“…This is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda”
The blueprint, titled “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”, was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8 [2001].
The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.” (Tanya Reinhart, December 22, 2001)
“…Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (emphasis added)
Israeli False Flags, which consist in deliberately triggering Israeli casualties as a means to justify a broader attack against Palestine are DÉJÀ VU
I should mention that the October 7, 2023 “False Flag” is more sophisticated than those outlined above.
Israeli Casualties
Israel’s False Flag Operation is a criminal endeavor engineered by the Netanyahu government (with the support of its intelligence apparatus) against innocent Israeli men, women and children.
Official Israeli IDF sources confirm 1,200 Israeli deaths of combatants and civilians (including “friendly fire” by the IDF). Approximately 50% of the casualties are Israeli civilians.
In contrast, the number of deaths of Palestinians (at the time of writing) is of the order of 30,000 of which at least 10,000 are children.
2. Corroborating Statements by Netanyahu: “Money to a Faction within Hamas” As Part of an Intelligence Op?
It is worth noting thatNetanyahu has acknowledged that Money had been Transferred to a pro-Israeli Intelligence Faction within Hamas:
“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (Times of Israel, October 8, 2023 emphasis added)
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”[Netanyahu] (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
“I served in the IDF 25 years ago, in the intelligence forces. There’s no way Israel did not know of what’s coming.
A cat moving alongside the fence is triggering all forces. So this??
What happened to the “strongest army in the world”?
How come border crossings were wide open?? Something is VERY WRONG HERE, something is very strange, this chain of events is very unusual and not typical for the Israeli defense system.
To me this suprise attack seems like a planned operation. On all fronts.
If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say that this feels like the work of the Deep State.
It feels like the people of Israel and the people of Palestine have been sold, once again, to the higher powers that be.
(Statement byEfrat Fenigson, former IDF intelligence, October 7, 2023, emphasis added)
3.2 Commander of the Kerem Shalom Battalion
“Something here doesn’t add up to me!!! This is a mystery that I can’t find an answer to.
I happen to know how things work in Gaza and on the border.
I was the commander of the Kerem Shalom sector (Rafih), I was in charge of the Kissuf sector, I know the perimeter fence very well, I know how the army works there. I was in the Shatti refugee camp in Gaza, I was in charge of the Jibaliya refugee camp, I would make ambushes on the fence and deep in the area. I met Gazans, ate and breathed Gaza.
The obstacle is built so that even a fox cannot pass it:
Set alerts according to 3 levels of pressure. She must alert when she is cut. There are 24/7 forces that are responsible for arriving within a few minutes, if not seconds, to the point where there is an alert in the fence.
Every day do at least one penetration practice. Each subdivision has a standby squad whose role is to increase the force in an emergency situation. Observations scattered along the border cover every inch of it. The female observers are champions in identification. They don’t miss. They detect movement even before it even approaches the obstacle – day and night.
At problematic points (dead areas) they place a tank with observation and detection capabilities, and a terrifying firepower. In some cases snipers are deployed in the field.
Every day before dawn there is a “dawn alert” procedure. At this hour all the forces are awake (in this case also the hour when hundreds of terrorists entered Israel). The night shift alternates with the day shift. The commander of each force inspects the axis to make sure there were no infiltrations during the night. Trackers that move on the axis know how to recognize traces. They know who crossed the fence, how much and even when.
So how the hell does a Palestinian tractor move towards the fence without anyone reacting to it?
How did the tractor manage to sabotage the fence for a long hour and open access to Israel without anyone reacting to it?
How did all this happen under our noses? Where did an entire division go? Where did 3 brigades go?
Who swallowed 9 battalions? What happened to 36 companies? Where did an entire regular infantry brigade go that usually outnumbers the elite?
Where were all the reserve battalions that augment the regular army? Where did thousands of soldiers go???
The declared objective is to Wipe Gaza off the Map through mass killings and total destruction thereby creating conditions for the exclusion of Palestinians from their homeland: A ‘Second Nakba”.
The implementation of Netanyahu’s “War of Readiness” requires the support of Egypt with a view to triggering the exodus of Palestinians from Gaza to the Sinai, where the installation of extensive refugee camps is contemplated.
There is evidence of bilateral meetings between Cairo and Tel Aviv to that effect. The C Option Plan drafted by Israeli Intelligence (see above) states that “Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow the passage of the [Palestinian] population”.
What is contemplated by the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence (Option C above) is:
“the forced and permanent relocation of the entire Palestinian population of Gaza to Egypt’s Sinai desert peninsula” with tent refugee camps.” (See Manlio Dinucci)
The Plan includes a list of countries “which agree to absorb [The Palestinians ] as refugees”.
Bilateral Israel-Egypt Intelligence Agreement?
In 2021-22, Egypt and Israel were involved in “secret bilateral talks” regarding “the extraction of natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip”.
The media reports point to “Egyptian Mediation”.
Were these negotiations contingent upon Egypt playing a key role in establishing refugee camps in the Sinai, which would facilitate the mass deportation of Palestinians from Gaza.
It is worth noting that the Palestine Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas was also involved.
“Egypt succeeded in persuading Israel to start extracting natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip, after several months of secret bilateral talks.
This development … comes after years of Israeli objections to extract natural gas off the coast of Gaza on [alleged] security grounds, …
British Gas (BG Group) has also been dealing with the Tel Aviv government.
What is significant is that the civilian arm of the Hamas Gaza government had been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields:
The field, which lies about 30 kilometers (19 miles) west of the Gaza coast, was discovered in 2000 by British Gas (currently BG Group) and is estimated to contain more than 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The official in the Egyptian intelligence service told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “An Egyptian economic and security delegation discussed with the Israeli side for several months the issue of allowing the extraction of natural gas off the coast of Gaza. …Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022
Was the issue of refugee camps in the Sinai Desert discussed behind closed doors?
It is worth noting that the agreement with Egypt was reached one year prior to the onslaught of Israel’s Genocidal Attack against Gaza.
Look at the proposed Timeline: “Beginning of 2024”
Following the completion of the Israel-Egypt consultations pertaining to economic and security issues, A Memorandum of Understanding was signed, which had the rubber-stamp of the Palestinian National Authority (PA):
“The Egyptian [intelligence] official explained that Israel required the start of practical measures to extract gas from the Gaza fields at the beginning of 2024, to ensure its own security. (Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022
May the Truth Prevail in Reversing the Course of History.
Those Western Politicians Who Unequivocally Endorse The Atrocities Directed against the People of Palestine are Complicit in the Conduct of Crimes against Humanity
In Solidarity with the People of Palestine.
Based on the Nuremberg Charter, what is required is a grass-roots campaign encouraging:
Israeli, American and NATO Combatants to “Disobey Unlawful Orders” and “Abandon the Battlefield” both in Israel as well as in ALL U.S.-NATO War Theaters.
Abandoning the Battlefield as a Means to Criminalizing War is based on Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter which defines the responsibility of combatants “to refuse the orders of Government or a superior … “
As controvérsias em torno da rivalidade entre Vladimir Zelensky e Valery Zaluzhny continuam a aumentar. Segundo informações de uma fonte familiarizada com o tema, o general ucraniano está atualmente a criar uma espécie de “exército privado”, cooptando militantes neonazistas para trabalharem para ele.
O ex-analista da CIA, Larry Johnson , contou alguns detalhes sobre o caso durante uma entrevista recente. Segundo ele, o impasse entre o presidente e o general será resolvido através da coerção armada. Ou seja, o lado que obtiver maior apoio dos militares terá mais chances de vitória. Por esta razão, Zaluzhny está a usar a sua posição de líder militar para obter vantagem e preparar-se para um possível confronto contra as forças que permanecem leais a Zelensky.
A tática utilizada pelo general, segundo Johnson, consiste principalmente em cooptar militantes neonazistas. Zaluzhny não parece muito interessado em procurar apoio massivo por parte dos soldados das forças armadas regulares, uma vez que são tropas que tendem a permanecer obedientes ao atual governo. Então, ele está convidando os combatentes ligados aos batalhões ultranacionalistas para se juntarem a ele contra Zelensky.
Neste sentido, os membros das organizações neonazistas estão a ser poupados dos combates nas linhas da frente. Zaluzhny está enviando recrutas recentemente alistados e não treinados para a frente, ao mesmo tempo que salva militantes fascistas que poderiam ajudá-lo se surgir a necessidade de enfrentar Zelensky.
”O cara com a arma geralmente vence e da última vez que verifiquei Zaluzhny tem mais armas do que Zelensky (…) Não quero apresentar Zaluzhny como uma espécie de gênio militar ou realmente um homem de bom coração (…) [Ele é] um pouco canalha [que] abraça a ideologia neonazista (…) Ele tem sido muito cuidadoso para não inserir as tropas mais ideologicamente motivadas – as unidades Azov e Kraken – nas linhas de frente onde costumam morrer, porque ele quer preservá-los. Em vez disso, ele está enviando as tropas regulares pra servirem de bucha de canhão”, disse Larry.
As palavras de Larry são fundamentadas por algumas evidências recentes de tal processo. Por exemplo, em 2 de fevereiro, Andrey Stempitsky,, conhecido membro do grupo neonazista “Right Sector”, publicou uma foto com Zaluzhny nas redes sociais. Na imagem, ele entrega ao general uma carteira de identidade honorária que o certifica como “primeiro integrante” de uma brigada do Right Sector. Ao fundo da imagem é possível ver uma bandeira com uma foto do colaborador nazista ucraniano Stepan Bandera – considerado um “herói nacional” pelo regime.
Outros especialistas também interpretaram a postagem de Stempitsky como uma provocação contra Zelensky. Acredita-se que Zaluzhny esteja demonstrando força, deixando claro que conta com o apoio das tropas, podendo se voltar contra o governo e, se necessário, combatê-lo e derrotá-lo. E isto não é realmente “novo”, uma vez que sempre foi precisamente o papel dos grupos neonazistas na Ucrânia.
As organizações nacionalistas foram incorporadas nas forças do Ministério da Administração Interna em 2014 e desde então têm lutado constantemente pelos interesses da Junta Maidan. Os neonazistas foram os principais agressores contra o povo étnico russo em Donbass e também trabalharam em importantes batalhas contra as forças russas desde o início da operação militar especial. Contudo, deve ser enfatizado que o seu papel sempre foi maior do que o de meros soldados.
Na prática, os neonazistas são os verdadeiros “guarda-costas” do regime. Eles foram fortalecidos ao longo dos anos, a fim de ganhar força suficiente para proteger os interesses originais do Golpe do Maidan. Como são doutrinados no ódio anti-russo, são vistos como tropas mais leais ao Maidan do que as próprias forças armadas ucranianas. Por outras palavras, se o governo ucraniano eventualmente decidir negociar com a Rússia ou começar simplesmente a desobedecer aos patrocinadores ocidentais, espera-se que os neonazis tas derrubem o governo e restaurem o projeto original de Maidan.
Na situação atual, existe um cenário óbvio de desilusão ocidental com Zelensky. O Presidente ucraniano continua a lutar contra a Rússia e não desobedeceu a nenhuma ordem até agora, mas parece cada vez mais fraco, incapaz de liderar o país, não sendo mais útil para os interesses ocidentais na Ucrânia. Portanto, é natural que os neonazistas sejam mobilizados para proteger tais interesses.
Zaluzhny é uma das figuras públicas que mais se destacou na “corrida” para substituir Zelensky. O Ocidente espera que este processo seja concluído de forma pacífica, mas se for necessário enfrentar Zelensky através da violência, Zaluzhny terá o apoio dos militantes neonazistas – que estão mais preparados e bem armados do que o atual exército ucraniano”.
Obviamente, qualquer cenário de conflito interno será catastrófico para a Ucrânia. Com o país militarmente enfraquecido e à beira da derrota absoluta, estas fricções internas apenas prejudicam ainda mais Kiev no campo de batalha. Mas para as elites belicistas ocidentais, uma mudança na liderança ucraniana parece ser a última oportunidade para recuperar o apoio público à política de escalada da ajuda militar.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
To end the war in the Middle East and the continued slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians in Gaza, Israel must pay reparations to the families of the 600,000 Palestinian victims of the 1948 Naqba, whose then assets were stolen by Jewish, displaced, immigrant refugees from all over Europe subsequent to the defeat of National Socialism, in 1945 Germany.
Those same immigrant refugees were subsequently paid substantial reparations from the German government, each year, and have continued to date. The Claims Conference representing Jewish survivors has pursued reparations from Germany since 1951, and has secured more than $90 billion in payments, subsequently, for the benefit of those who had lost families, homes, businesses and other assets, as a result of theft, expropriation by the state, and war.
Why has the state of Israel, then, not paid reparations to the indigenous Palestinians whose homes and assets it expropriated by threat of violence to indigenous Arabs in villages throughout Palestine, (as in Deir Yassin) in the run-up to the unilateral Declaration of Independence for an independent state of Israel, in 1948?
Since that time, not only did Israel expropriate Palestinian homes and businesses, but it has also received billions upon billions of American tax monies, authorised by a U.S. House of Representatives, in Congress, that is apparently beholden to the Israel lobby, AIPAC, one of the most powerful pressure groups that determines US foreign policy both in the Middle East and elsewhere. This lobby is composed of millions of both evangelical Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists, resident in the US, who all believe in the literal word of the Christian/Judeo Bible.
Overall, the state of Israel has received more money, aid, grants and interest free loans from both the US and the community of nations, than any other state in the world. Notwithstanding this astonishing fact, there are now 5 million dispossessed Palestinian Arabs still living as refugees under a violent occupation.
Whilst there is no equivalence in numbers, 600,000: 6,000,000 I.e. one tenth, there is every equivalence in substantive fact, justice, humanity and morality. The state of Israel must pay reparations now, to every family whose homes and assets it expropriated illegally by violence.
If not, there will never be peace in the Holy Land but will bring nuclear war to the entire world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Hans Stehling is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
US President Joe Biden is facing the most difficult election campaign of his life. His opponent, former President Donald Trump is leading in the polls, and most analysts expect that Trump will win in November 2024 by a landslide against Biden.
Even most Democrats doubt Biden could win, and many Democrats have even gone so far as to suggest he withdraw from the race, and let another person take a shot at winning.
In the American football jargon of the NFL, the “Hail Mary” pass is a long thrown football by the quarterback, when the team is about to lose, and only a miracle catch and touchdown could turn into a win.
Biden is facing such a situation in his 2024 presidential re-election campaign. Most Democrats disapprove of his policy in the Gaza war. Younger voters overwhelmingly disapprove of his support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
American voters know that the weapons Israel uses to carry out war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are supplied by the US Biden administration, and paid for the hard-working American tax payer.
From coast to coast, Biden’s poll numbers were way down before October 7, and now are at the lowest point. Michigan is a key state that Biden must win in order to be re-elected, but right now he is losing Michigan.
Michigan has a high concentration of Arab Americans, and they have promised not to vote for Biden because of his refusal to ask for a ceasefire, and the unbridled flow of weapons to Israel even though the flow is in violation of State Department rules which prevent weapons going to any country which is liable to use them in violation of human rights.
Jews make up about 2% of the US population, and they are divided on the Gaza War. We have seen Jewish activists protesting against the Biden policy in Gaza. African Americans have voiced opposition to Biden because of Gaza. They equate the racial injustice their communities had suffered, and some continue to suffer, in the US with the racist policy in Israel which treats Jews as deserving of human rights, but deny Palestinians their most basic rights. African Americans are on the side of oppressed people, not the oppressor. They recall Nelson Mandela when he said, “We will not be free until the Palestinian people are free.”
But, Biden still has time to pull off a miraculous win with his version of a “Hail Mary” pass.
Biden would call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, with an exchange of hostages for prisoners held in Israel without trial. Why would Israel agree to that? Because Biden could shut down the weapons flow, adhering to existing State Department rules that weapons will not be shipped to countries engaged in humanitarian violations, which means holding Israel to the same standards as all the other countries on earth.
Biden could organize an international conference between the Palestinian representatives, the Arab League, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the US, and Israel designing a reasonable proposal to implement the existing UN resolution calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conference would outline a time table toward a full Palestinian state.
Biden could get a commitment from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran that they will cease any attacks on Israel during the peace process with a time frame attached.
Hamas has said they do not seek the extermination of the Jewish people, but are fighting for the freedom of Palestine.
Iran has stated they are fighting for the freedom of Palestine, and they will respect any peace deal the Palestinians will accept.
Hezbollah is fighting for the freedom of Palestine, but also they are resisting the Israeli military occupation of a piece of Lebanese land.
Israel would need to relinquish the Shebaa Farms in Lebanon in return for a lasting piece on their northern border.
If, Biden were to lead the initiative to bring peace to the Middle East, he would not only win the US election in November, but he would likely win the Noble Peace Prize, which Obama won for doing nothing.
The UN and many humanitarian and human rights organizations have labeled Israel as an Apartheid state, and that was long before the Gaza war began. Those same groups have added the crime of genocide to the list of complaints against Israel, who Biden calls America’s strongest ally in the Middle East, and the only democracy in the Middle East.
Israel is not a democracy and does not share American values. A democratic nation does not hold half of their population under brutal occupation and siege for decades. America values include freedom, justice, and giving each person a fair chance to succeed.
Many Palestinians and Arabs have migrated in the past to the US, and have lived the “American Dream”. Many of those migrants started with nothing, and ended up owning a home, putting their kids through college, and enjoying a life of freedom from oppression and racism.
When they stepped off the boat in the US, they found a job, worked hard, obeyed the laws, and respected their neighbor’s rights, just as they expected their neighbors to respect their rights. That is the foundation of the American lifestyle: work hard, pay your taxes, and obey the laws.
The Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza hate the US foreign policy which is designed to prevent them any freedom or human rights. Despite the US being the only force on earth that could improve their lives, and refuses to do so, the Palestinians still love the concept of the “American Dream”. That dream is the Palestinian dream as well, but the Oval Office prevents the chance at such a life of success and accomplishment.
A two-state solution, and a lasting peace in Israel and Palestine makes the Middle East and the entire world more stable. Israeli citizens will win as much as the Palestinians in a peace deal. Biden would win his election, and Americans would be able to be proud of their freedom, values and the “American Dream”.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Blackdot has recently examined the claim that Yemen’s Ansar Allah plans to cut off 99% of the world’s internet following the circulation of the news on different social media platforms, and eventually refuted it and confirmed its falsity.
Claim: A ‘Houthi’ Attack on Red Sea Fiber Optics Cables?
On December 24, several platforms claimed that an Ansar Allah-affiliated Telegram channel shared a photo of the seabed that contains submarine cables that connect several regions of the world and supply them with internet.
The photo was captioned:
“There are maps of international cables connecting all regions of the world through the sea. It seems that Yemen is in a strategic location, as internet lines that connect entire continents — not only countries—pass near it.”
Once news platforms and users obtained the photo, claims were made accusing the Yemeni Armed Forces of threatening to cut off the world’s internet supply in support of Gaza amid the Israeli genocide, and the US’ targeting of Yemen in support of “Israel”.
Tracing back to the source of the news, it was found that the Middle East Media Research Institute was behind the spread of the claim, an American organization that has been explicitly pro-‘Israel’.
Map of communications cables network near Yemen, February 7, 2020. (Social Media)
Nothing to Back It
The Middle East Media Research Institute is the only original source that kickstarted the frenzy, while other social media platforms only circulated the piece with no substantial evidence that proves its legitimacy, primarily proving its fallacy.
The second indicator was the absence of a tangible connection between the Telegram channel and Ansar Allah, as well as the absence of an official statement from their side. The news solely relied on a theory that was meant to stir tensions.
The third indicator was the direct rejection of the claim itself by the Ministry of Telecommunications and Information Technology of Yemen. Only two days after the American research institute made its claims, the Yemeni ministry released a statement denying the accusations and asserting that Yemen intends to keep the cables secure.
Therefore, this rids the initial claim of any validity.
Press Release Issued by the Ministry of Telecommunications and Information Technology, on the Submarine Cables- Republic of Yemen- Sana’a pic.twitter.com/wRgNi6dekA
In response to the decision to designate the Ansar Allah as a Global Terrorist, the head of the movement’s Negotiating Envoy and top official, Mohammad Abdul-Salam said that the US has used the designation for “political purposes.”
He slammed the decision, emphasizing that it “will not deter [Yemen] from our steadfast support for the Palestinian people.”
The official underlined that the decision will have minimal to “no effectiveness on the ground,” adding that it will only “strengthen [Ansar Allah’s] commitment to supporting” Palestine.
Ansar Allah’s Politburo released a statement responding to the decision saying that the classification “is ironically amusing, coming from the global state of terrorism.” The committee said that its decision is “an honorary badge,” highlighting the group’s “supportive stance toward the Palestinian people.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
First published on March 27, 2021
***
The top-down reorganization of the world economy by a cabal of technocratic corporativists, led by the group around the Davos World Economic Forum– the so-called Great Reset or UN Agenda 2030– is no future proposal. It is well into actualization as the world remains in insane lockdown for a virus. The hottest investment area since onset of the coronavirus global lockdowns is something called ESG investing.
This highly subjective and very controlled game is dramatically shifting global capital flows into a select group of “approved” corporate stocks and bonds. Notably it advances the dystopian UN Agenda 2030 or the WEF Great Reset agenda. The development is one of the most dangerous and least understood shifts in at least the past century.
The UN “sustainable economy” agenda is being realized quietly by the very same global banks which have created the financial crises in 2008. This time they are preparing the Klaus Schwab WEF Great Reset by steering hundreds of billions and soon trillions in investment to their hand-picked “woke” companies, and away from the “not woke” such as oil and gas companies or coal.
What the bankers and giant investment funds like BlackRock have done is to create a new investment infrastructure that picks “winners” or “losers” for investment according to how serious that company is about ESG—Environment, Social values and Governance.
For example a company gets positive ratings for the seriousness of its hiring gender diverse management and employees, or takes measures to eliminate their carbon “footprint” by making their energy sources green or sustainable to use the UN term. How corporations contribute to a global sustainable governance is the most vague of the ESG, and could include anything from corporate donations to Black Lives Matter to supporting UN agencies such as WHO.
The crucial central goal of ESG strategists is to create a shift to inefficient and costly alternative energy, the Zero Carbon promised utopia. It is being driven by the world’s major financial institutions and central banks. They have created a dazzling array of organizations to drive their green investing agenda.
In 2013, well before the coronavirus, the major Wall Street bank, Morgan Stanley, created its own Institute for Sustainable Investing. This was soon expanded in 2015 when Morgan Stanley joined the Steering Committee of the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF). On its website the they state,
“PCAF is based upon the Paris Climate Agreement’s position that the global community should strive to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and that society should decarbonize and reach net zero emissions by 2050.”
By 2020 the PCAF had more than 100 banks and financial institutions including ABN Amro, Nat West, Lloyds Bank, Barclays, Bank of America, Citi Group, CIBC, Danske Bank and others. Several of the PCAF member banks have been indicted in money laundering cases. Now they sense a new role as virtue-models to change the world economy, if we are to believe the rhetoric. Notably, former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney is an “Observer” or consultant to the PCAF.
In August 2020 the PCAF published a draft standard outlining a proposed approach for global carbon accounting. This means the bankers are creating their own accounting rules for how to rate or value a company’s carbon footprint or green profile.
The Central Role of Mark Carney
Mark Carney is at the center of reorganizing world finance to back the UN 2030 green agenda behind the WEF Davos Great Reset, where he is a member of the Board of Trustees. He also is Adviser to the UN Secretary General as United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action. He has described the PCAF plan as follows:
“To achieve net zero we need a whole economy transition – every company, every bank, every insurer and investor will have to adjust their business models, develop credible plans for the transition and implement them. For financial firms, that means reviewing more than the emissions generated by their own business activity. They must measure and report the emissions generated by the companies they invest in and lend to. PCAF’s work to standardise the approach to measuring financed emissions is an important step to ensuring that every financial decision takes climate change into account.”
As Governor of the Bank of England Carney played a key role getting world central banks behind the Green Agenda of the UN 2030 scheme. The major central banks of the world, through their umbrella Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basle, created a key part of the growing global infrastructure that is steering investment flows to “sustainable” companies and away from those like oil and gas companies it deems “unsustainable.”
When then-Bank of England Governor Mark Carney was head of the BIS’ Financial Stability Board (FSB) he established something called Task-force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) in 2015.
The central bankers of the FSB nominated 31 people to form the TCFD. Chaired by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, it included in addition to BlackRock, JP MorganChase; Barclays Bank; HSBC; Swiss Re, the world’s second largest reinsurance; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, mining giant BHP and David Blood of Al Gore’s Generation Investment LLC.
Anne Finucane, the Vice Chair of the Bank of America, a member of both the PCAF and the TCFD, noted,
“we are committed to ensuring that climate-related risks and opportunities are properly managed within our business and that we are working with governments and markets to accelerate the changes required… climate change presents risks to the business community, and it is important for companies to articulate how these risks are being managed.”
The Bank of America vice chair describes how they assess risks in its real estate loan portfolio by assessing, “acute physical risk analysis on a sample portfolio of Bank of America residential mortgages across the US Each property was given a score based on the level of risk associated with 12 potential hazards: tornado, earthquake, tropical cyclone, hailstorm, wildfire, river flood, flash flood, coastal flood, lightning, tsunami, volcano, and winter storm.”
As well, the banks’ investment “risk” in oil and gas as well as other industrial sectors is reviewed using the criteria of Carney’s TCFD. All risks are defined as related to CO2, despite the fact there is no conclusive scientific proof that manmade CO2 emission is about to destroy our planet by global warming. Rather evidence of solar activity suggests we are entering an unstable cooling period, Grand Solar Minimum. That’s of no concern to the financial interests who stand to reap trillions in the coming decade.
Another key part of the financial preparation for the Great Reset, the fundamental transformation from a high-energy intensity economy to a low and economically inefficient one, is the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB).
SASB says it “provides a clear set of standards for reporting sustainability information across a wide range of issues… “ This sounds reassuring until we look at who makes up the members of the SASB that will give the Climate-friendly Imprimatur. Members include, in addition to the world’s largest fund manager, BlackRock (more than $7 trillion under management), also Vanguard Funds, Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, State Street Global, Carlyle Group, Rockefeller Capital Management, and numerous major banks such as Bank of America and UBS. Many of these are responsible for the 2008 global financial collapse.
What is this framework group doing? According to their website, “Since 2011, we have has been working towards an ambitious goal of developing and maintaining sustainability accounting standards for 77 industries.”
Where this is all going is to create a web of globally-based financial entities who control combined wealth including insurance and pension funds into what they claim to be worth $100 trillion. They are setting the rules and will define a company or even a country by the degree of carbon emission they create.
If you are clean and green, you potentially get investment.
If you are deemed a carbon polluter as the oil, gas and coal industries are deemed today, the global capital flows will disinvest or avoid funding you.
The immediate target of this financial cabal is the backbone of the world economy, the oil and gas industry along with coal. [It has also geopolitical and strategic implications].
Hydrocarbons Under Attack
The immediate target of this financial cartel is the backbone of the world economy, the oil, coal and natural gas sector. Oil industry analysts predict that over the next five years or less investment flows into the world’s largest energy sector will fall dramatically. “Given how central the energy transition will be to every company’s growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy,” BlackRock’s chairman and CEO Larry Fink wrote in his 2021 letter to CEOs. Blackrock is the world’s largest investment group with over $7 trillion to invest. Another BlackRock officer told a recent energy conference, “where BlackRock goes, others will follow.”
“To continue to attract capital, portfolios have to be built around core advantaged assets – low-cost, long-life, low carbon-intensive barrels,” said Andrew Latham, Vice President, Global Exploration at WoodMac, an energy consultancy.
The Biden Administration is already making good on his pledge to phase out oil and gas by banning new leases in Federal lands and offshore and the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The oil and gas sector and its derivatives such as petrochemicals are at the heart of the world economy. The 50 largest oil and gas companies in the world, including both state-owned and publicly traded companies, recorded revenues of about $5.4 trillion in 2015.
As a new Biden Administration pushes their ideological opposition to so-called fossil fuels, the world will see a precipitous decline in oil and gas investment. The role of the Davos globalists and the ESG financial players are out to guarantee that.
And the losers will be us.
Energy prices will skyrocket as they did during the recent Texas blizzards. The cost of electricity in industrial countries will become prohibitive for manufacturing industry. But rest well. This is all part of the ongoing Great Reset and its new doctrine of ESG investing.
In 2010 the head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer, “…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” The WEF Great Reset is not simply a big idea of Klaus Schwab reflecting on the economic devastation of the coronavirus. It has been long planned by the money masters.
*
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.
Featured image is by Dennis Schroeder / NREL
Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index
List Price: $25.95
Special Price: $18.00
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
First published on October 23, 2023
.
Introduction
War, on anything other than a localised dispute level, is a contrived and preplanned event based on ulterior motive.
In the era of globalisation, war is used to create a distraction from something of more lasting significance which the protagonists want to introduce under cover of the smoke and fire dominatingimagery and rhetoric of the battleground.
Something that will further enslave a large body of humanity to conform to the desired end game – and at a much faster rate than would otherwise prove possible.
War is also motivated by the desirability of an economic upturn to the fortunes of the military industrial complex, and, of course, as a harbinger of chaos.
Chaos is a vital factor in inducing traumatised populations to call for a big brother saviour to end the conflict.
The conflict that these same ‘saviour’ promoting elite control agents have had a major part in starting in the first place.
Given that world events are politically and economically manipulated to give ever greater power to ever fewer institutions and those who run them, ‘enemies of the people’ are easily identified.
However, the difference between a 21st century enemy and an enemy of previous eras, is that the 21st century version uses advanced psychological manipulation as the main weapon of an increasingly virtual armoury.
Today’s public enemy no. 1 – is a master of deception.
Grasping this means recognising that we have a new dimension to get to grips with in order to develop a strategy able to lay bare this deception and to explode its psychological hold over the better part of humanity.
This can only be done by those who possess the foresight and awareness which enables them to identify the behaviour patterns and motivations common to the chief operatives behind the process of human enslavement.
It includes recognising the main causal elements behind the mass hypnosis of humanity. The inducing of a state of mind (and being) which leads good people ‘not to act’ when everything around them instinctively demands taking immediate action.
On further scrutinising this dire state of affairs, it becomes apparent that there is something jamming the broader survival instinct of a great swathe of the human population.
By ‘survival state,’ I mean more than somehow managing to stay alive in a crisis where one’s physical being is at risk.The state which is jammed is not this, it is at the psychic and spiritual level.
That state which instinctively gives one a sense of what is right and what is wrong – and a connectedness with others as well as with the natural environment which nurtures us.
When this connected state is healthy, we instantly feel outraged that any part of this collective living entity of which we are a part, is under threat from the egregious acts of other human beings.
But when it is not healthy – when it is sick – this instinctual outrage fails to cut in. Instead, the predominant emotion is one of withdrawal and passive self-preservation. And it is this retreat into a self-interested cul-de-sac of indifference to the fate of the family of man and nature – which is the real pandemic of our time.
I have described in previous articles how the techno-industrial digitalised-god of mass abstraction, coupled to its promise of ‘a culture of convenience’, has played a large part in drawing mankind away from making any effort to connect to its deeper nature, to respond to the call of a higher goal and guiding soul.
A selfish preoccupation with personal preference is accompanied by an indulgence in essentially cosmetic concerns. And this comes at the very time when the world is being torn apart by pre-planned and harshly enforced divisions that are vampiring human values and setting the stage for the central control system to become fully despotic.
Those able to afford the false luxury of selfish self-interest at a time like this, brutally stand-out as prime examples of a complete breakdown of humanitarian and spiritual sensitivities which provide life with its true resonance and real meaning.
What we have to do in order to get somewhere in dealing with this all pervading crisis, is to pin-point the source and nature of this great deception being perpetrated on a largely non-resistant mankind.
Not just the technology – but that which stands behind the tech and which has hypnotised living beings into following its poisonous surveillance and control programme.
Here, once we look deeply enough, we find the anti-life agenda which belongs to that category of human sicknesses we know as psychotic, psychopathic and sadistic.
This is a cult persuasion. It is the predominant position held by the rump of world ‘leaders’ today.
Their predominant state of being, no less. The younger ones have been trained by Klaus Schwab and his henchmen to be impenetrable and immune to human feelings. This is considered an imperative in the cause of the full techno-digital take over of daily life.
So our job is to understand this. Not to consign it to a box labelled ‘sickness of the 2%’ and put on the windowsill to be forgotten. It is up to us to acknowledge our part in accepting and allowing this cult siege of life on earth.
We, the people, are at least 90% of the problem. At each historical point, when conditions offered the chance to break the dark spell, we opted out. We failed to take action and take control of our destinies as fellow human beings who value truth, wisdom and justice above all else.
The Role of the World Economic Forum
We instead allowed the red carpet to be rolled out for WEF ‘Young leaders’ and other psychotic power seekers to do their worst. Helped along by billionaire ego maniacs, corporate kings, queens and vulture bankers.
And if a brave group should rise up and block-off the centre of repressive power, as in Canada for example, then ‘we the people’s’ applause is fulsome.
However, on an individual basis most say “Well done them!” but nevertheless revert to an impassive state of isolation, consigning the potentially life changing event to the same box on the window mantlepiece, while ruing the missed opportunity to rise-up as one and turn the tide of history.
It is undoubtedly the case that each of these ‘non-uprisings’ is a gift to our dark enslavers. Each clampdown which follows is more pervasive and more brutal than the last.
The subsequent fear, anxiety and confusion that comes with this, is the fuel which the cult needs to maintain its oppressive c regime.
This is not idle talk. Those who worship at the alter of Baphomet pledge to ensure their monster master will be well fed. Masonic temples exist within the British House of Parliament. Wherever ambition involves trampling on others to achieve desired aims, oppressive forces are involved.
Washington DC, Canberra (capital of Australia), and the Vatican in Rome are architecturally designed according to “Satanic symbolism” that embraces and worships money and power as the supreme goal of life. The City of London ‘square mile’ adopts this same obsession and no doubt Wall Street does too – and other such centres of unrestrained Mammon worship.
The deep state operatives could not achieve their global enforcement regime without a direct link tocentres of dark energy. Those most determined to be top dog will go to any lengths to achieve their ends.
So what is it that keeps mankind on its knees to those who freely indulge in continuous acts of murder?
Fear? Incredulity? Too much comfort? Cynical satisfaction with the ‘bargain slavery of the day’?
Something of each, no doubt. But more than all put together, it is my contention that the key is lack of self-belief. And self-belief does not mean ‘a big ego’, quite the opposite. It means knowing one is responding to that which offers guidance at the deepest level of one’s being.
Actions which come from this source are the only actions that will finally destroy the perpetrators of deep evil. There is no other answer to achieving the emancipation of mankind. There is no other force capable of deflating and defeating the globalist vagabonds whose manifest life hating villainy spreads – almost unchecked – throughout a war-torn world today.
For Some of Us, Spiritualty May Be The Answer
Our true work, here and now, is to strengthen this bond we each have with our Creator and thereby to become properly prepared spiritual warriors, primed for confrontation with that which intends to destroy us and all trace of that Divine Spark which stirs our souls and makes us into real Human Beings.
Nurturing this spark to grow into a never dimming fire – this is our true challenge today. The call upon us all that will be the true catalyst to cast out the parasites and bring about the birth of a New Civilization.
Courage, dear friends, courage. Victory is ours if we truly want it – and are ready to fight for it.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farmer, a writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is author of three books, the most recent of which is ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’. Go to his website for further information www.julianrose.info. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on December 18, 2023
***
The global pandemic preparedness accord (‘pandemic treaty’) currently being put in place by the World Health Organization (WHO) will pave the way for “a fascist approach to societal management.” The beneficiaries will be unscrupulous corporations and investors whom the COVID‐19 response served well. This will result in the loss of human rights and individual freedom.
So says Dr David Bell, a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and former WHO scientific and medical officer. The treaty represents a terrifying power grab that, if successful, will give the WHO a central directing role and monopoly power in global health governance.
As currently drafted, the treaty will hand the WHO the authority to order measures, including significant financial contributions by individual states, lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced medical examinations and mandatory vaccinations during a public health emergency of its own declaring.
The WHO will have sole and extensive power to declare Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC) for any potential or real threat for extended areas, whether these threats are biological, climate or environment related. And it will do so without proper proof and solely decide measures and medical substances to be imposed on the public without informed consent.
Its powers will also include the official censorship of information, including free speech — views opposing the official narrative put out by the WHO — and it will be accountable to no national parliament or be limited by any constitutional safeguards.
A group of prominent lawyers, doctors and concerned citizens have written to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Minister of Health and Family Welfare Shri Mansukh L Mandaviya urging them to reject the WHO’s global pandemic treaty. The signatories are listed at the end of this article, and the 10-page letter can be accessed in full with all relevant links and references on the Awaken India website: WHO Pandemic Treaty Ultra Vires of the Constitution).
The WHO released a Zero Draft of the WHO CA+ (this ‘pandemic treaty’ is now officially known as an ‘accord’) with 38 Articles on 1 February 2023 and, subsequently, another draft with 41 Articles on 2 June 2023. The accord marks a fundamental change in how the WHO will function. It seeks secretively, behind closed doors, sweeping powers under its director general.
The signatories make clear that, under the proposed accord, the WHO can, at will, call a pandemic, declare a PHEIC and then take over the authority of national governments to detain citizens, restrict their travel, require them to have vaccine passports (forced testing and vaccination) and increase social media censorship. The accord would also operate as a ‘framework convention’ that’s on-going, year after year, indefinitely. It facilitates a dictatorship role for the WHO as it moves to acquire unfettered power.
Two instruments, the accord itself and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005, are designed to operate in parallel to give draconian powers to the WHO. Both texts irremediably entail the transfer to the WHO of the power to threaten health freedom, thereby representing a fundamental threat to national, medical and bodily autonomy.
In their letter, the authors state that the WHO is an external, unelected body, which may not and cannot be appointed to such a dictatorship position. During the COVID-19 event, the WHO’s role in facilitating medical tyranny was clear to see.
It advocated enforced lockdowns, which destroyed the livelihoods of millions in India and across the world and created a surge in mental health problems. It shut down schools, putting back the education of a generation. It promoted incompletely tested and unapproved vaccines under EUA (Emergency Use Authorisation) that despite the claims of ‘safe and effective’ where nothing of the sort and caused a sharp rise in spike protein-induced heart and brain disease.
If adopted at the 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024 by a simple majority vote, the ‘pandemic treaty’ will come into force within 12 months for all countries, unless a country proactively files rejections or reservations within a 10-month period.
The letter to the prime minister and the health minister states that the accord and those pushing it are:
“Manifestly violative of Fundamental Rights of the citizens of India and, therefore, Ultra Vires of the Indian Constitution. In their very intent, they cancel the fundamental right to bodily autonomy and integrity, through mandating medical procedures, coercion and further grossly illegal acts.”
The letter adds:
“This is a breathtaking and terrifying onslaught on fundamental civil liberties. It must be understood as fundamental, that the negation of bodily integrity of any human being means the loss of all human rights.”
In making its point, the letter refers to the Nuremberg Code (1947) by stating:
“The consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resumed this ban against unintentional experimentation in its 1966 text, which states: no one may be subjected without his consent to medical or scientific experiment.”
It also references the Geneva statement for doctors (1948):
“I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient. I will not use my medical knowledge to infringe human rights and civil liberties, even under force. I will keep absolute respect for human life, from conception. I will consider my patient’s health as my first concern.”
The signatories note that there is little alternative but to jettison the WHO from national life and implore the prime minister and the health minister to act to uphold the sovereignty of India and the rights of every citizen.
They add that unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown delegates from 194 countries meet in Geneva during World Health Assembly meetings, as they did in 2022 when they adopted amendments to the IHR. The process is fraught with secrecy, autocracy and impending tyranny, blatantly devoid of any transparent, democratic process.
These country delegates are unelected and do not represent the people of their country. The signatories ask:
“How can they negotiate on behalf of nations, let alone an international/global health regulation binding on 194 countries?”
If the ‘global pandemic treaty’ is forced through, we could see perpetual lockdowns. At the same time, corporate interests will dominate. Pandemics will become self-sustaining by creating a bureaucracy whose existence will depend on them.
People will be at the mercy of the police and bureaucrats who will be immune to any penalty for any acts carried out in ‘good faith’. These acts could take the form of mandatory medical procedures, forced entry into premises, forced isolation and quarantine.
It was bad enough in 2020 with the full force of the state lined up against the public, especially those who did not agree with COVID policies, but imagine the abuse of power that could occur if the WHO acquires the powers it seeks.
The seeds of totalitarianism were clear to seewith Anthony Fauci saying that he is ‘the science’, former New Zealand PM Jacinda Arden declaring the government as the ‘single source of truth’ and social media companies working hand in glove with the deep state to censor and deplatform prominent figures and world-renowned scientists who questioned the official narrative.
We saw the suspension of fundamental civil liberties with the threat of state violence on hand, often resulting in citizens being abused by de facto paramilitary police forces for breaching ‘pandemic rules’ that had no scientific basis.
Governments declared that they were ‘following the science’, but what we saw were inflated death numbers, manipulated data and the fraudulent use of RT-PCR tests to help create the perception of a deadly pandemic in the minds of the public. Readers can consult the online article Stay Home, Save Lives: Uncovering the COVID Deception, which provides insight into the various deceptions that helped instil fear into the global population in 2020.
The WHO also provided a wrong projection of mortality. The exaggeration caused panic in the population — part of a carefully orchestrated ‘fear pandemic’ — and paved the way for lockdowns and the mass uptake of vaccines sold to the public based on false claims. The synthetic spike protein of the vaccines has resulted in clotting, bleeding, heart problems and brain blood clotting as well as neurodegenerative problems. And what we are seeing across so many countries since the vaccine rollout is significant excess mortality, which the media is silent about.
Moreover, the WHO operates within a biopharmaceutical complex, a complicated syndicate that has formed over time, which instructs world health policies. This complex involves the health agencies of national governments, including India, the US and the UK, the World Economic Forum, the Gates Foundation, the Welcome Group and major pharmaceutical companies. Revolving door arrangements between these organisations have resulted in regulatory capture.
Researcher and campaigner Yohan Tengra of the Awaken India Movement conducted a two-year investigation into how this works in India. Through his research, he exposed the billionaire cartel that controlled India’s COVID-19 Task Force. Tengra listed not just the names of those who sat on this task force, but he also detailed how they are financially connected to the pharmaceutical-vaccine industry.
The task force was responsible for the aggressive push to lockdown, mandatory mask requirements, forced testing of asymptomatic people, dropping ivermectin from the national protocol, suppressing vaccine adverse events and much more.
Tengra also exposed how India’s prominent public health personalities, who regularly appeared in the media and on TV, are connected to the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Welcome Trust, USAID, the World Bank and other aspects of the global deep state.
We have every right to be concerned about a ‘pandemic treaty’ shaped by powerful interests with stakes in closing down economies (see the online article Systemic Collapse and Pandemic Simulation by Fabio Vighi), mandatory vaccination programmes and digital surveillance who are all too willing to strip away our fundamental rights for their own gain.
The letter to India’s prime minister and the minister of health makes clear that the WHO’s massive conflict of interest should disqualify it from any role in world health.
Signatories:
Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Delhi, MD, MRCP, MPhil, Paediatrician and Visiting Faculty International
Prashant Bhushan, New Delhi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Colin Gonsalves, New Delhi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Nilesh Ojha, Mumbai, President – Indian Bar Association, Advocate Bombay High Court and Supreme Court of India, Human Rights Activist
Author Dr. Amitav Banerjee, Pune, MD, Formerly Epidemiologist, Indian Armed Forces
Dr Aseem Malhotra, London (Overseas Citizen of India), MBChB, MRCP. Consultant Cardiologist
Aruna Rodrigues, Mhow, Lead Petitioner: GMO PIL in the Supreme Court and Member Iridescent Blue Fish (IBF)
Dr. Donthi Narasimha Reddy, Hyderabad, Public Policy Expert and Campaigner
Dr. Megha Consul, Gurugram, Paediatrics, Senior Consultant, Neonatologist
Dr. Pravin Chordia, Pune, MD Surgeon
Dr. Lalitkumar Anande, Mumbai, MBBS, PG Diploma in Clinical Research
Dr. Vijay Raghava, Bangalore, MBBS Dr. Veena Raghava, Bangalore, MBBS, DA
Dr. Kuldeep Kumar, Haridwar, MBBS MS (GENERAL SURGERY) Dr. Praveen Saxena, Hyderabad, Radiologist & Clinical metal toxicologist, MBBS, DMRD Osmania
Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury, Faridabad, Ph.D (Diabetes)
Dr. Gautam Das, Kolkata, MBBS, General Physician
Saraswati Kavula, Hyderabad, Documentary Filmmaker & Freelance Journalist, Awaken India Movement
Bhaskaran Raman, Mumbai, Professor, Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering. Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Advocate
Ishwarlal S. Agarwal, Mumbai Advocate
Tanveer Nizam, Mumbai
Dr. Susan Raj, Chattisgrah, BSc Nurse, MSW(M&P), Doctorate Humanities, Behavior Specialist
Jagannath Chaterjee, Bhubhaneshwar, Social Activist
Dr. Abhay Chedda, Mumbai, BHMS, CCAH, FCAH
Dr. Gayatri Panditrao, Pune, Homeopathic Physician, BHMS, PGDEMS
Dr. G Prema, Tamil Nadu, Classical Homeopath, Aasil Health Care
Dr. S. G. Vombatkere, Mysuru, Human Rights Activist Advocate
Anand Singh Bahrawat, Indore, High Court of Indore Advocate
Vijay Kurle, Mumbai
Advocate L Shunondo Chandiramani, Indore, High Court of Indore
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image is from Reclaim the Net
Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled
Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order
We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Militaries around the world routinely disperse tiny bits of aluminum-coated fiberglass and plastic — known as “chaff” — into the air column, to shield aircraft and ships from enemy radar
Chaff has been used for decades, without clear evidence that it’s safe for humans and the environment
In response to a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued in August 2021, the U.N. announced it’s considering spraying sulfate aerosols into the Earth’s stratosphere to modify climate. The tiny reflective particles would act as reflectors, bouncing sunlight back into space instead of onto the Earth’s surface
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is using “climate science” as a vehicle to promote socialist ideology
According to Dane Wigington, founder of Geoengineeringwatch.org, the risks of geoengineering are so immense, it poses an extinction-level threat to humanity, and the window of opportunity to save ourselves is rapidly closing
*
In addition to the weather modification1 going on around the world, militaries around the world are also routinely dispersing tiny bits of aluminum-coated fiberglass and plastic — known as “chaff” — into the air column, to shield aircraft and ships from enemy radar.2 Not surprisingly, this has been done for decades, without clear evidence that it’s safe for humans and the environment.
According to a 1998 General Accounting Office report3 and a 1999 follow-up report4 by the Naval Research Laboratory, the environmental, human and agricultural impacts of chaff used in military training scenarios at the time were “negligible and far less than those from other man-made emissions,” but does that really mean it’s safe? As explained in a 2001 Navy Medicine paper:5
“Radiofrequency (RF) chaff is an electronic countermeasure designed to reflect radar waves and obscure planes, ships, and other assets from radar tracking sources.
Chaff consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers (also referred to as dipoles) ranging in lengths from 0.8 to 0.75 cm. Chaff is released or dispensed from military vehicles in cartridges or projectiles that contain millions of dipoles.
When deployed, a diffuse cloud of dipoles is formed that is undetectable to the human eye. Chaff is a very light material that can remain suspended in air anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours and can travel considerable distances from its release point, depending on prevailing atmospheric conditions.
Training for military personnel, particularly aircraft pilots, in the use of chaff is necessary to deploy this electronic countermeasure effectively. As with most acquired skills, the deployment of chaff must be maintained by practicing in-flight release during training.
It is estimated that the U.S. Armed Forces dispense about 500 tons of chaff per year, with most chaff being released during training exercises within the continental United States.”
Is Chaff Safe?
According to the Naval Medicine investigation, inhalation of whole, intact chaff fibers pose “no risk” to humans due to their larger size. “If inhaled, dipoles are predicted to deposit in the nose, mouth, or trachea and are either swallowed or expelled,” the paper states.6
Note the use of the word “predicted,” however. Predictions are not evidence. They’re basically guessing. Open questions also remain about what happens when the fibers degrade.
“Several investigations have demonstrated that Al-coated dipoles are resistant to weathering and breakdown under desert conditions,” the paper states.7
“A 1977 US Navy-sponsored a study found no evidence to indicate that chaff degrades significantly or quickly in water from the Chesapeake Bay nor did this material leach significant amounts of aluminum into the Bay.
A recent study by our group found no evidence that 25 years of chaff operations at the Naval Research Laboratory detachment at Chesapeake Beach, MD resulted in a significant increase in sediment or soil aluminum concentrations (Wilson et al 2000).
However, additional studies are needed to determine the half-life of chaff dipoles in various soils and environmental conditions and whether dipoles breakdown to respirable particles …
Although there is no definitive evidence from the epidemiological literature that chaff exposure is not harmful, there is epidemiological information available on workers involved in the glass fiber manufacturing industry. Data from these studies suggests that exposure to fibrous glass is not associated with increased risk of death from respiratory disease.”
The problem with that is that fiberglass workers are equipped with protective gear, including respirators, Tyvek suits and safety goggles8 — gear that normal people don’t wear when they’re out and about. All this tells us is that chaff is unlikely to cause harm to public health, provided people are wearing respirators, which they don’t.
Remarkably, not much beyond these three reports exist. While all admitted the need for continued research, none appears to have been published, so there’s really no telling what the real-world impact might be. That said, common sense tells us that air dispersed aluminum and fiberglass is highly likely to have some sort of impact on the environment and human health.
Geoengineering Has Been Going On for Decades
Aluminum and fiberglass are not the only toxins being sprayed across our skies. As detailed by Dane Wigington, founder of Geoengineeringwatch.org, weather modification, also known as geoengineering, in which various toxic metals and chemicals are dispersed at high altitude, has been going on for more than 70 years, and is increasing rather than declining.
In response to a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued in August 2021,9,10 which called for radical measures to prevent further global warming, the Biden Administration launched a research effort in 2022 to determine the most effective way to dim the sun.11
One proposal involves injecting sulfur dioxide aerosols into the Earth’s stratosphere. The tiny reflective particles would bounce sunlight back into space instead of onto the Earth’s surface.12According to Harvard researchers,13 this strategy is not only “technically possible” but also “remarkably inexpensive,” having a price tag that is “well within the reach of several nations.”
Earth’s climate is largely controlled by how much solar radiation reaches the Earth and how much is absorbed by its surface or reradiated to space. Cloud coverage and greenhouse gasses are examples of factors that influence the reflectance of solar radiation.14
“If geoengineering proposals are to influence global climate in any meaningful way, they must intentionally alter the relative influence of one of these controlling mechanisms,” Britannica explains.15
The U.N. report mentions solar radiation management and greenhouse gas removal as forms of geoengineering.16 Sulfate aerosols fall into the solar radiation management category. By reflecting more solar radiation back into space, the aerosols lower global temperatures but also have a serious “side effect” — they lower average precipitation.
As a result, additional geoengineering techniques — such as thinning out cirrus clouds in the upper atmosphere — would be necessary to counteract the decrease in precipitation. What could possibly go wrong?
Supercomputers have run models to predict how solar radiation management may affect different parts of the Earth, not only in terms of temperature but also rainfall and snowfall. Report author Govindasamy Bala, from the Indian Institute of Science, said “the science is there,”17 but it’s far from an exact one.
“I think the next big question,” Bala told Reuters, “is, do you want to do it? … That involves uncertainty, moral issues, ethical issues and governance.” As Reuters reported, “That’s because every region would be affected differently. While some regions could gain in an artificially cooler world, others could suffer by, for example, no longer having conditions to grow crops.”18
‘Catastrophic Risks’
Three months after the IPCC published its panic-inciting report, Australian and British researchers published an original research article warning that stratospheric aerosol injection carries “catastrophic risks” that may well lead us into “a fate worse than [global] warming”:19
“Injecting particles into atmosphere to reflect sunlight, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), represents a potential technological solution to the threat of climate change. But could the cure be worse than the disease? …
SAI plausibly interacts with other catastrophic calamities, most notably by potentially exacerbating the impacts of nuclear war or an extreme space weather event. SAI could contribute to systemic risk by introducing stressors into critical systems such as agriculture.
SAI’s systemic stressors, and risks of systemic cascades and synchronous failures, are highly understudied. SAI deployment more tightly couples different ecological, economic, and political systems. This creates a precarious condition of latent risk, the largest cause for concern …
A well-coordinated use of a small amount of SAI would incur negligible risks, but this is an optimistic scenario. Conversely, larger use of SAI used in an uncoordinated manner poses many potential dangers. We cannot equivocally determine whether SAI will be worse than warming. For now, a heavy reliance on SAI seems an imprudent policy response.”
In June 2023, the European Commission put out a call for “international talks on the dangers and governance of geoengineering,” warning that geoengineering schemes aimed at altering the global climate pose “unacceptable” risks. During a news conference, EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans stated:
“Nobody should be conducting experiments alone with our shared planet. This should be discussed in the right forum, at the highest international level.”
Time will tell whether such talks ever take place. In September 2023, the Climate Overshoot Commission, chaired by Pascal Lamy, a former World Trade Organization chief, called for a worldwide moratorium on solar radiation modification experiments “that would carry risk of significant transboundary harm,” and to focus instead on strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.20,21 But, as of yet, no such moratorium has been agreed upon.
Socialist Ideology? Not Climate Science
Zuzana Janosova Den Boer experienced Communist rule in Czechoslovakia before moving to Canada. In her article, “I Survived Communism — Are You Ready for Your Turn?” she detailed the “all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda” starting to permeate her adopted country.22
In relation to geoengineering, she points out that communism has been subverting the environmentalist movement since the 1970s, when then-chairman of the Communist Party USA, Gus Hall, published a book called “Ecology,” in which he stated:23
“Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible … We must be the organizers, the leaders of these movements.”
Den Boer writes:24
“This idea was incorporated into the U.S. Green Party program in 1989 … in which the fictitious threats of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are used to scare the public into believing humanity must ‘save the planet’:
‘This urgency, along with other Green issues and themes it interrelates, makes confronting the greenhouse [effect] a powerful organizing tool … Survival is highly motivating, and may help us to build a mass movement that will lead to large-scale political and societal change in a very short time …
First of all, we [must] inform the public that the crisis is more immediate and severe than [they] are being told, [that] its implications are too great to wait for the universal scientific confirmation that only eco-catastrophe would establish.’”
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Den Boer suggests, is promoting not climate science but socialist ideology, citing as evidence comments made by Ottmar Georg Edenhofer, former co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, who in a 2010 interview stated that climate issues are about economics, and that:25
“We must free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy … We must state clearly that we use climate policy de facto to redistribute the world’s wealth.”
GR Editor’s Note: The fake consensus on climate change is largely supported by the World Economic Forum (WEF) which represents powerful financial interests. Left-leaning Environmentalists endorse this consensus.
In turn, The United Nations has a formal agreement with the World Economic Forum (WEF) pertaining to “Sustainable Development 2030”. The climate agenda is being used to destabilize family farms which are being acquired by powerful corporate interests.
Geoengineering Poses Extinction-Level Threat to Humanity
Even without factoring in social control, the practical risks of geoengineering are impossible to ignore. According to scientific studies, the particulates dispersed during these geoengineering events “shred” the ozone layer. They also disrupt the hydrological (rain) cycle, which leads to another host of downstream effects, and this is in addition to spreading toxins across the entire planet surface.
So, while some of the planet might benefit from these programs, other parts could be decimated by droughts, raging forest fires, flooding or storms. Moreover, while global cooling is the stated aim of most of these geoengineering programs, as the planet warms, the laws of physics state you need more precipitation to cool it, not less, because the atmosphere carries more moisture as the temperature rises.
To cool the planet, you need to create more rain, but these programs have resulted in less rain, and the reason for the reduction in rain fall is due to the particulates in the atmosphere. In addition to deflecting heat from the outside, these particles also trap heat down below, making the overall heating of the planet massively worse.
The risks are so immense, Wigington warns geoengineering already poses an extinction-level threat to humanity. The window of opportunity to save ourselves is rapidly closing.
Unfortunately, if people really understood the totality of the situation — not just that the climate is being manipulated, but that as a result, the global climate systems have deteriorated to the point that the entire Earth is in serious trouble; in short, that these programs may have created a runaway extinction event — the emotional impact might be too great to bear for many. Wigington addressed this in an interview I did with him back in 2016:
“Our situation is far more severe than most people have any understanding of,” he said. “Climate engineering is making the situation worse, not better.
So [they must] try to keep the population from panicking because of the severity and immediacy of the climate implosion, and keep the population in the dark because the climate intervention programs have helped to accelerate this process and toxified every single one of us in the process.
Every single human subject we test is packed full of aluminum, barium — all the heavy metals we know are associated with these programs. It doesn’t matter where they live.
And we know it’s coming down in the precipitation in unimaginable quantities — quantities enough to change soil pH values in the Pacific Northwest 10 to 12 times total alkaline — that’s an unimaginable amount of metal coming down in the rain.
If populations understood, truly, what’s been done to them, what’s been done to the planet … they’d be taking to the streets with pitchforks and torches all over the globe.”
California Aquatic and Terrestrial Insect Life Has Been Decimated
Geoengineeringwatch.org lists a number of lab tests that have been performed on rain water, air sample and more, and their results. You can find them under the Tests section.
“In regard to the effect in the environment, in Northern California alone … what we’ve seen in the last decade … is a 90% decline in aquatic and terrestrial insect life — a virtual crash,”Wigington told me in 2016.
“There’s so much aluminum coming down the precipitation, affecting the soil pH, and — this is very important — the UV radiation level is off the charts, and that we can link directly to climate engineering … We’re seeing UVB levels about 1,000% higher than we’re being told. It’s burning the bark off of trees. It’s killing plankton. It’s affecting insect life …
[It increases UVB radiation] because it shreds the natural protection for the planet. When you put a particle in the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter whether it’s from a back of a jet or a volcano; it causes a chemical reaction in the atmosphere that destroys ozone. Period. So the more of these particles you put in the atmosphere, the more rapid the ozone destruction is.”
With all of that in mind, it’s highly unlikely that military chaff dispersements have no negative impact. An argument could be made that chaff is too important of a defense system to get rid of, and that may be true. But the climate-specific engineering is another matter altogether.
In years past, it was kept hush-hush, and dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Since then, however, governments around the world, and international bodies like the U.N. have become quite open about the use of geoengineering for climate control, and if the global public does not push back against these efforts, we might not survive to regret it.
Geoengineeringwatch.org has a list of action items you can review if you want to get involved and get the word out. I also recommend watching Wigington’s documentary “The Dimming,” below, to learn more.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on Monday revealed yet another facet of the Biden Administration’s sprawling censorship system that targeted dissenting books. It appears that, as with social media companies, it succeeded in getting the company not to promote disfavored books.
Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordanrevealed on X that the White House was directly involved in the censorship campaign. That includes a 2021 email from one Biden official asking to discuss “the high levels of propaganda and misinformation and disinformation of [sic] Amazon?”
THE AMAZON FILES – “feeling pressure from the White House”
Internal docs subpoenaed by @JudiciaryGOP & @Weaponization indicate that @amazon bowed down to Biden White House pressure to censor BOOKS.
Amazon in turn appears to ask only how high the Biden White House wants it to jump on censorship: “[i]s the [Biden] Admin asking us to remove books, or are they more concerned about search results/order (or both)?”
After the meeting, Amazon confirmed in an email that it was actively doing what the government demanded in suppressing sales by not promoting disfavored books: “As a reminder, we did enable Do Not Promote for anti-vax books whose primary purpose is to persuade readers vaccines are unsafe or ineffective on 3/9, and will review additional handling options for these books with you.”
This effort notably parallels demands from Democratic leaders who have called for enlightened algorithms to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) objected that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.”
Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices: “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.” In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.
It is important to keep in mind that these efforts at censorship targeted scientists who have been vindicated in many of their objections to policies and claims of the government. For example, a new scientific review by 12 researchers from leading universities found little support for the claims that masks reduced Covid exposures.
The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially rejected the use of a mask mandate. However, the issue became a political weapon as politicians and the press claimed that questioning masks was anti-science and even unhinged. In April 2020, the CDC reversed its position and called for the masking of the entire population, including children as young as 2 years old. The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children.
The closing of schools and businesses was also challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.
Masks became a major social and political dividing line in politics and the media. Maskless people were chased from stores and denounced in Congress. Then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said during a Senate hearing that “face masks are the most important powerful health tool we have.”
The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”
A lawsuit opposing these efforts was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University). Yet, universities joined social media companies and politicians in targeting dissenters and silencing opposing voices.
Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.
The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 (a theory now treated as plausible) was denounced as a conspiracy theory. The science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, even denounced the theory as “racist.”
Again, the objection to the censorship system is not that all of these views are correct, but that the public was being actively hampered in reading or hearing opposing views.
The new emails also show direct federal efforts supporting censorship. I testified at the first hearing by the special committee investigating the censorship system. I warned that there was ample evidence of a system based on “censorship by surrogate” where government agencies used academic and media allies to silence those with opposing views.
Now we can add private demands to target dissenting books to suppress sales. It is far more appealing to certain sensibilities than banning publications or removing copies. After all, why burn books if you can bury them?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
From U.S. military attacks on Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to the related complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank, Biden’s course of action is a danger to U.S. national security.
*
It’s three in the morning and I can’t sleep again. Those of us concerned about Gaza and the West Bank are spending sleepless nights and busy days trying desperately to pressure the Biden administration to stop its complicity in the relentless Israeli genocide in Gaza; to halt the provision of weapons and money to Israel; and to demand an end to the carnage.
This is our demand: Cease-Fire Now!
We awakened to the news that the U.S. has attacked Syria, Iraq, and Yemen in retaliation for militants firing missiles into U.S. troop areas in Syria and Jordan and Houthis targeting Red Sea cargo vessels. Why have there been attacks on U.S. troops and interests?
The answer is simple. Because the U.S. is providing military weapons and international protection to Israel in its genocidal military operations in Gaza.
It seems obvious to everyone but you, that for our national security, the U.S. must stop its irrational protection of Israeli war crimes and demand that Israel stop its massacre of Palestinians in Gaza.
Scenes of another day of Israeli bombing of Gaza with tens of thousands of buildings destroyed, Israeli commandos storming a hospital and assassinating three young men as they slept in their hospital beds, heavy rains pouring into makeshift tents for the million Palestinians now crammed into the area around Rafah, the daily and nightly raids of Israeli military into the West Bank cities and villages destroying roads, homes, cultural centers, Israeli occupation forces stripping men and boys of their clothes, forcing them to kneel for hours in humiliating positions and beating them for days in detention camps, finding 30 bodies in a mass grave in a schoolyard, Palestinians who were shot to death with their hands tied behind them by Israeli forces.
Going to the Heartless U.S. Congress
Every day we go to the offices of U.S. congresspersons and plead for them to back a ceasefire and to pressure the Biden administration to refuse to provide more weapons and money to the Israeli military. After 118 days of Israeli pounding of Gaza, most Senators and Representatives are still repeating some version of this: “No to a cease-fire. Israel has a right to self-defense. Israel has the right to destroy Gaza and kill as many Palestinians as is necessary to kill the last Hamas militant.”
At least 10 Senators and Representatives have Israeli flags alongside the U.S. flag in front of their offices which brings into question where their loyalties lie. Rep. Brian Mast (R-Mich.) wore his Israel military uniform into the U.S. Congress in October and is one of the most hate-filled members of Congress, treating the deaths of Gaza children as just fine.
Meanwhile, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, continues to receive death threats. Those who speak out to stop the genocide in Gaza are targeted by the American Israeli Public Affairs Council (AIPAC) with incitement to violence messaging and their associated Super PAC running candidates to replace them in Congress.
Protests in Washington against the genocide in Gaza and the massacres in the West Bank occur daily. A 9-day encampment in the narrow public land on each side of the two-lane road in front of Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s home on Chain Bridge Road has brought Palestinian supporters from Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia who make sure Blinken know that he has blood on his hands for green-lighting the genocide in Gaza.
Biden and Powers Interrupted in Public Talks
President Biden was interrupted repeatedly with “Genocide Joe” in his public speaking engagement, first at a church in South Carolina and last week in Manassas, Virginia when he gave a speech on reproductive rights. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) chief Samantha Power was interrupted in her speech in Washington, D.C. last week by persons who have worked for USAID. In her Pulitzer Prize-winning book “A Problem From Hell,” Power documents America’s repeated failure to stop genocides around the world. Now she is complicit in the Biden administration for refusing to recognize genocide in Gaza and do nothing to oppose it.
As the promo for her book states: “Power, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, used exclusive interviews with Washington’s top policymakers, thousands of declassified documents, and her own reporting from modern killing fields to provide the answer. “A Problem from Hell” shows how decent Americans inside and outside government refused to get involved despite chilling warnings, and tells the stories of the courageous Americans who risked their careers and lives in an effort to get the United States to act.”
Power needs to re-read her own book.
Protests in the Streets and Dissent by Government Officials
Millions of people around the world have taken to the streets in protests. Thousands in the U.S. have been arrested for blocking streets, highways, and bridges as well as for disrupting Congressional hearings, sitting down and singing in congressional buildings, and for chaining themselves to the fence at the White House.
Scores of government employees continue to publish statements calling into question the silence of their governments on the genocide of Gaza.
On February 2, 800+ government employees from the U.S. and 12 nations and E.U. organizations published a letter protesting Israeli policies and stating that the leaders of their countries and organizations could be complicit in war crimes in Gaza.
The letter states: “Our governments’ current policies weaken their moral standing and undermine their ability to stand up for freedom, justice and human rights globally…there is a plausible risk that our governments’ policies are contributing to grave violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes and even ethnic cleansing or genocide.”
Approximately 80 of the signers are from American agencies, with the biggest group being from the State Department. National-level officials from nine member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as well as Sweden and Switzerland, signed the letter.
In November, more than 500 employees from about 40 U.S. government agencies sent a letter to President Biden criticizing his policies on the continuous Israeli attack on Gaza. In that letter, the officials also did not reveal their names due to the probability of retaliation by the agencies.
More than 1,000 USAID employees released an open letter with the same concerns. Dozens of State Department officials have sent at least three internal dissent cables to Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken.
According to the New York Times, hundreds of officials in the European Union have signed at least two separate letters of dissent to the bloc’s leadership.
Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Algeria and Syria who resigned in 2014 over the Obama administration’s Syria policy is quoted in the Times article, stating that he had never seen a cross-border dissent letter like this new one in three decades of working at the State Department.
Ford added that some diplomats had learned a lesson from the run-up to the Iraq War begun by President George W. Bush: that keeping quiet about objections to misguided policies or not going public with them when the stakes are high could contribute to a disastrous outcome.
As one of three U.S. diplomats who resigned from the U.S. government on the decision in 2003 of the Bush administration to wage war on Iraq, I appeal for others in the U.S. government to continue to sign letters and to consider resignation as Josh Paul has done from the State Department and Tariq Habash has done from the Department of Education.
Biden Wants More Billions for Israel to Continue Its Genocide of Gaza
Despite all of our efforts, it is likely that on Wednesday, February 7, 2024, the U.S. Senate will pass a national security supplemental to provide Israel with another 14 billion dollars, three times what the U.S. provides annually to Israel. Israel is already the largest recipient of U.S. military financing and the added $10 billion will blow up the foreign affairs budget.
ICJ and World Public Opinion Will Hold Biden and the U.S. Government Accountable
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has warned countries assisting with weapons used in a genocide that leaders are complicit and can be held liable.
President Biden, in case your advisors have not mentioned this, both you and they are definitely up to your eyeballs in genocide and we and the world will hold you accountable.
[From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.]
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She is the co-author of the book “Dissent: Voices of Conscience.”
Featured image: I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream- by Mr. Fish
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
When Tucker Carlson was fired by Fox News back in April last year (for doing his job, mind you), it seemed as if the last vestiges of press freedom in the United States were destroyed. And that’s certainly true when it comes to corporate media. However, despite how bad it looked at the time, it turned out to be one of the best things that happened in Carlson’s professional career. Namely, the fact that he worked for one of the largest news networks in America meant that he was constrained by their editorial policies and would’ve never reached his full potential as a world-class journalist. As a result of his truthful and objective reporting, Carlson became the target of Washington DC’s top vassal, the infamous Kiev regime, that effectively ended his long-running career at Fox News. Many in America were quite happy to see him go, but none more so than the Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky, whose endless corruption and dictatorial behavior were regularly exposed precisely by Carlson.
And yet, getting him ousted from American corporate media backfired spectacularly, as there was now nothing preventing Carlson from unleashing his full potential, unrestrained by corporate bosses and politicized editorial “guidelines” (i.e. orders). However, when the mainstream propaganda machine failed miserably in its attempts to tarnish his reputation, one of the top American intelligence agencies stepped in. Namely, back in 2021, the infamous NSA hacked into Carlson’s phone and found out that he was planning an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was an attempt to intimidate him and make sure this never happens, as Carlson was already revealing “way too many” uncomfortable truths about the troubled Biden administration and its favorite Neo-Nazi puppets. The mainstream propaganda machine simply had no way to counter Carlson’s rational, highly informed, witty and mostly unbiased analyses, extremely popular both in the US and worldwide.
His reporting was always an insurmountable obstacle for the warmongering propaganda. Carlson is often accused of alleged “pro-Russian bias”, particularly by the DNC-dominated institutions that simply don’t want to let go of their obsession with Moscow and its leadership. In complete contrast to the deranged ideologues in Washington DC, Carlson is a realist. He fully understands the dangers of a potential global conflict and wants to do everything in his power to make sure it never happens. This includes talking to the leader of the country that the US is determined to antagonize to the point of pushing it precisely into one such conflict. Carlson simply wants to do his job and understand (and also help his viewers understand) Putin’s viewpoint. And yet, this is precisely what the US government is terrified of, because Putin has always been very good at articulating his points, which is why the mainstream propaganda machine hates interviewing him and usually resorts to quoting him out of context.
This fear extends to the entire political West, as the European Union is now threatening to sanction Carlson for his interview with President Putin, set to be released later today (not yet published as of this writing). As we all know now, he visited Russia this week, despite years of threats to Carlson and his family. Of course, he’s completely unmoved by the threats of the anemic EU and its laughable bureaucrats. Why would he be, considering the fact that he’s being targeted by US intelligence, the same one that essentially destroyed the life of Carlson’s colleague Julian Assange and tried to do the same to their former employee Edward Snowden, who was saved only thanks to being in Russia. According to Newsweek, Carlson’s trip to Russia could result in a not-very-dissimilar witch-hunt. This was confirmed by EU lawmakers and high-ranking political leaders, such as Guy Verhofstadt, former Belgian prime minister and current member of the European Parliament (MEP).
Verhofstadt wants a travel ban on Carlson, who he also described as “a mouthpiece” of Putin and former US President Donald Trump. He also accused Carlson of “aiding Putin’s war crimes”. This is precisely why no sane person is really interested in the opinions of EU bureaucrats. They’re simply incapable of using reason, which is what Carlson has been warning about for years, pointing out the importance of dialogue instead of going on mindless rants such as the one Verhofstadt just did. Carlson articulately explained his motivation for interviewing President Putin, making Verhofstadt’s comments all the more ludicrous and, quite frankly, deranged. According to Newsweek, even EU officials are having a difficult time finding legal grounds for sanctioning Carlson. One, who wished to remain anonymous, told Newsweek that any sanctions would require evidence that Carlson is “linked to Moscow’s aggression”, something that “is absent or hard to prove”. What this means is that the sanctions would be illegal.
However, the political West never had any issues circumventing its own laws for political reasons. After all, this is the centerpiece of the vaunted “rules-based world order“. It should be noted that Verhofstadt is not alone in his determination to go after Tucker Carlson. Luis Garicano, a former MEP, told Newsweek he agreed with his stance. MEP Urmas Paet, former Estonian foreign minister, joined the witch-hunt, complaining that Carlson is “giving a platform to a man wanted by the International Criminal Court and accused of genocide and war crimes”. Once again, this is precisely what Carlson has been criticizing for years. The vast majority of Western leaders and top-ranking officials live in a sort of “reality bubble” that has very little to do with the actual world. This makes it impossible to engage in any sort of dialogue with such people, let alone make a long-lasting agreement with them, which is highly dangerous, not just for Europe and Russia, but the entire world.
Another person interviewed by Newsweek, Polish MEP Witold Waszczykowski, also a former foreign minister, is a good case in point. According to Waszczykowski, American media should deal with Tucker, as he’s a journalist. However, he went a step further in his belligerence and slammed EU leaders for talking to Putin at all.
“Here in the EU, we have top politicians [such] as [French President Emmanuel] Macron and [German Chancellor Olaf] Scholz who keep talking with Putin. I would like rather Mr. Verhofstadt to take care of those European politicians who keep searching for how to appease Russia instead of helping Ukraine to win the war.”
Once again, this is a perfect example of why it’s extremely dangerous to have such people in power. Considering the fact they’re extremely Russophobic, but are still top-ranking policymakers and political leaders in various EU countries, how could we ever hope to see any long-lasting peace between Russia and the political West?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnicis an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Garden City, MI – Jennifer Ormiston Novak is a Manager at CVS Pharmacy
Dec. 14, 2021: “Got OUR boosters today. Moderna. Arms are hurting feeling feverish and super tired. Thought we would not have side effects. How long will this last?”
Dec. 6, 2023: “Son of a gun! I waited to get the latest vaccine because I felt sick. No no no! I’m too busy for this! Yes I took more than one test and thought it was maybe strep or a bad sinus infection.”
Dec. 17, 2023: “How can this even be happening? I felt better, tested negative, went back to work. Had a headache and fever all day now I come home to this. No!”
Dec. 19, 2023: “Update. I still have COVID. Slept for over 48 hours now. On and off in bed. Headache is still excruciating. Fever…advance sorry to my hubby who is getting the brunt of my anger.”
Dec. 28, 2023: “Folks this is NOT a drill. COVID is back up and skyrocketing. I had/have it. Three weeks now with a headache that won’t quit. Nothing like I have ever experienced”. Please mask up.”
Jan. 2, 2024 – Jennifer Ormiston Novak had a heart attack.
“Rob my husband had a stroke and went to the hospital. When I went to that hospital the next day I had a major heart attack in the ER before I could even go to his room. I was revived 3 times and paddled 20 times.”
“An emergency stent was put into my heart through my leg area. From that stent insertion, my veins were damaged when pulling the stent out causing blockage in my leg. Emergency vascular surgery was done on my leg but was unsuccessful and my leg started to die which ended up in 2 amputations of my leg. First one below my knee then a second one above my knee.”
“Rob was there every day and night at my side after just having a stroke”
My Take…
I have covered dozens of stories of multiple COVID-19 Vaccinated family members having vaccine injuries or dying suddenly.
This tragic story of Jennifer and Rob is unique, because we have confirmation that Jennifer and Rob took the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA booster shots together.
If they had a bad vaccine batch, a “hot lot”, both of them would have been developing internal damage. It’s important to have mRNA Vaccine serial numbers from all the vaccines they took (and check the serial numbers for adverse events on howbadismybatch.com)
It is highly probable that both continued to take mRNA vaccines together, as she lamented that she had not taken the most recent booster shot as she was sick.
Husband had a stroke, and she had two heart attacks, all within 24 hours. Both are very common vaccine side effects, and the recent COVID infection may have had a contribution as well.
Another indication of vaccine injury is this: the COVID-19 Vaccinated often have severe complications from even the most minor surgical procedures. The reason for this is unknown but usually due to clotting abnormalities.
It was the minor procedure of a cardiac stent that led to severe complications that required the amputation of her leg. This is so rare, it’s virtually unheard of.
Overall, a tragic, shocking story of someone who had no idea of the toxicity of the experimental pharmaceutical products she continued taking with her husband.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“Economic thinking about immigration is generally quite superficial. It is a fact that in different [rich] countries, reproducible national capital is on the order of four times yearly national income. As a result, when an additional immigrant worker arrives, in order to build the necessary infrastructure (housing, hospitals, schools, universities, infrastructure of all kinds, industrial facilities, etc.), additional savings equal to four times the annual salary of this worker will be needed. If this worker arrives with a wife and three children, the additional savings required will represent, depending on the case, ten to twenty times the annul salary of this worker, which obviously represents a very heavy burden for the economy to bear.“—Maurice Allais(1911-2010), 1988 Nobel Prize in economics, 2002.
“What is the role of the Canadian government [in regards to immigration]? If it follows the recommendations of immigration advocates, it makes policies to maximize world welfare and its goal should be high, if not unlimited immigration. If its policies are to maximize the welfare of the native (Canadian) population, immigration policies should be designed to eliminate the fiscal burden (of between $20 and $26 billion a year) so that only positive economic benefits occur through immigration.” —HebertGrubel (1934- ), Emeritus professor of economics, Simon Fraser University, 2013.
“You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” —Milton Friedman (1912-2006), Professor of Economics, University of Chicago, 1999.
*
There’s no magic in economics.
To consume, you must produce, and to produce, you must save (income minus consumption expenses) and invest in productive capital, in infrastructure and in other means of supporting production. A stock of productive capital (businesses, factories, machinery, equipment, infrastructure) is required, plus innovations, technical progress, knowledge, management, reliable sources of energy and, above all, qualified workers, capable of contributing to increasing productivity and to raising the annual output of goods and services per capita.
That is how living standards and the average person’s well-being rise in some economies and why living standards remain stagnant or increase slowly in other economies.
This is explained in some economies by the lack of savings and productive capital relative to the numbers and skills of workers as well as other factors. Indeed, other economic indicators of human development do take into account the quality of life (economic and political stability, public health, education, individual security, etc.) of a population, beyond just the average of domestic output of goods and services per capita, the latter possibly distributed in a very unequal manner.
Nowadays, the so-called ‘advanced’ Western economies are considered relatively productive and their populations enjoy a relatively high standard of living, as measured by the average gross domestic product per capita. This is essentially because their stock of productive capital is high and because they benefit from technical progress, cheap energy sources and have access to a qualified labor force.
However, such relative success is not necessarily permanent and a foreclosed conclusion, if the conditions for economic growth atrophy or are replaced by other less efficient factors. A decline in living standards is not inevitable, but it can become possible, or even likely, if public policies are poorly designed.
Indeed, there have been structural changes taken place in Western economies, over several decades now, in Europe and North America. These has been a slowdown in new productive investments, a relative expansion of the services sector, an influx of low-skilled workers resulting from illegal immigration, the adoption of energy transition policies to encourage an increased reliance on more costly and less reliable energy sources and a chaotic geopolitical environment that has enhanced the possibility of hegemonic wars.
1. A simple model to understand the sources of real economic growth in the long term
Let’s start with a simple model of the real economic growth, i.e. the Solow model.
This model states that an economy’s long-run economic output growth depends on its stock of productive capital, resulting from savings, technological progress and the supply of labor.
The higher the stock of capital available in an economy, the more abundant the yearly domestic output of goods and services will be, for a given population.
If we consider that the living standard of a population ultimately depends on the stock of accumulated capital and that the annual growth of gross domestic product (GDP) depends largely on this capital, it follows that the more workers are qualified and the more they have access to capital (businesses, factories, machinery, equipment), the more productive they are, and the higher the living standard of the entire population will be.
2. An industrialized economy relies on more capital than a less developed economy
It has been observed that for an industrialized economy, it takes an average value of about $4 of capital to generate an annual domestic output of $1, at a ratio of 4:1. In a subsistence or stagnant economy, conversely, where the living standard is low, the capital/annual production ratio is low, possibly not exceeding the ratio of 1:1.
This may explain, to a large extent, the tendency towards large-scale population migrations, originating from countries with low living standards and a high demographic growth, towards countries with high living standards and highly capitalized.
In the short- and medium-term, such a migratory phenomenon is not necessarily to the advantage of advanced economies, which may see their rate of economic growth decline and the living standard of their population fall, if enough new investments are not added to the existing stock of capital.
3. Economic growth vs. population growth
One thing to understand is the following. If the population increases in an industrialized economy, either through the natural process or through a high influx of immigrants, it is then necessary that the stock of productive capital and the infrastructures of such an economy increase also, in a ratio of 4:1, (in the absence of technological progress), so as to maintain the standard of living of the entire population.
In other words, if the level of capitalization of a country with an advanced economy does not increase in proportion, and at the same time, as a strong demographic expansion takes place, a decline in income per capita and a general lowering of the living standard can be expected.[1]
It has become trivial to say that Western economies have become consumer societies. They are economies in which the percentage of goods and services produced and consumed occupy more than sixty percent of total production.
It is a complex evolution which is linked to the phenomenon of deindustrialisation that has been observed for half a century in most Western economies. It is measured by the decline of the part of industrial added value and industrial jobs, in GDP and in total employment.[2]
Such a phenomenon is accompanied by a national relocation of certain high productivity industries towards emerging economies, under the influence of economic globalization. This has meant a relative expansion of the production and consumption of private services (commerce, finance, transport, catering, entertainment, etc.) and of public services (teaching, health care, administration, etc.), a sector generally less likely to record important productivity gains.
4. Structural dissavings of governments through debt
Relative deindustrialization and the shift to a service economy in Western economies has forced governments to increase their budgetary deficits, pushing some countries into a level of total public debt that currently exceeds the level of their gross domestic product.
Those advanced economies with the highest levels of national debt relative to their annual gross domestic product, in 2024, as measured by the percentage of public debt to annual GDP, are:
P.S.: Japan is a special case because of its high household saving rate. Personal savings in Japan averaged 13.09% from 1963 until 2023, reaching an all time high of 62.10% in June of 2020. Moreover, Japan’s public debt is nearly all domestic.
For a more complete picture, one must add to the current public dissavings of governments the increasing waste of resources devoted to the global arms industry and to recurring ruinous and polluting wars, some of which could eventually lead to a catastrophic nuclear war.
5. Global warming and the energy crisis
There is a great complementarity between productive capital and energy. Indeed, when energy sources were abundant and could be considered unlimited, they were considered a given. Since pollution resulting from the burning of fossil fuels is one of the causes of global warming, this cannot be the case in the future.
Moreover, the global warming crisis has persuaded several governments to take drastic measures to reduce the combustion of fossil fuels, which are relatively abundant but non-renewable, easy to exploit and highly energy efficient (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.). The goal is to gradually replace them, over the coming decades, with less abundant renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydraulic, etc.), some of which are intermittent and less reliable, in addition to being expensive to exploit.
The nuclear sector falls between these two categories of energy sources. Nuclear power accounts for about 10% of electricity generation globally. Nuclear power has advantages and disadvantages, but it is very expensive to produce. However, certain countries lacking alternative energy sources, such as France, will not have much choice but to resort more to it in the future.
6. Energy has played a big role in the rapid rise in living standards
Since the first Industrial Revolution, from 1750 to 1900 in Europe, and its acceleration in the 20th century, the availability of abundant and inexpensive energy sources of fossil fuels has been an important factor that has propelled industrial and commercial civilization upwards. Indeed, this is what has transformed economies that, for millennia, had been agrarian and artisanal, into urbanized industrial and commercial economies, like those of today.
In the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the advent of machines in the textile industry as well as in agriculture, followed by electrification and the subsequent multiplication of the means of transport, helped to multiply the physical and manual labor of workers and increase the production and distribution of products on a high scale. This resulted in considerable increases in labor productivity and in real GDP growth. GDP per capita followed, propelling upward the standard of living and the wealth of nations, as well as the quality of life of their populations.
For example, during the forty years between 1960 and 2000, a period of strong economic growth and relative international peace, French researcher Simon Yaspo estimated that GDP per capita in France, Germany and in the U.S. grew by more than 250 percent.
Such a rise has never been seen before in the history of the world. It is possible that humanity might never again experience such a long golden period of economic growth, with such a rapid rise in living standards.
7. Government policies and the energy transition
There is currently, in certain government circles, great optimism regarding the possibility of decarbonizing some national economies over the next quarter of a century, that is to say by the year 2050. This is based on the belief that substitution policies can be designed to promote a relatively rapid shift, from more polluting energies to cleaner ones. The objective is to limit the rise in global warming to 1.5℃ by the year 2050 and to keep it below 2.0℃ by the year 2100.
However, numerous economic and political obstacles could stand in the way of such an otherwise very laudable scenario.
The 2023 energy report, published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), is somewhat less hopeful that a quick reduction of fossil energies can occur before 2050. Indeed, according to the organizations’s most recent energy forecasts, global consumption of oil and natural gas, which is expected to peak during the current decade, is seen to remain more of less around that level, until the year 2050. This is a consequence of the inertia and synergy that exist in energy systems. In other words, the development of new energy sources requires the use of fossil energies.
However, IEA is optimistic about a rapid reduction in the global consumption of coal, the most available and cheapest energy source. It predicts that such a consumption, after a peak reached also during the current decade, will quickly fall by 40% by the year 2050, which could bring it back to the level observed in the year 2000.
Nevertheless, coal and charcoal wood play a major role in heating, cooking and electricity production in several emerging and developing countries. The Chinese economy alone, for example, is responsible for 50% of global coal consumption. In Africa, coal represents 70% of the continent’s total energy consumption. Some resistance to switching from coal to more costly sources of energy could be expected from these regions.
Moreover, even in Western nations, some political resistance could be expected about the negative economic effects that an imposed energy transition could have on living standards and on the quality of life of populations. Some governments, seen as being too hasty on the issue or ill-prepared to mitigate its consequences, could be overthrown and be replaced by political leaders more inclined to resort to adaptation measures rather than to simple suppression, concerning energy production and consumption of various sources of energy.
Conclusions
The Great Recession of 2007-2008 may have served as a warning sign that the sources of economic growth in Western economies were beginning to fade. That deep recession forced major central banks to push interest rates way down, even towards zero, in order to stimulate growth.
In the coming years, Western economies will have to face structural developments even riskier to their future prosperity.
Indeed, Western economies risk suffering, all at the same time, from: 1- a slowdown in productive investments and productivity gains, the results of deindustrialization and the transition to a service economy; 2- a pressure from largely under-qualified illegal immigration, which could lower the ratio of productive capital per capita and accentuate the push towards consumption of public and private services; 3- public dissaving, the result of high public budgetary deficits and a resulting public over-indebtedness; 4- a waste of resources due to the expansion of the unproductive arms sector, in a global context of geopolitical instability and wars; and, 5- an energy transition that will be difficult to achieve, with policies aimed at penalizing inexpensive fossil fuels, in favor of more costly and less reliable alternative energies.
With these economic headwinds interacting and reinforcing each other, western economies could face lower economic growth rates ahead. This could also translate into a relative drop in standards of living, and also possibly, in people’s quality of life, over the coming years and coming decades.
In fact, in a not too far away future, the main limiting factor to economic growth in Western economies could likely come from more expensive sources of energy, which are less reliable than in the past. Likewise, demographic growth rates that are too rapid in relation to the stock of available productive capital, the result of uncontrolled immigration, could also become a cause of economic impoverishment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.
Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Notes
1. The decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire, in the 5th century AD, is probably the most complex and most important historical phenomenon of an economic, political and military system that collapsed under the effect of several causes, but notably following a fall in income.
2. For example, the share of industrial jobs in total employment dropped by more than half in advanced economies, from 1970 to 2016.
The share of industrial jobs in total employment went from 46% to 17% in the U.K., from 31% to 17% in the U.S., from 39% to 18% in France, from 45% to 17% in Belgium. In Canada, the share of manufacturing jobs in total employment fell from 19.1% to 9.1%, from 1976 to 2019.
(For Quebec and Ontario, during the same period, the share of manufacturing employment, in total provincial employment, dropped from 23.2% to 11.5%, in the first case, and 23.2% to 10.2%, in the second case.
The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles
Humanists have long contended that morality is a strictly human concern and should be independent of religious creeds and dogma. This principle was clearly articulated in the two Humanist Manifestos issued in the mid-twentieth century and in Humanist Manifesto 2000, which appeared at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Now this code for global ethics further elaborates ten humanist principles designed for a world community that is growing ever closer together. In the face of the obvious challenges to international stability-from nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation, economic turmoil, and reactionary and sometimes violent religious movements-a code based on the “natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings” is needed more than ever. In separate chapters the author delves into the issues surrounding these ten humanist principles: preserving individual dignity and equality, respecting life and property, tolerance, sharing, preventing domination of others, eliminating superstition, conserving the natural environment, resolving differences cooperatively without resort to violence or war, political and economic democracy, and providing for universal education. This forward-looking, optimistic, and eminently reasonable discussion of humanist ideals makes an important contribution to laying the foundations for a just and peaceable global community.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In the municipality of Birmingham, the second largest in the United Kingdom, the City Council filed for bankruptcy in September.
The Council said that due to payments owed to women for years of discriminatory pay differentials, the municipality could not meet its existing financial obligations.
In a September 6 article published in Fortune magazine, it emphasized that:
“In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of mostly female employees who didn’t receive bonus payments that were given to those occupying traditionally male-dominated roles at Birmingham’s council. Birmingham’s council said in June that it had already paid £1.1 billion ($1.4 billion) in equal pay claims over the last decade, but still had some remaining claims which it estimated would accrue at the rate of between £5 million ($6.3 million) and £14 million ($17.6 million) a month.”
These developments in Birmingham are reflective of the vast socio-economic problems impacting the working class and poor in Britain. During 2023, a series of large-scale strikes by trade unions in the transportation, healthcare, education, civil service and other sectors of the labor force revealed the level of discontent among millions of the people around the country.
Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak ruled out any bailout of Birmingham along with other municipalities which have also filed for bankruptcy. Sunak, a proponent of tax cuts for the ruling class, imperialist military interventions and the mass deportation of migrants from Britain, said publicly that cities like Birmingham are in financial difficulty due to the mismanagement of their budgets.
The City Council, which is dominated by the Labor Party, pointed to the cuts imposed by successive Conservative governments in London. Also, huge cost overruns for the installation of a new IT system in Birmingham raised costs from an initially estimated 19 million pounds to nearly 100 million.
Birmingham hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2023 which contributed to the shortfall in public revenue. A previous advisor to the Birmingham city government told the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) that the holding of this international sports competition was one of the factors which drove the city into bankruptcy.
“Sharon Thompson, deputy leader of the council, told CNN, ‘Local government is facing a perfect storm. Like councils across the country, it is clear that this council faces unprecedented financial challenges, from huge increases in adult social care demand and dramatic reductions in business rates incomes to the impact of rampant inflation.’”
Along with the tremendous responsibility of addressing the plight of the impoverished, senior citizens and the disabled through social spending, there is the question of the status of 10,000 municipal civil servants. Without the necessary funds to meet its obligations, there could very well be large-scale layoffs of municipal employees.
In a BBC report on the Birmingham bankruptcy published in the aftermath of the announcement by the City Council, it notes:
“Meanwhile, talks are continuing to safeguard the thousands of jobs at the city council.
Sharon Graham, general secretary of the Unite union – which represents hundreds of workers, said: ‘Birmingham City Council’s workers must not pay the price for the council’s or central government’s incompetence and financial mismanagement. Our members undertake vital frontline services that are essential for the communities they serve and they should not be impacted through no fault of their own.’ Thurrock Council in Essex declared itself bankrupt in December (2022) and the leader of its Labor opposition, John Kent, warned people in Birmingham they were likely to see noticeable changes in the city – and quickly. ‘We’ve seen dirtier streets, grass being cut less frequently, our only theatre is now under threat and every subsidized bus route in the borough was just cancelled,’ he told BBC WM. He also said council tax in Thurrock rose by 10% last year and was likely to increase by the same again this year. ‘That’s the situation we will be in for many years to come. People are rightly very, very angry.’”
Despite the draconian austerity imposed by five consecutive Conservative prime ministers since 2010, the party remains in power. The Labor Party underwent a purge of many left-wing activists over the last several years.
The Palestinian question remains a major issue within the Labor Party as many rank-and-file, mid-level and top leaders were accused of antisemitism. Any solidarity efforts with the Palestinians aimed at shifting British foreign policy was labelled as being anti-Jewish. Consequently, the current leadership of the Labor Party under Keir Starmer are as pro-Zionist as their Conservative counterparts.
In the latest military siege on Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) which has lasted for more than four months, the British administration of Sunak has pledged its ongoing unconditional support to Tel Aviv. The government has downplayed the solidarity demonstrations with Palestine involving hundreds of thousands of people, representing some of the largest manifestations in the imperialist countries.
Britain has joined the White House under President Joe Biden in launching the so-called Operation Prosperity Guardian by carrying out aerial strikes and shelling of Yemen which has taken a firm position against the genocide in Gaza. The Yemeni resistance organization, Ansar Allah, is imposing a blockade on Israeli-linked vessels and those utilizing their ports in solidarity with Palestine saying that the campaign will not stop until there is a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
Since the repeated bombing of Yemen by London and Washington, the resistance forces say they will attack U.S. and British ships operating in the Red Sea and its contiguous waterways off the coasts of the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa. A mounting regional war in West Asia will only further the declining social conditions of working and oppressed people of Britain and the U.S.
Farmers Across Europe Protest Over Declining Incomes
Although the British electorate voted to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016 being convinced that the conditions for the people would improve, similar contemporary economic problems facing the UK are occurring on the continent. In France during 2023, millions of trade unionists and students engaged in months of strikes and demonstrations to halt a pension reform bill which was eventually passed absent of legislative action.
Later a nationwide rebellion erupted in opposition to police brutality after a youth of North African descent was killed by the security forces. The demonstrations on the part of farmers began during the latter months of 2023 and have continued to the present time.
Militant actions by farmers in France were called off in early February after promises were made by the government in Paris. However, there is no guarantee that the assistance pledged by President Emmanuel Macron and his cabinet will resolve the issues negatively impacting the farmers.
Since the beginning of the Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine two years ago, the economic situation of EU farmers has deteriorated. Although reporting on the recent protests in the corporate and capitalist-controlled governmental media refuses to acknowledge the impact of sanctions against Moscow, it is quite obvious that the glut in the supply of agricultural products, rising prices for inputs and the demands placed upon farmers by EU governments are underlining the crisis.
Tens of thousands of farmers in various EU states including France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, among others, are engaging in highway and street blockades to demonstrate the urgency of their situations. In journalistic accounts of the protests, the western media dwells on the problems related to the transition to more environmentally sustainable agriculture as mandated by the United Nations Climate Conferences held annually as a major cause for the demonstrations.
Nonetheless, the costs of the proxy war against the Russian Federation related to arms transfers, direct monetary assistance to Ukraine as well as the loss of revenue due to the prohibition of trade in essential energy resources has raised the cost of living for farmers and workers substantially. The official policy of the U.S. and the EU has been to continue the sanctions and the funding of the Ukrainian military despite the tremendous failures on the battlefield.
Any serious negotiations for a ceasefire have been ruled out by the imperialist states headquartered in Washington and London. Biden’s failed approach of a sanctions-regime against Moscow has not resulted in a change in its foreign policy orientation towards Russia.
French farmers block motorway to Paris
In one Associated Press article from January 30 during the French farmers’ blockade, it does take the Ukraine war into account saying:
“The Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused painful economic shocks, including higher costs, bringing farmers’ anger to a head in France and other European countries…. On the barricades, Ukraine in particular is on some protesters’ lips. Fast-tracked for EU membership talks, it’s seen as a potentially fearsome rival with its vast fields of grain and other agricultural products that have flooded into Europe since the invasion.”
Therefore, capitalist methods of production and aggressive imperialist militarism are responsible for the declining incomes and living standards of workers and farmers. A change in the system is required to bring about an equal distribution of wealth and the end to wars of occupation and domination.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All images in this article are from the author; featured image: Italian farmers protest harsh economic conditions
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.
***
Important and timely article, first published on April 10, 2020. The late Henry Kissinger has played a key role in the formulation of the “Depopulation Agenda”
“The International” is the world-renowned battle song of the socialist labor movement. The English version of the original French text reads:
“Wake up, damned of this earth, who are still forced to starve! (…) Army of slaves, wake up! (…) Peoples, hear the signals! To the final battle! There is no supreme being, no God, no emperor or tribune to save us. To put us out of our misery, that is something we can only do ourselves.”
This call was made to the international labor movement after the violent suppression of the Paris Commune in May 1871. It was not issued to the ruling “Elite” of the exploiters and oppressors.
However, it is precisely this so-called elite that seems to be blowing to the last battle today, in that it is seeking to reduce the population (depopulation) by means of a compulsory “mass protective vaccination”. The pathogenic or even deadly composition of this vaccine, which will also contain Nano-chips to control humanity, has certainly already been mixed in the world’s secret laboratories.
Even the active euthanasia of elderly and sick fellow citizens by means of strong sleeping pills and opiates has already set these dark figures on their way.
Likewise a worldwide redistribution of general wealth from the bottom to the top, from the poor to the super rich. Should we citizens of this world, remembering these plans of the cabal, not recall to whom the call for the final battle was actually made?
Two of these “world citizens” who are involved in such sinister plans are the former US Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger and the wealthy US entrepreneur and patron of the arts Bill Gates.
More than 50 years ago, Kissinger was Secretary of State, head of the US National Security Council and author of an important US foreign policy document:
“According to the [Kissinger] memorandum, depopulation should be “the highest priority in US foreign policy towards the Third World”, (…) because “the US economy needs large and growing amounts of raw materials from overseas, especially from the less developed countries” (Eggert, W. (2003).
“a first step to develop ‘new techniques and technologies for infection control and appropriate vaccines for large populations’. (…) In a second step, the focus should now be on ‘healing the wounds of the global economy’. (quoted in RT Deutsch)
The citizens of the world should therefore – whether they want to or not – be vaccinated and, in addition, it should be checked whether they have complied with this vaccination obligation.
In the RT (Deutsch article just mentioned), Nobel Peace Prize winner Kissinger is also referred to as a war criminal because, as the architect of the US aggression against Vietnam and other covert CIA secret operations, he is responsible for the death of millions of people.
Vaccination
Kissinger and the The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation seem to agree on the question of “mass protection vaccination”. On March 31, 2020, the “Washington Post” published an opinion article by Gates in which he describes his vision to vaccinate people around the world:
But creating a vaccine is only half the battle. To protect Americans and people around the world, we’ll need to manufacture billions of doses. (Without a vaccine, developing countries are at even greater risk than wealthy ones, because it’s even harder for them to do physical distancing and shutdowns.)
We can start now by building the facilities where these vaccines will be made. Because many of the top candidates are made using unique equipment, we’ll have to build facilities for each of them, knowing that some won’t get used. Private companies can’t take that kind of risk, but the federal government can. It’s a great sign that the administration made deals this week with at least two companies to prepare for vaccine manufacturing. I hope more deals will follow.
In 2015, I urged world leaders in a TED talkto prepare for a pandemic the same way they prepare for war — by running simulations to find the cracks in the system. As we’ve seen this year, we have a long way to go. But I still believe that if we make the right decisions now, informed by science, data and the experience of medical professionals, we can save lives and get the country back to work.
Is the vaccination program related to the objective of reducing world population?
In this context, let us recall Kant’s Enlightenment motto “Sapere aude!”: “Have the courage to use your own intellect!”
*
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.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist.
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).
First posted on Global Research on December 12, 2021
Listen to Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer, talking about the pandemic, the PCR test and the COVID vaccine.
Watch the video below.
*
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. Photo credits: The Last American Vagabond / Odysee
Although South Africa’s legal initiative was directed against the State of Israel, the conduct of the genocide is a joint Israel-U.S. project, with U.S. military and intelligence operatives collaborating directly with their Israeli counterparts. This collaboration is also supported by an extensive flow of military aid.
There has been a lot of comment on General Sir Patrick Sanders’s recent speech urging preparations for a “citizen’s army” ready to confront Russia whenever the latter gets through Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine adventure.
Green New Deal links directly into the Agenda 2030 ‘Sustainability’ program whereby the WEF proposes to 100% disenfranchise farmers and substitute synthetic GMO laboratory foods for real food grown in real soil.
‘Swarming’ has been associated more recently with a radical evolution in modern warfare (most evident in Ukraine), where the use of autonomous swarming drones, continuously communicating with each other via AI, select and direct the attack to targets identified by the swarm.
In a sweeping victory for family farmers and dozens of endangered plants and animals, a federal court today revoked approval of the extremely volatile, weed-killing pesticide dicamba.
Forty years past the time that George Orwell envisioned the stomping boot of Big Brother, the police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state. Fueled by a melding of government and corporate power—the rise of the security industrial complex—this watershed moment sounds a death knell for our privacy rights.
Very few of us saw the COVID-19 pandemic back decades. Yet the underpinnings and timeline for the pandemic response go back many years and date stamped by the 2005 PREP Act which provided immunity to “countermeasures” which we later learned included masks, lockdowns, vaccines, etc.
The conflict between the Commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Zaluzhny and President Zelensky is coming to a head with the latter showing extreme weakness after weeks of claims that Zaluzhny had been sacked but with Zaluzhny still in place.
“War is fun”, the helmets in Vietnam used to say with bleakest irony, meaning that if a war is revealed as having no purpose other than to justify voracious power in the cause of lucrative fanaticisms such as the weapons industry, the danger of truth beckons.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
If asked to compare a community of forest produce gathering people about 7000 years ago with a most modernized group of people in New York City today, most people would say that of course, the later situation reflects much greater development and progress of humanity in terms of easily accessing so many comforts and luxuries, not just needs.
However if we start exploring questions like which life-patterns reflect greater environment protection and sustainability, more justice and equality, more peace, contentment and harmony with other people as well as other forms of life, then in all likelihood the thousands of years old community would reflect a more ‘advanced’ state.
The past five to six hundred years are often regarded as the years of greatest progress. Yet cruelty, plunder, injustice, massacres and genocides (sometimes to the extent of nearly 90 per cent of the people of vast regions being killed) have also been seen in some of their worst forms during these centuries.
The last century has been called the century of the greatest progress but in fact this is the century in which the basic life-nurturing conditions of the planet have been ravaged the most, largely due to the folly of the richest 10 per cent of people, endangering not just the entire humanity but also the thousands and thousands of other forms of life.
Hence history must never be seen as a history of continuing human progress. Instead history must strive to understand the conditions relating to justice, equality, protection of environment and biodiversity, concern for all forms of life and compassion, peace and harmony in various places and times and then to understand progress or regression in these terms.
Similarly other social sciences and humanities must change to reflect such an improved and more comprehensive understanding of progress/regression and wellness/illness of various societies. This is certainly true of sociology, political science and perhaps most of all of Economics.
Unfortunately distortions in the study and understanding of Economics have often led to many economists, including some of the most reputed ones, contributing to injustice, inequality and ecological ruin instead of contributing to justice, equality and protection of environment.
Social sciences and social scientists must increasingly be more inward looking to honestly evaluate their role and contribution in times which are perhaps the most troubling in the history of humanity on earth, times when entirely human-made factors have brought the planet to a stage where its basic life-nurturing conditions are very badly threatened.
Why is it that many social scientists have not been able to contribute in more meaningful and effective ways on the side of justice and equality, environment protection and peace? Why several of them are increasingly seen to be on the side of problems rather than solutions? Why an even higher number has chosen to be wrapped up in advancing their own comforts instead of taking a more active role in challenging injustices and helping to create a better, safer world?
There is much need for honest introspection by the community of social scientists regarding their role. Is their role to be seen only or mainly in careerist terms (which would be a very narrow understanding for a profession that should be seen in terms of a very noble and important role, all the more so in these difficult times)? What needs to be done to increase the possibilities of more and more social scientists being able to contribute more meaningfully to creating a better and safer world?
The other aspect relates to reframing, restructuring or perhaps even re-defining various social sciences in terms of the needs and requirements of creating a better, more just, sustainable and safer world. Both aspects of this introspection are of course related to each other, both are equally important. Initiatives relating to such introspection are likely to result in various useful suggestions, including some that can be taken up immediately and some that need longer-term processes and much wider efforts. If these can be shared and together lead to a more broad-based effort, cutting across narrow boundaries, then a more specific agenda of meaningful changes can emerge within a year or two.
What is true beyond any doubt is that in order to check the existential crisis before it is too late, and do this within a framework of justice, peace and democracy, the world deeds vary basic changes in the near future. Social scientists and social sciences must change in order to be able to contribute adequately to this. It is within this wider perspective that the suggestions made here should be seen.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Earth without Borders, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
So how has this “post-war” Britain been working out for you?
There has been a lot of comment on General Sir Patrick Sanders’s recent speech urging preparations for a “citizen’s army” ready to confront Russia whenever the latter gets through Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine adventure.
But the most remarkable contention by the head of the British army was the one asserting that we have been dwelling in a “post-war world” but now need to man up for a “pre-war” one.
It might well suit an eminent general to wish to blank out the last generation since they have been inglorious, to say the least, in terms of British martial prowess.
But these are the facts of the real world we have actually been enduring. Over the last 25 years, Britain has fought in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Yemen.
It has further been a deeply involved proxy party to the continuing war in Ukraine, and in the Saudi/UAE aggression against Yemen prior to the present direct attacks. And our politicians are underwriting Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
So we have neither been in a “post-war” world, nor a “pre-war” one, but a world of war. We are living in a country almost permanently fighting somewhere with someone.
Many of these wars have been flagrantly illegal — the aggressions against Yugoslavia and Iraq and the intervention in Syria most blatantly. Others have been in a grey area from that point of view.
A legal war is not necessarily a just, prudent or sustainable one. But the point is worth stressing given the fondness of British politicians for wrapping themselves in legality and plumping their bottoms on what they hope is the moral high ground.
In fact, Britain is a rogue state. And a bipartisan rogue state at that. All the wars just listed have enjoyed full-throated support from the front benches of both Labour and Tories. It has not mattered one whit who is in government and who is the “official opposition.”
That consensus briefly broke down when Labour successfully opposed strikes on Syria in 2013. Then leader Ed Miliband was so overcome with embarrassment at this victory that he never alluded to it again.
And under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership Labour challenged the attacks in Iraq and Syria in 2015, although for reasons that remain utterly incomprehensible it permitted a free vote to the party’s entitled imperialist faction in the Commons.
But war is by and large an Establishment project that all politicians buy into. There is dissent on the US right over continuing to prolong the Ukraine conflict, but in the Conservative Party here not a peep.
A third observation is that several of these conflicts were Nato-badged and led — the bombardment of Yugoslavia, the occupation of Afghanistan and regime change in Libya. All aggressions, and all disasters — a point to remember when anyone extols Nato’s “purely defensive” character.
With the obvious exception of the US, no other country in the world engages so consistently in military aggression. France may perhaps run Britain close, but even Paris sat out the Iraq calamity.
And all this is without mentioning the Pacific, where Britain is flexing its military and diplomatic muscles through Aukus and aircraft carriers without as yet doing any actual fighting.
Sir Patrick was exercised about fighting Russia — perhaps a “citizens’ navy” to confront China too was an imaginative leap too far.
The point is that, despite all the complaints of the brasshats and their media epigones that the British armed forces are now too enfeebled to stand sentinel on our sovereignty, Britain fights wars almost continually and all over the place.
Indeed Richard Gott, once of The Guardian before that organ took up permanent residence on the dark side, set out to write a book showing that Britain had been fighting somewhere or other every year from the 18th century on.
His researches terminated, likely through exhaustion, several hundred pages in but only in the mid-19th century. There will be a second volume eventually, and probably a larger one. Gott is attempting the literary equivalent of painting the Forth rail bridge.
So the question is not — how do we fight Russia, but why do we fight so much? The answer is surprisingly terse — finance capital, in two words, or imperialism if you feel one is sufficient.
Britain’s centuries-long record of aggression, now continuing unabated, is the direct extension of the hegemony of the City of London in our capitalist system. First, it funded the plundering of much of the world through trading, while using government debt incurred in war-fighting to assume a dominant place in the state.
Then it became the vehicle for the massive export of capital which greased the establishment of a formal empire, an informal empire alongside it, and a central financial role in world monopoly capitalism as a whole. Not a project that could be undertaken without sustained violence.
And so on into the sterling area, the invention of the eurodollar market, the post-cold war globalisation and every phase in the metamorphosis of imperialism. If you are laundering surplus value from across the globe, you need an open world market for capital — and that requires a world police force.
Today, capital’s global cop is clearly the US. The imperative for bourgeois Britain is to stay close to Washington above all, to ensure that the world order accommodates the parasites of the Square Mile.
So today Britain’s wars are usually fought as junior partner to the US. Even when London takes the lead, as it did with Paris in attacking Libya, US military back-up is vital.
And when Britain’s contribution is mostly symbolic — the RAF can be doing nothing in the Red Sea that the Pentagon could not do for itself — it is still a down payment on a world order it profits from.
The point here is that support for finance capital, for the City of London, is support for war in the end. In a week when Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have fallen over themselves to appease big capital — on corporation tax, on bankers’ bonuses and likely on private equity taxation — that seems relevant.
I met Ed Balls a dozen years ago, when he was shadow chancellor. On being urged not to follow New Labour by letting the City dictate economic policy, he said that such a proposal was “not a break with the last Labour government, but with the policy of the last 200 years.”
He gets more marks for historical erudition than political courage. The worst of it is not bankers getting rich while industrial workers get laid off, bad as that self-evidently is. It is that British finance capital is always marching us to war.
There is no need to be too mechanistic. Clearly Gordon Brown could have carried on obliging the bankers and Tony Blair could still have declined to invade Iraq.
The tendency to war is ineluctable, but no particular conflict is inevitable. The masses get a vote if we press hard enough.
But the connection remains tight. We have never been “post-war” because we are not “post-capitalist.”
Now that would be an objective worth forming a citizen’s army for. Gen Sanders may however prefer to find a berth with the Royal Hedge Fund Fusiliers.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: Secretary of State for Defence Grant Shapps, speaks to Chief of the General Staff General Patrick Sanders during a visit to a military training camp in East Anglia in the UK, November 29, 2023
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
It’s going to be a very big push and will complement other protests taking place throughout Europe.
Poland has the largest number of family farms in Europe – over one million. These farms are a vital resource not just for national food production but also for the maintenance of Poland’s unique biodiversity.
Particular to this Polish farmer’s effort will be a central attack on ‘Green New Deal’ (see below) which is of course a critically important issue vis-a-vis ensuring the future of all farmers/farming.
Green New Deal links directly into the Agenda 2030 ‘Sustainability’ program whereby the WEF proposes to 100% disenfranchise farmers and substitute synthetic GMO laboratory foods for real food grown in real soil.
*
A part of the announcement of the NSZZ of Individual Farmers “Solidarity” on the General Strike (from February 9 to March 10, 2024)
“…Our patience has been exhausted. The position of Brussels at the end of January 2024 is unacceptable to the entire agricultural community. In addition, the lack of response from the Polish authorities and declarations of cooperation with the European Commission, along with announcements to respect all decisions on the import of agricultural and food products from Ukraine, leave us no choice but to declare a general strike…We cannot accept the implementation of the “European Green Deal”, the European Union’s farm-to-table strategy and the proposed form of the Common Agricultural Policy.
The Polish government must present a clear plan for agricultural production, its profitability, the reconstruction of domestic processing and trade. We will fight for this until it happens. Polish farm families are the foundation of our country’s food security….
We ask compatriots to be understanding and aware of the situation in which we all find ourselves. We are fighting for our common good, which is to save Polish family-owned, often multi-generational farms from collapse and bankruptcy….”
Map of agricultural protests starting on February 9, 2024:
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In recent days, there has been a lot of speculation that Greece would deliver its Soviet/Russian-made air defenses, particularly the S-300 series SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems to the Kiev regime. Even some reputable Greek media such as the Kathimerini reported on this. The military transfer, according to reports, was to eventually include other Soviet-era military equipment, including the ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns, as well as the “Tor” and “Osa” short-range air defense systems.
Greece is by far the largest non-Warsaw Pact operator of Soviet/Russian-made weapons. It has acquired them both during and after the (First) Cold War. Athens was one of the few NATO members that sought to improve relations with Russia for decades, particularly in the aftermath of the illegal Turkish Neo-Ottoman invasion that resulted in the occupation of northern Cyprus in 1974.
As Moscow was among the first to condemn Ankara’s aggression, Athens maintained a balanced geopolitical position, even at the height of the (First) Cold War, despite its NATO membership. However, after Russia was forced to launch the special military operation (SMO), the new administration in Greece naively decided to reject this legacy of good relations and position itself firmly on the Kiev regime’s side. This can be somewhat understandable in purely practical terms and Moscow would’ve certainly had a great deal of understanding for the complex position of Athens. However, the latter made the mistake of agreeing to major weapons transfers, something that was wholly unnecessary and even self-defeating. Instead of such a major shift, Greece could’ve simply “condemned” the SMO in its official statements and be done with it.
This would’ve kept the relations with Russia largely intact, while there would’ve been ways to continue economic cooperation through various loopholes, just as many countries are already doing in order to circumvent sanctions. Unfortunately, the Greek government went a step too far, resulting in a completely unnecessary cooling of relations with the Kremlin. The damage is already done, but it’s important to at least prevent further deterioration in the millennium-old Greek-Russian ties. Luckily, this is precisely what Athens did, as it just denied reports about the supposed transfer of advanced air defense systems to the Neo-Nazi junta. Namely, on February 5, Athens categorically denied reports that it would send its Soviet/Russian-made S-300 SAM systems to the Kiev regime. Government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis dispelled and rejected the reports as fake.
“There must be a limit to fake news, especially when it has to do with the interests of the country and its international image. There is no such thing and I categorically deny it. There was not even the intention for Greece to risk the country’s defense,” Marinakis stressed in a statement.
This is certainly great news, not only for Russia, but Greece as well. What’s more, it’s also great news for the Ukrainian people, as any additional arms transfers to the Kiev regime only prolong the conflict. In the last two years, there were similar controversies about the potential transfer of Greek air defense systems, including in December 2022, when the then Defense Minister Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos stated that Athens could deliver its Soviet/Russian-made S-300PMU-1 long-range SAM system to the Neo-Nazi junta. Panagiotopoulos also stated that this would not happen until after the United States deployed its MIM-104 “Patriot” SAM system on Crete. The S-300PMU-1 is a late 1980s/early 1990s modernization of the advanced S-300PMU and it was initially given a NATO reporting name SA-10D “Grumble” (only to later be redesignated as the SA-20 “Gargoyle”).
Greece acquired it in the aftermath of the 1997-1998 standoff between Turkey and Cyprus. At the time, Nicosia acquired the S-300PMU-1 from Russia to put a stop to decades of Turkish encroachment on its territorial integrity and sovereignty. Ankara responded by escalating the crisis to a potential conflict in which Greece pledged to support its fellow Cypriots. After a series of negotiations, the opposing sides came to an agreement that Cyprus would send the newly acquired Russian SAM system to Crete, while Turkey promised to remove its offensive capabilities from the direct vicinity of the island country. Thus, Greece inadvertently acquired the S-300PMU-1, one of the most advanced long-range SAM systems available at the time. Since then, it has maintained a regiment of four S-300PMU-1 systems with eight fire units and 32 launchers that also use the 200 km range 48N6 missiles.
According to relevant sources, the Greek military acquired 175 missiles from Russia and the SAM system’s importance for the country’s security cannot be overstated, particularly in the southern Aegean Sea. For approximately two and a half decades, the S-300PMU-1 has been serving as a deterrent to Turkish belligerence in the region, guarding Greek sovereign airspace with distinction. The Greek Air Force also operates at least 4 Tor-M1 systems with 16 missile launchers, while the Greek Army operates 21 systems with 84 launchers. The system’s maximum engagement range is 12 kilometers and its main purpose is to protect the much longer-ranged S-300PMU-1. Similarly, the Osa-AKM’s firing range is 15 kilometers and the SAM system has the same purpose as the Tor-M1. The Greek Army operates 39 Osa-AKM systems with at least 120 launchers.
The potential transfer of even a small part of this sizeable arsenal to the Neo-Nazi junta would severely undermine Greek security and encourage Turkish expansionism. This doesn’t even have anything to do with the previously mentioned shift in the country’s foreign policy. The Mitsotakis government’s pivot toward Washington DC and Brussels is extremely unpopular among the vast majority of Greeks (both in Greece and Cyprus), particularly after the decision to send weapons to the Kiev regime. Athens sent several types of weapons, including IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles) and ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles). Many were rightfully furious, especially after it was revealed that the indigenous Greeks living in Mariupol and the surrounding areas were subjected to brutal treatment by the Kiev regime, particularly its Neo-Nazi units like the infamous “Azov Battalion”.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“The Iranians have a strategy, and we don’t”, a former senior U.S. Defence Department official told Al-Monitor: “We’re getting bogged down in tactical weeds – of whom to target and how – and nobody’s thinking strategically”.
The former Indian diplomat MK Bhadrakumar has coined the term ‘swarming’ to describe this process of non-state actors miring the U.S. in the tactical attrition – from the Levant to the Persian Gulf.
‘Swarming’ has been associated more recently with a radical evolution in modern warfare (most evident in Ukraine), where the use of autonomous swarming drones, continuously communicating with each other via AI, select and direct the attack to targets identified by the swarm.
In the Ukraine, Russia has pursued a patient, calibrated attrition to drive hard-Right ultranationalists from the field of battle (in central and eastern Ukraine), together with their western NATO facilitators.
NATO attempts at deterrence towards Russia (that recently have veered off into ‘terrorist’ attacks inside Russia – i.e. on Belgorod) notably have failed to produce results. Rather, Biden’s close embrace of Kiev has left him exposed politically, as U.S. and European zeal for the project implodes. The war has bogged down the U.S., without any electorally acceptable exit – and all can see it. Moscow drew-in Biden to an elaborate attritional web. He should ‘get out’ quick – but the 2024 campaign binds him.
So, Iran has been setting a very similar strategy throughout the Gulf, maybe taking its cue from the Ukraine conflict.
Less than a day after the attack on Tower 22, the military base ambiguously perched on the membrane between Jordan and the illegal U.S. al-Tanaf base in Syria, Biden promised that the U.S. would provide a quick and determined response to the attacks against it in Iraq and Syria (by what he calls ‘Iran-linked’ militia).
Simultaneously however, White House National Security spokesman John Kirby stated that the U.S. doesn’t want to expand military operations opposite Iran. Just as in Ukraine, where the White House has been loath to provoke Moscow into all-out war versus NATO, so too in the region, Biden is (rightly) wary of out-right war with Iran.
Biden’s political considerations in this election-year will be uppermost. And that, at least partly, will depend on the fine calibration by the Pentagon of just how exposed to missile and drone attacks U.S. forces are in Iraq and Syria.
The bases there are ‘sitting ducks’; a fact would be an embarrassing admission. But a hurried evacuation (with overtones of the last flights from Kabul) would be worse; it could be electorally disastrous.
The U.S. seemingly aims to find a way to hurt Iranian and Resistance forces just enough to show that Biden is ‘very angry’, yet without perhaps doing real damage – i.e. it is a form of ‘militarised psychotherapy’, rather than hard politics.
Risks remain: bomb too much, and the wider regional war will ignite to a new level. Bomb too little, and the swarm just rolls on, ‘swarming’ the U.S. on multiple fronts until it finally caves – and finally exits the Levant.
Biden thus finds himself in an exhausting, ongoing secondary war with groups and militias rather than states (whom the Axis seeks to shield). In spite of its militia character, however the war has been causing major damage to the economies of states in the region. They have fathomed that American deterrence has not been showing results (i.e., with Ansarallah in the Red Sea).
Some of those countries – including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – have initiated ‘private’ steps that were not coordinated with the U.S. They are not only speaking with these militia and movements, but also directly with Iran.
The strategy to ‘swarm’ the U.S. on multiple fronts was plainly stated at the recent ‘Astana Format’ meeting between Russia, Iran, and Turkey on 24-25 January. The latter triumvirate are busy preparing the endgame in Syria (and ultimately, in the Region as a whole).
The joint statement after the Astana Format meeting in Kazakhstan, MK Bhadrakumar has noted:
“is a remarkable document predicated almost entirely on an end to the U.S. occupation of Syria. It indirectly urges Washington to give up its support of terrorist groups and their affiliates “operating under different names in various parts of Syria” as part of attempts to create new realities on the ground, including illegitimate self-rule initiatives under the pretext of ‘combating terrorism.’ It demands an end to the U.S.’ illegal seizure and transfer of oil resources “that should belong to Syria””.
The statement thus spells out the objectives starkly. In sum, patience has run out over the U.S. weaponising the Kurds and attempting to revitalise ISIS in order to disrupt the tripartite plans for a Syria settlement. The trio want the U.S. out.
It is with these objectives – insisting that Washington give up its support of terrorist groups and their affiliates as part of attempts to create new realities on the ground, including illegitimate self-rule initiatives under the pretext of ‘combating terrorism’ – that the ‘Astana’ Russian and Iranian strategy for Syria finds common ground with that of the Resistance’s strategy.
The latter may reflect an Iranian strategy overall – but the Astana Statement shows the underlying principles to be Russia’s too.
In his first substantive statement after 7 October, Seyed Nasrallah (speaking for the Axis of Resistance as a whole) indicated a strategic Resistance pivot: Whereas the conflict triggered by events in Gaza was centrally connected with Israel, Seyed Nasrallah additionally underlined that the backdrop to Israel’s disruptive behaviour lay with America’s ‘forever wars’ of divide-and-rule in support of Israel.
In short, he tied the causality of America’s many regional wars to the interests of Israel.
So, here, we come to the third strand to the ‘swarming of Biden’.
Only it is not regional actors that are contriving to box-in Biden – it is America’s own protégé: Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Netanyahu and Israel are the principal target of the bigger regional ‘swarm’, but Biden has allowed himself to be enmeshed by it. It seems that he cannot say ‘no’. So here Biden is: boxed-in by Russia in Ukraine; boxed-in in Syria and Iraq, and boxed-in by Netanyahu and an Israel that fears the walls closing-in on their Zionist project.
There is likely no electoral ‘sweet-spot’ to be found here for Biden, between inserting America into an unpopular and electorally disastrous, all-out Middle East war, and between ‘green-lighting’ Israel’s huge gamble on victory over war against Hizbullah.
The confluence between the failed Ukrainian ploy to weaken Russia, and the risky ploy for Israel’s war on Hizbullah, is unlikely to be lost on Americans.
Netanyahu too is between a rock and a hard place. He knows that ‘a victory’ that boils down to just the release of the hostages, and confidence-building measures to establish a Palestinian state, would not restore Israeli deterrence – inside or outside the state. On the contrary, it would erode it. It would be ‘a defeat’ – and without a clear victory in the south (over Hamas), a victory in the north would be demanded by many Israelis, including key members of his own cabinet.
Recall the mood within Israel: The latest Peace Index survey shows that 94% percent of Israeli Jews think Israel used the right amount of firepower in Gaza – or not enough (43%). And three-quarters of Israelis think the number of Palestinians harmed since October is justified.
If Netanyahu is boxed in, so is Biden.
On Tuesday, Netanyahu said:
“We will not end this war with anything less than the achievement of all its objectives … We will not withdraw the IDF from the Gaza Strip and we won’t release thousands of terrorists. None of that is going to happen. What is going to happen? Total victory.”
“Is Netanyahu capable of veering strongly to the left… entering into an historic process that will end the war in Gaza and lead to a Palestinian state – coupled with an historic peace agreement with Saudi Arabia? Probably not. Netanyahu has kicked over many other similar buckets before they were filled”, opined veteran commentator, Ben Caspit, in Ma’ariv (in Hebrew).
Biden is making a huge bet. Best to wait on what Hamas and the Gaza Resistance answers to the hostage proposal. The omens, however, do not look positive for Biden —
Senior Hamas and Islamic Jihad officials responded yesterday to the latest proposal:
“The Paris proposal is no different from previous proposals submitted by Egypt … [The proposal] does not lead to a ceasefire. We want guarantees to end the genocidal war against our people. The resistance is not weak. No conditions will be imposed on it” (Ali Abu Shahin, member of Islamic Jihad’s political bureau).
“Our position is a ceasefire, the opening of the Rafah crossing, international and Arab guarantees for the restoration of the Gaza Strip, the withdrawal of the occupation forces from Gaza, finding a housing solution for the displaced and the release of prisoners according to the principle of all for all … I am confident that we are heading for victory. The patience of the American administration is running out because Netanyahu is not bringing achievements” (Senior Hamas official, Alli Baraka).
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
February 7th, 2024 by Center For Biological Diversity
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In a sweeping victory for family farmers and dozens of endangered plants and animals, a federal court today revoked approval of the extremely volatile, weed-killing pesticide dicamba.
The drift-prone pesticide has damaged millions of acres of crops and wild plants every year since the Environmental Protection Agency first approved it in 2017 for spraying on cotton and soybean crops genetically engineered by Monsanto (now Bayer) to survive what would otherwise be a deadly dose.
Today’s ruling by the U.S. District Court of Arizona in Tucson overturns the EPA’s 2020 reapproval of the pesticide, which included additional application restrictions that have failed to prevent the ongoing drift damage.
“This is a vital victory for farmers and the environment,” said George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety’s legal director and counsel in the case. “Time and time again, the evidence has shown that dicamba cannot be used without causing massive and unprecedented harm to farms as well as endangering plants and pollinators. The court today resoundingly reaffirmed what we have always maintained: the EPA’s and Monsanto’s claims of dicamba’s safety were irresponsible and unlawful.”
Since dicamba was approved for “over-the-top” spraying its use has increased twentyfold. The EPA estimates 65 million acres (two-thirds of soybeans and three-fourths of cotton) are dicamba-resistant, with roughly half that acreage sprayed with dicamba, an area nearly the size of Alabama. Much of the unsprayed crops are planted “defensively” by farmers to avoid dicamba drift damage.
In today’s decision, the court canceled dicamba’s over-the-top use, holding that the EPA violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act’s public input requirement before its approval. This violation is “very serious,” according to the court, especially because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the EPA failed to consider serious risks of over-the-top dicamba in issuing the prior registration.
“I hope the court’s emphatic rejection of the EPA’s reckless approval of dicamba will spur the agency to finally stop ignoring the far-reaching harm caused by this dangerous pesticide,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Endangered butterflies and bee populations will keep tanking if the EPA keeps twisting itself into a pretzel to approve this product just to appease the pesticide industry.”
The court outlined the massive damage to stakeholders who were deprived of their opportunity to comment. That includes growers that do not use over-the-top dicamba and suffered significant financial losses. It also includes states that repeatedly reported landscape-level damage, but in the same 2020 decision lost the ability to impose restrictions greater than those imposed by the federal government without formal legislative or rulemaking processes. As a result, the court found “the EPA is unlikely to issue the same registrations” again after taking these stakeholders’ concerns into account.
The court also criticized the EPA’s assessment of the 2020 registrations’ widespread harms. Monsanto and the EPA claimed this over-the-top new use of dicamba would not cause harm because of new restrictions on its use. But the court found the EPA’s “circular approach to assessing risk, hinging on its high confidence that control measures will all but eliminate offsite movement, [led] to its corresponding failure to assess costs from offsite movement.” And instead, just as independent researchers had warned, the restrictions failed and dicamba continued to vaporize and drift.
“We are grateful that the court held the EPA and Monsanto accountable for the massive damage from dicamba to farmers, farmworkers and the environment, and halted its use,” said Lisa Griffith of the National Family Farm Coalition. “The pesticide system that Monsanto sells should not be sprayed as it cannot be sprayed safely.”
“Every summer since the approval of dicamba, our farm has suffered significant damage to a wide range of vegetable crops,” said Rob Faux, a farmer and communications manager at Pesticide Action Network. “Today’s decision provides much needed and overdue protection for farmers and the environment.”
Background
This is the second time a federal court has found that the EPA unlawfully approved dicamba. An earlier case resulted in an appeals court overturning the agency’s prior approval of the pesticide. The EPA reapproved the same uses of the pesticide in 2020, leading to the current lawsuit.
Today’s ruling outlaws dicamba products sprayed over emerged soybeans and cotton crops that are genetically engineered to withstand the spray. Since 2017 the pesticide has caused drift damage to millions of acres of non-genetically engineered soybeans as well as to orchards, gardens, trees and other plants on a scale unprecedented in the history of U.S. agriculture.
Dozens of imperiled species, including pollinators like monarch butterflies and rusty patched bumblebees, are also threatened by the pesticide.
The EPA admitted in a 2021 report that its application restrictions to limit dicamba’s harm had failed and the pesticide was continuing to cause massive drift damage to crops.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that up to 15 million acres of soybeans have been damaged by dicamba drift. Beekeepers in multiple states have reported sharp drops in honey production due to dicamba drift suppressing the flowering plants their bees need for sustenance.
The plaintiffs are National Family Farm Coalition, Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity. They are represented by legal counsel from the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The US decision to re-designate the Houthis as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” will block the payment of public sector workers living in Houthi-controlled Yemen, who have gone without pay for years.
The payment of civil workers has been a key demand of the Houthis and is part of the first phase of the peace deal. The Houthis had asked for the salaries to be paid for using oil revenue that goes to the Saudi-backed Yemeni government, whose leaders are mainly based in Saudi Arabia. It’s unclear if the Saudi side agreed to the Houthi demand or if they decided to pay the salaries using other means.
The first phase of the peace deal would also fully open Yemen’s airports and sea ports that have been under blockade since 2015, another aspect of the deal that will be complicated by the new US sanctions, which will go into effect later this month.
A US official told the Times that the US would only allow the payment of Yemeni civil salaries if the Houthis choose the path of “peace” and stop attacking shipping in the Red Sea. But the Houthis, who govern the most populated area of Yemen, have been clear the operations will only stop once the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza ends.
Instead of pressuring Israel to stop its onslaught, President Biden launched a new war against the Houthis, which has dramatically escalated the situation. The Houthis are now targeting American and British commercial shipping, and there’s no sign they will back down.
Since January 12, the US has launched at least 18 rounds of missile strikes on Houthi-controlled Yemen. President Biden has acknowledged the strikes are not “working” since they haven’t stopped Houthi attacks. But he vowed to continue bombing Yemen anyway.
The US supported a Saudi/UAE-led coalition in Yemen in a brutal war that killed at least 377,000 people between 2015 and 2022. More than half of those killed died of starvation and disease caused by the bombing campaign and blockade.
A truce between the Saudis and Houthis has been held since April 2022, but a formal peace deal hasn’t been signed. Despite the new US bombing campaign, the Saudis and Houthis appear determined not to restart the war. When President Biden launched his bombing campaign in Yemen, Saudi Arabia urged the US to “avoid escalation.”
This week, a Houthi official said the Yemeni group was ready to formally make peace with the Saudis. “Sanaa is prepared for peace with Riyadh despite the challenges posed by the US and its associated Yemeni groups,” said Hussein al-Ezzi, the Houthi deputy foreign minister.
Some members of the US and Saudi-backed Yemeni presidential council are calling for a ground campaign against the Houthis. But the council does not have much influence and is known in Yemen as the “government of hotels” since many of its members are in exile.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In his newly published book, Nuclear High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse, Steven Starr shows that all it takes is one nuclear explosion to shut down the United States and throw the population back into the Dark Ages.The electric power grid would be destroyed along with the communications system, the cooling systems at nuclear power plants and all electronic devices.The reason is that civilian infrastructure is not protected from Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP). The military has taken steps to shield its weapon and communication systems, but nothing has been done to protect civilian infrastructure.Bills mandating EMP protection have been defeated in Congress.
Starr reports that only 4% of the US military budget is required to shield the power grid and civilian infrastructure.Instead, the Washington idiots waste trillions of dollars in pointless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, and Ukraine.
American cities would suffer no effects from blast and fire, such as would be produced by ground level detonation, but the consequences would be just as dire.Starr describes them in a summary on his website.
Effects of a Single High-altitude Nuclear Detonation Over the Eastern U.S.
“105 miles above Ohio, a single nuclear warhead explodes. Because it is far above the atmosphere, there will be no blast or fire effects felt on Earth, however, this high-altitude nuclear detonation will create a gigantic electromagnetic pulse or EMP.
“In one billionth of a second, the initial EMP E1 wave will cause massive voltages and currents to form within power lines, telecommunication lines, cables, wires, antennas, and any other electrically conductive material found beneath the nuclear detonation in a circular area covering hundreds of thousands of square miles.
“Within this region, under ideal conditions, the E1 wave will produce 2 million volts and a current of 5,000 to 10,000 amps within medium distribution power lines. Any unshielded modern electronic devices that contain solid-state circuitry, which are plugged into the grid, will be disabled, damaged, or destroyed. This includes the electronic devices required to operate all critical national infrastructure.
“Unshielded electronic devices within ground, air, and sea transportation systems, water and sanitation systems, fuel and food distribution systems, water and sanitation systems, telecommunication systems, and banking systems would all be simultaneously knocked out of service – and all these systems would be disabled until the solid-state electronics required to operate them could be repaired or replaced.
“The E1 wave will also instantly destroy millions of glass insulators found on 15 kilovolt-class electric power distribution lines. 78% of all electricity in the US is delivered to end users (residential, agricultural, commercial) through these 15 kV power lines. The loss of a single insulator on a line can knock out power distribution on the entire line.
“At the same instant, the massive voltage and current induced by the E1 wave will damage and destroy the relays, sensors, and control panels at 1783 High Voltage Substations, knocking out the entire electric power grid in the eastern half of the United States.
“One to ten seconds after the nuclear detonation, the following EMP E3 wave would induce powerful current flows in power lines including lines that are both above and below ground. E3 would damage or destroy many – if not most – of the Large Power Transformers and Extra High Voltage Circuit Breakers required for the long-distance transmission of about 90% of electrical power in the United States.
“The loss of Large Power Transformers and Extra High Voltage Circuit Breakers would mean that entire regions within the United States would be left without electric power for up to a year or longer. This is because Large Power Transformers are not stockpiled and the current wait time for their manufacture is 18 to 24 months; they must be custom designed and manufactured and about 80% are made overseas. They each weigh between 200 and 400 tons and must be shipped by sea and moving them to their final destination is quite difficult even under normal circumstances.
“Because nuclear power plants are not designed to withstand the effects of EMP, the solid-state electronics within their backup electrical and cooling systems would also be damaged and disabled. The failure of their Emergency Power Systems and active Emergency Core Cooling Systems will make it impossible to cool their reactor cores after emergency shutdown; this will quickly lead to reactor core meltdowns at dozens of nuclear power plants.
“To summarize, a single nuclear high-altitude electromagnetic pulse can instantly take out most or all of the US power grid while simultaneously destroying the solid-state electronic devices required to operate US critical national infrastructure – including the safety systems at nuclear power plants. Following a nuclear EMP, the people of the US would suddenly find themselves living in the conditions of the Middle Ages for a period possibly as long as a year – most Americans would not be able to survive such circumstances.
“For less than 4% of the US national defense budget, the US power grid and critical infrastructure can be shielded from EMP. However, the political will to implement this protection has not yet been found, so Americans remain very much at risk.”
The book is available from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Kindle. If you read it, you will be amazed and disgusted at the negligence and stupidity of the US government.Thanks to the fools who govern us, we have zero national security despite the massive expenditures year after year, decade after decade.
People do not realize that the convenience and entertainment provided by their cell phones comes at great cost when measured by risk. Nothing is secure in the digital age, not your identity, your privacy, your bank account, or your independence. The expansion of the digital revolution into money will mean that you can be denied access to your money for any reason including the exercise of free speech. All accumulated knowledge in digital form can be erased by one EMP. Try to imagine the consequences of such a loss. These are new risks never before experienced on Earth.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Nicaragua has warned Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada that it will take the countries to the International Court of Justice over allegations that weapons they are providing Israel are being used in a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
In a bilingual Spanish and English statement, the Nicaraguan government said that the four countries had supplied arms to Israel “to facilitate or commit violations of the Genocide Convention” in the Gaza Strip.
Nicaragua’s leftist government said it had delivered a verbal warning to them of its “decision to hold them responsible under international law”.
“Nicaragua has urged the government of the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada to immediately halt the supply of arms, ammunitions, technology and/or components to Israel as it is plausible they might have been used to facilitate or commit violations of the genocide convention,” the statement said.
The central American country was one of several along with Turkey, Jordan, Venezuela, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Namibia to support South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in January.
The International Court of Justice has delivered an interim ruling calling on Israel to refrain from impeding the delivery of aid into Gaza and improve the humanitarian situation.
It also ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide in the besieged enclave and to punish incitement to genocide.
However, it did not order Israel to halt its military operations in Gaza, one of South Africa’s key demands in the case it brought to The Hague.
In its statement, Nicaragua argued that “the risk” of a genocide occurring supported its appeal for a halt in arms shipments.
“The obligation to prevent genocide arises and begins when there is a risk of it occurring; in fact, when it is plausible that it is occurring or might occur. This plausibility is now beyond doubt and dispute.”
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, a former Marxist guerrilla, is close to US foes Russia and China. He secured a fourth term in office in 2021 after jailing his main opponents in an election the US slammed as a “pantomime” and a crackdown on street protests that saw hundreds killed.
Human Rights Watch has documented widespread cases of harassment and detention of Ortega’s political opponents, journalists, and human rights defenders.
He has most recently cracked down on the Catholic church, arresting clergy in what Human Rights Watch has said is “one of the worst human rights crises in Latin America.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
There is growing concern among the German leadership that NATO will not survive if Republican front-runner Donald Trump is re-elected as US president and that Russia will set its eyes closer to Berlin after Ukraine, writes The New York Times. This alarmist fake news comes as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is using “fiscal policy trickery” to ensure that his government can continue supporting Ukraine despite budgetary restrictions and the rise of the Russia-friendly Alternative for Germany (AfD).
In a speech to his supporters in Las Vegas in January, Trump said:
“We’re spending – we’re paying for NATO, and we don’t get so much out of it,” adding that “if we ever needed their help, let’s say we were attacked, I don’t believe they’d be there [to help].”
The former US leader has repeatedly accused NATO allies of failing to meet budgetary requirements and even proclaimed in 2017 that the military bloc was “obsolete.”
Trump remains in the lead for the nomination as Republican presidential candidate in the November elections, especially after several candidates dropped out of the race. The article notes that senior German officials fear there are significant doubts about whether NATO could survive a second Trump term.
“Their immediate concern is growing pessimism about the United States continuing to fund Ukraine’s struggle,” writes the NYT, referring to a months-long impasse in the US Congress over the latest $60 billion package proposed for Kiev by President Joe Biden. Republicans made the approval of more military aid to Ukraine contingent on the administration’s agreement to tighten controls at the US-Mexico border to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.
More alarming from the article is the fake news peddled by German officials who say that it is impossible to return to previous relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and that they are afraid of the consequences of Russia’s win. Unnamed German officials stated to the newspaper that if American funding dries up and Russia prevails, its next target will be closer to Berlin, something which obviously will not occur as Moscow has repeatedly stated it has no interest in conflict with NATO.
The ruling German government has an all-time low approval rating, mostly related to economic issues, with many of these stemming from the reckless sanctions imposed on Russia. Nonetheless, Scholz said during a press conference on January 24 that he expects Kiev and Berlin to agree on security guarantees “soon.”
According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, sources in Berlin said the agreement between Ukraine and Germany “should be signed on February 16 during the Munich Security Conference.”
Since the launch of the Russian military operation, Germany has supported Ukraine with weapons and equipment deliveries and is the second largest donor of military aid after the US.
Berlin has thrown away billions of euros to Ukraine, creating much outrage and why it took the German parliament until February 2 to approve this year’s ruling coalition’s budget. The approval ended a spending crisis that shook Scholz’s government after Germany’s constitutional court ensured a €60 billion hole in the country’s finances in November, forcing the ruling coalition to cut spending. This triggered infighting among the ruling Social Democrats (SPD), Free Democrats (FDP) and Greens.
Notably, though, Germany’s 2024 budget includes a fallback clause that allows a potential debt brake suspension for 2024 — should the war escalate or the US reduce their support for Ukraine, something likely if Trump is elected in November, which could prompt Germany to increase its support.
“If the situation worsens as a result of Russia’s war against Ukraine, for example, because the situation on the front deteriorates or because other supporters reduce their aid to Ukraine or because the threat to Germany and Europe increases further, we will have to respond to this,” Scholz told reporters back in December.
Friedrich Merz, leader of the Christian Democrats, exposed Scholz’s reasoning in parliament for suspending the debt brake over Ukraine aid as “fiscal policy trickery,” pointing out that it would allow the government to use the war to justify more spending in other areas. “The trick is obvious.”
Germany’s economy contracted in the final quarter of 2023, narrowly avoiding a recession spurred on by low global demand, high inflation, and energy costs. Yet, under these difficult economic conditions, which are hurting everyday Germans, Scholz is using “trickery” and alarmist fake news to justify his unhinged anti-Russia policies and support for Ukraine.
Scholz has sent €27.8 billion to Ukraine thus far, and all at a time when Germans are struggling, explaining why the AfD is now the most popular political party in the country. Although NATO will likely survive a Trump presidency perfectly fine, the purpose of Scholz’s fake news agenda is to create an alarm to try and justify his reckless policies. However, as the rise of the AfD attests, the Germans see his trickery.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“Big Brother is Watching You.”―George Orwell, 1984
2024 is the new 1984.
Forty years past the time that George Orwell envisioned the stomping boot of Big Brother, the police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state.
Fueled by a melding of government and corporate power—the rise of the security industrial complex—this watershed moment sounds a death knell for our privacy rights.
An unofficial fourth branch of government, the Surveillance State came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum, and yet it possesses superpowers, above and beyond those of any other government agency save the military.
It operates beyond the reach of the president, Congress and the courts, and it marches in lockstep with the corporate elite who really call the shots in Washington, DC.
This is the new face of tyranny in America: all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful.
Tread cautiously.
Empowered by advances in surveillance technology and emboldened by rapidly expanding public-private partnerships between law enforcement, the Intelligence Community, and the private sector, the Surveillance State is making the fictional world of 1984, Orwell’s dystopian nightmare, our looming reality.
1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. People are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes. The government, or “Party,” is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: “Big Brother is watching you.”
Indeed, in our present age of ubiquitous surveillance, there are no private lives.
Everything is increasingly public.
What we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).
We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.
This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us on a daily basis.
There are roughly one billion surveillance cameras worldwide and that number continues to grow, thanks to their wholehearted adoption by governments (especially law enforcement and military agencies), businesses, and individual consumers.
Surveillance cameras mounted on utility poles, traffic lights, businesses, and homes. Ring doorbells. GPS devices. Dash cameras. Drones. Store security cameras. Geofencing and geotracking. FitBits. Alexa. Internet-connected devices.
Stingray devices, facial recognition technology, body cameras, automated license plate readers, gunshot detection, predictive policing software, AI-enhanced video analytics, real-time crime centers, fusion centers: all of these technologies and surveillance programs rely on public-private partnerships that together create a sticky spiderweb from which there is no escape.
With every new surveillance device we welcome into our lives, the government gains yet another toehold into our private worlds.
As the cost of these technologies becomes more affordable for the average consumer, an effort underwritten by the tech industry and encouraged by law enforcement agencies and local governing boards, which in turn benefit from access to surveillance they don’t need to include in their budgets, big cities, small towns, urban, suburban and rural communities alike are adding themselves to the surveillance state’s interconnected grid.
What this adds up to for government agencies (that is, FBI, NSA, DHS agents, etc., as well as local police) is a surveillance map that allows them to track someone’s movements over time and space, hopscotching from doorbell camera feeds and business security cameras to public cameras on utility poles, license plate readers, traffic cameras, drones, etc.
It has all but eliminated the notion of privacy enshrined in the Fourth Amendment and radically re-drawn the line of demarcation between our public and private selves.
The police state has become particularly adept at sidestepping the Fourth Amendment, empowered by advances in surveillance technology and emboldened by rapidly expanding public-private partnerships between law enforcement, the Intelligence Community, and the private sector.
Over the past 50-plus years, surveillance has brought about a series of revolutions in how governments govern and populations are policed to the detriment of us all. Cybersecurity expert Adam Scott Wandt has identified three such revolutions.
The first surveillance revolution came about as a result of government video cameras being installed in public areas. There were a reported 51 million surveillance cameras blanketing the United States in 2022. It’s estimated that Americans are caught on camera an average of 238 times every week (160 times per week while driving; 40 times per week at work; 24 times per week while out running errands and shopping; and 14 times per week through various other channels and activities). That doesn’t even touch on the coverage by surveillance drones, which remain a relatively covert part of police spying operations.
The second revolution occurred when law enforcement agencies started forging public-private partnerships with commercial establishments like banks and drug stores and parking lots in order to gain access to their live surveillance feeds. The use of automatic license plate readers (manufactured and distributed by the likes of Flock Safety), once deployed exclusively by police and now spreading to home owners associations and gated communities, extends the reach of the surveillance state that much further afield. It’s a win-win for police budgets and local legislatures when they can persuade businesses and residential communities to shoulder the costs of the equipment and share the footage, and they can conscript the citizenry to spy on each other through crowdsourced surveillance.
The third revolution was ushered in with the growing popularity of doorbell cameras such as Ring, Amazon’s video surveillance doorbell, and Google’s Nest Cam.
Amazon has been particularly aggressive in its pursuit of a relationship with police, enlisting them in its marketing efforts, and going so far as to hosting parties for police, providing free Ring doorbells and deep discounts, sharing “active camera” maps of Ring owners, allowing access to the Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal, which enables police to directly contact owners for access to their footage, and coaching police on how to obtain footage without a warrant.
Ring currently partners with upwards of 2,161 law enforcement agencies and 455 fire departments, and that number grows exponentially every year. As Vice reports, “Ring has also heavily pursued city discount programs and private alliances with neighborhood watch groups. When cities provide free or discounted Ring cameras, they sometimes create camera registries, and police sometimes order people to aim Ring cameras at their neighbors, or only give cameras to people surveilled by neighborhood watches.”
In November 2022, San Francisco police gained access to the live footage of privately owned internet cameras as opposed to merely being able to access recorded footage. No longer do police even have to request permission of homeowners for such access: increasingly, corporations have given police access to footage as part of their so-called criminal investigations with or without court orders.
The fourth revolutionary shift may well be the use of facial recognition software and artificial intelligence-powered programs that can track people by their biometrics, clothing, behavior and car, thereby synthesizing the many strands of surveillance video footage into one cohesive narrative, which privacy advocates refer to as 360 degree surveillance.
While the guarantee of safety afforded by these surveillance nerve centers remains dubious, at best, there is no disguising their contribution in effecting a sea change towards outright authoritarianism.
For instance, as an in-depth investigative report by the Associated Press concludes, the very same mass surveillance technologies that were supposedly so necessary to fight the spread of COVID-19 are now being used to stifle dissent, persecute activists, harass marginalized communities, and link people’s health information to other surveillance and law enforcement tools.
As the AP reports, federal officials have also been looking into how to add “‘identifiable patient data,’ such as mental health, substance use and behavioral health information from group homes, shelters, jails, detox facilities and schools,” to its surveillance toolkit.
These cameras—and the public-private eyes peering at us through them—are re-engineering a society structured around the aesthetic of fear and, in the process, empowering “people to not just watch their neighborhood, but to organize as watchers,” creating not just digital neighborhood watches but digital gated communities.
Finally, there is a repressive, suppressive effect to surveillance that not only acts as a potentially small deterrent on crime but serves to monitor and chill lawful First Amendment activity.
As Matthew Feeney warns in the New York Times, “In the past, Communists, civil rights leaders, feminists, Quakers, folk singers, war protesters and others have been on the receiving end of law enforcement surveillance. No one knows who the next target will be.”
No one knows, but it’s a pretty good bet that the surveillance state will be keeping a close watch on anyone seen as a threat to the government’s chokehold on power.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Very few of us saw the COVID-19 pandemic back decades. Yet the underpinnings and timeline for the pandemic response go back many years and date stamped by the 2005 PREP Act which provided immunity to “countermeasures” which we later learned included masks, lockdowns, vaccines, etc.
Now with Disease X being openly planned as a next pandemic, likely emerging from a biolab where gain-of-function research is being done on organisms to make them more contagious and deadly to humans, the entire world is paying attention to a dangerous game of biological threats and counter-measures (therapeutics, vaccines) being played by high-stakes rollers within the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex. We are told Disease X is an unknown future organism, but it will have 20-times the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2. How does Bill Gates, WHO, WEF, or anyone in the Complex know? I had a chance to sit down for this part of an interview with Dan Shumway of Kla.TV which is a global network to discuss these developments and the new calculus of public awareness developing for man-made biological threats. Shumway publishes an excellent Substack for you to check out.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Kiev regime never fails to remind the world that it’s a terrorist entity. We’ve all been accustomed to the mainstream propaganda machine’s attempts to either suppress information about this or outright ignore it. Killing journalists (including foreign ones) or any other prominent public figure they don’t like is completely “normal” behavior for the Neo-Nazi junta. This shouldn’t be surprising, as Zelensky’s deranged henchmen have publicly announced they’d keep doing what they call “sabotage operations” in Russia, a ridiculous euphemism for what can only be described as terrorist attacks. In the latest such case, the State Security Service of Georgia (SUS) arrested a group transporting a large cache of explosives from Ukraine to Russia. According to SUS officials, the group departed from Odessa.
There was no mention of the terrorists’ connection to the SBU, GUR or any other intelligence service, but their involvement is already implied. The SUS established that the terrorists hid the explosives in fake electric car batteries. During the search, Georgian agents discovered that the explosives, specifically C4, were disguised as batteries. According to the official statement by the SUS, given on February 5, the terrorist group was heading to Voronezh, a major city in western/southwestern Russia. The investigation led the SUS agents to the conclusion that the sender of the cache was Andrei Sharashidze, an MP (Member of Parliament) from Zelensky’s party. It’s highly unlikely that Sharashidze, a Kiev regime official of Georgian descent, tried to organize all this by himself, so SBU/GUR involvement is virtually guaranteed.
SUS officials stated that the explosive devices were transported in a minivan and arrived at the Georgian-Turkish border crossing on January 19, after going through Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. According to the Amsterdam-based Moscow Times, Georgian agents found six military-grade C4 plastic explosives weighing a total of 14 kg. The SUS claims that it deliberately replaced the explosive devices with replicas and returned them to their original location in order to locate and arrest the terrorist group. The organizers turned out to be seven Georgians, three Ukrainians and two Armenians. Sharashidze was the ringleader, while the level of involvement of others is yet to be determined, as it’s still unclear if they were knowingly involved or were simply never told what sort of cargo they were transporting.
Rather interestingly, the mainstream propaganda machine is accusing Georgia of rapprochement with Russia.
It appears that preventing terrorist attacks is now “not OK” if the target is determined by the Neo-Nazi junta. It should also be noted that the incident is very reminiscent of the terrorist attack that damaged the Crimean Bridge on October 8, 2022. At the time, the SBU sent a truck filled with explosives, while the perpetrators used virtually the same route, passing through Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Georgia and southern Russia. The Neo-Nazi junta openly bragged about the terrorist attack, with Zelensky’s adviser Mykhailo Podolyak saying that Crimea was “only the beginning” and that “everything illegal must be destroyed, everything stolen must be returned to Ukraine, everything occupied by Russia must be expelled”.
The Kiev regime’s Defense Ministry and Zelensky himself also joined the chorus, praising a terrorist act that killed at least five civilians. Some European Union members, specifically Estonia, also praised the terrorists. The only difference this time is that both the political West and the Kiev regime realize just how “inconvenient” it is to brag about such acts, so they mostly keep quiet or deny their involvement when the plot is uncovered. It should also be noted that the Neo-Nazi junta is increasingly targeting Russia’s undisputed territory. Voronezh is an important industrial center, home to several state and private enterprises producing aircraft and missile components, including engines. It’s also home to JSC (joint-stock company) known as the “Concern Sozvezdie”, a major manufacturer of military equipment.
JSC “Sozvezdie” is a leading Russian developer of electronic warfare (EW), radio communications and electronic countermeasures (ECM) systems. The Russian military’s world-class EW units are a major obstacle for the Kiev regime’s unmanned warfare, severely limiting its strike capabilities. Most of its drone attacks in the Russian rear are intercepted precisely by EW units. This further implies that the goal was to weaken Moscow’s defenses in order to make unmanned strikes easier. Such attacks are part of NATO’s wider total war against Russia, primarily in order to disrupt normal economic activity in the country, as the unprecedented sanctions and what can only be described as an economic siege turned out to be an utter failure, with the Russian economy doing far better than anyone in the political West anticipated.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
American journalist Tucker Carlson was spotted in Moscow in recent days, generating a series of controversies on social media. There are rumors that Carlson went to Russia to interview President Vladimir Putin. Although there is no confirmation yet about the case, expectations have been enough to encourage all kinds of negative reactions in the West, with public calls for Carlson to be expelled from the US for “treason”.
After leaving Fox News, Carlson launched a TV show on X (formerly Twitter) and has recently done a series of interviews with political leaders around the world, mainly presidents. Previously, he had already announced his personal interest in interviewing Putin, further stating that American authorities began spying on him and threatening him due to this intention. According to Carlson, the NSA hacked his computer and leaked his emails to the media, revealing his plan to go to Russia to interview Putin.
At first it was believed that the coercion from the American state was enough to stop Carlson’s plans, but recently the journalist finally traveled to Russia, sparking rumors about a possible interview with Putin. There is still no confirmation on the veracity of such allegations. The rumors were strengthened by images and videos circulating on social media showing what is believed to be Carlson team’s car leaving the Kremlin facilities.
However, the situation remains doubtful and unclear for now. Neither Russian authorities nor Tucker’s team confirmed or denied that an interview took place. What is known is that the journalist has actually spent a few days on Russian soil, visiting tourist attractions and having confirmedly attended a ballet performance at the Bolshoi Theatre. If there was any more important event on the journalist’s schedule, it will certainly be revealed soon.
However, it is interesting to analyze the reaction in the West to Carlson’s visit to Russia. Pro-war militants on the American political scenario are absolutely upset by this trip – and seem even angrier about the mere possibility of Tucker interviewing Putin. All sorts of hysterical reactions have arisen among American neoconservatives and liberals. Tucker has been called a “traitor” by several public figures. More than that, in a controversial statement, neoconservative writer Bill Kristol went to the extreme of calling for Tucker’s banishment from American soil, aimed at preventing him from returning to the US from Russia.
There are some special reasons for this reaction. Carlson is currently the most popular American journalist on social media. With more than 11 million followers on his X account and running a show whose audience is continually growing, Carlson represents a “threat” to Western Big Media. For example, Carlson’s recent interview with former American President Donald Trump reached an impressive 267 million views on X alone – having also been broadcast on other digital platforms. Carlson’s popularity is the reason why American elites are so afraid of him interviewing Putin.
The Deep State are in real trouble.
Tucker’s reach is the biggest on Earth. His interview with Trump did 267M views on X alone.
Whatever Tucker is doing in Russia, the Deep State are terrified of it. They know one of their darkest secrets is about to get massive exposure.… pic.twitter.com/JtxIt3FiEW
The Russian president certainly has a lot to say to Western public. Since 2022, censorship on Russian media has prevented Western citizens from hearing the Russian side in the ongoing conflict. Putin’s words, when they reach an English-speaking audience, come in a distorted and biased way, with ordinary people in Western countries not having the opportunity to really understand Russia’s concerns and reasons.
More than that, Russian denunciations of war crimes, human rights abuses, promotion of neo-Nazism and the production of ethnic biological weapons rarely reach Western public opinion. In a direct interview with the Russian president, this scenario would completely change. This is why, even without any confirmation that the interview happened, the mere possibility of such an event is already causing panic among American warmongers.
Furthermore, even if there is no interview, the visit of a popular American journalist to Russia in current times is also important. Tucker could show his audience the reality on the ground in Russia, showing that there is no effect of the illegal sanctions imposed by the West and that the Russian people are in fact living well, contrary to the scenario of social catastrophe described by the mainstream media. Also, being an election year in Russia, Carlson’s coverage could also show that, contrary to what the big outlets say, the Russian government is actually popular, being supported by the majority of the people – with Putin not being elected in “fraudulent elections“, as said in the West, but in real democratic procedures.
In practice, Tucker has a lot to say to his millions of followers about Russia. Whether or not there is an interview with Putin, it is certain that Carlson’s trip will have a strong impact on Western journalism. The case is serving to unmask the real nature of “American democracy”. More than ever, it seems clear that concepts such as freedom of speech and media no longer mean anything to the decadent political structure of the contemporary US.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The conflict between the Commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Zaluzhny and President Zelensky is coming to a head with the latter showing extreme weakness after weeks of claims that Zaluzhny had been sacked but with Zaluzhny still in place. Zaluzhny has the support of political figures like the former president Poroshenko and the Kiev mayor Klitschko, the army itself and in particular Zelensky’s potentially most dangerous enemies, the openly Nazi militants like Azov, Right Sector, AIDAR etc. Zaluzhny’s Nazi sympathies are displayed here.
With losses of between 20,000 and 30,000 per month killed and wounded the Ukrainian front line is critically short of troops but the hot potato of recruiting 500,000 troops is being passed rapidly from Zaluzhny to Zelensky to parliament – and nothing happens. It would of course be the final straw for Zelensky’s many enemies in Ukraine.
As background to Kiev’s press ganged troops, massive losses and expanding graveyards across the country Zelensky’s own successful efforts to avoid military service are instructive! The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence has issued the following document from its archives:
The translation:
In connection with jourrnalists‘ many requests to provide an answer to an official inquiry about President Zelensky’s army record, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense reports about a research of the archives, conducted by the country’s General Staff, revealed the following about the army record of the citizen Zelensky V.A. (Vladimir Alexandrovich)
As a citizen of Ukraine, Zelensky was included in the registrar of the servicemen of the Security Service of Ukraine and a special note was left on 22.12.2008 in the center for army registration and social support in Dovgintsevsky local office of Territorial Recruitment Service, the city of Krivoy Rog. This is the only army record where Zelensky stays registered. Zelensky never served in the army.
Vladimit Zelensky did not undergo his military service, his rank is that of a private, no special skills. Zelensky is fit for military service. Requests to show up at the territorial centre and visits were made on 15.04.2014, 23.06.2014, 15.08.2014 and 10.05.2015.
During all of these visits Mr. Zelensky was absent from home.
Draft Avoidance by “Internal Exile”
The head of Ukraine’s Committee for Economic Development Dmitry Natalukha admits that at least 3.4 million men have been “lost”:
“They are not abroad, not in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, not disabled, not studying and not employed. We don’t know where all these people of military age are.”
Because both at home and as refugees abroad Ukrainians are being identified through their bank transactions, employment and medical records and any form of communication system Natalukha recognises that:
“In order to avoid being targeted by the TCC, (mobilisation offices) people will stop using state banks, withdrawing cash, using credit cards, and traveling between cities,” he added.
We know that even external exile – as refugees – is unlikely to save them from conscription and being hurled into the murderous conditions of the front lines.
While Germany and other countries have said they will not extradite Ukrainian refugees to be conscripted into the army the British government has not said that.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Freenations.
Rodney Atkinson is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on November 22, 2023
***
The Dignity of Human Beings and Their Personality:
Neurotechnology and The Manipulation of The Human Nervous System.
“Saving Freedom and Democracy”
Open Letter to the European Union and Governments around the World
by Mojmir Babacek
Due to advances in physical science and neurotechnology, it is crucial to introduce in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union the following amendments, which should then be reflected in the legislations of the member states of the European Union.
It is unacceptable that any human being in the European Union could be deprived of his or her dignity by manipulation of his or her nervous system and personality by dual use neurotechnologies.
Nobody will be deprived of his or her right to life by the use of weapons based on the effects of physical fields on the human body or nervous system to cause the death of a person by remotely-produced heart attack (see this, pg. 250); suffocation (pg. 254); any form of cancer; diabetes; myocardial infarction; haemorrhage in the brain; thrombosis in the lungs, formation of blood clots (pg. 485) or any other deadly disease or malfunction of organs produced at a distance by electromagnetic or any other physical fields. Use of such fields to kill people will be considered, murder.
It is prohibited, under harsh sentences, to remotely access human brains with the use of technical means to decipher its activity and to control it for other than medical purposes (pg. 250, 251, 256).
Depriving a person of his or her free will with the use of dual use neurotechnologies imposing on him or her thoughts, emotions (pg. 250), hallucinations etc. or manipulating his or her subconscious and turning him or her, in this way, into a toy in the hands of manipulators(pg. 321, J.F. Schapitz) will be considered to be a torture, as well as imposing on him or her, in this way, sicknesses, illnesses, malfunction of organs or pain, control of limbs or producing pains or burns inside, or on, his or her body, by means of electromagnetic waves, directed energy weapons or other, as yet unpublished, physical means discovered by quantum physics research (for example non-local electron and photon connection (see this) or potential fields (see this and this).
Everyone has the right to liberty and security, including the protection of his or her body by the law from abuse of this right by electromagnetic waves, directed energy or other physical fields or methods discovered by quantum physics.
Everyone has the right to the protection of his or her own personal data, including the data contained in his or her brain. This data must not be collected from anyone for other than medical purposes and even for those purposes it must not be done without the informed consent of the person (see this).
Imposing remotely thoughts to human beings by means of dual-use neurotechnologies is strictly prohibited under harsh sentences (see this).
To make sure that the democracy in the European Union will be preserved for future decades, the use of neurotechnologies enabling remote control of the activity of human nervous systems, thoughts, emotions etc, by means of pulsing of the transmissions of mobile phone systems in brain frequencies (see this), or manipulating the ionosphere to produce extra-long electromagnetic waves in brain frequencies (see this, this and this), or producing such electromagnetic waves in the electric grids or any other systems for the purpose of transmitting energy into human brains and interfering with their activities will be prohibited tothe government officials of the European Union Member states or any other governments agencies, corporations or organizations, on, or above, the territory of the European Union, under heavy penalties.
To make sure that this prohibition is observed as well as the prohibition to access brain data of individual brains, the governments of the Member states will establish teams, which will be equipped by the means that will enable them to detect radiations and other technical inventions, capable of controlling the human brains activities.
Scientists, with the expertise in those fields, will be obliged by the law to advise those teams, whenever they ask for it.
The teams must be trained to use this equipment and among their members should be representatives of at least two renowned human rights organizations, who will be paid by those organizations. They will be obliged by the law not to disclose the technologies, enabling remote access, to the activity of the human brains, but as well they will be obliged to publish the prohibited use of those technologies and identities of the abusers, including governments and their officials.
The trespassers will be punished by long sentences in prison. By the same, sentences will be punished anyone, including government officials or government agencies officials, who will authorise insertions orinsert in the brains or other parts of the bodies of human beings, chips, graphene antennas (see this), or any other nanoparticles or viruses (see this) facilitating the control of the activity of the human nervous system for other than medical purposes. Even for medical purposes, it can be done only with the informed consent of the person. Inserting those materials into food, water, inoculation or aerosols or authorisation of those insertions by government officials will be punished by life in prison. Scientists, who will beaware of such actions, will be obliged, by law, under harsh penalties, to inform media of such actions and media will be obliged, by law, to publish such incriminating information.
Production, use or trade with all types of pulse generators pulsing electromagnetic or other energy from 0 Hz to 100 Hz will be prohibited by law under the penalty of a minimum of 15 years in prison with the exception of pulse generators produced and used for medical purposes. Those pulse generators will be registered at the production site and their presence in the medical establishments will be under permanent protection and control.
Transmissions of any type of energy in the frequencies from 0 to 100 Herz are prohibited by law under penalty of a minimum of 15 years in prison.
In order to fully meet the objective, to secure the freedom of thought of their citizens, the Member states of the European Union will publish the existence of technologies of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system, disclosing what kinds of radiation, or brain to brain connection, can be used for remote control of the activity of the human nervous system, without disclosing the actual procedures which are used to achieve such control. The scientists will be obliged, by law, under harsh penalties, to disclose the existence of such technologies to the general public in case governments, or other entities, try to hide them. The government officials, who will try to hide them, will be punished by a minimum of 15 years in prison.
To ensure the implementation of this strategy, to preserve human rights in the coming years and decades, the European Union will, in addition to the publication of the existence of those technologies, actively work for international treaties, banning the use of those technologies, by every state and country, on the planet. The control of the observation of this ban will be conferred by the United Nations Organization. As a part of this process the European Union will renounce its participation in the NATO program of non-lethal weapons, using “Directed Energy Weapons that can allegedly manipulate human behaviour in a variety of unusual ways… with systems which can directly interact with the human nervous systems” (quoted from the European Parliament document on Crowd Control Technologies” from the year 2000, (pg. 25 and 69).
All those actions are absolutely necessary to ensure that any person in the European Union Member States will be able to enjoy its freedom of thought when deciding for whom it will cast its vote in the election or what is his or her political opinion as well as what are his or her life options.
Your respectfully,
Mojimir Babacek
November 14, 2023
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Mojmir Babacek was born in 1947 in Prague, Czech Republic. Graduated in 1972 at Charles University in Prague in philosophy and political economy. In 1978 signed the document defending human rights in communist Czechoslovakia „Charter 77“. Since 1981 until 1988 lived in emigration in the USA. Since 1996 he has published articles on different subjects mostly in the Czech and international alternative media.
In 2010, he published a book on the 9/11 attacks in the Czech language. Since the 1990‘s he has been striving to help to achieve the international ban of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system and human minds with the use of neurotechnology.
The past few years have been extremely challenging for Global Research in terms of online reach and engagement.
Our Facebook and Twitter accounts which had hundreds of thousands of followers were taken down. We had failed in our attempt to set up a new Facebook account, but fortunately succeeded in Twitter/X. As we speak, we have accounts in three social media platforms: X, Instagram and Telegram.
Needless to say, censorship is taking a toll on Global Research. Our plummeting readership is both a cause and an effect of our fading online presence, which is unarguably a result of Big Tech’s effort to silence truth-tellers.
It is our wish to continue to stay online at least until global peace, justice and equality see the light of day. Our ask for you, our dear readers, is to help us sustain and expand our online presence. By doing any or all of the following, you are adding an extra day to our life:
Forwarding the daily Global Research Newsletter and/or your favorite Global Research articles to your family, friends, and respective communities;
Using the various instruments of online posting and social media to “spread the word.” Click the “like” and “share” buttons on our articles’ pages for starters. Help keep our articles circulating; and
Moreover, if you have the capacity to help us meet our running costs, you may click on the links below to become a member or make a donation. We already appreciate your generosity.
John Pilger passed away on December 30, 2023. His Legacy will Live.
This article was first published by Global Research almost 14 years ago.
With foresight John Pilger focusses on the Globalization of War.
***
Here is news of the Third World War.
The United States has invaded Africa. US troops have entered Somalia, extending their war front from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen and now the Horn of Africa.
In preparation for an attack on Iran, American missiles have been placed in four Persian Gulf states, and “bunker-buster” bombs are said to be arriving at the US base on the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
In Gaza, the sick and abandoned population, mostly children, is being entombed behind underground American-supplied walls in order to reinforce a criminal siege.
In Latin America, the Obama administration has secured seven bases in Colombia, from which to wage a war of attrition against the popular democracies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay.
Meanwhile, the secretary of “defence” Robert Gates complains that “the general [European] public and the political class” are so opposed to war they are an “impediment” to peace. Remember this is the month of the March Hare.
According to an American general, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is not so much a real war as a “war of perception”.
Thus, the recent “liberation of the city of Marja” from the Taliban’s “command and control structure” was pure Hollywood. Marja is not a city; there was no Taliban command and control. The heroic liberators killed the usual civilians, poorest of the poor. Otherwise, it was fake. A war of perception is meant to provide fake news for the folks back home, to make a failed colonial adventure seem worthwhile and patriotic, as if The Hurt Locker were real and parades of flag-wrapped coffins through the Wiltshire town of Wooten Basset were not a cynical propaganda exercise.
“War is fun”, the helmets in Vietnam used to say with bleakest irony, meaning that if a war is revealed as having no purpose other than to justify voracious power in the cause of lucrative fanaticisms such as the weapons industry, the danger of truth beckons. This danger can be illustrated by the liberal perception of Tony Blair in 1997 as one “who wants to create a world [where] ideology has surrendered entirely to values” (Hugo Young, the Guardian) compared with today’s public reckoning of a liar and war criminal.
Western war-states such as the US and Britain are not threatened by the Taliban or any other introverted tribesmen in faraway places, but by the antiwar instincts of their own citizens. Consider the draconian sentences handed down in London to scores of young people who protested Israel’s assault on Gaza in January last year. Following demonstrations in which paramilitary police “kettled” (corralled) thousands, first-offenders have received two and a half years in prison for minor offences that would not normally carry custodial sentences. On both sides of the Atlantic, serious dissent exposing illegal war has become a serious crime.
Silence in other high places allows this moral travesty. Across the arts, literature, journalism and the law, liberal elites, having hurried away from the debris of Blair and now Obama, continue to fudge their indifference to the barbarism and aims of western state crimes by promoting retrospectively the evils of their convenient demons, like Saddam Hussein. With Harold Pinter gone, try compiling a list of famous writers, artists and advocates whose principles are not consumed by the “market” or neutered by their celebrity. Who among them have spoken out about the holocaust in Iraq during almost 20 years of lethal blockade and assault? And all of it has been deliberate. On 22 January 1991, the US Defence Intelligence Agency predicted in impressive detail how a blockade would systematically destroy Iraq’s clean water system and lead to “increased incidences, if not epidemics of disease”. So the US set about eliminating clean water for the Iraqi population: one of the causes, noted Unicef, of the deaths of half a million Iraqi infants under the age of five. But this extremism apparently has no name.
Norman Mailer once said he believed the United States, in its endless pursuit of war and domination, had entered a “pre-fascist era”. Mailer seemed tentative, as if trying to warn about something even he could not quite define. “Fascism” is not right, for it invokes lazy historical precedents, conjuring yet again the iconography of German and Italian repression. On the other hand, American authoritarianism, as the cultural critic Henry Giroux pointed out recently, is “more nuance, less theatrical, more cunning, less concerned with repressive modes of control than with manipulative modes of consent.”
This is Americanism, the only predatory ideology to deny that it is an ideology. The rise of tentacular corporations that are dictatorships in their own right and of a military that is now a state with the state, set behind the façade of the best democracy 35,000 Washington lobbyists can buy, and a popular culture programmed to divert and stultify, is without precedent. More nuanced perhaps, but the results are both unambiguous and familiar. Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, the senior United Nations officials in Iraq during the American and British-led blockade, are in no doubt they witnessed genocide. They saw no gas chambers. Insidious, undeclared, even presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, the Third World War and its genocide proceeded, human being by human being.
In the coming election campaign in Britain, the candidates will refer to this war only to laud “our boys”. The candidates are almost identical political mummies shrouded in the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes. As Blair demonstrated a mite too eagerly, the British elite loves America because America allows it to barrack and bomb the natives and call itself a “partner”. We should interrupt their fun.
Holding the foreign policy of a country accountable in court, notably when it comes to matters criminal, can be insuperably challenging. Judges traditionally shun making decisions on policy, even though they unofficially do so all the time. The Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based civil liberties group, was not to be discouraged, most notably regarding the Biden administration’s unflagging support for Israel and its war in Gaza.
The “Justified Vengeance” doctrine propounds in no uncertain terms that (despite its limited military capabilities) Palestine rather than Israel is “the Aggressor” and that Israel has the right to defend itself.
With the world’s eyes fixed on Gaza, Israeli forces have over the past four months unleashed a brutal wave of violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, carrying out unlawful killings, including by using lethal force without necessity or disproportionately during protests and arrest raids, and denying medical assistance to those injured, said Amnesty International.
Itochu Corporation’s aviation unit will end its cooperation with Israeli defense contractor company Elbit Systems Ltd by the end of February following the ICJ ruling, the company announced on Monday.
A UK judge on Monday ruled in a landmark decision that David Miller, a professor of political sociology, who was fired from the University of Bristol in 2021 for anti-Zionist views, was unfairly dismissed and subjected to discrimination.
From the beginning I’ve been extremely reluctant to characterize the Israeli attack on Gaza as being a “genocide” because use of that term has become so wildly inflated and distorted in recent years, converted by dishonest Western governments and their mainstream media lackeys into a propaganda-weapon used to vilify countries whose governments they seek to undermine.
Chicago was the scene for the 1893 Columbian Exposition (World Fair) where people from throughout the globe would visit the city to “celebrate” the 400th anniversary of the “discovery” of America by Christopher Columbus. The entire framework of the gathering was of course flawed since there were already peoples and nations in existence in the western hemisphere centuries prior to the arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean.
It’s hard to imagine this happening in modern times. Even an assault on a single grave is a criminal act in a civilized (sic) country. The very idea is reviled everywhere. So what about Israel’s ongoing assaults on Palestinian cemeteries across Gaza?
Times of Israel report on January 25 noted that more than 250 U.S. cargo planes and 20 ships have delivered more than 10,000 tons of munitions and military equipment to Israel since its onslaught on Gaza began in October.
Many cases of sudden death and severe disease are being reported since the rollout of the COVID-19 gene-based vaccines. Early on, several doctors and scientists warned that the COVID vaccines would lead to several complications including autoimmune disease, blood clots, strokes, and more.
There is a complex history behind Israel’s October 2023 Plan to “Wipe Gaza off the Map”.
It’s Genocide, An Absolute Slaughter:
“We are going to attack Gaza City very broadly soon,” Israel’s chief military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said in a nationally broadcast address, without giving a timetable for the attack.”
It’s a criminal undertaking based on Israel’s doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” which was first formulated in 2001.
(See below: my January 2009 article published at the very outset of Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”)
The “Justified Vengeance” doctrine propounds in no uncertain terms that(despite its limited military capabilities) Palestine rather than Israel is “the Aggressor” and that Israel has the right to defend itself.
“U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack.
Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Hamas attack which has resulted in countless deaths of Israelis and Palestinians.
Was a carefully formulated Israeli plan to wage an all out war against Palestinians envisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”?
This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite”
Video. Justified Vengeance and False Flags. Michel Chossudovsky
Lux Media Video recorded on October 16, 2023
Below: detailed analysis and history of Israeli False Flag Operations against the People of Palestine
“…This is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda…
The ‘Foreign Report’ (Jane’s information) of July 12, 2001 disclosed that the Israeli army (under Sharon’s government) has updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority”
The blueprint, titled “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”, was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8 [2001].
The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.” (Tanya Reinhart, December 22, 2001)
Ariel Sharon: “A 1948 Style Solution”
According to the Prof. Tanya Reinhart; “Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion [2002- ], were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population … Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon “it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians”. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)
The “Hamas-Mossad Partnership”
What is now unfolding in Gaza is part of a longstanding intelligence agenda, which has been on the drawing-board of successive Israeli governments for more than twenty years. Founded in 1987 with the support of Israel, “The Hamas-Mossad partnership” is confirmed by Netanyahu:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (March 2019 Statement quoted by Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
“Support” and “Money” for Hamas
“Transferring Money to Hamas” on behalf of Netanyahu is confirmed by a Times of Israel October 8, 2023 Report:
“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (emphasis added)
Benjamin Netanyahu’s position defined several years prior to the October 7, 2023 “State of Readiness For War” consists in the total appropriation of Palestine Lands as well as the outright exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland:
“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.” (January 2023)
The Role of Mossad
The doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” initiated in 2001, is the cornerstone of Israel’s intelligence narrative. It provides a justification to carry out acts of genocide, with the support of the International community, first in Gaza, then in the West Bank.
These official figures are meaningless, intelligence agencies do not reveal the sources of their funding or the size of their staff (which are in excess of the figures quoted above).
Mossad (Foreign Intelligence) together with Shin Bet (Domestic National Security) and Aman (Military Intelligence) is the main actor in the conduct of “false flag operations”. It’s covert capabilities are extensive. It has over the years infiltrated both Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority, It also exerts –in liaison with US intelligence– control over Al Qaeda operatives, ISIS and Daesh throughout the Middle East.
Mossad’s mandate is to create “divisions” within the Palestinian Resistance Movement, while sustaining fear and routine terrorist false flag events against innocent Israeli civilians, which sustains the legitimacy of the “Justified Vengeance” narrative.
Chronology
Let us briefly review the history, the various stages following the:
Failure of Oslo I and II (1993-95) and The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (1995)
2001. “Operation Justified Vengeance”
Presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title:
“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.
See the Analysis of Tanya Reinhart and the Jane Report quoted above and in the article below).
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after the late General Meir Dagan, who headed Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency from 2002-2011.
The longer term objective of “Operation Justified Vengeance” (2001) was and remains the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
2002. Decision to Build the Infamous Apartheid Wall by Sharon government
2004. The Assassination of Yasser Arafat
It was ordered by the Israeli Cabinet in 2003. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. It was undertaken by Mossad. (See details in article below).
2005. The Removal, under Orders of PM Ariel Sharon of all Jewish Settlements in Gaza.
Proposed in 2003 by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, implemented in August 2005 and completed in September 2005.
A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated. This relocation was required to transform the Gaza Strip into “An Open Air Prison”
2006. The Hamas election victory in January 2006.
Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections.
2008-2009. “Operation Cast Lead”
In 2008 the “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda, which was first formulated in the 2001 “Operation Justified Vengeance”:
“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”
The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” as formulated in the “Operation Justified Vengeance Report”.
***
Michel Chossudovsky, May 15, 2021, October 23, 2023, November 8, 2023,
Below is my article published in early January 2009, at the height of the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead
The Invasion of Gaza:
Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda
by Michel Chossudovsky
January 2009
***
“Operation Cast Lead”
The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” [2008] is a carefully planned undertaking, which is part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001:
“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)
It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:
“Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip. Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.
The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions.
In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel. During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis. Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)
Planned Humanitarian Disaster
On December 8, [2008] US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan.
“Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.
Hamas’ military targets are not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” is intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities.
What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below)
The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:
“Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)
“Operation Justified Vengeance”
A turning point has been reached. Operation “Cast Lead” is part of the broader military-intelligence operation initiated at the outset of the Ariel Sharon government in 2001. It was under Sharon’s “Operation Justified Vengeance” that F-16 fighter planes were initially used to bomb Palestinian cities.
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.
“A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002).
According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.
“Bloodshed Justification”
The “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” Israeli military operations were carefully timed to coincide with the suicide attacks:
“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after General (ret.) Meir Dagan, who currently heads Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.
Reserve General Meir Dagan was Sharon’s national security adviser during the 2000 election campaign. The plan was apparently drawn up prior to Sharon’s election as Prime Minister in February 2001. “According to Alex Fishman writing in Yediot Aharonot, the Dagan Plan consisted in destroying the Palestinian authority and putting Yasser Arafat ‘out of the game’.” (Ellis Shulman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, March 2001):
“As reported in the Foreign Report [Jane] and disclosed locally by Maariv, Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (Ibid, emphasis added)
The “Dagan Plan” envisaged the so-called “cantonization” of Palestinian territories whereby the West Bank and Gaza would be totally cut off from one other, with separate “governments” in each of the territories. Under this scenario, already envisaged in 2001, Israel would:
“negotiate separately with Palestinian forces that are dominant in each territory-Palestinian forces responsible for security, intelligence, and even for the Tanzim (Fatah).” The plan thus closely resembles the idea of “cantonization” of Palestinian territories, put forth by a number of ministers.” Sylvain Cypel, The infamous ‘Dagan Plan’ Sharon’s plan for getting rid of Arafat, Le Monde, December 17, 2001)
From Left to Right: Dagan, Sharon, Halevy
The Dagan Plan has established continuity in the military-intelligence agenda. In the wake of the 2000 elections, Meir Dagan was assigned a key role. “He became Sharon’s “go-between” in security issues with President’s Bush’s special envoys Zinni and Mitchell.” He was subsequently appointed Director of the Mossad by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in August 2002. In the post-Sharon period, he remained head of Mossad. He was reconfirmed in his position as Director of Israeli Intelligence by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June 2008.
Meir Dagan, in coordination with his US counterparts, has been in charge of various military-intelligence operations. It is worth noting that Meir Dagan as a young Colonel had worked closely with defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on Palestinian settlements in Beirut in 1982. The 2009 ground invasion of Gaza, in many regards, bear a canny resemblance to the 1982 military operation led by Sharon and Dagan.
Continuity: From Sharon to Olmert
It is important to focus on a number of key events which have led up to the killings in Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”:
1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yasser Arafat.
Olmert and Sharon
This assassination had been on the drawing board since 1996 under “Operation Fields of Thorns”.
According to an October 2000 document
“prepared by the security services, at the request of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that ‘Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence'”. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001. Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.).
Arafat’s assassination was ordered in 2003 by the Israeli cabinet. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. Reacting to increased Palestinian attacks, in August 2003, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared “all out war” on the militants whom he vowed “marked for death.”
“In mid September, Israel’s government passed a law to get rid of Arafat. Israel’s cabinet for political security affairs declared it “a decision to remove Arafat as an obstacle to peace.” Mofaz threatened; “we will choose the right way and the right time to kill Arafat.” Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat told CNN he thought Arafat was the next target. CNN asked Sharon spokesman Ra’anan Gissan if the vote meant expulsion of Arafat. Gissan clarified; “It doesn’t mean that. The Cabinet has today resolved to remove this obstacle. The time, the method, the ways by which this will take place will be decided separately, and the security services will monitor the situation and make the recommendation about proper action.” (See Trish Shuh, Road Map for a Decease Plan, www.mehrnews.com November 9 2005
The assassination of Arafat was part of the 2001 Dagan Plan.
In all likelihood, it was carried out by Israeli Intelligence. It was intended to destroy the Palestinian Authority, foment divisions within Fatah as well as between Fatah and Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian quisling.
He was installed as leader of Fatah, with the approval of Israel and the US, which finance the Palestinian Authority’s paramilitary and security forces.
2. The removal, under the orders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, of all Jewish settlements in Gaza.
A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated.
“It is my intention [Sharon] to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements…. I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza,” Sharon said.” (CBC, March 2004)
The issue of the settlements in Gaza was presented as part of Washington’s “road map to peace”.
Celebrated by the Palestinians as a “victory”, this measure was not directed against the Jewish settlers. Quite the opposite: It was part of the overall covert operation, which consisted in transforming Gaza into a concentration camp. As long as Jewish settlers were living inside Gaza, the objective of sustaining a large barricaded prison territory could not be achieved. The Implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” required “no Jews in Gaza”.
3. The Building of the Infamous Apartheid Wall
This was decided upon at the beginning of the Sharon government in 2002. (See Map below).
4. The Hamas Election Victory in January 2006.
Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections. This was part of the scenario, which had been envisaged and analyzed well in advance.
With Hamas in charge in Gaza, using the pretext that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel would carry out the process of “cantonization” as formulated under the Dagan plan. Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would remain formally in charge of the West Bank. The duly elected Hamas government would be confined to the Gaza strip.
Ground Attack, 2008-2009
On January 3, [2009] Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza in an all out ground offensive:
“The ground operation was preceded by several hours of heavy artillery fire after dark, igniting targets in flames that burst into the night sky. Machine gun fire rattled as bright tracer rounds flashed through the darkness and the crash of hundreds of shells sent up streaks of fire. (AP, January 3, 2009)
Israeli sources have pointed to a lengthy drawn out military operation. It “won’t be easy and it won’t be short,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a TV address.
Israel is not seeking to oblige Hamas “to cooperate”. What we are dealing with is the implementation of the “Dagan Plan” as initially formulated in 2001, which called for:
“an invasion of Palestinian-controlled territory by some 30,000 Israeli soldiers, with the clearly defined mission of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian leadership and collecting weaponry currently possessed by the various Palestinian forces, and expelling or killing its military leadership. (Ellis Shulman, op cit, emphasis added)
Nakba 2.0: Mass Expulsion and a Ground Invasion Contemplated
The broader question is whether Israel in consultation with Washington is intent upon triggering a wider war.
Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion, were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population.
Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon
“it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)
Os agricultores europeus estão a sair às ruas em vários países para protestar por melhores condições de vida e de trabalho. França, Alemanha e Países Baixos estão entre os estados mais afetados pela crise, mas há manifestações em muitos outros países. Os agricultores protestam pelo fim da política de importação de cereais ucranianos e contra as novas normas ambientais que restringem a produção agrícola europeia.
Historicamente, o agronegócio europeu é uma atividade econômica com relações profundas com os governos. A Europa Ocidental é caracterizada por uma baixa capacidade produtiva, e os países locais não conseguem satisfazer todas as suas necessidades alimentares apenas com os produtores nacionais. Para equilibrar este cenário, os governos europeus sempre incentivaram a produção interna através de incentivos fiscais, compras estatais de commodities e outras medidas. Com isso, manteve-se um equilíbrio de interesses, preservando a atividade agrícola europeia, apesar da forte entrada de itens estrangeiros através de importações.
No entanto, a política pró-guerra da UE perturbou este equilíbrio de interesses entre governos e agricultores. Para “ajudar” a economia de Kiev, os países europeus decidiram permitir a entrada massiva de produtos agrícolas ucranianos nos seus territórios. Como é sabido, a Ucrânia é um grande exportador agrícola, tendo uma capacidade produtiva muito maior do que os países da Europa Ocidental. Como resultado, a importação descontrolada de cereais de baixo custo simplesmente causou o colapso da produção interna nos países europeus.
A política histórica de proteção dos trabalhadores rurais foi substituída por um abandono do agronegócio nacional, priorizando medidas que possam de alguma forma “ajudar” a Ucrânia. Por outras palavras, para implementar os esforços de guerra anti-Rússia do Ocidente, os membros da UE decidiram prejudicar os seus próprios trabalhadores rurais, o que gerou indignação. Alguns países, como a Hungria, a Polônia e a Romênia, já tomaram medidas preventivas para limitar a crise, proibindo parcialmente o comércio de cereais com Kiev, mas em estados fora da fronteira com a Ucrânia, a situação permanece fora de controle.
Comentando o caso, Josep-Maria Arauzo-Carod, presidente do Research Center on Economics and Sustainability (ECO-SOS), disse:
“O efeito não é exatamente das sanções econômicas anti-russas, mas sim das importações da Ucrânia (…) A estrutura do sector agrícola da Ucrânia é muito diferente da do resto da Europa porque na Ucrânia o campo de produção é muito maior o que significa mais capacidade de produção. Na Europa são mais pequenos e, além disso, os custos de produção na Ucrânia são muito mais baixos. Obviamente estão a competir com produtos europeus. E os produtores agrícolas têm-se queixado muito.”
Paralelamente à questão ucraniana, existem problemas relativos às políticas “verdes” europeias. Para cumprir a sua agenda ecológica, o bloco impôs diretrizes cada vez mais restritivas aos agricultores locais. Por exemplo, os subsídios estatais aos combustíveis – que são essenciais para os produtores rurais manterem as suas máquinas – sofreram cortes significativos, gerando enormes perdas econômicas para o sector agrícola.
Na verdade, os países membros da UE parecem interessados em pressionar os seus trabalhadores rurais a pagar todos os custos da agenda ecolôgica. Isto é especialmente problemático no caso europeu, uma vez que o sector agrícola local depende fortemente de incentivos estatais para continuar a funcionar. Na prática, para alcançar objectivos “ESG” a UE parece disposta a arruinar a sua própria produção rural.
“[Os agricultores] sentem que têm de pagar toda a fatura das alterações climáticas. E é verdade que o setor agrícola contribui muito para as emissões e que o sector agrícola tem de fazer um grande esforço para mudar a situação. Mas isso é algo que deve ser feito por todas as atividades econômicas. Portanto, preferiria uma distribuição mais equilibrada desta conta ESG entre todas as indústrias”, acrescentou Arauzo-Carod.
Esse cenário só tende a piorar. Infelizmente, a UE não está interessada em tomar medidas para aliviar os efeitos da crise. Pelo contrário, o bloco parece realmente disposto a continuar a concentrar-se em agendas externas, como a da Ucrânia, tendo em conta o que se viu na recente aprovação de um novo pacote de mil milhões de euros para o regime neonazista. Os tomadores de decisões da Europa Ocidental desistiram da soberania nacional e agora governam apenas para servir interesses estrangeiros, tais como os esforços de guerra da OTAN ou os planos “verdes” das elites e corporações ligadas ao FEM. Os interesses do povo europeu simplesmente já não parecem ter importância.
Com a queda constante dos padrões de vida europeus, é possível que haja uma escalada sem precedentes na mobilização popular. Os agricultores não são os únicos afetados – já estão a manifestar-se porque foram prejudicados mais diretamente, mas todos os sectores da sociedade sofrem de alguma forma os efeitos das políticas da UE. É possível que o sector industrial se junte às manifestações, uma vez que muitas fábricas europeias foram fechadas desde 2022 devido a sanções à energia russa. No mesmo sentido, as pessoas comuns nas cidades podem juntar-se a protestos para exigir melhorias nas condições de vida, gerando uma situação de crise generalizada.
Enquanto a UE não priorizar os interesses europeus, será impossível garantir qualquer tipo de estabilidade social.
O jornalista norte-americano Tucker Carlson foi flagrado em Moscou nos últimos dias, gerando uma série de polêmicas nas redes sociais. Há rumores de que Carlson foi à Rússia para entrevistar o presidente Vladimir Putin. Embora ainda não haja confirmação sobre o caso, as expectativas têm sido suficientes para encorajar todo tipo de reações negativas no Ocidente, com apelos públicos para que Carlson seja expulso dos EUA por “traição”.
Depois de deixar a Fox News, Carlson lançou um programa de TV no X (antigo Twitter) e recentemente fez uma série de entrevistas com líderes políticos de todo o mundo, principalmente presidentes. Anteriormente, ele já havia anunciado seu interesse pessoal em entrevistar Putin, afirmando ainda que as autoridades americanas começaram a espioná-lo e a ameaçá-lo devido a essa afirmação. Segundo Carlson, a NSA invadiu seu computador e vazou seus e-mails para a mídia, revelando seu plano de ir à Rússia entrevistar Putin.
A princípio acreditou-se que a coerção do Estado americano seria suficiente para impedir os planos de Carlson, mas recentemente o jornalista finalmente viajou para a Rússia, gerando rumores sobre uma possível entrevista com Putin. Ainda não há confirmação sobre a veracidade de tais alegações. Os rumores foram reforçados por imagens e vídeos que circularam nas redes sociais mostrando o que se acredita ser o carro da equipa Carlson a sair das instalações do Kremlin.
No entanto, a situação permanece duvidosa e pouco clara por enquanto. Nem as autoridades russas nem a equipe de Tucker confirmaram ou negaram a realização de uma entrevista. O que se sabe é que o jornalista já passou alguns dias em solo russo, visitando pontos turísticos e tendo assistido comprovadamente a uma apresentação de balé no Teatro Bolshoi. Se houve algum acontecimento mais importante na agenda do jornalista, certamente será revelado em breve.
Contudo, é interessante analisar a reação do Ocidente à visita de Carlson à Rússia. Militantes pró-guerra no cenário político americano estão absolutamente irritados com esta viagem – e parecem ainda mais irritados com a mera possibilidade de Tucker entrevistar Putin. Todos os tipos de reações histéricas surgiram entre os neoconservadores e liberais americanos. Tucker foi chamado de “traidor” por várias figuras públicas. Mais do que isso, numa declaração controversa, o escritor neoconservador Bill Kristol chegou ao extremo de pedir o banimento de Tucker do solo americano, com o objetivo de impedi-lo de regressar da Rússia aos EUA.
Existem algumas razões especiais para esta reação. Carlson é atualmente o jornalista americano mais popular nas redes sociais. Com mais de 11 milhões de seguidores em sua conta X e comandando um programa cuja audiência está crescendo continuamente, Carlson representa uma “ameaça” para a grande mídia ocidental. Por exemplo, a recente entrevista de Carlson com o ex-presidente americano Donald Trump alcançou impressionantes 267 milhões de visualizações apenas no X – tendo sido transmitida também em outras plataformas digitais. A popularidade de Carlson é a razão pela qual as elites americanas têm tanto medo que ele entreviste Putin.
O presidente russo tem certamente muito a dizer ao público ocidental. Desde 2022, a censura aos meios de comunicação russos têm impedido os cidadãos ocidentais de ouvirem o lado russo no conflito russo-ucraniano. As palavras de Putin, quando chegam a um público de língua inglesa, vêm de forma distorcida e tendenciosa, com as pessoas comuns nos países ocidentais não tendo a oportunidade de realmente compreender as preocupações e razões da Rússia.
Mais do que isso, as denúncias russas de crimes de guerra, violações dos direitos humanos, promoção do neonazismo e da produção de armas biológicas étnicas raramente chegam à opinião pública ocidental. Numa entrevista direta ao presidente russo, este cenário mudaria completamente. É por isso que, mesmo sem qualquer confirmação de que a entrevista aconteceu, a mera possibilidade de tal evento já causa pânico entre os pró-guerra americanos.
Além disso, mesmo que não haja entrevista, a visita de um jornalista americano popular à Rússia nos tempos atuais também é importante. Tucker poderia mostrar ao seu público a realidade no terreno na Rússia, mostrando que não há efeito das sanções ilegais impostas pelo Ocidente e que o povo russo está de fato a viver bem, ao contrário do cenário de catástrofe social descrito pela grande mídia . Além disso, sendo um ano eleitoral na Rússia, a cobertura de Carlson também poderia mostrar que, ao contrário do que dizem os grandes meios de comunicação, o governo russo é realmente popular, sendo apoiado pela maioria do povo – com Putin não sendo eleito em “eleições fraudulentas”. , como se diz no Ocidente, mas em procedimentos verdadeiramente democráticos.
Na prática, Tucker tem muito a dizer aos seus milhões de seguidores sobre a Rússia. Quer haja ou não uma entrevista com Putin, é certo que a viagem de Carlson terá um forte impacto no jornalismo ocidental. O caso serve para desmascarar a verdadeira natureza da “democracia americana”. Mais do que nunca, parece claro que conceitos como liberdade de expressão e de liberdade de imprensa já não significam nada para a estrutura política decadente dos EUA contemporâneos.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
With the world’s eyes fixed on Gaza, Israeli forces have over the past four months unleashed a brutal wave of violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, carrying out unlawful killings, including by using lethal force without necessity or disproportionately during protests and arrest raids, and denying medical assistance to those injured, said Amnesty International.
The organization investigated four emblematic cases where Israeli forces used unlawful lethal force– three incidents in October and one in November – which resulted in the unlawful killing of 20 Palestinians, including seven children. Researchers remotely interviewed 12 people, 10 of them eyewitnesses, including first responders, and local residents. The organization’s Crisis Evidence Lab verified 19 videos and four photos in examining these four incidents.
Amnesty International’s research also found that Israeli forces obstructed medical assistance to people with life-threatening wounds and attacked those attempting to assist injured Palestinians, including paramedics.
Over the past few months Israel has stepped up deadly raids across the West Bank and tensions have skyrocketed. In one recent incident Israeli forces carried out a raid masquerading as medical staff. At least 507 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank in 2023, including at least 81 children, making it the deadliest year for Palestinians since the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) began recording casualties in 2005.
“Under the cover of the relentless bombardment and atrocity crimes in Gaza, Israeli forces have unleashed unlawful lethal force against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, carrying out unlawful killings and displaying a chilling disregard for Palestinian lives. These unlawful killings are in blatant violation of international human rights law and are committed with impunity in the context of maintaining Israel’s institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination over Palestinians,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Director of Global Research, Advocacy and Policy.
“These cases provide shocking evidence of the deadly consequences of Israel’s unlawful use of force against Palestinians in the West Bank. Israeli authorities, including the Israeli judicial system, have proven shamefully unwilling to ensure justice for Palestinian victims. In this climate of near total impunity, an international justice system worth its salt must step in. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court must investigate these killings and injuries as possible war crimes of wilful killing and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury. The situation in Palestine and Israel is a litmus test for the legitimacy and reputation of the court. It cannot afford to fail it.”
Since 7 October, across the West Bank, Israeli security forces’ use of unlawful force during law enforcement operations has been unrelenting, sowing fear and intimidation among entire communities; it has also been used to disperse rallies and protests held in solidarity with Gaza and demanding the release of Palestinian prisoners and detainees.
Between 7 October and 31 December 2023, 299 Palestinians were killed, marking a 50% increase compared to the first nine months of the year. At least 61 further Palestinians, including 13 children, have been killed so far in 2024 as of 29 January, according to OCHA.
Under the cover of the relentless bombardment and atrocity crimes in Gaza, Israeli forces have unleashed unlawful lethal force against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank…
Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International
Amnesty International sent requests for information on the four cases investigated to the Israeli military’s spokesperson unit and to the Jerusalem District Commander on 26 November. At the time of publication, no response had been received. Amnesty International is continuing to investigate other cases of excessive force during law enforcement operations, such as the repeated raids and attacks in Jenin and Tulkarem in the northern occupied West Bank.
Israel has a well-documented track record of using excessive and often lethal force to stifle dissent and enforce its system of apartheid against Palestinians leading to a historic pattern of unlawful killings committed with impunity.
“Three bullets were fired without any mercy”: The Nour Shams October Raid
Since 7 October, Israeli forces have stepped up raids, carrying them out almost daily across the occupied West Bank in what it describes as search and arrest operations.
Over 54% of the 4,382 Palestinians injured in the West Bank were injured during such operations, according to OCHA.
In one illustrative case investigated by Amnesty International, Israeli military and border police forces used excessive force during a 30-hour-long raid on Nour Shams refugee camp in Tulkarem beginning on 19 October.
During the operation Israeli forces killed 13 Palestinians, including six children, four of them under the age of 16, and arrested 15 people. Israeli military sources quoted in media reports said that one Israeli Border Police officer was killed and nine were injured after an improvised explosive device was thrown at them by Palestinians.
Residents told Amnesty International that, during the operation, Israeli soldiers stormed more than 40 residential homes, destroying personal belongings and drilling holes in the walls for sniper outposts. Water and electricity to the camp was cut off and soldiers used bulldozers to destroy public roads, electricity networks and water infrastructure.
Among those killed during the raid was 15-year-old Taha Mahamid, who Israeli forces shot dead in front of his house as he came out to check whether Israeli forces had left the area. Taha was unarmed and posed no threat to the soldiers at the time he was shot, based on witness testimony and videos reviewed by Amnesty International. A video filmed by one of his sisters and verified by Amnesty’s Crisis Evidence Lab shows Taha walking on the street, peeking to check for the presence of soldiers and then collapsing on the street outside his house, after the sound of three gunshots.
Fatima, Taha’s sister, told Amnesty International: “They did not give him a chance. In an instant, my brother was eliminated. Three bullets were fired without any mercy. The first bullet hit him in the leg. The second – in his stomach. Third, in his eye. There were no confrontations… there was no conflict.”
An eyewitness told Amnesty International that when Taha’s father, Ibrahim Mahamid, then attempted to carry his injured son to safety, Israeli forces shot him in the back. A verified video filmed by one of Taha’s sisters immediately after the shooting shows Taha’s father lying on the ground next to Taha before limping away. Fatima Mahamid added: “He [her father Ibrahim] raised his hands, showing them [the soldiers] that he had nothing in them. He just wanted to take his son. They shot him with one bullet, and my father fell next to Taha.”
Ibrahim Mahamid suffered serious damage to his internal organs and had to be taken to intensive care.
Neither Taha nor Ibrahim Mahamid posed a threat to security forces or anyone else when they were shot. This unnecessary use of lethal force should be investigated as possible war crimes of wilful killing and willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
Approximately 12 hours after Taha Mahamid’s killing, Israeli military stormed his family’s home and locked his family members, including three young children, in a room under the supervision of a soldier for about 10 hours. They also drilled holes in the walls of two rooms to position snipers overlooking the neighbourhood. One witness said the soldiers searched the house, beating a member of the family, and one was seen urinating on the doorstep.
In videos verified by Amnesty International, Israeli military bulldozers are seen damaging the narrow streets of the Nour Shams refugee camp. Also, a video posted by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) and verified by Amnesty’s Crisis Evidence Lab shows the extensive damage to a road inside the Nour Shams refugee camp, hampering the medical evacuation of the injured during the raid.
Excessive Force Used Against Palestinian Protesters
Protests in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza have been held frequently across the occupied West Bank since 7 October. These demonstrations have been mostly peaceful, but some protesters have been seen throwing stones in response to the presence or forceful intervention of the Israeli forces.
Israeli forces’ use of lethal force in response to youth throwing stones is at odds with the right to life under international human rights law and international standards regulating the use of force in policing. Lethal force in law enforcement can only be used when there is an imminent threat to life; its use is not a proportionate response to stone-throwing.
In one egregious case on 13 October in Tulkarem, two eyewitnesses described to Amnesty International how Israeli forces stationed at a military watch tower at one of the main entrances to the town and those on the roof of a nearby home opened fire on a crowd of at least 80 unarmed Palestinians peacefully demonstrating in solidarity with Gaza.
Two journalists who were at the scene separately told Amnesty International that they saw Israeli forces firing two tear gas canisters at the crowd and shortly afterwards opening live fire at them without warning shots. The two journalists saw four people being shot and injured as they tried to run away from the shooting. A few minutes later, Israeli forces also opened fire in the direction of the journalists even though both were wearing vests clearly marked as Press. They hid behind a wall along with three children and had to remain there for about two hours as the operation continued.
During this time, they witnessed a Palestinian man riding past them on a bike being shot and injured by an Israeli soldier. One of the journalists also saw another demonstrator being shot in the head. She described how the victim was suddenly shot and fell to the ground. He later succumbed to his wounds.
In a different incident, on 27 November, Israeli forces resorted to excessive force against a crowd of Palestinians in Beitunia, near Ramallah. The group had gathered to greet prisoners released from Ofer prison as part of the deal between Israel and Hamas during the temporary humanitarian pause in Gaza.
Witnesses described to Amnesty International how the Israeli military fired live ammunition and rubber coated bullets at the crowd and dropped tear gas canisters using drones. Witnesses also reported that Israeli forces deployed a military bulldozer and drove military jeeps into the Palestinians who had gathered.
One eyewitness saw resident Yassine Al-Asmar being shot in the chest while he was just standing in the crowd and watched how ambulances were unable to reach him due to the ongoing shooting by the Israeli forces. Instead, his friends managed to move him out and take him to a hospital in Ramallah, but he was declared dead shortly afterwards.
Videos verified by Amnesty International’s Crisis Evidence Lab show some protesters throwing stones and burning tires in the area, as well as at least one person throwing a Molotov cocktail at a bulldozer.
Under international law, throwing stones or burning tires do not justify a law enforcement response involving the use of firearms. International law prohibits the use of lethal force against people who are not posing an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
These shootings should be investigated as possible war crimes of wilful killing and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury.
One of the witnesses said: “They seek to mar our celebration of released prisoners and assert their domination.”
“I saw …the ambulance getting shot at”: Obstruction of Medical Assistance
The obstruction of medical assistance by Israeli forces during operations across the OPT is a routine practice Amnesty International has documented for years and is part of Israel’s system of apartheid. Under international law, Israeli forces have an obligation to ensure anyone injured by their forces is able to access medical treatment.
Amnesty International has investigated five occasions where the Israeli forces hindered or prevented those seriously injured in demonstrations and raids from receiving critical medical assistance. They also shot at Palestinians trying to help, including medics tending to the wounded.
On 10 October, in Ein Al-Lozeh, a neighbourhood of Silwan in occupied East Jerusalem, an Israeli Border Police patrol unit unlawfully killed Ali Abbasi who was unarmed and attempting to pull to safety Abd Al-Rahman Faraj, who had just been shot by the same unit on patrol in the area.
Confrontations had erupted between Palestinians and Israeli Border Police in the neighbourhood. Palestinians used fireworks, and the Israeli forces used live ammunition. Amnesty’s Crisis Evidence Lab verified three videos shot from different angles, showing fireworks hitting the back and sides of a police car.
During these clashes, Abd Al-Rahman Faraj was shot. Shortly thereafter, Ali Abbasi tried to pull Faraj to safety. An eyewitness, who spoke on condition of anonymity for security reasons, told Amnesty International that they saw Israeli forces shooting Ali Abbasi in the head as he tried to pull Faraj away.
The witness said Israeli forces then threatened to shoot people who tried to help the two men and obstructed an ambulance from reaching the victims, leaving them bleeding on the ground for over an hour. The victims were later collected by an Israeli military ambulance and their bodies have yet to be returned to their families.
Similarly, during the crackdown on the Tulkarem demonstration on 13 October, eyewitnesses to the shooting by Israeli forces of the Palestinian man who was riding a bike told Amnesty International that the paramedic who attempted to rescue the victim was also shot at by the Israeli soldiers as he approached the injured man. One of the two journalists who witnessed the incident told Amnesty International that she saw the man on the bike being shot in one of his legs before he fell down:
“He was screaming. And then one of the ambulance guys tried to move him and save his life but the Israeli sniper continued shooting. I saw with my own eyes the medical people and the ambulance getting shot at by Israeli snipers.”
In a third example, during the raid in Nour Shams on 19 October, three eyewitnesses, including a paramedic on the scene, said two ambulances were stopped at the entrance of the camp and prevented from reaching the injured. The witnesses said the residents were forced to transport the wounded to a hospital in private cars.
Family members who witnessed the 19 October shooting of Ibrahim Mahamid while he attempted to carry his injured son Taha to safety told Amnesty International that he was prevented from receiving medical assistance for over an hour. The organization also spoke to a paramedic on the scene who confirmed that he had spent over an hour trying to reach Ibrahim Mahamid but Israeli forces stopped the ambulance at the entrance of the camp and Ibrahim was left to bleed throughout that time.
During the raid which took place across Jenin on 9 November, the Israeli military attacked medical personnel attempting to treat someone with a gunshot wound inside Jenin refugee camp. As reported by OCHA, Israeli forces killed 13 Palestinians during this operation, which lasted 12 hours and involved both armed clashes and air strikes.
According to an eyewitness, Israeli forces shot Sabreen Obeidi, a PRCS paramedic, in her lower back while she was inside a parked PRCS ambulance in Jenin refugee camp.
PRCS paramedic Sabreen Obeidi was shot in the lower back while aboard this ambulance in Jenin refugee camp
During the same raid on 9 November, the Israeli forces also shot at two other PRCS ambulances that entered Jenin refugee camp to collect injured persons. Video footage from a camera installed inside a PRCS ambulance shared with Amnesty International and verified by the organization’s Crisis Evidence Lab shows a round striking the road approximately two metres in front of the ambulance. The incident depicted in the video was also recounted to Amnesty International by a paramedic inside the ambulance who said that he also saw two other paramedics shot at by a sniper positioned in a building across the street.
International law requires that the sick and wounded and medical personnel be respected and protected. Obstructing access to medical treatment violates the right to health, the right to security of the person, to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and can lead to violations of the right to life.
“Amnesty International has long documented unlawful killings by Israeli forces and how they fit into the system of apartheid into which Palestinians are locked. It is time for the ICC Prosecutor to investigate these killings and the crime of apartheid in its investigation into the situation in Palestine,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas.
Background on International Legal Standards
In the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Israel is the occupying power and its actions are bound, in addition to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the law of occupation, by its obligations under international human rights law.
In policing demonstrations and carrying out other law enforcement functions in the West Bank, including so-called search and arrest operations, Israeli forces must respect human rights, including the rights to life and security of person and the rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly, as well as international standards that elaborate how human rights must be upheld by law enforcement officials such as the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
These standards prohibit the use of force by law enforcement officials unless strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty and require that firearms may only be used as a last resort – when strictly necessary for military personnel or police to protect themselves or others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury. The intentional lethal use of firearms is only permissible if strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. Wilful killings of protected persons and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to protected persons are grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and war crimes.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: Taha Mahamid, 15, who was shot dead by Israeli forces in front of his house
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
A UK judge on Monday ruled in a landmark decision that David Miller, a professor of political sociology, who was fired from the University of Bristol in 2021 for anti-Zionist views, was unfairly dismissed and subjected to discrimination.
Rahman Lowe Solicitors, Miller’s representatives, called the judgment a “significant triumph”, establishing that anti-Zionist beliefs are legally protected in the workplace.
“Prof. Miller successfully claimed discrimination based on his philosophical belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, alongside a finding of unfair dismissal,” a statement from the solicitors said.
“This judgment establishes for the first time ever that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace,” they added.
The judgment found that Miller had experienced discrimination based on his philosophical belief and had been unfairly dismissed by Bristol University.
The decision was hailed by free speech advocates, with one commentator calling it a “key victory for free speech and academic freedom”.
The case has gathered widespread attention in recent years, particularly from academics and individuals advocating for justice, fairness and equality in Palestine.
Anti-Israel Criticism
David Miller was dismissed in 2021 after accusing Israel of wanting to “impose [its] will all over the world”.
Following his dismissal, he launched employment tribunal proceedings claiming unfair dismissal, breach of contract and discrimination or victimisation on grounds of religion or belief.
At his hearing he made clear that anti-Zionism was not the same as antisemitism, and was not a “racist set of ideas”.
He added that it was impossible for a Zionist state such as Israel to be non-racist, and described Gaza as an “open air prison”.
Rahman Lowe’s partner Zillur Rahman, who represented Miller, called it a “landmark case” which “marks a pivotal moment in the history of our country for those who believe in upholding the rights of Palestinians”.
“The timing of this judgment will be welcomed by many who at present are facing persecution in their workplaces for speaking out against the crimes of the Israeli state, and the genocide taking place in Gaza,” he added.
I am also very proud that we have managed to establish that anti-Zionist views qualify as a protected belief under the UK Equality Act,”
Miller responded to the decision saying that he hopes it would become a touchstone precedent in all future battles that people face with “the racist and genocidal ideology of Zionism and the movement to which it is attached”.
“I am extremely pleased that the Tribunal has concluded that I was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by the University of Bristol. I am also very proud that we have managed to establish that anti-Zionist views qualify as a protected belief under the UK Equality Act,” he said.
“The University of Bristol maintained that I was sacked because Zionist students were offended by my various remarks, but it was plain from the evidence of its own witnesses that this was untrue, and it was the anti-Zionist nature of my comments which was the decisive factor,” he added.
‘Disappointed’ and ‘Dangerous’
The judgment was criticised by the Union of Jewish Students, a national body representing university Jewish societies and Jewish students. It noted that despite finding in favour of Miller, the tribunal found he had contributed to his own dismissal and was “culpable and blameworthy”.
“UJS believes this may set a dangerous precedent about what can be lawfully said on campus about Jewish students and the societies at the centre of their social life. This will ultimately make Jewish students less safe.”
In a statement, the University of Bristol said it was disappointed by the judgment and was reviewing the tribunal’s findings carefully.
It said: “After a full investigation and careful deliberation, the University concluded that Dr Miller did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff in relation to comments he made in February 2021 about students and student societies linked to the University. As a result and considering our responsibilities to our students and the wider University community, his employment was terminated.
“We recognise that these matters have caused deep concern for many, and that members of our community hold very different views from one another.
“We would, therefore, encourage everyone to respond in a responsible and sensitive way in the current climate.
“The University of Bristol remains committed to fostering a positive working and learning environment that enriches lives and where the essential principles of academic freedom are preserved.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: David Miller’s sacking was based on his opinion that Zionism is ‘inherently racist’ (Screengrab/YouTube)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The following article was first published by Global Research on December 22, 2023.
The war in the Middle East is edging towards Escalation. War Propaganda is the driving force. The official 9/11 consensus has created a counter-terrorism mandate embedded in US Foreign Policy.
America’s “Global War on Terrorism” is not categorized as an outright “act of war” within segments of the peace movement.
Also, the 9/11 doctrine accuses Muslim countries of waging a “civilizational war of Islam against the West”.
Michel Chossudovsky, February 6, 2024
***
Introduction. The 9/11 False Flag and the 2023 Middle East War
This article which focusses on the 9/11 False Flag is of utmost significance to our understanding of the ongoing Israel-U.S. genocide against Palestine as well as the broader U.S. hegemonic war against the broader Middle East.
On September 11, 2001, Afghanistan was identified as a “state sponsor of terror”, without a shred of evidence. The 9/11 attacks were categorized as an act of war against America by an unnamed foreign power.
It was a “False Flag” which consisted in blaming Afghanistan of having attacked America. “The Right to Self Defense” was put forth. The US-NATO aggressor was portrayed as the victim.
9/11: A Historical Landmark in U.S. Military Doctrine (2001- )
The alleged 9/11 “Attack on America” was instrumental in justifying the implementation of so-called “counter-terrorism” operations (aka wars) against ALL Muslim countries, nowextending over a period of more than 20 years. (2001 onwards).
In the present context (2023), The 9/11 False Flag has a bearing on the evolving US-NATO-Israel 2023 “Humanitarian War” against Palestine and the Middle East War, which is predicated on the concept of “Self Defense” against alleged terrorist attacks by Muslim Countries.
What Happened on September 11, 2001?
“A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that “Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects”.
CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning”
Image (right). George Tenet with G. W. Bush and Dick Cheney
Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”
Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media mantra had approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in the Middle East. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times:
“When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.(Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, September 12, 2001)
NATO’s “Collective Defense Clause” and the October 7, 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan
“The tragic death of thousands of Americans on 9/11 allegedly instrumented by Al Qaeda (with the support of an unnamed foreign power) was used as a pretext and a justification for launching the first phase of the Middle East Central Asian War, which consisted in the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan.” Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden, September 12, 2001)
The decision of the Atlantic Council to invoke Article V (officially confirmed in late September), was conducive to the US-NATO bombing and invasion of Afghanistan which commenced on October 7 2001, four weeks after the tragic events of 9/11.
The invasion of Afghanistan had been on the drawing board of the Pentagon months prior to 9/11. The September 11 attacks were used as a pretext and a justification to invade and occupy Afghanistan.
Moreover, military analysts and the media were instructed not to reveal the fact that you do not plan a large scale theater war thousands of miles away in a matter of 25 days. Impossible. (from September 12- October 7, 2001)
The forbidden truth (known and documented) is that Osama bin Laden was a US “intelligence asset” and that his precise whereabouts prior and in the immediate wake of 9/11 were known to the US government.” ( Michel Chossudovsky, More Troops to Afghanistan)
The U.S. led war against Afghanistan consists essentially of two interrelated stages.
The second stage, unfolded with the US-NATO October 7, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan four weeks after 9/11, following the decision of the Atlantic Council to Invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
The Criminal Invasion of Afghanistan and the “Just War” Narrative
The October 7 2001 invasion was heralded as “A Just War” by Professor Richard Falk, renowned scholar, professor of International and Humanitarian Law at Princeton and anti-war activist.
The statement of Professor Richard Falk, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) formulated in the immediate wake of 9/11 — published four days after the commencement of the US-NATO bombing campaign– was intent upon providing legitimacy to America’s war on Afghanistan:
“I have never since my childhood supported a shooting war in which the United States was involved, although in retrospect I think the NATO war in Kosovo achieved beneficial results. The war in Afghanistan against apocalyptic terrorism qualifies in my understanding as the first truly just war since World War II.
“The perpetrators of the September 11 attack cannot be reliably neutralized by nonviolent or diplomatic means; a response that includes military action is essential to diminish the threat of repetition, to inflict punishment and to restore a sense of security at home and abroad.
The extremist political vision held by Osama bin Laden, which can usefully be labeled “apocalyptic terrorism,” places this persisting threat well outside any framework of potential reconciliation or even negotiation for several reasons: Its genocidal intent is directed generically against Americans and Jews;
its proclaimed goal is waging an unconditional civilizational war –Islam against the West– without drawing any distinction between civilian and military targets; it has demonstrated a capacity and willingness to inflict massive and traumatizing damage on our country and a tactical ingenuity and ability to carry out its missions of destruction by reliance on the suicidal devotion of its adherents.” (Richard Falk, The Nation, Defining a Just War, October 11, 2001, 4 days after the invasion of Afghanistan, emphasis added).
Note the emphasis on:
“genocidal intent against Americans and Jews”
as part of an alleged
“civilizational war of Islam against the West”.
Palestine 2023: Is It Not “The Other Way Round”? What We Are Witnessing Is “The Genocidal War of the West Against Muslim Countries.”
Osama bin Laden’s “Apocalyptic Terrorism” has provided a justification for the waging of America’s “Global War on Terrorism”, i.e. the numerous post 9/11 U.S. led “humanitarian wars” and “counter-terrorism operations” against Muslim countries (with the support of Israel) in the course of the last 22 years, which have resulted in millions of deaths.
A holy crusade was launched against the Muslim World of approximately 50 countries and one quarter of the World’s population.
In turn, “Counterterrorism” has been used in the course of the last twenty years as a justification for the establishment of U.S. military bases in Africa, the Middle East and South-East Asia.
The unspoken objective of “counter-terrorism” is to confiscate and appropriate the extensive oil and gas reserves of Muslim countries.
“The Just War”
Professor Richard Falk is a life-long anti-war activist. He is renowned for his commitment to the rights of Palestinians and his courageous stance against the Israeli government. In February 2001, Professor Falk was appointed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to serve in the Inquiry Commission pertaining to the occupied Palestinian territories.
In March 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Professor Richard Falk as UN Special Rapporteur pertaining to human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories.
Professor Falk’s statement entitled “Defining A Just War, Ends and Means” was formulated 8 months following his OHCR February 2001 appointment to serve in the Palestine Inquiry Commission. In a February 2001 Interview, Falk raised the question as to whether Palestinians have a “Right to Resistance”:
“The [UN OHCR] team will consider two major issues, he said. “One is evaluating whether the conditions of occupation are such as to give the Palestinians some kind of right of resistance,” said Falk. “And if they have that right, then what are the limits to that right?”
“We must ask specific questions, such as what kinds of weapons were used?” he said. “And how does one interpret and understand the vulnerability of children? For example, the Palestinians contend that the Israeli army targeted children, and the Israeli army says Palestinians used children as human shields.” (Princeton University Report, February 2001, (emphasis added)
According to Falk –referring to the role of Osama bin Laden’s– “apocalyptic terrorism” is marked by the conduct of
“an unconditional civilizational war of Islam against the West”.
This statement by Richard Falk constitutes a misunderstanding as to what happened on 9/11. 9/11 was a False Flag.
The evidence presented below documents the alleged role of Bin Laden in the September 11, 2001 attacks, which provided the pretext and the justification to wage war not only on Afghanistan but also against numerous Muslim countries (in the aftermath of 9/11), under the mantle of America’s “Global War on Terrorism”.
There Was No Evidence that Afghanistan Had Attacked America on 9/11
The Taliban government through diplomatic channels had offered on two occasions (September and October 2001) to enter into negotiations with regard to the extradition of Osama Bin Laden. President G. W. Bush is on record for having refused to negotiate with the Afghan government regarding the Taliban Offer “to Hand Over Bin Laden to Washington”.
screenshot of BBC report, December 21, 2018 .
Why was George W. Bush reluctant to negotiate the extradition of Osama bin Laden? The Bin Laden- Bush family relationship?
What Happened on September 10, 2001?
1. Poppy G.H.W. Bush Senior Meets Osama’s Brother Shafiq at The Ritz Carlton Hotel on September 10, 2001
One day before the 9/11 attacks, as well as on the morning of 9/11, the dad of the sitting President of the United States of America, George Herbert Walker Bush was meeting none other than Shafiq bin Laden, the brother of the alleged terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. Sounds absurd?
According to The Washington Post:
“It didn’t help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden [Shafiq bin Laden]. Former president Bush [senior], a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. (Greg Schneider, Pairing the Powerful With the Rich, Washington Post, March 16, 2003)
2. Osama is Hospitalized in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on September 10, 2001
Confirmed by Dan Rather, CBS News,Osama bin Laden had been admitted to a Pakistani Military hospital in Rawalpindi on the 10th of September local time, less than 24 hours before the terrorist attacks.
“Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment.
On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person.” (CBS, For more details see this)
This CBS report casts doubt on the official narrative to the effect that Osama bin Laden was responsible for coordinating the 9/11 attacks. It would be impossible for Osama bin Laden to enter a Pakistani military hospital unnoticed. His whereabouts were known.
“How on earth could Bin Laden have coordinated the attacks from his hospital bed in a heavily guarded Pakistani military hospital located in Rawalpindi.
Bear in mind that the Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi (under the adminstration of the Pakistani military) exclusively “provides specialised treatment to Army personel and their immediate family”.
Osama bin Laden must have had some connections in the Pakistani military or intelligence to be admitted to the hospital. He was, according to Dan Rather’s CBS report, provided with “treatment for a very special person”.
If the CBS report by Dan Rather is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. (Michel Chossudovsky, September 10, 2010)
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed in the wake of 9/11 that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remained unknown: “It is like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Wake of 9/11. What is the Meaning of Al Qaeda in Arabic?
In the wake of 9/11, The Just War Concept has become embedded in U.S. Foreign Policy. It constitutes an anti-Muslim narrative of going after the alleged Al Qaeda “Islamic terrorists” who have (since the early 1980s) been routinely recruited by US intelligence.
What is the meaning in Arabic of Al Qaeda?القاعِدة
It’s “The Base”, namely the Computer Database of the Islamic Mujahideen ( Reagan’s “Freedom Fighters”) recruited by the CIA.
“When Osama bin Laden was an American agent in Afghanistan, the Al Qaida Intranet was a good communication system through coded or covert messages.
The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this.
But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money. (Major Pierre-Henri Bunel, World Affairs, Delhi, emphasis added)
The above statement by Major Bunel, was confirmed by the late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook (shortly before his passing) in a pointed article in The Guardian:
“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
Al-Qaeda, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. (Robin Cook, The Guardian, July 8, 2005, see also archive, emphasis added)
Ronald Reagan meets the Mujahideen in the Oval Office (1980s)
The “Just War Concept” was among several narratives including “Counter-Terrorism” directed against Islamic Jihadists, “Responsibility to Protect”, “Exporting Democracy”, “Humanitarian Wars”, etc. (See video interview below)
Video: Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett
The Criminalization of War
The Just War Concept provides a green light to wage “humanitarian wars” against Muslim countries. It is the antithesis of “a real peace movement”, which consists in what Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia defined as “The Criminalization of War” first formulated in Kuala Lumpur in December 2005.
Under “The criminalization of war” agenda all wars of aggression are categorized as criminal undertakings, with the exception of “Self-Defense” (which today describes the Resistance of Palestine against the Israeli led invasion).
Under International law, there is no such thing as “A Just War”. From a legal standpoint, “DefiningThe Just War” formulated prior to the invasion of Afghanistan is in contradiction with the Geneva Convention (IV).
Richard Falk denies the hegemonic nature of U.S. foreign policy:
“Another form of antiwar advocacy rests on a critique of the United States as an imperialist superpower or empire. This view also seems dangerously inappropriate in addressing the challenge posed by the massive crime against humanity committed on September 11.
Whatever the global role of the United States –and it is certainly responsible for much global suffering and injustice, giving rise to widespread resentment that at its inner core fuels the terrorist impulse– it cannot be addressed so long as this movement of global terrorism is at large and prepared to carry on with its demonic work.
These longer-term concerns –which include finding ways to promote Palestinian self-determination, the internationalization of Jerusalem and a more equitable distribution of the benefits of global economic growth and development–must be addressed.
Of course, much of the responsibility for the failure to do so lies with the corruption and repressive policies of governments, especially in the Middle East, outside the orbit of US influence. A distinction needs to be drawn as persuasively as possible between inherently desirable lines of foreign policy reform and retreating in the face of terrorism.” (Richard Falk, Defining a Just War, The Nation, October 11, 2023, emphasis added)
With. regard to the above quotation, is it not “the other way round”? Many of the governments “inside” rather than “outside” the orbit of US influence are corrupt. Why? Because their leaders are threatened, coopted and/or bribed by Washington.
With regard to the so-called “movement of global terrorism”, see the National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), (signed by President Reagan) which de facto authorized stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen.
The promotion of “Radical Islam” was a deliberate CIA initiative (NSDD 166) which in the wake of 9/11 has served as justification to waging a “Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and sub–Saharan Africa.
“The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings….
Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994“, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
It should be understood, that the “Before” and “After” Analysis Applies to the numerous Muslim Countries which have been the object of America’s “Humanitarian Warfare” agenda including Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Palestine, Sudan, among others which have been the object of US-NATO bombings, invasions, “counter terrorism” and “regime change” operations in the wake of September 11, 2001.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
I’m old enough to remember hearing and seeing frequent references to something called “the rule of law.” Then in the post-9/11 era this vital phrase seemed to go the way of our dwindling freedoms, civil liberties and the tattered remnants of our democratic institutions. In the process of aborting the promise of decent human futures for most of the world’s people, the word, “law,” was pushed to the sidelines.
Where once we would have seen many references to the importance of making and enforcing good laws for the benefit of all people, that ideal has pretty much become mute and obsolete from the perspective of our puppeteered governors. When the concept of law is assertively put forward, it usually pertains to weaponized lawfare used in warlike attacks on the reputations, careers and economic viability of those that threaten the interests and authority of the rich and powerful.
The rules-based international order provides cover for the weaponization of law as a means for those with much power to maintain and augment their subordination of subjugated groups lacking access to power. The phrase, “rules-based international order” is repeated again and again in political communications, but especially in top-down communications during this era of rapid civilizational decline.
A rule is frequently much more flexible, fleeting, subjective and ephemeral than a law. All kinds of people, groups and organizations can make rules for a variety of purposes. Rules can be made almost anywhere, anytime. Rules can be made by anyone and rules may or may not be followed. Most of the time there are no serious consequences that flow from breaking a rule.
The requirements for making and enforcing laws are very different from the loose requirement involving rules. Only sovereign entities can make laws of the sort that police are duty-bound to enforce, sometimes to the point of pressing criminal charges when serious infractions occur. These days this kind of sovereign authority is mostly invested, theoretically at least, in countries.
Typically national constitutions situate the exercise of sovereignty in very explicit procedures involving many forms of interaction between people, elections, legislatures and courts. In some countries, where Muslim people predominate, the making, exercise and enforcement of laws draw on principles infused with religious understandings drawn from the Koran.
The United States also affords much room for the merger of politics and religion especially when it comes to the influential role of Christian Zionism in the formulation of public policy. The Christian Zionist role is most often to mobilize public support for US wars in support of the supposed interests of Israel.
Sovereignty and Law in Colonies, Empires and Nation States
Between 1945 and today, the number of countries belonging to the the United Nations went from 50 to almost 200. This near quadrupling of nation states in the world came about largely through the supposed decolonization of European colonies especially in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, Indochina and East Asia.
In the dominant system of international law, colonies were not considered sovereign nor were the inhabitants of colonies considered rights-bearing citizens. Rather the people in colonies were classified as disenfranchised wards subject to the sovereign jurisdiction of imperial authority over them. There were very large divides in the laws differentiating colonists from colonizers.
By 1945 Europe was exhausted from fighting two world wars in a period of less than half a century. As a result, European empires came unglued. In some instances decolonization was a relatively peaceful and amiable procedure. In other cases, as in Algeria, Vietnam, and Angola, the breakup was violent on both sides.
European colonies were processed through the new institutions of the United Nations to become the sites of nominally sovereign countries. This process of so-called decolonization, however, was hampered by the imposition of neocolonialist techniques. The continuity of entrenched patterns of subordination was maintained often through the imposition of new techniques especially through the agencies of debt enslavement. The global growth of debt enslavement is one of the main animating factors driving the operation of the rules-based international order.
The close association of various techniques of debt enslavement and the so-called rules-based international order is a big factor energizing countries that were once colonies of European empires to seek alternative banking arrangements. This movement involves the urge of many national governments to get out from underneath the military weight of the US Armed Forces combined with the financial weight of the US dollar and its attending institutions.
The monopolistic role of US dollar and the financial institutions it supports are generating the opposition of the BRICS and the Global South countries in their growing identification with the alliance between Russia, China and Iran. This emerging alternative to the rules-based international order emphasizes national sovereignty as a primary facilitator of national self-determination.
This quest to realize the potential of national sovereignty, however, is running up against those still pushing some of the deceptions integral to the rules-based international order. In recent times the pressure from this quarter to override national sovereignty continues to grow. The other side of the pre-emption of national sovereignty is the designation of topic-based centres of global sovereignty.
An obvious example is the current push by Big Pharma to make the UN’s World Health Organization the site of a claim to global sovereignty in health care and especially in the business of declaring pandemics. The huge scams and frauds associated with the manufactured COVID crisis point the way to more of the same from the hoaxers who operate in and around the WHO.
Quite clearly there is a powerful movement afoot to make the sketchy business of climate change the basis for some sort of topic-based sovereign centre in the style of the World Economic Forum.
The WEF is an unaccountable decision-making venue that, as is well known in Trudeau’s fiefdom of Canada, often pre-empts the sovereignty of national parliaments and legislatures. Canadians, for instance, find their election decisions count for naught when their Parliaments become useless because the big decisions are being made in Davos.
Power Grabs by Inter-Connected Networks of Self-Aggrandizing Swindlers
From what sources does the so-called rules-based order, both national or international, draw its principles, ideas and authorities?
Where do the rules come from?
From the United Nations? From courts of international law. From the World Bank? From treaties and conventions? From the Internet? From the Pentagon? From Labor Relations? From the EU? From law libraries? From stock markets? Black markets? Media cartels? From voting? From Rothschild intrigues? From academic conferences? From the work of fact checkers? From sacred scriptures? From research labs? From all of the above? From none of the above?
When it comes to the recent arrival of something labelled the rules-based international order, the origins lie more in power grabs by inter-connected networks of self-aggrandizing swindlers. As I view it, those who make claims to some kind of deep authority for a “rule-based order”are often seeking easy routes to obtain and augment influence for themselves and for their bosses.
References to rules-based order often comes from the lips of those who have never reckoned genuinely with the the requirements of scientific methodology or with the egalitarian principles integral to the realization of anything approaching democratic means of decision-making.
So let’s get real about what is really going on in the name of the rules-based international order. Let’s consider what this supposed order actually is, as well as what this grandiose phrase is meant to hide and conceal.
One of the keys to the so-called rules-based order is that the rules are decidedly different for different groups. This eclectic approach tends to announce the abandonment of principles emphasizing the application of universality, in other words, of equality before the law. Another key feature of the rules-based order is that there are whole classes of people who are basically exempted from having to adhere to any binding rules or laws at all.
These small groups who are put above the law, tend also to be the groups that by and large make the rules for everyone else. Average people are by and large denied any say whatsoever in deciding any aspect of the international rules-based order.
In the days when the rule of law was confidently placed in the forefront of some government operations, elections were the primary means for governors to obtain informed consent from the governed. These days, however, the role of the media is to deploy deception to produce uniformed consent in order to facilitate political agendas that often go against the basic rights and interests of most people.
Most elections these days are rigged. There are many well-established means of doing this cheating. One of the main techniques is through the exploitation of hackable systems of digital vote counting. Another common feature is the sabotage of elections by well-orchestrated networks of large media cartels.
These communications cartels grossly misrepresent crucial issues central to the formulation of sound public policies. As Julian Assange indicates below, most populations do not like to go to war. Wars happen, nevertheless, because media venues play a major roles in “tricking” the public by publicizing litanies of lies.
The nature of warfare is changing rapidly as multiple governments are made subject to manipulations from above. Increasing this manipulation from above is aimed at eliminating, starving, enfeebling and impoverishing the governments’ own constituents. This phenomenon is well illustrated by the hundreds of millions of deaths and injuries purposely caused worldwide by the coercive pushing on populations of military bioweapons disguised as medical treatments for a supposedly new coronavirus.
The depopulation agenda was advanced in the course of the manufactured COVID crisis.
This depopulation agenda continues to be promoted by the mass media’s 24/7 promotion of war, war and more war. Indeed, the business of mass communications has pretty much become intertwined with an array of mass murder rackets.
In the international rules-based order, there is plenty of room for special sets of rules for particular categories of criminal activity. These underground interactions include child trafficking, pedophilia rings intertwined with elaborate blackmail and espionage operations, the plundering and subsequent sales of human organs, black markets in armaments including weapons of mass destruction, the commerce of drug makers and drug pushers as exploiters of addictions, the smuggling of immigrants, and the killing, buying and selling of the last precious remnants of endangered wildlife.
Although these kinds of activities are outlawed, they are in fact made to form significant elements of the global economy.
Such profitable criminal activities are well integrated into the matrix of the so-called rules-based international order.
The funds generated easily find their way into large banking establishments that often have access to expertise in money laundering. The funds so generated often join other flows of ill-gotten capital into off-shore tax havens whose operations are inconsistent with the rule of law but completely consistent with the rules-based international order.
This so-called “order” exempts the rich from carrying the expense of governments while the much squeezed middle class wage earners are left to bear the cost of paying for government services and the interest payments on government debt paid mostly to the private central bankers in and around the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements. To add insult to injury, the rich walk off with the privatized wealth from enterprises that often depend on substantial public investments along with sweetheart deals among political cronies.
This whole structure of legalized kleptocracy and fraud benefits the few at the expense of the the many. The sinister operation is defended, facilitated and augmented by large contingents of lawyers, prosecutors and judges who conduct their devious dealings behind the ornaments of law but not within the rule of law. The higher one goes up the scale from domestic law into international law, the more sordid, corrupt and deceptive the legal establishments become.
The groups and individuals that have effectively monopolized the largest share of wealth and power in the international rule-based order, mostly got where they are by slipping and sliding around both the laws and the rules. The ability to pull off such evasions often depends on working collaboratively with those charged to enforce the laws and the rules. Federal police operation like the FBI in the United States and Canada’s RCMP pretend to be law enforcement agencies but they are really very corrupt agencies of political theatre meant to advance the interests of their self-interested pay masters.
The ascendant class of serial law breakers tend to rule by transforming all regulatory and enforcement agencies into protection rackets to safeguard their own enterprises and interests. They are under no compunction to follow the rules they often make without accountability…. without obtaining anything resembling the informed consent of the governed.
The small number of people that dominate the governments and the media and the Internet and the courts and the professions and the unions and education and the cultural institutions are mostly servants of a system that concentrates massive political and proprietary control in the hands of a tiny minority. This minority operates above the law. These people are almost never held accountable for violating even the highest order of international criminal law.
The Savagery of Settler Colonies and Especially Israel
The expression of versions of sovereignty, gave legitimacy to “law” long before before the era when claims were made that some sort of rules-based order was the glue that would hold international society together. The concept of sovereignty became manifest in the evolutions of religiously-based ruling dynasties, some of which expanded into empires through conquest and diplomacy. The Aztec Empire of Mexico, or the Egyptian Empire of the Nile Valley, or the Persian Empire at Eurasia’s core, or the Macedonian Empire that briefly extended from Greece all the way to India, or the Chinese Empire, or the archetypal Roman Empire all had rich imperial histories long before the era of national states. The animating cultural force of the ancient empires often enlivens the heritage of the national governments that succeeded them.
Beginning in the 1500s and 1600s European polities, namely Portugal, Spain, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany created overseas colonies that became the basis of new forms of empire. Together these empires divided up almost the entirety of the Earth’s land mass. The lawyers of this era became very busy developing notions of sovereignty to concentrate law making authority in a few imperial capitals.
Darwinian social science in the Victorian era replaced Enlightenment era principles of universal human equality. Instead of affirming egalitarian ideals, the emerging social sciences ranked human beings on a vertical scale from savagery to barbarism to civilization. This paradigm was adopted by King Leopold of Belgium to justify his claim of the sovereign proprietorship over the Congo Free State in equatorial Africa.
King Leopold persuaded the United States and the European powers to accept his program submitted in 1885. He promised that he would govern the Congo to elevate through education the native savages into civilized people. Once he established his claim, Leopold used his status as absolute dictator to enslave his subjects in the work of rubber plantations.
In Canada it wasn’t until the 1960s that the Dominion government removed the category of savages and barbarians from the complex of laws and policies created specifically for the governance of registered Indians. Under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, Indians could henceforth vote and run in national elections, enter into contracts by using their signatures, purchase alcohol, and borrow money in banks.
The maintenance of Darwinian paradigms of savagery and civilization facilitated the making of laws enabling European powers, their corporate extensions and their colonial emigrants to pretty much help themselves to whatever lands and natural resources they wanted on the expanding frontiers of empire. This kleptocratic system was made to be especially ruthless in its treatment of Indigenous peoples in those parts of empire where imperial expansion was accompanied by the migration of large contingents of non-native settlers that overwhelmed the Native peoples numerically, economically and culturally.
These regions where the the Indigenous peoples became small minorities compared to the immigrants and their descendants, have been identified as settler colonies. Many of the settler colonies in North America seceded from their British imperial parent to form the United States in America. The remaining settler colonies in the British Empire including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland, were sometimes referred to as White Dominions.
After 1911 many tried to construct the Union of South Africa as a White Dominion similar to, say, Canada. The governments of Canada and South Africa, who collaborated in their governance of Indian reserves and Bantustans, imposed policies that treated Indigenous peoples as uncivilized wards of the state. In the African polity, however, Black people were numerically dominant and eventually asserted against sometimes ruthless settler resistance, their constitutional status as equal individuals in the mix of citizenship with White people.
Israel turns out to have emerged as the most aggressive of all the settler colonies. I can think of no single genocidal event in the history in settler colonies more severe than what we have been witnessing in Gaza since early October. I cannot think of any Indian war or Maori war or Aborigines war or Kaffir war in South Africa to compare with the rapid fire, high-tech assault still underway in Gaza.
The colonization of the Israeli entity got off to a very bad start in 1947-48 after the General Assembly of the United Nations just barely squeezed out a majority vote on Resolution 181. The key features of Resolution 181 were the partition provisions dividing Palestine into to two sections, one for a new Jewish country and the other for a new Arab state. To this day the Arab state has yet to established. This outcome had the result of making many of the Palestinian survivors of Israel’s genocidal “War of Independence” in 1948, into stateless refugees.
From 1948 until today the genocidal assault on the native Palestinians has continued. The stateless refugees of the Gaza concentration camp were subjected to especially ruthless treatment culminating in the genocidal assault initiated in early October of 2023. It is readily apparent to those who have looked at the available evidence that considerable planning for this climactic genocide happened in the secret branches of the US and Israeli governments long before October 7.
The aim has been and remains to rid the Gaza strip of its 2+ million Palestinians inhabitants. The plan remains to exterminate as many Palestinians as possible by a lethal combination of technics, while while simultaneously destroying all housing, infrastructure and life support systems. The plan is to evict all survivors by forcing them to run for their lives away from a sterile death zone that the Jewish supremacists conducting the genocide want to transform into Jewish settlements.
When the Test of Legitimacy Is What You Can Get Away With
It seemed until recently that the US-Israel genocidal assault on Gaza was well within the purposely vague and ill-defined “rules-based international order.” This supposed rules-based order seems to thrive on operating outside the rule of law in the realm where might is right and the test of legitimacy is what you can get away with.
The settler colonialism of Israel was crafted into a defiant display demonstrating how many Israeli Jews have come to believe with some justification that they are not subject to any enforced limitations in their treatment of the Indigenous peoples. Many have come to embrace a self-perception that they are Chosen people considered to be above the law when it comes to the act of de-Palestinianizing Greater Israel.
For them ethnic cleansing was not to be considered a crime but rather a divine calling and a mission. The West Bank settlers with their laissez faire approach to murdering, torturing and jailing Palestinians seem to have become something of a caricature of the Cowboys and Indians culture of the American Wild West.
Then in the final days of 2023 the South African government submitted to the World Court a very solid indictment of Israel, accusing it of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Instituted in 1948, the Genocide Convention was a pioneering example of international criminal law very intertwined with the genesis of the UN’s International Court of Justice. (ICJ)
The ICJ agreed to accept the South African submission. The Court heard South Africa’s verbal arguments on January 11 and the next day it heard lawyers presenting a a defence on behalf of the government of Israel. Apparently Israel had never taken its place in the dock for the accused in any international proceeding.
Apparently up until 12 January, Israel basically ignored and boycotted any proceeding meant to hold them legally accountable for their treatment of the occupied people. The government and most of the people of Israel refused to acknowledge that Palestinians have a right of self-defence. They refused to picture themselves as Occupiers victimizing the Occupied People. Whatever happens, it seems, Jewish Israelis must always see themselves as victims.
Then on January 26 the ICJ came out with a historic ruling that acknowledged that a plausible instance of genocide was occurring in Gaza. The court did not order a cease fire. According to Michel Chossudovsky, the Court opted rather to call on the Netanyahu government to prevent and punish itself for possibly committing genocide.
Like many, I was initially very happy with the Court’s ruling. After years of seeing huge examples of obvious criminality taking place on many fronts at the the highest levels, apparently without legal consequences for the culprits, I wondered if the rule of law on the most important issues of our time had gone completely dormant.
The confidence of high officialdom in Israel that they could justify their obvious genocide by calling Palestinians animals and worse than animals, was hard to even fathom let alone absorb. Seeing hateful genocidal language put in the mouths of the Israeli children’s choir seemed to me like a whole new type of child abuse.
It also came as a shock that amidst all the factionalism among Jewish Israels, there seems to be no significant group focused on ending the genocidal assault because of the insanely lethal and injurious damage being done to Palestinian humans including droves of their children. It was daunting listening to that young Israeli soldier speaking openly about his wish to shoot Israeli children as if this lust to kill was the basis for some kind of wet dream.
Rethinking the ICJ Ruling in Light of the Observation That Netanyahu and His Cabinet Have Been Put in Charge of the Process of Investigating, Preventing and Punishing the Gaza Genocide
It has taken a while to sink in, but my appreciation of the ICJ ruling has dropped a few notches the more I contemplate the argument posed by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky in a running essay in Global Research.ca that he keeps revising since first publishing it on January 29. I currently have the Feb. 4 version in front of me. I’ll reproduce a large portion of the text below. The subtitle introduces the main thesis.
The ICJ “Appoints” Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish” Those Responsible for “Genocidal Acts”
Court Order: “The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;…”
Analysis: What the ICJ judgment intimates is that the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” acting on behalf of the State of Israel, namely the members of Netanyahu’s Cabinet, are “Innocent”. They cannot “prevent and punish” themselves.
And that is where “Fake Justice” comes in
“Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” Netanyahu, Galant, Ben-Gvir, Katz, Smotrich, et al are the architects of the Genocide. Yet they have been assigned by the ICJ with a mandate “To Prevent and Punish the Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide…”
The CRRs within Netanyahu’s Cabinet acting on behalf of the State of Israel-– who carefully planned prior to October 7, 2023 a genocidal attack against the People of Palestine, have been “appointed” by the ICJ to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish”“public officials”, “private individuals”, andmembers of the Military who are carrying out acts of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”.
Prevention and Punishment is not contemplated against Israel’s Netanyahu Clique of CRRs “who have blood on their hands.”
Under present circumstances, this “take all measures within its power” concept is tantamount to the criminalization of International Law: The CRRs “Criminals in High Office” (Netanayahu et al) are invited to take law enforcement in their own hands.
The option to entrust Netanyahu’s Cabinet with the “Prevent and Punish” assignment was a decision of the World Court. The 17 Judges could have demanded that the Israeli government cease all genocidal actions. They could also have recommended that the “prevent and punish” mandate be assigned to a United Nations body, including the UN Security Council.
The Netanyahu government has ordered the most hideous crimes against the People of Palestine.
And now the World Court has instructed a criminal government led by Netanyahu (who has a criminal record) to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish” “public officials, “private individuals” (Article IV) as well as combatants within the Israeli military….
It’s an absurd proposition. It unfortunately disallows Netanyahu to “prevent and punish himself”.
As Prof. Chossudovsky sees it, the ICJ has framed its ruling in ways meant to cushion the executive branch of the Israeli government from prosecution for genocide. The scholar is very suspicious of the role of the Chairman of the World Court, Joan Donoghue, a former lawyer for Hillary Clinton when she was US Secretary of State. Prof. Chossudovsky believes Judge Donoghue is taking signals from the US government and that she should have recused herself from the proceedings for having a conflict of interest.
In setting up an obstacle to the prosecution of the executive branch of the Israeli government, Judge Donoghue is by implication also protecting the executive branch of the US government. The US government can be viewed as a full partner in the Gaza genocide in spite of the unconvincing play acting by some in the Biden administration.
“However, the court did not take the action most desired by South Africa and feared by Israel — that of ordering an immediate, unilateral ceasefire which would have stymied the war effort and indicated that the court believes genocide is actively taking place.”
In contemplating this comments after reading Professor Chossudovsky’s assessment, I pictured the ICJ ruling in a different light. While the ruling will clearly have serious consequences for Israel, some Israelis must have understood the judgment as one that that enabled them to evade what they most feared, namely the “ordering of an immediate, unilateral ceasefire which would have stymied the war effort and indicated that the court believes genocide is actively taking place.”
My thoughts turn to a Zoom discussion I recently watched where journalists in Tel Aviv at Haaretz commented on the ruling. One of the presenters indicated that Israel had just evaded a bullet he had feared would strike Israel with the issuing of the ICJ ruling. After viewing the Haaretz presenter’s comments, the new revelations from Prof. Chossudovsky helped me to I understand better why the journalist might have seen it the way he did.
I also revisited my former assessment of a celebration involving thousands of Israelis in a stadium in Jerusalem where great merriment and even exuberant dancing took place. The conference, which took place after the ICJ ruling, was to anticipate killing and evicting all the Gazan Palestinians as a prelude to the partiers’ goal of transforming Gaza into the site of many new Jewish settlements.
I covered this story of this Israeli real estate party in a recent Substack post. When I put the item together, it did not dawn on me that Itamar Ben-Givir and his colleagues may have well understood the brighter side of the ICJ’s ruling when it comes to the legal position of the Israeli PM and cabinet. Were they celebrating that part of the ruling?
I’ll close with a few thoughts on the instant Israeli demonization of the United Nations Refugee and Work Agency, UNRWA. This UN agency has been a life line for displaced Palestinians not only in Gaza and the West Bank but also in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.
Eighteen governments including my government of Canada fell straight in line with withholding funding from UNRWA, the agency carrying the largest burden of the responsibility to provide humanitarian supplies into Gaza at this moment of grave need. To contribute to the holding back of humanitarian aid at this time and in this context may be interpreted as a flirtation with complicity in genocide.
Canada I think is already complicit in genocide because it supplies weapons to the government of Israel. There are also reports that Canada’s special forces unit, Joint Task Force-2, took part with the IDF in military operations in Gaza, As I see it, the complex of Israel Lobby organizations in Canada, but especially the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, CIJA, are also complicit in genocide because they counsel Canada’s people and its government to show contempt for the World Court and the UNRWA.
The CIJA’s actions indicate why the organization should have to register as a lobby for a foreign government and why it should not be treated as a charitable philanthropy capable of issuing receipts for tax exemptions.
All of this resistance to ending the genocide in Gaza causes me to be less optimistic about turning the corner away from the notorious rules-based international order. Many of its protagonists seem to have no problem with aligning themselves with the Israel-US genocide in Gaza as well as with the attackers on Yemen and Lebanon. As I am coming to understand it, however, the weight of worldwide public opinion that is no longer prepared to tolerate the obscenity of open genocide in our midst, is making headway towards a humanitarian approach embracing national sovereignty, multipolarity, and the security that comes from a more robust embrace of the rule of law.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Anthony Hallis currently Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Holding the foreign policy of a country accountable in court, notably when it comes to matters criminal, can be insuperably challenging. Judges traditionally shun making decisions on policy, even though they unofficially do so all the time. The Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based civil liberties group, was not to be discouraged, most notably regarding the Biden administration’s unflagging support for Israel and its war in Gaza.
In a filing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California last November, the CCR, representing a number of Palestinian human rights organisations including Palestinians in Gaza and the United States, sought an order “requiring that the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense adhere to their duty to prevent, and not further, the unfolding genocide of Palestinian people in Gaza.” Such a duty, arising in the UN Genocide Convention of 1948, “is judicially enforceable as a peremptory norm of customary international law.”
The complaint alleged that the genocidal conditions in Gaza had “so far been made possible because of unconditional support given [to Israel] by the named official-capacity defendants in this case,” namely, President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
At the time proceedings were initiated, the Israeli campaign in Gaza, launched in response to the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, had already claimed the lives of 11,000 Palestinian civilians, “more than 4,500 of them children, as well as entire families, numerous journalists and UN workers.” The bombardment had crippled critical infrastructure, led to the displacement of 1.6 million persons, and had been “accompanied by a total siege of Gaza, depriving Palestinians in Gaza the conditions of life necessary for human survival: food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity.” (Currently, the displaced number exceeds 2 million; the number of dead towers at 26,000.)
In reaching his decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, Jeffrey S. White admitted it was the “most difficult” of his career. He acknowledged South Africa’s action in the International Court of Justice against Israel, which argues that Israel’s conduct against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip satisfies the elements of genocide.
The January 26 interim order of provisional measures granted by the ICJ explicitly put Israel on notice to comply with the Genocide Convention, punish those responsible for directly and publicly inciting genocide, permit basic humanitarian assistance and essential services to the Gaza Strip, preserve relevant evidence pertaining to potential genocidal acts and submit a report to the ICJ on its compliance within a month. In international law, these interim measures are accepted as binding.
The ICJ also showed some scepticism to arguments that Israel had taken adequate measures to minimise harm to Palestinian civilians and respond to instances where an incitement to genocide could be imputed. None of the measures taken till that point had removed the risk of irreparable harm; to merely assert compliance was not sufficient evidence of it.
In White’s words, “the undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law.” Lawyers representing the government also chose not to cross-examine witnesses, bar one Holocaust scholar who testified that Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip could be classed as genocidal. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the claims advanced in this case, involving disputes over foreign policy, raised “fundamentally non-justiciable political questions.” To compel the US government to cease military and financial assistance to Israel were matters “intimately related to foreign policy and national security”.
The plaintiffs had encountered that great limitation articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803: that ‘[q]uestions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court”. To do so would violate the separation of powers. The judiciary was, according to White, “not equipped with the intelligence or the acumen necessary to make foreign policy decisions on behalf of the government.”
Despite being bound by weighty precedent and rulings in previous cases, White concludes with a plea. The ICJ had found it “plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide.” The judge implored the “Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.” Not bad for one lacking intelligence or the acumen necessary to make foreign policy decisions.
While disappointed in White’s ruling, Brad Parker, a senior advisor to one of the organisational plaintiffs, Defense for Children International Palestine, saw the thickest of silver linings. Along with the ICJ decision, “and the increasing recognition that what Israel is carrying out is a genocide and the US is complicit in those genocidal acts, I think the strong language from a US federal court judge increasingly works to isolate Israel’s actions and also bring pressure on the Biden administration to change course.”
To date, the slaughter in Gaza continues. Israeli politicians and military officials persist in claiming that murderously innovative approaches to killing Palestinian civilians are not, by definition, genocidal. But the walls of justifiable impunity, so proudly claimed by Israel in its righteous mission of self-defence, are proving increasingly porous.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Mike Whitney (MW): In your opinion, is the ICJ’s ‘genocide’ ruling convincing or overstated?
Ron Unz (RU): From the beginning I’ve been extremely reluctant to characterize the Israeli attack on Gaza as being a “genocide” because use of that term has become so wildly inflated and distorted in recent years, converted by dishonest Western governments and their mainstream media lackeys into a propaganda-weapon used to vilify countries whose governments they seek to undermine.
Most people understand “genocide” to mean killing a large fraction of a given population group as part of an effort aimed at total extermination. But in early 2021, the outgoing Trump Administration and incoming Biden officials both publicly declared that the Chinese government was committing a “genocide” against the Uighur people of Xinjiang Province despite failing to provide any evidence that any significant number of Uighurs had actually been killed, and the media heavily promoted those accusations. If the bipartisan political leaders of America and our complicit mainstream media can declare a “genocide” without any apparent killings, the word has become so totally corrupted that I’m loath to consider using it.
However, in a strictly technical sense this ridiculous situation is actually possible. The term “genocide” was originally invented around 1944 by a Jewish propagandist named Raphael Lemkin, who used it as a means of stigmatizing and vilifying Nazi Germany. The beginning of the lengthy Wikipedia article on Genocide explains how the definition soon officially adopted by the UN included situations involving few if any actual killings:
In 1948, the United NationsGenocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.
Given the nebulous definition of causing “serious bodily or mental harm,” leftist academics over the decades have often denounced “cultural genocide,” in which a government uses its power to assimilate a minority group into the language and cultural practices of the majority. For example, a century ago Canada established a system of residential public schools to teach English and modern lifestyles to Amerindian children from deprived tribal backgrounds. At the time, the policy was considered a benign, enlightened effort to help integrate them into mainstream Canadian society, but in recent years, that educational project has been denounced as “cultural genocide.”
One obvious problem with this very expansive definition of “genocide” is that it includes far too many historical cases. Used in such a broad fashion, there may have been many dozens or even hundreds of different “genocides” around the world over the last decade or two, and if everything is a “genocide” then nothing is a “genocide,” with the powerful political term drained of any impact.
However, despite all those serious concerns, I do think that the Israeli military actions in Gaza have been so extreme, so indiscriminate, and so massive that they fall into an entirely different category. Nearly 70% of the Gazans killed have been women or children, a demographic profile very close to that of the general Gaza population. Since Hamas consists entirely of adult males, this indicates that nearly all the deaths have been those of unarmed civilians, which is almost unprecedented in military conflicts over the last few decades.
However, such carnage is hardly surprising given Israel’s enormously heavy bombardment of that very densely populated urban center with the largest unguided bombs in its arsenal. After less than one month, the Israelis had already dropped more explosives than the tonnage corresponding tothe nuclear weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they have accelerated their attacks since then, destroying 100,000 local buildings and rendering nearly two million Gazans homeless.
By early December, the Financial Times reported that the destruction inflicted upon defenseless northern Gaza after just seven weeks of Israeli attacks was similar to that suffered by the worst-hit German cities after years of Allied carpet-bombing during World War II, an astonishing comparison.
The catastrophic destruction of northern Gaza in less than seven weeks has approached that caused by the years-long carpet-bombing of German cities during the second world war https://t.co/Hm0YiTNOjrpic.twitter.com/vC3Nx3BP5X
The obvious Israeli intent has been to render Gaza totally uninhabitableand kill enough Gazans to drive them out into the Sinai desert, thereby allowing the Israelis to annex the land as many of their political leaders have proposed. The South African legal case filed before the ICJ included 90-odd pages quoting numerous top Israeli political and military leaders who publicly declared their explicitly genocidal plans towards the Palestinians of Gaza, and their attacks over the last four months have certainly amounted to the greatest televised slaughter of helpless civilians in the history of the world.
Under such a combination of facts, I think it was very reasonable for the near-unanimous ICJ ruling that there was strong evidence that the Gazans were at serious risk of suffering a potential genocide at the hands of the Israelis. The Israeli government itself appointed one of the ICJ judges hearing the case, selecting a former chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, but he voted along with the other justices that the Israeli government must take all measures to prevent and punish incitement to genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza.
MW: In your opinion, is there any defense for Israel’s behavior in Gaza? And, are you at all sympathetic to Israel’s stated position (that they need to defeat Hamas to defend their own national security.)
RU:Israel has absolutely no legitimate case whatsoever for its attacks on Gaza over the last four months, and as more and more facts have come out, the attempts at justification have become weaker and weaker.
Hamas came to power in 2007 following free elections organized and judged fair by the Americans, but after that surprising victory at the polls, Israel and the West orchestrated an unsuccessful attempt to overturn the vote by military force. As I explained in December, the failure of that coup led Israel to impose a very harsh blockade and siege on Gaza:
For over fifteen years, more than two million Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza have been rigidly confined to what Human Rights Watch and other leading international organizations have widely described as the world’s largest open air prison or concentration camp, with all their food, fuel, medicine, and outward movement tightly controlled by their Israeli captors.
When the Gazans began staging months of large, unarmed peaceful marches in 2018 to protest their terrible situation, they were massacred by Israeli troops, with many thousands killed or wounded. In 1960 Apartheid South Africa, a single, somewhat violent protest march against aspects of white minority rule led to 69 deaths and horrified the entire world, which proclaimed it “the Sharpesville Massacre.” But given the tight control over the global media by Jews and other pro-Israel forces, the vastly larger number of deaths inflicted upon the totally unarmed Gaza protesters was almost entirely ignored. This remarkable story was told in a widely-praised 2019 documentary on the subject by filmmaker Abby Martin, an American sympathetic to the Gazans, as well as in her more recent interview on the same subject.
The American government and American media endlessly glorify the 1950s Civil Rights protest marches led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and others and have fiercely denounced the brutal beatings those illegal protesters sometimes received at the hands of Southern police. But imagine the reaction if thousands of those black marchers had been shot down by American military snipers.
The key difference is that the uniformly pro-Israel Western global media has for decades concealed these facts, allowing the Israelis to literally get away with murder. Meanwhile, the Israeli government had spent hundreds of millions of dollars constructing massive fortified defenses around Gaza, which they believed had completely eliminated the possibility of any incursion by Hamas.
Therefore, when the very successful Hamas attack breached those defenses, the complacent and over-confident Israelis completely panicked, and their Apache helicopters were ordered to blast anything that moved with Hellfire missiles, killing very large numbers of Israeli civilians. The exact totals are uncertain, but based upon the evidence I think that a majority, probably a substantial majority of all the unarmed Israeli civilians killed on October 7th actually died at the hands of their own trigger-happy military forces, with perhaps as few as 100 to 200 killed by the Hamas fighters, in many cases inadvertently.
These likely facts are hardly surprising since the primary goal of the Hamas attack was to seize Israeli hostages who could then be exchanged for the thousands of Palestinian captives held without trial in Israeli prisons, sometimes for years and under brutal conditions. Meanwhile, it has been confirmed that the Israeli government implemented its notorious “Hannibal Directive,”ordering Israeli military forces to deliberately target and the kill Israelis who had been captured by Hamas in order to forestall any such later prisoner exchanges.
I discussed these issues in several articles (see this, this, and this), beginning in late October, also explaining that since the Hamas fighters had apparently killed so few civilians, Israel and its media allies had desperately resorted to promoting the most outrageous atrocity-hoaxes to buttress their moral case for the massive retaliatory bombardment of Gaza they were unleashing.
In early January, I summarized some of these conclusions:
The surprisingly successful Hamas attack on October 7th was deeply embarrassing to the Israelis, and pro-Israel propagandists soon began heavily emphasizing ridiculous hoaxes such as the claims of forty beheaded babies or a baby roasted in an oven. All of these frauds were provided by extremely disreputable characters, but eagerly accepted and promoted by leading Western political elites and media outlets.
The latest wave of very doubtful claims has focused upon second-hand stories of Hamas gang-rapes and sexual mutilations. These accounts only came to light two months after the events in question and lacked any supportive forensic evidence, with many of the claims coming from the same individuals behind the beheaded babies hoax, suggesting that they are equally desperate propaganda ploys. Journalists Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, and others have discussed the extreme credulity of the Times and other media outlets in promoting these blatantly fraudulent stories. Many of these points are summarized in a brief video discussion:
Inspired by my reporting at @TheGrayzoneNews, this brilliant takedown by @propandco provides the strongest and most accessible refutation of the bogus atrocity propaganda Israel concocted to justify its genocidal rampage in Gaza
Meanwhile, consider the very strong evidence from silence. According to news reports, small GoPro cameras were worn by the attacking Hamas militants, which recorded all their activities, and the Israelis recovered many of these from their bodies and began carefully examining hundreds of hours of this extensive video footage. They surely would have soon released a video compilation providing any incriminating evidence that they found, yet I’m not aware of a single public clip that shows any such brutal atrocities or mass killings, strongly suggesting that very little of that occurred. Indeed, the Gray Zone discovered that the main photograph provided of an allegedly raped and murdered Israeli woman actually turned out to be that of a female Kurdish fighter from years earlier that had been plucked off the Internet, demonstrating the apparent desperation and dishonesty of the pro-Israel propagandists promoting these stories.
But given that total national humiliation, the Israeli military reaction aimed at punishing the helpless civilians of Gaza has been enormously brutal, probably already killing well over 30,000 victims, overwhelmingly women and children. Nearly all of Gaza’s hospitals have been destroyed, along with the local universities, schools, mosques and churches, and administrative buildings. A few days ago, the New York Times published an article highlighting the widespread Israeli use of controlled demolitions to deliberately destroy all of this civilian infrastructure. The obvious intent is to render the entire area uninhabitable and permanently drive out Gaza’s Palestinians.
It’s useful to contrast this Israeli retaliatory campaign of massive destruction with how other countries reacted in the wake of comparable events. For example, in 1946 Zionist militants dressed as Arabs bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people in one of the worst terrorist attacks in history to that date, with an overwhelming majority of the victims being civilians. It would have been unthinkable for the British to have responded by launching a massive bombing campaign against the Jewish population centers of Palestine, killing thousands or tens of thousands of Jews, and they would have been universally condemned by the world as the worst sort of war-criminals if they had done so.
Similarly, beginning in the early 1970s, the IRA launched a huge wave of terrorism against British military and civilian targets, including bombing attacks in central London, and many hundreds died as a consequence. In 1984, the IRA planted a massive bomb in the Brighton hotel being used for a Conservative Party conference, killing or severely injuring many important British officials, with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and most of her government narrowly escaping death. The IRA had considerable popular support among the Catholics of both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, yet the British would have been considered totally insane if they had responded with a massive strategic bombing campaign against those Irish civilian population centers.
When countries behave like mad dogs before the eyes of the entire world they have only themselves to blame for the ultimate consequences.
MW: Are there demographic reasons why Israel would want to expel the Palestinians in Gaza or is this really all about Hamas?
RU: The Zionist goal had always been to establish Israel as an ethnically-pure Jewish state, driving out all the native Palestinians. In 1948, the Zionist militias came close to achieving that objective, seizing nearly 80% of the territory and violently expelling almost a million Palestinians from their ancient homeland, killing many of them in that brutal process of ethnic cleansing. The main regret was that some Palestinians still remained when a truce ending the fighting, but the result was still the creation of an overwhelmingly Jewish state. Although the UN required Israel to allow the Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they had fled days or weeks earlier, the Israeli government always ignored that requirement, often shooting and killing any Palestinian civilians who attempted to do so. I discussed that history of Israel’s origins in a long December article.
However, in 1967 the Israelis suddenly launched a surprise attack against Egypt and its other Arab neighbors, seizing Gaza and the West Bank with their millions of Palestinians, many of whom were refugees who had previously been expelled from their homes in Israel two decades earlier. Annexing those new territories would have required Israel to grant citizenship to their non-Jewish residents, severely shifting the overall demographic balance, so despite endless peace negotiations, they have effectively remained under Israeli occupation for more than a half-century, even as their Palestinian populations have steadily increased.
A further political constraint upon Israeli governments has been the growing political power of the right-wing religious voting block, which regards those occupied territories as the sacred, divinely-ordained lands of their Greater Israel and is therefore absolutely opposed to relinquishing any part of it, especially in order to establish a Palestinian state. Moreover, during those long decades of occupation, Israeli governments have planted many Jewish settlements, with most of those settlers being religious zealots, determined to retain the land and drive out the existing Palestinians.
Over the last three generations, Palestinian numbers have grown more rapidly than Jewish ones, and they now constitute almost exactly half of the population of the intended Greater Israel, now containing 7.2 million Jews and 7.2 million Palestinians. So if the Palestinians were granted civil rights, Israel would immediately cease to be a Jewish state. Therefore, prior to October 7th, the Israeli strategy had been to maintain an Apartheid state on the West Bank, while confining the Palestinians of Gaza to what amounted to an open-air prison.
But the surprisingly successful Hamas raid destroyed those political illusions, inflicting very heavy casualties on Israel’s military forces and also leading to many civilian deaths. With Apartheid no long considered a viable, long-term option, the Israeli government seems to have now decided to use the Hamas raid as an excuse for solving its demographic problems by killing or expelling all the Palestinians once and for all, with surveys showing that the bulk of the Israeli public apparently supports that plan.
I had discussed some of these issues in an October podcast interview:
MW: Israeli leaders know that if they succeed in defunding UNRWA, tens of thousands of Palestinians will die from hunger. And, yet, among members of the Knesset, there is almost unanimous support for the policy. What are we to make of this? Does Israel really want to starve two million Palestinians or do they have some other goal in mind?
RU: For the last several months, the Israelis have been severely restricting the import of food, water, and medicine into Gaza so that there is already widespread hunger and thirst, with a high-ranking UN official describing the resulting famine as an “unprecedented” crisis. According to these reports, the Palestinians of Gaza now constitute roughly 80% of all the people in the world facing catastrophic hunger.
Moreover, numerous top Israeli leaders have been using explicitly genocidal language towards this Palestinian population. According to Max Blumenthal, Israeli public opinion surveys have shown that 98% of Israeli Jews support the massive destruction inflicted upon Gaza and indeed over 40% think that the Israeli government’s military attacks have been too restrained and should be stronger.
Combining these different pieces of evidence, I doubt that many members of the Knesset would be dismayed if large numbers of Gazans began to die of starvation, especially if such horrifying conditions finally succeeded in driving them into Egypt and forcing the Egyptian government to accept them, thereby emptying the enclave and allowing Israel to permanently occupy and annex it. At the very least, Israeli leaders may believe that such mass starvation of Gazan civilians would coerce Hamas into accepting defeat and agreeing to release their remaining prisoners.
So the plan behind the Western suspension of financial support for UNRWA may be based upon Israeli goals, which include some mixture of punishment and further pressure for Palestinian expulsion or Hamas surrender. Meanwhile, the Western media has used the heavy coverage of those unsubstantiated accusations against UNRWA to avoid reporting the dramatic vote against Israel by the IJC that had immediately proceeded it.
The actual reasons given by the United States and many of its allies for cutting off funding to UNRWA and beginning to starve the Palestinians seemed utterly unreasonable. According to media reports, UNRWA employs some 30,000 Gazan residents and the Israelis claimed that just 12 of these individuals had participated in the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel—12 out of 30,000 employees! This demonstrates the absurd subservience of Western political leaders to the wishes of the Israeli government.
With so much of Gaza destroyed and with so many Gazans now on the verge of starvation, there are videos showing groups of Israeli activists blocking the entry of trucks carrying food and water to that desperate population, and surely almost everyone around the world condemns that monstrous behavior. Yet the political leaders of America, Britain, Germany, and many other Western nations who endlessly boast of their humanitarian principles are now doing much the same thing, seeking to cut off food supplies to millions of starving civilians, utterly outrageous actions ignored by most of the American public, who have been successfully brainwashed by our mainstream media.
MW: Israel’s operation in Gaza is, to large extent, a war of narratives. On the one hand, we have the highly-politicized term “genocide,” and on the other we have the equally-politicized term “antisemitism.” I cannot remember any conflict in which language played a more important role or summarized the views of the warring parties. Do you agree that—beyond the actual hostilities and violence—there is a battle of narratives taking place in which the two main enemies are brandishing their own particular terminology to overpower the other? Who do you think is winning that war?
RU: I do think that the political activists condemning the Israeli military attack on Gaza quickly began using the incendiary charge of “genocide” to dramatize their case and also to counter the weighty accusations of “antisemitism” they faced from their pro-Israel opponents. But that approach has resulted in some serious setbacks.
For example, when student protesters at Harvard and other elite colleges held up signs denouncing “genocide” or shouted it out at their public demonstrations, their opponents dishonestly claimed that they were publicly calling for the genocide of Jews. This allowed pro-Israel forces to deploy their overwhelming political and media power to promote that ridiculous argument and use it to force the resignation of the presidents of Harvard and UPenn, resulting in an unprecedented ideological purge of the top leadership of Ivy League schools.
I also think introduction of that term may have helped pressure Elon Musk into banning anyone on Twitter who used the popular progressive slogan “From the River to the Sea,” claiming that it represented a call for “Jewish genocide” rather than merely the replacement of Israel with a secular democratic state with equal rights for both Jews and Palestinians.
On the other hand, now that a near-unanimous majority of the International Court of Justice has ruled that the Palestinians of Gaza are indeed potentially at risk of suffering such a genocide at Israel’s hands, those accusations have become much more substantial and legitimate, although the Western mainstream media has done its utmost to avoid reporting that important story, probably preventing most of the public from becoming aware of it.
There is also a very strong divide based upon age and sources of information. For generations, America’s mainstream print publications and broadcast media have presented an extremely one-sided, pro-Israel account of the Middle East conflict, and individuals drenched for decades in such powerful propaganda are unlikely to suddenly change their opinions, so polling shows that they are still very supportive of Israel.
However, younger Americans are less set in their beliefs and they also often get their knowledge of events from social media and video platforms, which are much less under the total control of pro-Israel propagandists.Therefore, surveys reveal that they are far more evenly divided in their views, or even actually lean more towards the Palestinian side.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world outside the influence of the Western mainstream media, support for the Palestinian cause seems absolutely overwhelming, certainly among the two billion Arabs and Muslims, but elsewhere as well. For example, China and its media outlets have attempted to provide even-handed coverage of the current conflict, seeking to maintain good relations with both Israel and the Arab world. But when a leading influencer on Chinese social media polled his million Weibo followers soon after the October 7th Hamas attacks, 98% of them thought that the Palestinians were the ones with justice on their side.
I discussed some of these matters in several recent podcast interviews:
The problem they face is that all competent military experts agree that such a war would be utterly disastrous for the United States and our Western allies, as well as the entire world. Iran is a large, populous nation and its reasonable concerns about a possible American attack have caused it to build up a very formidable military force, including an enormous arsenal of highly-accurate cruise missiles which could easily overwhelm our defenses in the region. If we attacked, Iran’s retaliatory strikes could probably destroy all of our local bases in the region, killing enormous numbers of Americans, while sinking many of our ships at sea, perhaps even including the aircraft carriers that provide our global projection of power.
Over the last few weeks, the Houthi militias of Yemen, merely equipped with second- and third-tier weapons, have demonstrated that they can successfully bar the Red Sea to any vessels they wish, and our vaunted naval and air power has proved powerless to stop them. So in a war, the Iranians—who possess a vastly larger arsenal of first-class weapons, supposedly even including the hypersonic missiles that we ourselves have yet been unable to produce—could easily block the Straits of Hormuz to oil tankers, thereby collapsing much of the world economy at a stroke, especially including our NATO allies and Japan.
Given the endless American threats of attack, the Iranians have worked very hard over the last couple of decades to greatly improve their military capabilities, while despite our enormous defense budget, our own conventional arsenal has largely remained stagnant due to our overwhelming focus upon counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than two decades ago, the Pentagon’s 2002 Millennium Challenge war games found that the Iranians could defeat America in a war, and Iran is vastly stronger today. Meanwhile, the Iranians have recently finalized a comprehensive 20-year deal with Russia that includes defense cooperation, and given our huge support for the Ukrainian forces over the last couple of years, Moscow would certainly be very willing to return the favor by backing and supplying Iran.
So I actually think the greatest danger we face is that a sufficiently ignorant or arrogant Biden Administration, under enormous internal and external pressure by pro-Israel political forces, might be drawn into a totally irrational war with Iran. And if the results were sufficiently disastrous, with enormous American human losses from Iranian missiles fired at our military bases and ships sunk at sea, perhaps including aircraft carriers, our government might find itself compelled to threaten or use nuclear weapons to salvage its position, thereby pushing the entire world to the brink of destruction.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“Autopsy is not only a service to the doctors who were responsible for the patient, but it is a public service for our health system.” – Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt
Many cases of sudden death and severe disease are being reported since the rollout of the COVID-19 gene-based vaccines. Early on, several doctors and scientists warned that the COVID vaccines would lead to several complications including autoimmune disease, blood clots, strokes, and more. Additionally, The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, data showed a strong correlation between the vaccines and adverse events. But how does one determine in an individual case that the vaccine was the cause of death or the adverse event? It is through pathology.
An early pioneer of pathological investigations into vaccine adverse events was Prof. Arne Burkhardt — a senior, highly accomplished pathologist from Germany. Prof. Burkhardt came out of retirement in 2021 to examine the autopsy and biopsy materials of vaccinated patients. The work of Prof. Burkhardt not only provided strong evidence of vaccine causation, it substantiated the professional medical hypotheses of doctors and scientists around the world.
Journalist Taylor Hudak interviewed Prof. Burkhardt in his laboratory in Reutlingen, Germany, shortly before his death in May 2023. Prof. Burkhardt explains several of his findings in detail as well as which testing mechanisms he uses. Additionally, he shares his perspectives on the public health industry and academic and medical science as well as what motivates him to do this work.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is from TLAV
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“The unfriendly whites first drove the native American from his much-loved home. Then they stole our fathers from their peaceful and quiet dwellings, and brought them hither, and made bondmen and bondwomen of them and their little ones. They have obliged our brethren to labor; kept them in utter ignorance; nourished them in vice and raised them in degradation; and now that we have enriched their soil, and filled their coffers, they say that we are not capable of becoming like white men, and that we never can rise to respectability in this country.” (Quote taken from a Maria W. Stewart address entitled African Rights and Liberty delivered at the African Masonic Hall in Boston, February 27, 1833)
These words uttered in a public address later published in the abolitionist Liberator newspaper edited by William Lloyd Garrison some three decades prior to the African intervention in the United States Civil War, typified the sentiment of Black people during the escalating struggle over the future of slavery. (See this)
Maria W. Stewart (1803-1879), born in the northeast state of Connecticut, is said to have been the first woman of any race to speak before audiences of all genders. A series of her speeches between 1831-33, which often utilized religious themes, also gave a materialist analysis of the social conditions of African Americans in the 19th century.
After the defeat of the Confederacy in April 1865, the post-Lincoln government led by President Andrew Johnson was faced with the policy question of how to deal with the 4.5 million people of African descent of which nearly 90 percent were enslaved. Since the national Colored Conventions held in the U.S. beginning in 1830, African American men and women were calling for full equality and land.
Nevertheless, the gallant legislative and organizational efforts of African Americans and their allies within the political superstructure in the House of Representative, Senate, along with state and local governing entities, could not reverse the failure to reconstruct the U.S. on bourgeois democratic principles. These historical developments would plunge the country into another century of racial turmoil. A series of judicial and legislative decisions set the African American people back to a period often described as the “Nadir”. Elected and appointed officials were driven from offices in Washington, state capitals and local governments. This level of institutional racism and repression was enforced by the Ku Klux Klan and other violent white supremacist organizations. Their policies of complete segregation were given legal cover by the state and federal courts which reversed the intent of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution along with the Civil Rights Acts passed during Reconstruction.
By the last decade of the 19th century, “lynch law” was prevalent throughout the South and other regions of the U.S. Thousands of African Americans were being driven from their farms, workplaces and communities. Others were subjected to highly exploitative conditions of employment and unlawful imprisonment which were just as horrendous if not worse than the antebellum period.
Interventions at the Columbian Exposition
Chicago was the scene for the 1893 Columbian Exposition (World Fair) where people from throughout the globe would visit the city to “celebrate” the 400th anniversary of the “discovery” of America by Christopher Columbus. The entire framework of the gathering was of course flawed since there were already peoples and nations in existence in the western hemisphere centuries prior to the arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean.
The fair immediately drew the ire of leading African Americans who decried the total neglect of the contributions of their people in the three decades since the legal end of enslavement. Fortunately, in response, the Haitian government appointed longtime public speaker, author and diplomat Frederick Douglass as co-commissioner of the exhibit for this independent African island-nation in the Caribbean.
After the protest by community organizations, the event administrators designated one day for African Americans. Anti-lynching campaigner and journalist, Ida B. Wells, a much-younger friend and collaborator of Douglass, urged him not to participate in this concession. Douglass argued that he would take advantage of any opportunity to advance the plight of African Americans.
At the Haitian exhibit, a document written by Douglass, Wells, I. Garland Penn and Ferdinand Barnett, the future husband of Wells, entitled “The Reason Why the Colored American Is Not in the World’s Columbian Exposition”, was broadly circulated in the thousands. The pamphlet, which extended over 80 pages, was a damning indictment against the U.S. political, economic and social system.
Wells in chapter IV of The Reason Why explained the purported origins of lynch law in the U.S. Citing the Virginia Lancet related to horse theft, Col. Wm. Lynch drafted the law in 1780, and it has been referred to since as the infliction of punishment by private and unauthorized persons.
“This law continues in force today in some of the oldest states of the Union where the courts of justice have long been established, whose laws are executed by white Americans. It flourishes most largely in the states which foster the convict lease system and is brought to bear mainly against the Negro. The first fifteen years of freedom he was murdered by masked mobs for trying to vote. Public opinion having made lynching for that cause unpopular a new reason is given to justify the murders of the past 15 years. The Negro was first charged with attempting to rule white people and hundreds were murdered on that pretended supposition. He is now charged with assaulting or attempting to assault white women. This charge, as false as it is foul, robs us of the sympathy of the world and is blasting the race’s good name.”
This intervention in 1893 coincided with the Chicago Congress on Africa and the Congress of Representative Women, both of which were addressed by African American women. The Congress on Africa occurred between August 14-21. The event was spread out across various churches within the African American community. Several press accounts praised the Congress on Africa as the most interesting and significant aspect of the Columbian Exposition.
“From August 14, 1893, to August 21, 1893 probably the largest number of African American participants in a world’s fair event assembled as part of the Congress on Africa, or as it was sometimes referred to, the Congress on African Ethnology, or the Congress on the Negro. Its eight-day length included a citywide Sunday session that entered the sanctuaries and pulpits of scores of churches, so thousands of interested church congregants listened to information on the status of the global African population. Identified fully for what it was, the Congress on Africa combined the intellectual with the ideological, religious, philosophical and scientific to formulate an agenda facilitating, in effect, a dualistic American African public policy on the status of continental and diasporan Africans. Frederick Douglass, Alexander Crummell, John Mercer Langston, T. Thomas Fortune and Bishop Henry McNeal Turner discussed the future of Africa with a smattering of continental Africans in attendance. For the American nation, this congress brought about a re-creation of the liberal arrangement between the races that originated in the abolitionist era. And, in its aftermath it represented a first dialogue in substantive interracial cooperation. Accordingly, well-educated blacks as well as the elite and middle-class whites presented invited papers. Africans from the continent and from the Diaspora filled the black ranks, many being the most notable persons in their fields of endeavor – intellectually-endowed, well-known and respected by members of both races. So, with enthusiasm, Caucasians from Europe, Africa and America collaborated in problem-solving based on African strengths rather than hand wringing over African deficiencies.”
Pan-African Awakenings 1897-1900
During the time period in which the Columbian Exposition was held, colonialism was expanding exponentially on the African continent. The Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-85 convened by the leading European powers divided the continent among the imperialist states. See this.
By 1897 in Britain, the African Association had been formed by activists such as South African Alice Kinloch and Trinidadian-born Barrister Henry Sylvester Williams. By 1900 the so-called First Pan-African Conference was convened in London which attracted delegations largely from African descendants in the European, U.S. and Caribbean Diaspora.
Pan-African Conference 1900 in London
The event held between July 23-25 enjoyed the active participation of Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, Bishop Alexander Walters, Ms. Anna Julia Cooper, among others. The African Association was merged into the Pan-African Association which, according to the conference report, was supposed to hold another gathering within two years in the U.S. (See this)
Nonetheless, such a gathering was not held until after the conclusion of World War I in 1919 in Paris to coincide with the discussions by the imperialist powers over the geopolitical dynamics stemming from the post-war situation. Nonetheless, the objective limitations of the organizers of the Pan-African Conference of 1900 in London did not halt the resistance to colonialism on the African continent and throughout the world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Times of Israel report on January 25 noted that more than 250 U.S. cargo planes and 20 ships have delivered more than 10,000 tons of munitions and military equipment to Israel since its onslaught on Gaza began in October.
The same article stated that Israeli Defense Ministry Director General Eyal Zamir visited Washington in late January to finalize the purchase of 25 F-35 stealth fighter jets, 25 F-15 fighter jets and 12 Apache helicopters from the U.S.
In late December, The Times of Israelreported that the Israeli Defense Ministry had made almost $2.8 billion in additional purchases from the U.S. since the war started—in addition to the $3.8 billion in military aid that the U.S. provides to Israel annually.[1]
On January 26, a 17-judge panel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague issued a ruling that South Africa had solid foundation to bring its case of genocide before the world’s highest court.
As of this writing, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have killed more than 26,000 civilians in Gaza and injured 65,000 more while reducing much of Gaza to rubble following the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel.
The ICJ case may very well implicate the U.S., which has provided most of the weapons used to kill Palestinian civilians in violation of the laws of war.
Palestinian journalist Ramzy Baroud wrote that “the fingerprints of U.S. weapons are on the body of every Palestinian killed in Gaza, from the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital, to UN schools, to every house and every street.”
According to Baroud,
“never before in the history of the U.S.’s relationship with the Middle East has Washington been so directly involved in an Israeli war. The closest was the 1973 war, and even then, the U.S. involvement arrived a week later, and was hardly as direct.”[2]
In December, Amnesty International carried out an investigation, which determined that Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) manufactured by Boeing at a factory in St. Louis, Missouri, were used by the Israeli military in two unlawful air strikes on homes full of civilians in the Gaza Strip on October 10 and 13, with the fragments from the bombs found in the rubble.
A Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kit fixed to a bomb on display at the Navy League’s 2003 Sea-Air-Space Exposition. [Source: wsws.org]
The strikes on the al-Najjar family home in Deir al-Balah and Abu Mu’eileq family home in the same city killed a total of 43 civilians, including 19 children, and 14 women. In both cases, survivors told Amnesty International there had been no warning of an imminent strike.
A fragment of the JDAM that struck the Abu Mu’eileq family home. [Source: amnesty.org]
Members of the al-Najjar family who were killed in the strike. [Source: amnesty.org]
Members of the Abu Mu’eileq family who were killed in the strike. [Source: amnesty.org]
Amnesty has also raised alarm at the use of white phosphorus bombs in Gaza in violation of international law that it believed “may have been exported” from the U.S. In the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead, Israel used white phosphorus bombs that had been produced in Louisiana and Arkansas.
A target of anti-war activism during the Vietnam era, white phosphorus bombs are designed to burn people’s flesh to the bone.
Another weapons used widely by Israel are BLU-109 2,000 pound bunker buster bombs made in the U.S., which according to AP News have killed thousands of people after being dropped in densely populated neighborhoods on the Gaza strip.
According to a report on the World Socialist Website (WSWS), Israeli air strikes in Gaza have been carried out from a fleet of American made warplanes consisting of:
40 F-35 advanced Lockheed Martin stealth warplanes
196 F-16 multi-purpose planes made by General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin
83 F-15 fighters designed and produced by McDonnell Douglas (which is now part of Boeing)
These warplanes are equipped with bombs, missiles and guidance kits largely manufactured in the United States.
The bombs include MK-80 bombs made by General Dynamics in Garland, Texas, and retrofitted in McAlester, Oklahoma, at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, which produces a wide variety of bombs, including the infamous Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bombs dropped on Afghanistan, whose yield is comparable to a tactical nuclear weapon.[3]
A worker at the General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc., plant in Garland, Texas, works on the MK-80 series of bombs. [Source: wsws.org]
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant where they are proud of their deadly creation. [Source: armymilitary.net]
According to the WSWS, the MK-80 is a “primary bomb being used by the IDF as it destroys Gaza.” The IDF has also likely been using GBU-12 (Paveway) laser-guided bombs manufactured by Lockheed at its plant in Archbald, Pennsylvania, that are dropped from Lockheed F-35 fighter jets manufactured at a Lockheed plant in Fort Worth, Texas.
Lockheed’s Archbald plant, where smart bombs used by the IDF to kill Gazan civilians are manufactured. [Source: wsws.org]
Government contracts show that, at its main production headquarters in Tucson, Arizona, Raytheon makes its own variant of the Paveway laser-guided bomb kit and a variety of other missiles for the IDF, including the TOW, the AGM-65 Maverick, the Sidewinder, and the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile.
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) explains that Raytheon “provides weapon systems, components, and maintenance services to the Israeli Air Force’s fleet of F-15, F-16, and F-35 fighter jets. For example, the company and its subsidiary Pratt & Whitney have provided F100 engines—the ‘engine of choice’ for F-15 and F-16 aircraft—and APG-82(V)1 radars.”
Raytheon also makes a variety of smaller electronic components as well for the IDF, regularly working with Elbit Systems, a leading Israeli weapons manufacturer.
Of the protests in the U.S. over the Israel-Gaza War, a number have targeted the weapons pipeline coming out of the United States. For example, as the WSWSreports:
On Thursday, November 2, 60 protesters blocked the entrance to Raytheon in Tucson, demanding the company end its extensive sales to the IDF.
On Friday, November 3, hundreds of protesters and several rank-and-file members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) stalled the military vessel Cape Orlando in Oakland, California, as it headed to Israel with military supplies.
On Monday, November 6, hundreds more protesters tried to blockCape Orlando in Tacoma, Washington. At least three dock workers refused to handle the cargo.
On the same day, 75 young protesters blocked entrances to the Boeing plant outside of St. Louis, Missouri, the one which builds JDAMS, delaying the start of the shift by four hours, according to St. Louis Public Radio.
Several protests have occurred at Elbit Systems, one of the largest Israeli defense companies. This includes a protest by more than 200 people at Elbit’s U.S. headquarters in Boston.
The Merchants of Death war crimes tribunal, headed by former Lancaster prosecutor Brad Wolf, has sought to hold leading weapons contractors accountable for their war profiteering.
Besides enriching the coffers of leading arms manufacturers, the Biden administration’s support for Israel is contingent on Israel’s function as what Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has called a virtual aircraft carrier for the U.S. in the oil-rich Middle East.
Israel performs vital services for the U.S. by attacking nationalistic regimes hostile to U.S. interests like, that led by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War and Bashar al-Assad of Syria today, and has allowed the U.S. to establish a secret military base in the Negev Desert that can be used as a launching pad for wider U.S. military operations in the Middle East.
It is no surprise then that the Biden administration is unfazed by the recent ICJ court ruling, and will continue to arm Israel as it commits genocide against the Palestinian people who count for little in the U.S.’s larger geopolitical designs.
Iranian Hawks Beat Drums of War as Biden Plans Military Strike
The war drums are starting to beat louder and louder for Iran following a drone attack on the Syria-Jordan border in the Al-Tanf area that killed three U.S. servicemen and wounded 34.
The Biden administration blamed the attack on Iran without offering any proof, with Iran denying any involvement.
Biden said on January 30 that “I do hold them [Iran] responsible in that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.”
Biden also said that the U.S. response to the drone attack would be carried out “over the course of several days,” striking “multiple targets,” a U.S. official told ABC News. “These are going to be very deliberate targets—deliberate strikes on facilities that enabled these attacks,” on U.S. forces, the official said.
Though Biden claimed he does not want a wider Middle East war, U.S. action is threatening exactly that—something neoconservatives have long wanted.
In a characteristic segment on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News on January 26, Florida Congressman Mike Waltz (R-FL) claimed that Iran had carried out 165 attacks on U.S. troops since October 7 plus an additional 78 since Biden took office, leaving out that these troops were illegally occupying Middle-Eastern countries.
Waltz said in response to the attacks that the U.S. should develop a multi-pronged strategy in which it “hit Iranian operatives, dried up Iranian cash revenues, and supported Iranian efforts to overthrow their government, like in the Green revolution and Masha Ahmini protests,” which Obama and Biden had done little in his view to effectively support.
Sean Hannity chimed in with the false claim that Iran was now “only months away from obtaining nuclear weapons capability” and said that Americans should be “deadly afraid of the marriage of radical ideology and nuclear weapons.”
The third guest, Fox News contributor Pete Hegseth said that the “bad guys” [Iran] should know that if they attack Americans, they will be killed.”
Hegseth said that this wasn’t happening under the Biden administration, which was constraining the operations of U.S. troops holding the line against ISIS. The Biden administration was bombing warehouses to make it look like it was doing something and could have used some of the troops guarding the Jordan-Syrian border on the U.S.-Mexican border.
In Hegspeth’s view, Biden and his supporters naively believed that “a ceasefire in Gaza would cause Iran and its proxies–the Houthis, Hizbollah, Hamas and the anti-American militias that had targeted U.S. troops to stand back, which was a pipe dream.”
The choice was clear in the 2024 election between Biden and Trump, who according to Waltz, had “defeated ISIS, killed Baghdadi, made Iran broke and without nuclear weapons, and signed the Abraham Accords [drawing Israel closer to various Gulf Arab countries in an anti-Iran alliance].”
The above Republican talking points sadly resonate among certain segments of the U.S. electorate who have been conditioned to hate Iran and Muslims more broadly and to support imperialistic foreign policies. They embody the lie that Trump is an antiwar candidate and that U.S. foreign policy would be less aggressive or recklessly militaristic under his leadership than under Biden’s.
On Tuesday January 30, Hannity had on his show Iran-Contra felon and CIA agent Oliver North who reminisced about how he had a cyanide poison pill with him on one of his missions to Iran in the 1980s in case he had to commit suicide. (North was in Iran to procure illegal weapons sales in order to finance Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries mobilized by the CIA to overthrow the socialist Sandinistas).
North echoed Hannity in calling Biden the “appeaser-in-chief” for ignoring the alleged 160+ attacks on U.S. troops since Biden took office, leaving out like Waltz that those troops were illegally occupying Muslim countries. (Iran also was never proven to have been directly responsible for any of the attacks).
Calling the Iranian regime a suicidal one that embraced a death cult, North advanced a five point program for Iran that he said would deter Iranian aggression and prevent World War III.
The plan called for a) accelerating harsh sanctions on Iran, b) warning the Ayatollah that the U.S. would cut off Iran’s oil supplies if U.S. ships were struck again; c) indictment of the leaders of Iranian proxies that attacked U.S. troops; d) an end to any secret meetings supposedly being held in an attempt to revitalize the Iran nuclear agreement that Trump pulled out of, and e) acceleration of the sale of liquified natural gas to U.S. allies to shore up their strength.
Hannity responded to North by proposing bombing Iran’s oil refineries, which North seemed to agree with, as did two other guests on Hannity’s show, historian Victor Davis Hanson, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.
Twenty years ago, Hannity was leading the way in championing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, bringing on similar kinds of guests making similar kinds of arguments.
One would think that the outcome of that war would have had a humbling effect and would limit calls for yet more military intervention in the Middle East.
One should remember, however, that Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch has deep CIA ties and that Fox is a mouthpiece for a Republican Party that is financed by big oil companies who made a killing in Iran prior to the 1979 Islamic revolution when the Shah gave them what they wanted.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of five books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019), The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018), and Warmonger. How Clinton’s Malign Foreign Policy Launched the U.S. Trajectory From Bush II to Biden (Clarity Press, 2023). He can be reached at: [email protected].
Notes
After the war broke out in mid-October, President Biden requested a $14 billion aid package to Israel and Biden also removed restrictions on Israel’s ability to access a weapons stockpile that the Pentagon has kept in Israel since the 1980s. The State Department further invoked emergency provisions that allowed it to send tens of thousands of artillery shells and other munitions to Israel without review of Congress.
Baroud continued: “Every statement made by top U.S. officials, starting with Biden, to Blinken to Sullivan, to all others, indicate that the U.S. is a party in the war, not an outsider, a benefactor, and certainly not a mediator. They even sat in on meetings to discuss Israeli war plans on Gaza. They cannot claim ignorance.”
The bomb was nicknamed the “mother of all bombs.”
Featured image: U.S.-supplied military equipment arriving in Israel, December 2023. [Source: timesofisrael.com]
People ruled over by mask mandates, lock-downs, and other restrictions in life, followed now by the threat of losing your job without paid leave if you didn’t consent to a vaccine you didn’t trust can all be major impositions on some individuals. The Freedom Convoy directed all the built-up pressure cooking in a closed and sealed pot for almost two years and then released it in a peaceful protest movement in the city of Ottawa.
Numerous revolts among the enslaved African population occurred throughout the Western Hemisphere from Brazil, St. Vincent, Jamaica, Haiti, Cuba, the United States, among others. In the U.S., the plans for rebellion in Richmond led by Gabriel in 1800; the German Coast revolt in Louisiana in 1811; the Charleston incident under the direction of Denmark Vessey in 1822; a widespread revolt in 1831 led by Nat Turner in Southhampton County, Virginia shook the ideological foundations of the slavocracy.
What fundamentally underlies the motivation of Zionist Israel’s conquest and colonization of Palestine and the Palestinian people is what has fundamentally driven the human world’s conquest and colonization of vulnerable, less-stronger indigenous peoples, their lands and natural resources since humankind’s earliest evolution from the primordial muck of creation.
The release of the Vault 7 files in the spring of 2017 in a series of 26 disclosures, detailing the hacking tools of the US Central Intelligence Agency, was one of the more impressive achievements of the WikiLeaks publishing organisation. As WikiLeaks stated at the time, the hacking component of the agency’s operations had become so sizeable it began to dwarf the operations of the National Security Agency.
Debanking is the weaponization of finance for the purpose of social control, which simply doesn’t happen in a free society. By debanking me, my CEO, CFO, their spouses and children, Chase Bank is giving people a foretaste of how central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will be used to control the masses.
It’s barely been a month into 2024, and here’s Washington DC, already bombing half a dozen countries and threatening at least that many more. This includes Syria, Iraq and Yemen, while nobody’s even reporting on drone strikes all across Africa and the Middle East (including occasional attacks on Afghanistan). They’re also threatening Iran, Venezuela and several other countries in Latin America, including Mexico.
Hybrid Bt cotton, the only commercialised GM crop in India, has failed conclusively. Based on this failure and the evidence on GM crops to date, the Union of India’s proposal to commercialise herbicide-tolerant (HT) mustard will destroy not just Indian mustard agriculture but citizens’ health.
As the phenomenon of “died suddenly” among the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated continues to accelerate, I have noticed that some of those who have recently died, fully bought the fraudulent “horse dewormer” propaganda and were brainwashed into mRNA vaccination.
Welcome to the modern definition of “freedom of speech”, where the MSM are directly and explicitly permitted to “knowingly publish false information with intent to cause non-trivial harm”, and you can be sent to jail for a year for calling out their lies.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
“Crime was down significantly. The streets had never been cleaner. The homeless have never been better fed – well fed. And the support and love of fellow Canadians and anyone that came, regardless of religion, background, culture, beliefs…we were all there under the umbrella of freedom and that’s all that mattered. I’ve never felt more community and connection in my life!” – Kristen Nagle, Frontline National nurse, participant in the Freedom Convoy. Action against Attorney General of Canada (See Below)
Two years ago this week, the Truckers Freedom Convoy descended on the nation of Canada’s capital city. [1]
People ruled over by mask mandates, lock-downs, and other restrictions in life, followed now by the threat of losing your job without paid leave if you didn’t consent to a vaccine you didn’t trust can all be major impositions on some individuals.
The Freedom Convoy directed all the built-up pressure cooking in a closed and sealed pot for almost two years and then released it in a peaceful protest movement in the city of Ottawa. [2]
This was not not a collection of “far-right white supremacist and hate groups” as depicted in media and in government statements. [3] a
a
Nevertheless, on February 14, 2022, Prime Minister Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in history.
This law authorized the temporary suspension of the rights of individuals as defined under the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allegedly to ensure safety and security during a national emergency. The Canadian government authorized law enforcement to remove the trucks, arrest key individuals, and freeze the bank funds of several more.[4][5]
While it was a peaceful protest, according to a poll, at the time, two third of Canadians supported Trudeau’s use of the Act “to help authorities clear out Freedom Convoy blockades.”[6]
This all led to the decision on the 14th of February to invoke a measure known as the Emergencies Act – a law passed in 1988 which authorized the temporary suspension of the rights of individuals as defined under the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all so as to ensure safety and security during a national emergency. The Canadian government authorized law enforcement to remove the trucks, arrest key individuals, and freeze the bank funds of several more. [4][5]
Two years later, a Federal Court judge just ruled that the Trudeau government’s invocation of the Act was an unreasonable move and was not justified by any national emergency.
The truckers and their supporters saw the ruling as a victory for them.
For many Ottawa dwellers, the torment of the “Trucker-Fest 2022” still haunts them to this very day. [6][7]
According to media reports, there was no significant protest movement by Ottawa dwellers (see Global and Mail Report):
On this episode of the Global Research News Hour, we devote most of our time to hearing representatives from two sides of the dispute over whether the truckers implanting themselves in the streets for weeks over-reached the patience and the tolerance of good folks of Ottawa.
This is followed by the presentations of a few other people who played roles in dealing with complaints, and a short commentary about the possible role of media in the affair.
Brenda Knight is a Board member of the Centretown Community Centre in the heart of downtown. She is also a resident living in a condo opposite the Convoy, and is co-Chair of the Ottawa People’s Commission on the Convoy Occupation. The final reports can be found at https://www.opc-cpo.ca/#reports Kristen Nagle was a nurse who led the group Canada Frontline Nurses and lives in London, Ontario. She participated in the Convoy gatherings pretty much from the beginning and was a named plaintiff in the Federal Court ruling on the Emergencies Act.
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
After the United States Congress outlawed participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1808, the kidnapping and importation of Africans into North America continued. (See this)
From the geographical regions on the continent where the trade in human capital thrived, there was resistance from Africans to their bondage which was designed for the purpose of gross exploitation enforced through national oppression.
Numerous revolts among the enslaved African population occurred throughout the Western Hemisphere from Brazil, St. Vincent, Jamaica, Haiti, Cuba, the United States, among others. In the U.S., the plans for rebellion in Richmond led by Gabriel in 1800; the German Coast revolt in Louisiana in 1811; the Charleston incident under the direction of Denmark Vessey in 1822; a widespread revolt in 1831 led by Nat Turner in Southhampton County, Virginia shook the ideological foundations of the slavocracy.
These acts of resistance were the most well known since under the system of African enslavement there was resistance which took many forms on a daily basis. In addition to direct violent confrontation with the slave owners and their functionaries, many people fled the plantations seeking freedom from the tyranny of enforced labor exploitation.
Those Africans who escaped bondage either through legal means after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War in the northeast or migration to areas outside the U.S., played a critical role in the establishment of the Underground Railroad. This term was attributed to an organized cadre of anti-slavery activists who facilitated the departure of Africans from their slave masters.
In areas within the northeast of the U.S. there were newspapers founded in cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston which advocated the emancipation of African people. In Philadelphia there was the formation of anti-slavery societies for both men and women. Philadelphia was the scene of the initiation of the Free African Society and later the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) which contributed to the political education and agitation for the dissolution of legalized slavery. (See this)
Mary Ann Shadd and the Debates Surrounding Emigration and Full Equality
One of the key routes of the Underground Railroad was pathed through 19th century Detroit where a community of African Americans by the 1830s-1840s began to build independent institutions in this strategically located municipality bordering what became known as Ontario, Canada. One of the first urban rebellions in the U.S. took place in Detroit in 1833 when a couple which fled from enslavement in Kentucky were jailed in efforts to send them back into bondage.
The plight of Thornton and Lucie Blackburn prompted the African American community in Detroit at the time to forcefully liberate the couple and arrange transport to Canada. After 1833, the British-controlled territories were declared free from slavery. The Blackburns later took up residence in Toronto where they became a self-sufficient couple operating their own transportation business in the city.
In later years, Mary Ann Shadd Cary represented a prime example of the role of African people in Ontario during the period of the mid-to-late 19th century. Shadd became a journalist, publishing the Provincial Freeman which advocated the abolition of slavery as well as African emigration from areas where they were endangered of being placed in bondage.
One source on the political organizing work being done during this period points out:
“In 1823, Mary Ann Shadd was born in Delaware to a free couple. Shadd is recognized today as the first Black female editor in the United States and, after emigrating as an adult, one of the first female journalists in Canada. After the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Shadd and one of her brothers left the U.S. to move to Canada. Encouraged by Henry and Mary Bibb—two active attendants at the 1854 Emigration Convention—Shadd later became a teacher. After doing so, she successfully established a school for Black children and, in 1852, published several pro-emigration booklets. One of her most well-known pieces is titled A Plea for Emigration: or Notes of Canada West, which encouraged her Black readers to emigrate to Canada. The year before, Shadd has been the only woman present at the first Convention of Colored Freemen.”
These developments were by no means isolated. Others advocated a return to the African continent such as Edward Wilmot Blyden (1832-1912) who eventually moved to Liberia and Sierra Leone while working for many years as a journalist, educator, diplomat and politician. The Republic of Liberia was established formally in 1847. Nonetheless, the American Colonization Society (ACS) remained controversial among Africans in the U.S. during the antebellum period. (Edward Wilmot Blyden (1832-1912) (blackpast.org))
Due to the prevalence of institutional racism, many whites believed that African Americans legally manumitted from enslavement could not live a productive existence in the U.S. Earlier Sierra Leone, also in West Africa, was established after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War for those who fought alongside the British who had promised freedom in the aftermath of the conflict.
However, the experiences of Shadd Cary embodied the contradictions and rigorous debate among the African American people. This same above-mentioned document emphasized:
“Much like her father, who edited the Liberator alongside William Lloyd Garrison, Shadd was inspired to create her own newspaper in order to pursue her pro-emigration and abolitionist goals. She did just that, publishing the first issue of Provincial Freeman on March 25, 1854. Shadd did not place her name under the masthead of the paper, ‘thus concealing the paper’s editorship.’ In addition to including her own articles (without crediting herself) in the paper, Shadd incorporated the work of other influential abolitionists and pro-emigrationists such as Martin Delany. Although Mary Ann Shadd was not in attendance at the 1854 Emigration Convention, it can be said that her pro-emigration pieces in the Provincial Freeman were incredibly influential as associated textual pieces engaging the convention event. The following year, Shadd maneuvered her way into the 1855 Colored Convention. Although her emigration ideas clashed with some delegates, Shadd presented a speech at the convention. It proved convincing to the delegates so much so that they granted permission to extend her speaking time.”
Nevertheless, when the Civil War erupted in the U.S. in 1861, Shadd and her husband, Thomas F. Cary, returned to the U.S. Shadd worked as a recruiting officer for the Union army encouraging African Americans to enlist to fight for the end of slavery. After the war, Shadd studied law and became one of the first women lawyers to practice in the U.S.
African Labor and the Civil War
At the beginning of the Civil War in April 1861, there were nearly 4.5 million Africans living in the U.S., 90 percent of whom were enslaved. The profits accrued from the theft of Indigenous land, the importation of enslaved African labor and its super-exploitation economically benefited the slavocracy and the burgeoning industrial capitalists largely based in the northern states.
The contradictions between the systems of slavery and industrial capitalism underlined the outbreak of the Civil War. The valuable enslaved labor of African people served as the basis for the prosperity and social status of the planters.
Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois during the Great Depression in 1935 published his seminal work entitled “Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880.” In the first chapter of this book, The Black Worker, Du Bois puts forward his thesis which emphasizes that the African agricultural proletariat played a central role in the defeat of the Confederacy.
“It was thus the black worker, as founding stone of a new economic system in the nineteenth century and for the modern world, who brought civil war in America. He was its underlying cause, in spite of every effort to base the strife upon union and national power.”
After the Civil War and the failure of Federal Reconstruction by 1877, African Americans were thrust back into a social situation reminiscent of the antebellum period. It would take nearly another century to regain those rights granted through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution as well as the Civil Rights Acts passed between 1866-1875.
Today in the third decade of the 21st century the right to the universal franchise, access to public accommodations and education remain contested in the U.S. Consequently, the issues which drove the country into a civil war could resurface threatening the very existence of the bourgeois democratic system which has developed since the latter decades of the previous century.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Ron Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, told the Washington gathering that the demonstrations were meant “to thank the Qataris and at the same time to press them to push Hamas. Those two things are not in conflict: You’ve done a good job, you really need to do more of a good job.”
Earlier, Israeli protesters rallied at Qatar’s Washington embassy, striking a far more strident tone. Their message was “Qatar is Hamas.”
The Israeli nationals held the Gulf state responsible for Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel in which more than 1,100 people, mostly civilians, were killed and some 240 were taken hostage.
“We are here today to call out Qatar for what it really is: a terror supporting state seeking to destabilize the Middle East region. We will not allow Qatar to wash its hands (of) its responsibility (for) what happened on October 7,” said Nimrode Pantz, a lawyer and protest organiser.
Norman Goldstein, uncle of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, whom Hamas is holding hostage in Gaza, addresses about 50 people in front of the Qatari embassy in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 2, 2024. Photo: Andrew Bernard
Another speaker vowed that the protesters would “hunt (Qatari diplomats) in every place you will be until we see (the hostages) back.”
In November, Qatar negotiated a week-long truce during which Hamas exchanged more than 100 hostages, kidnapped during the October 7 attack.
Hamas still holds 136 hostages and bodies of captives killed in the fighting in Gaza.
Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed Abdulrahman al-Thani, together with the intelligence chiefs of the United States, Israel, and Egypt have drafted a plan based on proposals by Hamas and Israel, involving a pro-longed ceasefire and swap of all hostages and bodies for an unspecified number of Palestinians in Israeli prisons.
The main obstacle to an agreement is that Hamas insists on a permanent ceasefire that would end the war while Israel maintains that ending the war is non-negotiable.
The parties also have yet to agree on the staggered ratio of Palestinians to be released for each Hamas-held hostage and the identity of the Palestinians to be freed.
Considering Hamas’ main bargaining chip is its hostages, the group might insist on keeping a few hostages to make sure Israel abides by an agreement – a demand Israel is certain to reject.
It’s going to take fancy language to bridge the gap.
The trick will be a formula that allows both parties to claim they have achieved their irreconcilable goals.
One formula may be a lengthy ceasefire, potentially described as transitional rather than permanent. This would allow Israel to maintain that the war will continue while Hamas could claim the contrary.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has not made things easier by adopting a hardline in recent days. He has not only rejected ending the war, but also the release of “thousands of terrorists” and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza any time soon.
Mr. Netanyahu may sing a different tone this weekend in talks with US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, on his sixth visit to Israel since the war began, but any hostage swap agreement will likely entail provisions that could prompt his far-right coalition partners to withdraw from the government.
Mr. Netanyahu may hope that Hamas will rescue him by rejecting anything less than an end to the war and the release of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prison in exchange for the hostages.
The State Department and British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, in an apparent attempt to pressure Mr. Netanyahu to soften his rejection of the creation of an independent Palestinian state and approach to the hostage negotiations, are exploring possibilities of recognising Palestine as a state.
So far, the US and Britain have recognised President Mahmoud Abbas’ West Bank-based Palestine Authority as the entity governing the West Bank and official Palestinian interlocutor under the 1993 Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).
Even though small in number, the demonstrations in the US and Canada echo Mr. Netanyahu’s recent criticism of Qatar.
“You don’t hear me thanking Qatar… It is essentially no different from the UN or Red Cross, and in a certain sense is even more problematic – I have no illusions about them… They have leverage over (Hamas). Why do they have leverage? Because they finance them,” Mr. Netanyahu told hostage families earlier this month, ignoring that Qatari funding of Hamas in Gaza was at his behest.
“Qatar hosts the heads of Hamas; it also funds Hamas; it has leverage on Hamas…They placed themselves as mediators – so start proving it and bring back our hostages,” Mr. Netanyahu said in a subsequent news conference.
This week, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), founded by Yigal Carmon, a former advisor to Israel’s West Bank and Gaza occupation authority and Prime Ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin, sought to bolster Mr. Netanyahu’s argument. MEMRI reported that Qatar regularly trained Hamas’ police force.
Echoing Mr. Netanyahu’s criticism and American Jewish leaders’ frustration, Democrats and Republicans in the US Congress have asked the Biden administration to pressure Qatar. The lawmakers also called for Hamas’ expulsion from Qatar.
Officials of both countries left open whether the review would lead to the expulsion of Hamas representatives or to restrictions on their ability to operate from the Gulf state.
What the review will entail is likely to depend on whether and in what state Hamas survives the Gaza war. A Hamas survival could mean that the United States, and for that matter Israel, will have a continued need for a backchannel.
Nevertheless, the criticism threatens to put a dent in Qatari relations with the American Jewish community, a pillar of its largely successful soft power strategy in the United States.
Qatar and the administration have pushed back at the criticism.
“I’ve been hearing this a lot about the leverage and the pressure. Qatar needs to be understood clearly in this context. Our role as a mediator is to try to bring the parties to bridge the gaps between them,” Mr. Al Thani said in an on-stage interview at the Atlantic Council, a Washington thinktank.
“Beyond this leverage, we don’t see that Qatar is a superpower that can impose something on this party or another party to bring them to that place. Basically, were using our good offices to connect, to bridge gaps, to put solutions and come up with some alternatives,” he added.
Roger Carstens, US President Joe Biden’s top hostage envoy, told the Hostages’ Families Forum and the American Jewish Committee that Qatar is “doing everything we’re asking.”
Members of the Forum met last week with Mr. Al-Thani to thank him for his efforts.
Even so, Emily Moatti, a member of the Forum’s diplomatic team and a former Israeli parliament member, suggested the families were holding their nose while working with Qatar.
The Forum “thinks that the only way hostages will be released is through negotiations, and as unfortunate as it may be – we would prefer Egypt – Qatar is totally a partner in this,” Ms. Moatti said.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. James M. Dorsey is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and podcast, The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.
Featured image: Airport workers unload crates with aid delivered from Qatar destined for Gaza at El Arish International Airport (Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Brzezinski’s Barbaric Dream. The Israeli-Gaza Conflict Is the Beginning of a Broader War, “Spreading Towards Iran”: Dr. Paul C. Roberts
Mask Wearer Versus Non-Mask Wearer. Why Most People Couldn’t See the Lies?
“Nuclear High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse”: The United States Has Zero National Security
Onset Mania and Psychosis Post-Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 Booster Vaccination
Ten Reasons to Throw Green Politics in the Bin
“Fake Justice” at The Hague: The ICJ “Appoints” Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish” Those Responsible for “Genocidal Acts”
A “False Flag” Operation to Justify the Israel-U.S. Genocide Against the People of Palestine
British Journalist Who Attacked World #1 Tennis Player Novak Djokovic for Being Unvaccinated, Died Suddenly During Australian Open
Israel’s Starvation Strategy
Pathologist Arne Burkhardt Revealing the Grave Dangers of MRNA Vaccines
The Hegemonic UN-WEF-NATO Triad: U.N. “Sustainable Development” (SDG 2030) = Endless Wars, Poverty and Famine Worldwide
Texas Border Conflict: Programmed Civil War, Martial Law? Suspended November 2024 US Presidential Elections?
The Marriage Between Zionism and Imperialism
What Is a Jew, a Zionist, Zionist Propaganda, “Israelism”, Truth About the ICJ Ruling
In this regard, the ICJ President Joan Donoghue — former Legal Advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the Obama administration– is in conflict of interest. The latter indelibly raises the issue of her 
Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles
1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yasser Arafat.
What is the meaning in Arabic of Al Qaeda?
