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.
Mexico is furious and demands an investigation into how belt-fed machine guns, rocket launchers, and grenades are ending up in the hands of cartel members, the country’s top diplomat said.
“The (Mexican) Defense Department has warned the United States about weapons entering Mexico that are for the exclusive use of the US army,” Foreign Relations Secretary Alicia Bárcena said, who was quoted by AP News.
Bárcena said, “It is very urgent that an investigation into this be carried out.”
In June, the Mexican Army announced it had seized a dozen rocket launchers, 56 grenade launchers, and 221 fully automatic machine guns since 2018.
#Mexico 🇲🇽: A noteable video allegedly shows members of Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (#CJNG Cartel) in #Jalisco.
A member of the cartel seemingly fires a noteable RPG-7 Launcher with 85mm PG-7V projectile —quite interesting to see. pic.twitter.com/IvhMN9GWF4
The influx of military-grade US weaponry entering Mexico comes as the Biden administration fails to secure the southern border as millions of illegals flood into the US. But what’s rarely discussed, in what seems like an Obama-era Operation Fast and Furious scandal, are weapons flooding Mexico from the US.
Last week, at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) agent from a field office in southern Texas revealed to us that the agency is very concerned about a flood of 50 cal rifles and belt-fed machine guns that are illegally entering Mexico from the US.
The cross-border firearms trafficking of military-grade US weaponry on the southern border is very concerning. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill should investigate this worrisome development to ensure the Biden administration does not repeat the Obama-era Fast and Furious program.
*
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.
Five peace activists were arrested today as CODEPINK and other organizations disrupted the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing titled “UNRWA Exposed: Examining the Agency’s Mission and Failures.” The protest aimed to draw attention to the urgent need for humanitarian aid in Gaza.
The disruption comes in the wake of the International Court of Justice’s recent ruling, which found South Africa’s charge of genocide against Israel to be credible. The court issued provisional measures demanding that Israel cease the killing of Palestinians and restore the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Despite these urgent calls, Israel has retaliated by accusing UNRWA members of aiding and abetting Hamas’s attack on October 7th. In response, the United States made the drastic decision to completely cut off funding to UNRWA, jeopardizing vital aid to the people of Gaza who are facing dire circumstances.
“UNRWA is the lifeline for people who are starving; cutting its funding is just inhumane,” stated Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK.
United States citizens are voicing their outrage at their country’s complicity in what they see as the intentional ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Many believe that decision-makers are influenced by lobbying efforts from groups like AIPAC, which is perceived as a de facto lobbying firm for the State of Israel.
Jay Waxse from 7 Circles Alliance expressed concern, stating,
“To so casually take away humanitarian aid from an entire people based on one criterion that is not withheld within our military or police in this country is severely troubling.”
Retired Colonel and former State Department member Ann Wright emphasized the critical importance of UNRWA funding for the health and security of the people of Gaza, calling the suspension of funding by the US “criminal” and “outrageous.”
CODEPINK and its supporters demand the immediate reinstatement of funding to UNRWA to ensure the well-being of the people of Gaza.
*
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 military school at West Point participates in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
This is done by West Point lying away Israel’s genocide – and pretending to be “experts” claiming that Israel “protects” civilians.
Israel has done more to prevent civilian casualties in Gaza than any other army in the world, chair of urban warfare studies at West Point, John Spencer said in an extensive thread posted on x (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday. See this.
One of the “measures” which West Point claims Israel has taken, is Israel’s false alerts to warn Palestinians to go to “safe” places – places, which Israel then deliberately bombs once the Palestinian civilians have fled to those locations. The West Point is of course fully aware that their leader of urban combat education is lying on behalf of Israel – he knows that what Israel really does, is the exact opposite of protecting civilians – it is criminal deceit for targeting civilians, incl. children.
Also, the West Point military school in the US knows that Israel creates famine and hinders life-saving aid from going into Gaza.
The US, its government, and US military institutions like West Point are complicit in Israel’s genocide.
The lies from West Point about the nature of Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians is especially criminal, as it will undoubtedly be used as “evidence” to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel is “innocent” of genocide.
*
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.
Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.
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.
“Ladies and gentlemen of Progressive Slovakia and the Opposition parties, have you seen the statistics onhow our deaths have risen from various cardiovascular events due to vaccination?
But you reject it, of course you reject it, while you claim that (COVID-19) Vaccination was the best thing in the world.
What do you know abouthow many vaccines we have left over that expired and how much money was thrown away into the air? What do you know about purchases of medical equipment and tests? You know that we demonstrated very clearly the connection of one company from Trnava (Slovakia) to the chairman of one of the opposition political parties.
Hundreds of thousands, millions worth of purchases, completely useless. What do you know about management? What do you know about what was going on in terms of taking various measures which, in our view,significantly increased the morbidity than was perhaps the case in other countries?
And you all laughed at the other states, other countries. You laughed at Russia, where they stood on the principle of individual visits of patients by doctors, and they managed it significantly better than we managed it here in Slovakia.
We have 21,000 deaths, which we connect with the fact that the governments that were here since 2020 were not capable of managing (the pandemic) and cared only about economic gains and of course made sure they were bowing to pharmaceutical companies from which they bought huge quantities of useless medical equipment and often also vaccines.
I don’t even want to talk about the European level, you know that I have been very open and I said it to Madam President of the European Commission (Ursula von der Leyen) openly that the suspicions that are connected with her and to the purchase, the largest purchase in the history of the European Commission, of vaccines, when she literally exchanged secret SMS text messages with CEO of Pfizer (Albert Bourla), and when, to the ridicule of Members of the European Parliament a report was issued that was completely blacked out, we will simply never be able to find out the truth of what role pharmaceutical companies played and who actually organized this whole circus around COVID-19.
Under these conditions, ladies and gentlemen, the government of Slovak Republic has decided that it will include into the Government’s Program Statement, a commitment that it will settle this issue. The Slovak public simply needs an answer, needs an answer in regards to vaccination, what it actually was. Why were people vaccinated with various experimental Vaccines without any trials? Why were all sorts of drugs forced into people? Why was there state wide testing? Who was buying? Why were they buying? What quantities were being bought? How much money did it cost?
And we’ll end up at billions, at billions, you can grin all you want because you don’t even know anything other than showing disrespect for another opinion. You know democracy is about sometimes respecting another opinion. When you are here discussing for the third week talking about the Criminal Code, nobody is swearing at you, we are listening to you, you are talking, so please be kind enough if we have a different opinion, then please respect it even if you disagree with it.
Under these conditions, we have decided that we will create an Office of the Government Plenipotentiary which will be dealing with these questions. Today, we have not only appointed the Director of Plenipotentiary, but we’ve also empowered him when it comes to obtaining information from various Institutions, in particular we will be obtaining information from the Chief Hygienist, we will be asking questions at the National Health Information Center. We still want to know, based on what we currently have available to us, what actually happened.
I think that Dr.Kotlar, Member of the National Assembly, is sufficiently equipped in terms of information. I see that he is also prepared in terms of assembling a team. I have requested from him that before we make any public statements, that we have first gone through everything at the government, and I am absolutely convinced that his work will lead to results that we will make public and we will tell the Slovak public what in God’s name happened during COVID.
We know today one thing for sure: previous governments completely failed to manage COVID properly and have around their necks 21,000 dead people and apparently they made a huge amount of money on the unnecessary purchases of various medical equipment and vaccines.
Thank you very much.”
***
My Take…
A few weeks ago, newly elected Slovakia Prime Minister Robert Fico clearly outlined his governing party’s position on rejecting the WHO Pandemic Treaty. I translated his speechhere.
This time, Slovakia leads the way again and provides the “template” on how to approach the crimes and fraud committed during the COVID-19 pandemic by the politicians who were in power at the time.
Publicly address current excess deaths
Publicly expose the cardiovascular (and other) deaths caused by COVID-19 Vaccination
Call out the corruption involving the contracts that were awarded for masks and other personal protective equipment (and the politicians involved)
Call out the corruption in the procurement of COVID-19 Vaccines
Call out the experimental nature of COVID-19 Vaccines and the inappropriate use of various drugs that were forced on people during the pandemic
Launch a government investigation into the handling of the entire COVID-19 pandemic, including the rollout of COVID-19 Vaccines and the purchases of various medical equipment and vaccines (and who benefited financially).
Make a commitment to the public, to make all the findings of such a government investigation public.
Notice that even though he is a politician, he is not dancing around the issue or sugar coating it. He is simply telling it like it is.
This is a great template to follow, by other politicians who want to do the right thing at this time.
For example, in Canada, Alberta’s Premier Danielle Smith could launch such an investigation into corruption and crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic (especially by Alberta Health Services and the Colleges of Physicians, Nurses, Pharmacists, Dentists, etc) and if she did, she would have overwhelming support from the public.
*
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.
“In a normal world, it is Israel that should be punished for killing so many members of a humanitarian organization. (150 UNRWA staffers killed so far) But nope, it’s the humanitarian organization that’s getting punished, alongside the very vulnerable population it’s committed to helping.” —Arnaud Bertrand
Israeli leaders have settled on a plan that will increase the number of Palestinian deaths while diverting attention from the ICJ’s claims of genocide.
On Friday, western news agencies reported that the UN’s humanitarian agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency or UNRWA, may have employed militants who were involved in the October 7 attacks on Israel. The claims—which remain sketchy and unverified—were made on the same day that the International Court of Justice delivered its historic genocide ruling against the Jewish state. While it is possible that Israeli investigators uncovered new intelligence on Hamas’ attack, it’s more likely that the announcement was perfectly-timed to divert attention from the ICJ’s ruling.
Not surprisingly, the United States and its allies—including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Finland and the Netherlands—have all accepted Israel’s dubious allegations and announced that they will temporarily suspend funding for the UN agency. The speed at which these countries joined Israel in condemning the UNRWA, strongly suggests that they were tipped-off (and told what to do) prior to the announcement. All of this suggests that Israel is trying to minimize the reputational damage from the genocide indictment by creating a smokescreen that will leave the public confused and unable to assign blame. According to the Times of Israel:
A senior Israeli official told the Axios news site that the Shin Bet and the IDF provided information that pointed to the active participation of UNRWA staffers along with the use of the agency’s vehicles and facilities in the October 7 terror onslaught.
Whenever the media bases its coverage on information from an unidentified intelligence source, you must assume they ‘have nothing’, which supports our basic belief that the Hamas fable is largely a diversion. Surprisingly, an article at CNN helps to reinforce our thesis. Take a look:
Details remain scant. Neither Israel nor UNRWA have specified the nature of the alleged involvement of UNRWA employees in the events of October 7.
An Israeli official told CNN on Friday that Israel shared information about 12 staffers allegedly involved in the October 7 attacks both with UNRWA and the US…
In addition to the staffers’ alleged October 7 involvement, the Israel Defense Forces on Saturday also alleged that UNRWA facilities were used for “terrorist purposes”, in a statement to CNN on Saturday.
Asked about the claim about UNRWA facilities, the agency told CNN, “We don’t have more information on this at this stage.” (CNN)
Okay, let’s review:
“Details remain scant.” (They have nothing.)
“Neither Israel nor UNRWA have specified the nature of the alleged involvement of UNRWA employees in the events of October 7.” (They have nothing.)
An Israeli official … shared information about 12 staffers allegedly involved in the October 7 attacks both with UNRWA and the US.” (“allegedly”. They have nothing.)
The IDF “also alleged that UNRWA facilities were used for “terrorist purposes”. (“alleged”. Again, no evidence.)
“The agency told CNN, “We don’t have more information on this at this stage.” (Finally, an clear admission that they have nothing.)
None of Israel’s claims have been corroborated, verified or proven. It’s all speculative pronouncements packaged as credible intelligence. (It’s embarrassing that they even publish this nonsense.)
All the same, Israel’s closest allies have cut funding and are now doing their level-best to prevent the relief agency from operating in Gaza. This is a very serious situation that could have dire consequences for Palestinians who currently have no access to food, medicine or clean water. As unbelievable as it sounds, Israel appears to be implementing a strategy aimed at deliberately starving millions of civilians to death. If someone has a better explanation for Israel’s behavior, I would be very interested in hearing it. This is from an editorial at the Global Times:
Since the start of this conflict, 1.7 million people have sought refuge or received services in over 150 UNRWA shelters and distribution sites. Food, water, education, and healthcare in Gaza largely depend on UNRWA. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is the last lifeline for 2.2 million people. The funding of this agency is almost entirely provided by donors, and it has been in a financially tight or even crisis state for many years. The countries that have currently announced the suspension of funding are important donor countries, with their donations accounting for a significant proportion of the organization’s funds. …
Israel has previously stated that the Israeli government will implement a policy to prevent UNRWA from operating in the Gaza Strip after the current round of Israel-Palestine conflict ends. Considering UNRWA’s pivotal position in local organizations within the UN, this will restrain the UN’s role in Gaza and the Middle East, and deal a major blow to the increasingly dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip….
there is currently no alternative to UNRWA, and it remains the only hope for Palestinian refugees. The international community has broad consensus that “collective punishment” against the Gaza population for condemning and combating terrorism is unacceptable and humanitarian needs should be guaranteed…
In the slow progress of the “two-state solution,” UNRWA has played an indispensable role in providing much-needed assistance to Palestinian refugees. It is a shared responsibility of all parties to continue supporting and maintaining the authority and status of the UN. Global Times
The article underscores what we said earlier, that currently there is no substitute for the UNRWA. If they are prevented from assisting Gaza’s nearly 2 million internal refugees, they will starve; it’s that simple. So, as you can see, Israel’s attack on the agency is not merely designed to obfuscate the genocide ruling, but to increase the probability of mass starvation. This type of barbarous behavior, is hard to process.
Check out this excerpt from the official statement from Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA Commissioner General:
“Nine countries have as of today temporarily suspended their funding to UNRWA. These decisions threaten our ongoing humanitarian work across the region including and especially in the Gaza Strip.
“It is shocking to see a suspension of funds to the Agency in reaction to allegations against a small group of staff, especially given the immediate action that UNRWA took by terminating their contracts and asking for a transparent independent investigation….
“UNRWA is the primary humanitarian agency in Gaza, with over 2 million people depending on it for their sheer survival. Many are hungry as the clock is ticking towards a looming famine. The Agency runs shelters for over 1 million people and provides food and primary healthcare even at the height of the hostilities.
“In its ruling yesterday, the International Court of Justice ordered that “Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip”. These measures are aimed at preventing irreparable damage to the rights of Palestinians.
“It would be immensely irresponsible to sanction an Agency and an entire community it serves because of allegations of criminal acts against some individuals, especially at a time of war, displacement and political crises in the region…
“I urge countries who have suspended their funding to re-consider their decisions before UNRWA is forced to suspend its humanitarian response. The lives of people in Gaza depend on this support and so does regional stability”. UNRWA’s lifesaving aid may end due to funding suspension, unrwa.org
Is it fair to describe Israel’s effort to block basic humanitarian aid to the Palestinians as “diabolical” or is too critical?
The best summary of this issue was written by Arnaud Bertrand and posted on his Twitter account on Sunday. I hope you will take the time and read it:
Whatever your position is, just take a moment to reflect on just how dark this is.
Just hours after the ICJ concluded that Israel was plausibly committing genocide and ordered it to dramatically step up humanitarian efforts, 7 Western countries sanctioned… not Israel but the Palestinians and the UN (!!!).
They cut funding for UNRWA, which is THE UN agency tasked with humanitarian assistance to Palestinians (and therefore their main lifeline).
Even if you were the world’s worst cynic, you’d still have a hard time expecting such sheer level of cruelty and depravation. This is absolutely unfathomable.
They did so with the cheapest possible excuse, effectively using Israel’s narrative that “UNWRA is Hamas” and allegations by Israel that some UNWRA staff were involved in the 7th Oct attack but 1) Israel has been making these accusations for months (so the timing of cutting funding right after the ICJ ruling is obviously not a coincidence) and 2) UNWRA has announced it’s terminated the contracts of the staff members accused (12 people out of its 30,000 strong workforce) and launched an investigation, so it obviously doesn’t condone this. Even if the allegations were to be proven correct, how can an organization of 30,000 staff be held collectively accountable for the individual actions of 0.04% of its workforce? Especially in the current context when its work is a life or death matter for millions of people.
To add to the cynicism here, UNWRA staff are actually a major victim of the war with at least 152 UNRWA staffers killed by Israel in Gaza to date. In a normal world, it is Israel that should be punished for killing so many members of a humanitarian organization. But nope, it’s the humanitarian organization that’s getting punished, alongside with the very vulnerable population it’s committed to helping.”
Whatever your position is, just take a moment to reflect on just how dark this is.
Just hours after the ICJ concluded that Israel was plausibly committing genocide and ordered it to dramatically step up humanitarian efforts, 7 Western countries sanctioned… not Israel but the… https://t.co/6DYT3v7EK1
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).
US Army General Christopher Cavoli, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, announced that the largest NATO exercise in decades, Steadfast Defender 2024, will occur in Europe from the end of January to the end of May. 90,000 soldiers from the 31 NATO countries will participate and are about to join NATO Sweden.
US media reported that Washington is creating a new strategy for Ukraine that will deemphasise retaking territory it lost to Russian forces, a silent acknowledgment that the Ukrainian military does not have the capabilities to launch attacks, let alone reach Crimea, as Kiev regime figures boasted before the failure of last year’s counteroffensive.
In a world so deeply distressed by alarming incidence of gender violence, domestic violence, workplace violence, street violence, etc., better understanding and appreciation of the importance ofnon-violence implies a reduction not just in actual acts of violence but also conscious efforts to reduce anger, jealousy, greed, aggressive competitiveness and other tendencies which are associated with violence in daily life.
Political science as practiced in the academy and those tank manufacturer-funded institutions who collude in the articulation of public policy cannot call attention to the obvious. This is especially true of the so-called “realists”. What makes them so offensive is their obfuscation combined with moralizing verbosity. Yet the “realist” scholar or school is admired by all young and old (we have not yet heard of “trans-aged”).
Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science.
The suspension of funding by donor states will impact life-saving assistance for over two million civilians, over half of whom are children, who rely on UNRWA aid in Gaza. The population faces starvation, looming famine and an outbreak of disease under Israel’s continued indiscriminate bombardment and deliberate deprivation of aid in Gaza.
It is already abundantly clear that Israel is adamant to ignore the demands of the ICJ and carry through with its genocide until its horrific end. Instead of reversing course, key forces in Israel celebrate their drive for genocide against the Palestinians and their objective of an Israeli colonization of Gaza.
Mohamed Hassan is a former Ethiopian diplomat who was involved in protests in the early 1990s with future Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi to secure greater rights for Ethiopia’s Muslim population. Hassan told an international tribunal on U.S. imperialism that the U.S. government is responsible for the destruction of Tigray, an Ethiopian province, after the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) launched an insurgency in November 2020 against the Ethiopian government.
The world is experiencing a micronutrient food and health crisis. Micronutrient deficiency now affects billions of people. Micronutrients are key vitamins and minerals and deficiencies can cause severe health conditions. They are important for various functions, including blood clotting, brain development, the immune system, energy production and bone health, and play a critical role in disease prevention.
Within hours, nine states had added their names to the list suspending allocated aid. Australia, along with the United States and Canada, rushed to the podium to condemn UNRWA and freeze funding. The United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Finland followed.
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.
Amnesty International on Monday joined the growing global chorus denouncing Israel’s allies for suspending aid to the United Nations’ Palestinian refugee agency even as they continue to support the Israeli military’s war on the Gaza Strip, risking complicity in genocide.
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty’s secretary-general and the former U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, said that while Israel’s claim that a dozen staffers at the refugee agency played a role Hamas’ October 7 attack is “serious and must be independently investigated,” the “alleged actions of a few individuals must not be used as a pretext for cutting off lifesaving assistance in what could amount to collective punishment.”
“Some of the very governments that announced they will cut off funds to UNRWA over these allegations have, in the meantime, continued to arm Israeli forces despite overwhelming evidence that these arms are used to commit war crimes and serious human rights violations,” said Callamard. “Rushing to freeze funds for humanitarian aid, based on allegations that are still being investigated, while refusing to even consider suspending support for the Israeli military is a stark example of double standards.”
“Instead of suspending vital funding to those in need,” Callamard added, “states should be working to halt arms transfers to Israel and Palestinian armed groups and pushing for an immediate and sustained cease-fire and full humanitarian access to help alleviate devastating suffering.”
The United States announced last week that it would temporarily cut off UNRWA funding as it reviews Israel’s allegations against the low-level agency employees—a decision that came just hours after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel must ensure the provision of humanitarian aid to Gazans, tens of thousands of whom have been killed or wounded by Israeli bombs and shells in less than four months.
Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, said that “defunding UNRWA at this critical time overtly defies” the ICJ’s ruling.
Médecins Sans Frontières, also known as Doctors Without Borders, similarly warned Monday that “the consequences these cuts in funding will have on the ground contradict the provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice.”
“The humanitarian crisis has reached catastrophic levels,” the group added, “and any additional limitations on aid will result in more deaths and suffering.”
Just over a week before the Biden administration decided to suspend its UNRWA contributions, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department described the agency’s work as “invaluable” and “lifesaving.”
Jan 17—9 days before ICJ trial:
State Dept. Spox Matt Miller: "UNRWA has done and continues to do invaluable work to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza at great personal risk to UNRWA members…over 100 UNRWA staff members have been killed doing this lifesaving work." pic.twitter.com/ckTHFhU2zc
On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinkenacknowledged that the UNRWA “has played and continues to play an absolutely indispensable role in trying to make sure that men, women, and children who so desperately need assistance in Gaza actually get it.”
“And no one else can play the role that UNRWA’s been playing, certainly not in the near term,” he added. “So that only underscores the importance of UNRWA tackling this as quickly, as effectively, and as thoroughly as possible, and that’s what we’re looking for.”
At least a dozen countries—including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands—have joined the U.S. in suspending aid to the UNRWA, the most critical humanitarian aid organization in the famine-stricken Gaza Strip.
The moves have put the UNRWA’s operations in jeopardy, with the U.N. chief warning that the agency’s current funding levels won’t be enough to meet all of its requirements in February. The agency has no strategic financial reserves.
Amnesty said the countries that have suspended aid to the UNRWA thus far provided more than half of the agency’s budget in 2022.
Several major nations, including Norway and Spain, have refused to join the U.S.-led freeze of aid to the UNRWA, which the Israeli government has been targeting for years and is hoping to push out of Gaza entirely. The UNRWA quickly fired nine of the 12 workers that Israel accused of taking part in the October 7 attack and has launched an investigation.
On Monday, Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares said his country will not suspend UNRWA funding, which he said helps “alleviate the terrible humanitarian situation in Gaza.”
Albares also pledged to continue pushing for an end to Israel’s assault on Gaza, the release of hostages, and a lasting diplomatic solution.
“We will not resign ourselves to watching more innocent women, men, and children killed in Gaza and more suffering of Palestinian families,” he said. “We will not resign ourselves to keep watching the suffering of the families of hostages. The violence must stop.”
[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.
Jake Johnson is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.
Featured image: Families have been forced to moved repeatedly in Gaza. UN United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Of relevance to the crimes currently committed by the Netanyahu government against the People of Palestine, we bring to the attention of our readers the 2013 Judgement of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, an initiative of former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who headed the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC).
On a personal note, I was a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War (2005). I was subsequently invited to become a member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) which was created in 2007.
I should mention that the indictment directed again the State of Israel was the object of sabotage.
One of the appointed foreign judges was a Zionist who was in “conflict of interest” with links to the State of Israel. Members of the KLWCC brought this issue to the attention of Prof. Francis Boyle who had acted as prosecutor on behalf of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission chaired by Tun Mahathir Mohamad. The numerous witnesses from Palestine refused to provide testimony.
The Tribunal hearings were postponed and reconvened on November 13, 2013 following the act of recusal and the appointment of a new judge.
The Kuala Lumpur Judgment is all the more significant in view of the current procedure of the International Criminal Court’s instigated by the Republic of South Africa against the State of Israel, on charges of genocide directed against the People of Palestine.
Read it carefully, particularly the testimonies. Forward this text far and wide.
In solidarity with the People of Palestine.
Michel Chossudovsky, January 18, 2023
Video. Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
Global Solidarity in Support of Palestine
November 4, 2023
The 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War
under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
Signatories of the 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration. From Left to Right:
Francis A.Boyle, Helen Caldicott, Denis J. Halliday, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Hans-Christof Von Sponeck, Michel Chossudovsky, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
.
Important Excerpt from the 2013 Judgment
What Amounts To Genocide?
Simply put, genocide means any designated acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. The definition of genocide as given in Article 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute is taken verbatim from Articles 2 & 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which states that the following acts may by themselves or cumulatively constitute the international crime of genocide:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
***
The State of Israel was charged on 20 November 2013
with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
The procedure was initiated by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission under the helm of the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
It was part of an initative launched in December 2005 to Criminalize War.
It involved detailed testimonies and evidence.
The Members of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) are:
Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, chairman,
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky,
Mr. Denis Halliday,
Mr. Musa Ismail,
Dr. Zulaiha Ismail,
Dr. Yaacob Merican,
Dr. Hans von Sponeck
This indictment is supported by extensive evidence and testimony. Read the following recommendations:
As a tribunal of conscience, the Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. We have no power of enforcement. What we can do, under Article 34 of Chapter VIII of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, WHICH WE HEREBY DO, to submit this finding of conviction by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.
The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions.
The Tribunal deplores the failure of international institutions to punish the State of Israel for its crimes and its total lack of respect of International Law and the institutions of the United Nations. It urges the Commission to use all means to publicise this judgement and in particular with respect to the Parliaments and Legislative Assemblies of the major powers such as members of the G8 and to urge these countries to intervene and put an end to the colonialist and racist policies of the State of Israel and its supporters.
Below is the full text of the procedure as well as the formal indictment against Amos Yaron and the State of Israel.
On behalf of the members of The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, under the helm of Dr. Tun Mahathir Mohamad.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 18, 2020, November 8, 2023
***
THE KUALA LUMPUR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL 20 – 25 NOVEMBER 2013 Case No. 3 – CHG – 2013
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against Amos Yaron Case No. 4 – CHG – 2013
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against The State of Israel
Coram
Judge Tan Sri Dato’ Haji Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus Judge Tunku Sofiah Jewa Judge Shad Saleem Faruqi Judge Mohd Saari Yusuf Judge Salleh Buang Judge John Philpot Judge Tunku Intan Mainura
Prosecution Team
Prof. Gurdial Singh Nijar Tan Sri Aziz Rahman Mr. Avtaran Singh Ms. Gan Pei Fern Mr. Nizamuddin Hamid Dr. Sharizal M Zin Ms. Rafika Shari’ah Ms. Mazlina Mahali Ms. Diyana Sulaiman
Amicus Curiae-Defence Team
Mr. Jason Kay Kit Leon Ms. Larissa Jane Cadd Dr. Abbas Hardani Prof. Dr. Rohimi Shapiee Dr. Rohaida Nordin Dr. Matthew Witbrodt
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) reconvened on 20 November 2013 to hear two charges against Amos Yaron (first Defendant) and the State of Israel (second Defendant). The first Defendant was charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, whilst the second Defendant was charged with the crime of genocide and war crimes.
The charge against the first Defendant is as follows –
“The Defendant Amos Yaron perpetrated War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law”
The charge against the second Defendant is as follows –
“From 1948 and continuing to date the State of Israel (hereafter ‘the Defendant’) carried out against the Palestinian people a series of acts namely killing, causing serious bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.
The conduct of the Defendant was carried out with the intention of destroying in whole or in part the Palestinian people.
These acts were carried out as part of a manifest pattern of similar conduct against the Palestinian people.
These acts were carried out by the Defendant through the instrumentality of its representatives and agents including those listed in Appendices 1 and 2.
Such conduct constitutes the Crime of Genocide under international law including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’) in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said Convention. It also constitutes the crime of genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
Such conduct by the Defendant as an occupying power also violates customary international law as embodied in the Hague Convention of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
Such conduct also constitutes War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity under international law.”
The charges (together with the particulars of the charges) had been duly served on the Defendants, and were read in open court by the Registrar as these proceedings commenced.
Neither Defendant was present in these proceedings, but both were represented by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team.
Preliminary objections and applications by Amicus Curiae-Defence Team
The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team filed two preliminary objections to these proceedings – the first contending that there are defects in the Charges preferred against the first Defendant, and the second contending that the State of Israel cannot be impleaded in these proceedings on the grounds of State Immunity.
In respect of its first preliminary objection the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team contends that the trend in modern international criminal tribunals is either to have jurisdiction for acts that have been committed after these tribunals have been constituted such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), or alternatively its jurisdiction is for a limited duration of time such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) or the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC).
The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submits that this Tribunal came into existence on 6 June 2008, whilst the various acts allegedly committed by the Defendant in charge no. 3 occurred in the month of September 1982, while the acts allegedly committed by the Defendant in charge no. 4 occurred since 1948 and continued up to the present day.
In respect of its second preliminary objection the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submits that there is no authority conferred by the Charter on this Tribunal to hear any action against the government of a country, for example, the government of Israel. The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team also argued that international law does not allow the “State of Israel” to be impleaded as an accused. The State of Israel is a nation state, recognised by the United Nations, and as a nation state, it has rights under international law.
The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team further submits that the State of Israel has not entered appearance in these proceedings and has therefore not submitted to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submits that the State of Israel enjoys immunity for the crimes of genocide and war crimes and therefore Charge 4 should be dismissed.
On behalf of the Prosecution Team, it was argued that with regard to the first preliminary objection, the jurisdiction issue must be established by reference to the founding Charter or statute that sets up the Tribunal. The Charter of the KL Foundation to Criminalise War states that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall be governed by the provisions of this Charter: Part 1, Article 1. There isno temporal limit. In particular, Article 7 sets no time limit. In this sense the Charter is identical to the ‘open ended’ temporal jurisdiction of the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg or the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.
The Prosecution Team also submitted that the Tribunal had convicted Bush and Blair of war crimes committed in 2003 – which also predates its setting up: KL War Crimes Commission v George W. Bush and Anthony L. Blair, KLWCT Reports 2011, p. 1. The verdict by the KLWCT against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld et alwent back to torture committed from 2001.
With regard to the second preliminary objection, the Prosecution Team submits, inter alia, that these two Charges are international criminal war crimes being adjudicated by an international tribunal. States have no immunity for such crimes before such tribunals.
Before these proceedings began, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team had also submitted two (2) applications to quash the charge against the two Defendants. The grounds of applications were as follows:
The charge is defective for duplicity, and / or latent duplicity.
The charge is defective for uncertainty.
The charge is an abuse of process and / or oppressive.
On behalf of the two Defendants, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team sought for the Tribunal to make the following orders:
That the charge against the two Defendants be quashed.
That the Prosecution against the two Defendants be permanently stayed.
In the alternative, that the Charges be redrafted according to the principles of criminal law.
The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team contends that there were multiple offences within one charge and multiple forms of alleged instances of criminal conduct within one charge.The Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submits that the Rules against Duplicity must be strictly adhered to in a criminal proceeding.
In rebuttal, the Prosecution Team submits that this Tribunal is governed by its own Rules and these Rules are silent on the application of the Rule against Duplicity in drafting charges. This rule against duplicity, as it exists in national legal systems, does not, and cannot, apply in the same way in proceedings before international criminal courts. More importantly, the Tribunal should take into account the heinous nature of these crimes and the scale they were alleged to be perpetrated.
On the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team’s submission that the charge is defective due to uncertainty, the Prosecution Team submits that it is premature for anyone to say so without appreciating the particulars contained in the charge. The particulars in the charge are facts that the Prosecution seeks to prove in the course of the proceedings.
Having considered the Preliminary Objections raised by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team and the Two Applications filed by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team and the submissions by both the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team and the Prosecution Team in the several documents already filed with this Tribunal, and having considered further oral submissions by both parties, the Tribunal unanimously ruled that the Preliminary Objections and Two Applications have little merit and were accordingly dismissed.
A written ruling of the Tribunal was read out by Judge Tunku Sofiah Jewa on 20 November 2013.
Prosecution’s Case
The Prosecution’s case against the first Defendant is that the first Defendant had committed War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli-occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps. These crimes were in violation of, inter alia, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the 1948 Genocide Convention, jus cogens, International Humanitarian Law; and Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
The Prosecution’s case against the second Defendant is that from 1948 and continuing to date the State of Israel had systematically carried out against the Palestinian people a series of acts namely killing, causing serious bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction – with the intention of destroying in whole or in part the Palestinian people.
These acts constitute the Crime of Genocide under international law including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’) in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said Convention. It also constitutes the crime of genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
In his opening statement, the Chief Prosecutor Prof Gurdial Singh said that the Prosecution will adduce evidence to prove the counts in the indictment through oral and written testimonies of victims, witnesses, historical records, narrative in books and authoritative commentaries, resolutions of the United Nations and reports of international bodies.
Testimony of Witnesses
The Prosecution Team called 11 witnesses to testify on its behalf.
The Prosecution’s first witness (PW1) was Chahira Abouardini, a 54 year old resident of Camp Shatila, Beirut, Lebanon.
She testified that when the Israelis invaded Lebanon in May 1982, they attacked the area near Camp Shatila, which was then the base of the Palestinian resistance. She also testified that her father and sister were shot and killed by the Lebanese Phalangist militia.
She also said that there were a lot of dead bodies everywhere, strewn all over – bodies of men, women, children and even animals. Armed militiamen had started the killing from the houses near the sports complex where the Israeli forces were based. They entered homes and killed people. Anyone who moved was killed.
PW1 also testifed that at one location on the way to the stadium, she saw her cousin’s daughter’s body. The killers had opened her body and taken out her baby and then placed the baby on her dead body. PWI testified that the victim was actually deaf and dumb and was living in a home for the disabled.
PW1 testified that there were bodies piled up everywhere because the militiamen had collected the people together and then shot them all at one time. As a result it was difficult to identify the dead victims, and families had to dig between dead bodies to find their relatives.
PW1 said that in the 36 hours of the attack, some 3,500 people from Shatila and Sabra had been massacred. She said that the Phalangist militia who committed these atrocities worked together with the Israelis. They were puppets of the Israeli forces.
When PW1 was offered by the Prosecution to the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for cross-examination, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team declined to cross-examine the witness.
The second Prosecution witness (PW2) called by the Prosecution Team was Bayan Nuwayhed al-Hout. She gave her testimony as an expert witness through Skype. She was not physically present before the Tribunal.
The Prosecution tendered (as an exhibit) excerpt of a book titled “SABRA AND SHATILA – SEPTEMBER 1982” written by PW2 where she said “For 40 continuous hours between sunset on Thursday 16 September and midday on Saturday 18 September 1982, the massacre of Sabra and Shatila took place, one of the most barbaric of the twentieth century”.
When asked by the Prosecutor to give her comments on the published figure of 3,500 being the number of people killed, PW2 said that according to her research she estimated the figure to be around 1,350. She said that she had approaced various international organisations to collect the list of victims, but she never received them.
When PW2 was offered to the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for cross-examination, the latter also said that they have no desire to cross-examine the witness.
The Prosecution’s third witness (PW3) was Mahmoud Al Samouni, a 15 year old resident of Sammouna Street, Gaza Zaitun, Gaza City. He gave his testimony through Skype.
PW3 testified that the Israeli forces attacked his place on January 3, 2009 with bombs and missiles. He said that he saw parachutists coming down and landing on the highest buildings.
He testified that more than 50 soldiers came to his house, all with weapons. They shot at the inner walls of the house and all over his home. They demanded the owner of the house to come out and when PW3’s father came out, the soldiers shot him, killing him on the spot. The soldiers continued shooting into the house for 15 minutes, injuring his brother Ahmad and 5 other members of his family, including his sister Amal – who sustained serious injuries, including a shrapnel in her head. His brother Ahmad subsequently died.
PW3 was not cross-examined by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team.
The Prosecution’s fourth witness (PW4) was Salah Al Sammouni, a 34 year old resident of al-Zaytour neighbourhood in Gaza City. He gave his testimony through Skype.
He said that on January 3, 2009, he received information from his father’s cousin that Israeli military tanks had entered Gaza City and surrounded the al-Zaytoun neighbourhood and the surrounding areas.
He further testified that 21 members of his family were killed by the Israelis on January 5, 2009. He tendered as an exhibit a list of the names of these dead family members.
When this witness was offered to the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for cross-examination, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team declined to cross-examine him.
The Prosecution’s fifth witness (PW5) was Paola Manduca, currently residing in Genova, Italy. She gave her testimony as an expert witness through Skype.
She told the Tribunal that she had conducted and co-ordinated in 2011 two research projects relating to the impact of weapons on reproductive health arising from the Israeli attacks on Gaza. The outcome of her research reveals the degradation of the reproductive health and increase in major structural birth defects.
She also testified that 66% of Gaza parents with a birth defect child had been exposed to bombing or white phosphorus shelling during Operation Cast Lead in 2008/2009.
Her research led her to the conclusion that there is a long term effect on reproductive health associated to metal contamination by exposure to weaponry during the war and by war remnants.
When PW5 was offered to the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for cross-examination, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team declined to cross-examine her.
The Prosecution’s sixth witness (PW6) was Dr Ang Swee Chai, a consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon, currently residing in London, England. She was physically present during the proceedings and was orally examined by the Chief Prosecutor and subsequently cross-examined by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team.
She testified that she arrived in Beirut in August 1982 as part of a British medical team, volunteering her services as an orthopaedic surgeon. She started work as an orthopaedic surgeon in Gaza Hospital on August 22. The Hospital was an 11 storey building in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps, officially opened on August 23, 1982.
PW6 gave a detailed account of the events that took place from 15-22 September 1982.
On 15 September, Israeli planes flew from the sea towards the direction of the camps, and then the shelling began in all directions, clearly seen from the Gaza Hospital. On 16 September, casualties poured into the hospital, whilst shootings and shelling continued outside. Shootings continued into the night.
On 17 September, the witness said that she operated on an eleven year old boy, shot with 27 members of his family. All 27 died, but the boy survived.
On 19 September PW6 said members of the hospital medical team were able to return to Sabra and Shatila camps, where they saw dead bodies everywhere, whole families obviously shot together. She said that according to the International Red Cross, the total number of dead people was 1,500.
The witness testified that from the Israeli headquarters in the Kuwait Embassy most of the area of the massacre in the two camps could be easily seen. She was told by Palestinian survivors that they could not escape during the massacre because the Israelis had sealed off the camps. When the Norwegian Ambassador came in to try to evacuate the Norwegian medics, he told the witness that he had to get the Israeli authorities to agree.
The witness also said that from recently declassified materials from the British National Archives, she discovered that the death toll in the two camps was 3,500 people. When the Israelis surrounded and invaded the Akka Hospital on 15 September, they killed patients, nurses and doctors.
PW6 was cross-examined by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team, but her testimony remained intact and unshaken.
The Prosecution’s seventh witness (PW7) was Nabil Alissawi, a resident of Karkfa Street, Bethlehem.
The witness said that whilst he was a student of Ahliya University in 2008, he took part in a peaceful street demonstration near the Azah Refugee Camp and Paradise Hotel. At about 12.30pm whilst the demonstrators were thus engaged, he was shot by a sniper. He passed out and was taken to a hospital.
He later discovered that a dum dum bullet had pierced his stomach and then broke into 3 pieces, going into 3 different directions – 2 exiting his body but the third remained stuck in his bladder. He was hospitalised for 2 1/2 months where he underwent 3 operations. He subsequently received treatment for another 2 1/2 months where he underwent more surgical operations to repair his intestines.
As a result of his injuries, his life had been totally altered. He carried an abdominal scar, he cannot sit upright, nor can he swim competitively. He is prohibited from entering Israel, and is always in a state of fear and anxiety. He is a victim with no freedom in his own country.
The Prosecution’s 8thwitness (PW8) was Ilan Pappe, an Israeli historian and social activist. He gave his oral testimony via Skype. Author of 15 books, including “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” (2006), “Gaza in Crisis” (co-authored with Noam Chomsky, 2010) he is one of Israel’s New Historians who have been rewriting the history of Israel’s creation in 1948 and the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians in the same year. He has written that the expulsion was not decided on an ad hoc basis as other historians had argued, but constituted the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in accordance with Plan Dalet, which was drawn up in 1947 by Israel’s future leaders.
The witness testified that the people behind Plan Dalet was small group of people (about 30) comprised of generals in the Jewish military outfit, experts on Arab affairs, with the Chairman who would be the first Prime Minister of Israel. They turned this plan into a Master Plan with a blueprint for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from their country.
When asked by the Chief Prosecutor what happened to those Palestinians who refused to move, the witness said that in certain places, elder villagers were executed to intimidate the rest. And in some places, all male members were massacred. Palestine had some 800 villages. 530 villagers had their residents expelled.
The witness also testified that the villages that were occupied were wiped out physically and on the ruins they built settlements or recreational places. In the cities, the Palestinian neighbourhoods were repopulated by Jewish immigrants from Europe or from other countries.
Asked about Gaza, the witness said that Gaza is a huge prison, incarcerating 2 million people.
Cross-examined by the Defence – Amicus Team whether he would agree that the body of his work and his views “could be to assuage the guilt of being alive because of Zionism”, the witness replied that he does not feel that way. He said that because his parents were victims of genocidal policies of the Nazi, he does not want be part of the new genocide.
Responding to another question from the Defence – Amicus Team, the witness said that the Jews who escaped from Germany and Europe in the 1930s were indeed refugees looking for safe haven, but the Jews who came in 1982 and in subsequent years came as colonisers.
The Prosecution’s 9thwitness (PW9) was Taghreeb Khalil Nimat, a resident of Nablus, West Bank. She lives with her parents and 9 siblings.
The witness testified that in 1979 or early 1980, her father was arrested by the Israeli forces and detained in prison for 18 days for singing a song about Palestinian freedom. A year later, he was again arrested and detained in prison for 21 days for the same offence.
In 1987 the witness applied for employment at the government office but her application was rejected. It was commonly understood that if any family member has a history of being detained by the Israeli government, it would be difficult to seek employment at the government office.
The witness testified that on 15 April 2004, whilst travelling from Nablus to Bethlehem (a distance of 80 km) she was stopped by an Israeli military car and then detained for 29 hours without food or water. During detention, the witness was put under interrogation and insulted verbally. Following the incident, the witness was stigmatised by her community, including her friends and colleagues.
The Prosecution’s tenth witness (PW10) was Dr. Walid Elkhatib, a resident of Beit Jalla City, Bethlehem District, West Bank. He is a qualified medical doctor, specialising in public health.
The witness testified that as a general practitioner, he worked at an emergency clinic during the first intifada, where he saw many patients with different kinds of injuries as a result of Israeli violence – gun shot wounds, exposed to tear gas and physically abused by Israeli soldiers. Over the last 17 years he had been in charge of child health and protection, social health and Palestinian child law and rights.
He also testified that the invasion of Palestinian cities by Israeli forces (including the shelling and bombing, usage of tear gas, the building of walls to separate Jerusalem and the West Bank, check points which restrict the movement of the Palestinian people) have affected Palestinian health and education, especially that of children.
The witness said that the first intifada (1987-1993) was not military in nature. It involved demonstrations against the Israeli occupation. There were then no roadblocks, no wall, no shelling and no airplane bombings.
The second intifada (2000-2009) began when Ariel Sharon went to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Palestinians protested against this visit. On that day, Israeli soldiers killed 20 people outside a mosque.
During the second intifada, the witness said that 77.8% of Palestinian families suffered mental problems. From 2001-2011, there were 2282 cases of disability – mostly due to injuries sustained by those involved in the intifada, caused by live ammunition, shrapnel, rubber bullets and explosions. Disabilities means that many of these people have less opportunities for work and they end up in poverty.
The witness testified that poverty is rife in the West Bank and Gaza, increasing from an average of 20% (prior to intifada) to 51% (during the intifada). Anemia became prevalent amongst the children (42%) as a result of imbalanced diet and amongst pregnant women (21%).
On the subject of checkpoints, the witness testified that there were about 730 checkpoints between cities, towns and villages in the West Bank. There had been many cases of pregnant women (forced to stop and wait at these places) delivering their babies at these checkpoints. There had also been many emergency cases who had been stopped at these checkpoints and prevented from going through to hospitals. In such cases, people had died at these checkpoints.
The witness also testified that before the second intifada, he believed that Israel was looking for peace with Palestinians. After the second intifada, he no longer had that belief.
The Prosecution’s eleventh witness (PW11) was Jawad Musleh, a resident of Beit Sahour, Bethlehem District. He is a program co-ordinator in a travel agency.
The witness, a Christian, testified that he was arrested in August 1985 by the Israeli authorities and released 20 months later, in March 1987. He was first detained at a prison in West Jerusalem, and later transferred to another prison in Haifa and finally to another prison in the West Bank. He was then only 15 years old, a student of a Catholic School at Beit Sahour.
The witness testified that he was tortured in the first prison in West Jerusalem, during interrogation. The Israelis used mental and psychological torture to make him confess to crimes he did not commit – that he was a member of the Palestine Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). He refused to confess but he continued to be beaten, and if not beaten, put in confinement with his hands tied behind his back and a hood over his head.
He finally confessed, after which he was detained for 20 months. He continued to be tortured when he was incarcerated. He said that there are now more than 5,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons.
The witness also testified that more Israeli colonies are being built on lands in the West Bank and Jerusalem. There are now 700,000 Jewish settlers living in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
The West Bank is now divided into 3 Areas – A, B and C. Area A are lands under the Palestinian authority and cover main cities and towns like Bethlehem, Hebron, Nablus, Ramallah, Jenin and others. Area B are small villages surrounding the main cities, where Israel is in control of security whilst civil services like health and education are the responsibility of the Palestinian authority. Area C, which is the rest of the West Bank, is under the complete control of the Israeli authorities. Checkpoints and roadblocks are set up throughout Areas A, B and C. These checkpoints are often closed arbitrarily and without prior notice, for long hours.
The witness further testified that Area C is the richest source of water supply. Water supply is therefore under the complete control of the Israeli authorities. Water is supplied to the Israeli settlers at a cheaper price, and 5 times more in volume, compared to water supplied to the Palestinians – which is often inadequate for their daily use, causing great hardship and suffering.
Prosecution’s closing submission
In his closing submission, the Chief Prosecutor said that he had called 11 witnesses (some of whom had testified through Skype), tendered 15 exhibits and furnished several documents and reports to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings.
He urged the Tribunal to bear in mind that this is a Tribunal of Conscience and the case before it is an extraordinary case, which Winston Churchill used to call as a “crime without a name”.
He said that the Prosecution had provided evidence of facts which, examined as a whole, will show that the perpetrators had committed acts against the Palestinians, with intent to kill, cause serious bodily or mental harms and deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinians as a whole or in part.
From the testimony of Prof Pappe (PW8) the Prosecution had shown that before 1948, before UN Resolution 47, there was already a plan in place to take over the Palestinian territory, and this plan would be activated the moment the British relinquished its mandate over the territory.
At that point in time, the Palestinians were on 94% of the land, with the Jewish population settling over a mere 6% of the land. Under the UN partition plan, more than 50% of the land was to be given to the Jews.
Plan Dalet might not legally be genocidal in form at its inception, but as it took shape the ethnic cleansing metamorphised into killing, massacre and creating impossible conditions for life for the Palestinians – either they leave or they die. The Prosecution submits this is genocide within the meaning of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention.
On Sabra and Shatila, prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW6) had testified that the Palestinian refugees in those camps had been killed by the Phalangists, aided and abetted by the Israelis who were in complete control of the two camps.
According to the Kahan Report, all of Beirut was under Israeli control, and there was clear symbiotic relationship between Israel and the Christian forces (the Lebanese Maronite Christian militia or the Phalangists or Keta’ib).
On Operation Cast Lead in 2008, the Chief Prosecutor said that the Israeli Defence Force had used all kinds of weapons, including white phosphorus – which is an incendiary weapon. The use of incendiary weapons is prohibited under Protocal III on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
As a result of the Israeli occupation of Gaza, nowhere in Gaza is safe for civilians. 1.5 million Palestinians are now trapped in despair, their fragile economy ruined. Under the Dahiya Doctrine (October 2008), the complete destruction of Gaza is the ultimate objective, the whole place must be flattened.
The Prosecution submits that the cumulative effect of the actions taken by the Israeli government, as shown by the Prosecution witnesses and the several documents tendered to the Tribunal, have shown beyond reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (The Charter).
Co-Prosecutor Tan Sri Abdul Aziz, submitting on the first charge against Amos Yaron, said that Amos Yaron was the commanding officer in charge of the Israeli Defence Force, in charge of the area of Beirut, and camps Sabra and Shatila. He said there were two issues which he has to deal with – first, whether or not there was a large scale massacre of the residents of the two camps, and second, whether or not Amos Yaron facilitated and permitted such massacre, in violation of international law and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Charter?
On the first issue, he submitted there was a large scale massacre, as testified by PW1. She was there, and she saw the massacre with her own eyes. There was corrobating testimony by PW6, and further acknowledged in the Kahan Report.
On the second issue, Amos Yaron was in charge, to ensure that there would be peace and law and order. The Kahan Report itself concluded that anybody who knew about Lebanon would know that by releasing the Phalangists into Beirut, there would be massacre. Surely, Amos Yaron, the General in charge, must have known that by allowing the Phalangists to go into the two camps, the massacre would take place. But he decided to do nothing.
He received the reports of the killing of women and children, but he did not check the report. He did not pass the report to his superiors. The co-prosecutor submits that by ignoring all this despite knowing the circumstances, he himself had the intention of causing the death of the people in the two camps.
Whether the Prosecution has established a prima facie case
After the Prosecution Team had submitted its closing submission, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted there is no case to answer – as provided in Article 26 of Chapter V (Mode of Proceedings) of Part 2 of the Charter.
The Tribunal then had a short recess to enable the Judges to deliberate and consider the totality of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution.
When the Tribunal reconvened a short while later, the President of the Tribunal ruled that the Tribunal had unanimously agreed that a prima facie case had been established in both charges and the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team is therefore invited to present the defence case.
The Defence case
Mr. Jason Kay Kit Leon of the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that in the charges against the two Defendants, the Prosecution had listed war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. Apparently the Prosecution had abandoned these charges, concentrating only on genocide.
He said that the offence of genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention 1948, whilst the OED defines it simply as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group”.
He submitted that the charge of genocide is unique; it means that you don’t like a group, you kill them; you kill them in a grand manner. Genocide means that at the end of the act, you have a lesser number of victims than before the genocide started.
He further submitted that when one talks of “massive killing”, it is many hundreds of thousands to millions of people. To suggest that an isolated event, the unfortunate murder of 3,000 people (Sabra and Shatila) is the same as massive killing is almost disrespectful of the true horror of massive killing (as in Rwanda, where 800,000 people were killed in 100 days).
With regard to the Kahan Report, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it also identified other people as being responsible, with two other names other than Yaron still alive. The question is why only Yaron was charged? Why was Defence Minister Ariel Sharon spared?
He also submitted that the PLO had repeatedly violated the July 1981 cease-fire agreement. By June 1982, when the IDF went into Lebanon, the PLO had made life in northern Israel intolerable through its repeated shelling of Israeli towns.
On Cast Lead, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that the IDF had come out with two reports. The point is if you are going to kill people nilly willy, you do not report it.
On the issue of the wall, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that the primary consideration is one of security of the Israeli settlers. The State of Israel has a duty to defend their lives, safety and well-being.
On the issue of checkpoints, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said countries have a right to immigration laws.
With regard to Plan Dalet, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it is subject to divergent opinions, with historians on one side asserting that it was entirely defensive, while other historians assert that the plan aimed at an ethnic cleansing.
Finding by the Tribunal of the Charge against Amos Yaron
Sabra and Shatila Massacres
Under Charge 3, theDefendantAmosYaronis charged with WarCrimes,CrimesagainstHumanity,andGenocide. As the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982, he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law; and their related provisions set forth in articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission.
Israel invaded Lebanon beginning June6,1982.
The Israeli siege and bombardment of West Beirut continued throughout the summer of 1982. In spite of the devastation caused to Lebanon and the civilian population, Israel did not succeed in its goal of defeating or dislodging the Syrian and P.L.O. forces.
An agreement was brokered onAugust19, 1982 between Lebanon, the United States, France, Italy, Israel, and the P.L.O. for the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces under the auspices and protection of a multi‑national force. The agreement further provided that the Israeli Defense Forces would not attempt to enter or occupy West Beirut following the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces.
Pursuant to that agreement, the multinational American, French, and Italian force oversaw the evacuation of the P.L.O. and Syrian forces until completed on September l, 1982. The multinational force left Lebanon from September l0-12, 1982, after the completion of the evacuation.
On September 14, 1982, Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel, a Phalangist, was assassinated in Beirut.
Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Prime Minister of Defense Sharon, and Chief of Staff Eitan decided that the IsraeliDefense Forces (IDF) would immediately enter and occupy West Beirut.
Pursuant to the decision, on September 15, 1982, the IDF entered West Beirut under the command of Defendant Brigadier General Amos Yaron, the Defendant in this case. The IDF established a forward command post on the roof of a seven-story building southwest of the Shatila camp, and Defendant Brigadier General Yaron commanded IDF forces from that post. The area surrounding the two camps, Sabra and Shatila, was thereafter under the command and control of the IDF, and all forces in the area, including the Phalangists, were considered to be operating under the authority of the IDF and acting according to its instructions.
The Tribunal heard detailed testimony about the events occurring between September 16 and September 18, 1982. A horrible systematic massacre of defenceless Palestinian refugees occurred with the deaths of up to 3,500, largely women and young children in the two camps.
Brigadier General Amos Yaron was commander of the operation in Beirut. He was asked by Major General Drori to coordinate the entry of Phalangist force at the forward command post.[1]
After these massacres, the Israeli government was under immense pressure set up a commission of enquiry under the chairmanship of Yitzuk Kahan (‘the Kahan Commission’), to enquire into the massacre. This commission held 60 sessions hearing 58 witnesses.[2]
The Kahan Commission made the following observations:
Defence Minister, Ariel Sharon and Chief of Staff, Eitan declared on Sept 16 1982 before the massacres began that all of Beirut was under Israeli control and the camps were closed and surrounded.[3]
There was a clear symbiotic relationship between Israel and the Christian forces (the Lebanese Maronite Christian militia) known as the Phalangists or Keta’ib assisted by the Israeli Mossad. Even the uniforms of the South Lebanese Army (SLA) and the Phalangists were the same as those of IDF – and provided by Israel.[4]
The Israelis exercised some degree of control of the SLA.[5]
The Phalangists’ plan to use force to remove Palestinians was discussed at several meetings with Israel[6].
Three key officials of the Israel cabinet decided that the IDF under the command of Brigadier General Amos Yaron would enter West Beirut: the PM Begin, Defence Minister Sharon and Chief of Staff Eitan. The IDF would not enter the camps but rather would delegate the entry in to the camps to the Phalangists. Eitan said that he and Sharon agreed on the entry of the Phalangists into the Sabra and Shatila camps: the operational order provided: “…Searching and mopping up of the camps will be done by the Phalangists-Lebanese army”. [7]Also a summary of the Defence Minister’s instructions: “Only one element, and that is the IDF, shall command the forces in the area. For the operation in the camps the Phalangists should be sent in”.[8]
The use of terms such as:
“purifying and purging” (NY Times, Sept 20 1982 at A6, col 5; Washington Post Sept 21 at A14, col 6);
“moppingup”(NY Times, Sept 23, 1982 at A8, col 4); and
“cleaning up” (NY Times, Sept 23 1982 at A8, col 6; Sept 26 1982, A11, col 2) the camps
shows the actual intent of the Israeli officials’ and its commanders[9]
The camps were surrounded and under the complete control of the Israelis, preceding the killings[10]:
The Chief of Staff Eitan, after acknowledging that the Phalangists ‘had gone too far” gave the thumbs up to continue the “mopping up’
An International Commission was set up to enquire into the reported violations of international law byIsrael during its invasion of Lebanon.
It produced a Report in 1983: Israel in Lebanon: Report of the International Commission to Enquire into Reported Violations of International Law byIsrael during its Invasion of Lebanon 196 (1983)[11]:
(a) The Commission was chaired by Sean MacBride, former Irish Foreign Minister, and former United Nations Commissioner for Namibia and Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1974.
(b) Four of the Commission’s six members concluded that Israel embarked on “deliberate destruction of the national and cultural rights and identity of the Palestinian people amounting to genocide”.
(c) It concluded that:
The massacres that took place at Sabra and Shatila in September 1982 can be described as genocidal massacres, and the term “complicity in genocide” is wide enough to establish the responsibility of Israel for these acts.”
(d) The Report placed the massacre in context:
“[Sabra and Shatila] massacres were low-technology sequels to earlier high-technology saturation bombardment by Israel from land, sea and air of every major Palestinian camp situated anywhere near the combat zone throughout southern Lebanon. The underlying Israeli objective seems clearly directed at making the Palestinian camps uninhabitable in a physical sense as well as terrorizing the inhabitants and thereby breaking the will of the Palestinian national movement, not only in the war zone of the Lebanon, but possibly even more centrally, in the occupied West Bank and Gaza”: p. 121[12],
(e) That this represents a comprehensive policy to destroy an entire ethnic group is again illustrated by Ammon Kapeliouk, Sabra and Shatila (p. 45-6):
“Since the beginning of the war in June 1982, the Israelis have repeatedly used bulldozers to destroy homes and force the residents to flee. The refugee camps of south Lebanon were bombarded and then destroyed with explosives and bulldozers. In Israel, this operation was known as “the destruction of the terrorist infrastructure.” The objective was to prevent the Palestinians from forming a national community in Lebanon. Therefore, it was necessary to destroy not only homes, but also Palestinian institutions such as schools, hospitals, and social service centers. In addition, the Israelis sought to deprive the Palestinian population of all males by arresting thousands of men and forcing thousands more to flee.”[13]
The Defendant Amos Yaron
The Commander, Brigadier General Yaron, and the Phalangists agreed that a Phalangist Liaison Officer with communications equipment would be present at all times in the IDF command post with a Mossad Liaison officer at the Phalangist headquarters.[14]
Yaron knew about Phalangist combat ethics. He was pleased with his decision and was quite content to have the Phalangists participate and not leave the operation up to the IDF.
Yaron could not explain his lack of action or intervention by the Israeli army to protect civilians when he learnt on the first night, September 16, after the intervention of the Phalangists that massacres were occurring.[15]
Even when Israeli military authorities were well aware of the exactions by the Phalangists on Friday 17 September, they did not intervene to protect the Palestinian civilians but rather allowed them to bring in tractors to do what they wanted.[16]
The following testimony confirms that from the command posts, the Israelis, including of course Brigadier Commander Amos Yaron, could see into the camps and observe the massacres:
(a) From the command post, it was possible to see into the camps, even into the narrow alleys. One could see the mass grave 300 meters away dug by the Phalangists and the bulldozer used to bury the hundreds of victims.[17]
(b) Similarly, the testimony of Dr Ang Swee Chai
(c) Reports of Senior Journalists.[18]
Washington Post, senior foreign correspondent, Jonathan Randal: noted this as an ‘obviously wrongheaded factual error’;
A New York Times article Sept 26 1982 at A9, col 2.
Loren Jenkins, Washington Post Beirut correspondent, Sept 20 1982: Israel aided and abetted.
(d) Doctors and nurses testified they heard constant shooting and shelling from Shatila and knew later that a massacre might be taking place: NY Times Sept 20 1982 at A6, cols 3-4 [19]
(e) Leila Shahid quotes an Israeli officer saying that watching from the roofs of one of the buildings occupied by the Israelis was like watching ‘from the front row of a theatre’. [20]
(f) Israeli soldiers prevented Palestinian refugees from fleeing and returned them to the camps. Soldiers reported to their superiors that massacres were taking place.[21]
The United Nations condemned the Sabra Shatila killings… Security Council Resolution S/RES/521(1982): 19 September 1982 condemned the “criminal massacre. The General assembly went much farther than the Security Council. In the General Assembly Resolution 37/123: on 16 December 1982, it held:
Section D.1: Condemned in the strongest terms the large scale massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps (Vote: 123 -0; 23 abstentions)
Section D.2: Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide (vote: 98-19; 23 abstentions)
Legal Issues
Burden of proof
The burden of proof in this tribunal is beyond all reasonable doubt.[22] All elements of an infraction must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This applies to War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and the Crime of Genocide.
A person is guilty of genocide if he acts with an intention as described in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) at Article 2.[23]
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
This intention is known as the mens rea of specific intention in criminal law as opposed to the concept of general intention. The expression dolus specialis has been adopted by the Ad Hoc Tribunals to describe this requirement with respect to the criminal state of mind. To convict, an accused must have the intention to destroy, in whole or in part the group described in the Convention.
Proof of genocidal intent can be done by inference in the light of all the facts and does not require a specific plan.[24] This intent must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is any alternative interpretation of the state of mind of the Defendant, the Prosecution will fail. The inference must be the only reasonable inference available on the evidence.[25]
State liability is incurred if an organ of the State or a person or group whose acts are legally attributable to the state commits any of the acts described in Article III of the Convention.[26]
Evidentiary Conclusions
The findings below are only made if the Tribunal is convinced beyond all reasonable doubt of the finding.
The Status of the Israel Defence Force in Lebanon from 15 September 1982
The evidence described above shows that Israel had invaded Lebanon illegally and had become an occupying force for part of Lebanon. Defendant Yaron was in charge of the occupation. As discussed below, this amounts to a Crime against Peace incurring the criminal responsibility of the State of Israel and the Defendant Yaron.
The relationship between Lebanese militia and the Defendant
The evidence described above shows without doubt that the Defendant and the IDF collaborated with the Phalangist militias and used the militias to carry out Israeli policy of destroying the Palestinian people. The Defendant Yaron worked with the militias personally.
Victims
The evidence shows that a large number of men woman and children were killed. Most were Palestinian. There was little or no resistance to the invaders. This is a part of the Palestinian nation and as such satisfied the requirements of the Genocide Convention.
Knowledge by the Defendant and his acts and omissions
There is no room for doubt that the Defendant Yaron had a thorough knowledge of the exactions being committed by the associated militias. The Defendant actively sent these militias into the Sabra and Shatila camps knowing what they would do. As reports emerged of their killings of unarmed civilians: men, woman and children, he failed in his duty as commander of an occupying and invading force to protect civilian population.
Intention of Israeli State, Intention of Defendant Amos Yaron
This evidence shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the Defendant Yaron consciously refused to protect the Palestinian population in the Sabra Shatila camps. His responsibility however goes much farther. He and the Israeli army used the Militias to destroy the Palestinian population in the camps. There was almost no resistance. The massacres were fully observed by the Israeli army from its vantage points. No persons could escape from the area cordoned off by the Israeli army. He was informed throughout about the progress of the massacre. The only inference reasonably possible is that Amos Yaron intended mass murder and that the Palestinian population be destroyed.
The Defence argued that Yaron did nothing to commit the crimes in Sabra and Shatila and cited exculpatory findings of the Kahan commission to attempt to clear Yaron for the charges.
This Tribunal is not bound by the Kahan Commission but its factual observations are useful in the search for truth. The Kahan Commission findings were made in Israel whereas the Tribunal is an international tribunal of opinion independent of Israel and the major powers. The Tribunal does not accept Defence arguments concerning the acts and omissions of the Defendant Yaron.
The Defence argued that the Prosecutor erred in not accusing Ariel Sharon. As for the failure to accuse Ariel Sharon, it is up to the Prosecutor to decide whom to charge, and barring abuse or oblique motive by the Prosecutor, the Tribunal cannot intervene in Prosecutorial Discretion.
The Defence objected to the use of General Assembly resolutions to prove genocide. The finding of intent (to commit genocide) by the General Assembly is soft law but is useful in the context to help to evaluate the intention of Israel and Amos Yaron.
The Tribunal considers the actions of Amos Yaron as engaging his personal criminal liability.
Command responsibility
Given the finding that Amos Yaron is personally responsible for the crimes committed, it declines to consider his liability for command responsibility.
Legal consequences
The Tribunal will examine the facts proven in the light of the crimes provided for in the Charter, namely Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, Genocide and War Crimes, provided for in articles 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter.
Cumulative convictions
The Tribunal recalls the law with respect to cumulative convictions. The Appeals Chamber of the International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia held at paragraph 168[27]:
The Appeals Chamber accepts the approach articulated in the Čelebići Appeal Judgement, an approach heavily indebted to the Blockburger decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.[28] The Appeals Chamber held that:[29]
“fairness to the Defendant and the consideration that only distinct crimes justify multiple convictions, lead to the conclusion that multiple criminal convictions entered under different statutory provisions but based on the same conduct are permissible only if each statutory provision involved has a materially distinct element not contained in the other. An element is materially distinct from another if it requires proof of a fact not required by the other.
Where this test is not met, the Chamber must decide on the basis of the principle that the conviction under the more specific provision should be upheld”.
The Tribunal will follow this principle.
Crimes Against Peace
Lebanon is a sovereign state which was invaded by Israel on 15 September 1982. Amos Yaron participated in this aggression of Lebanon and became Brigadier General of this occupation force. The Tribunal recalls the Nuremberg Principles I and VI
Principle I states, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment”.
Principle VI states,
“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
We recall the terms of the Nuremberg judgement under the pen of Mr Justice Birkett states:
“The charges in the Indictment that the Defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are the charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from the other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.
The State of Israel has committed the mother of all international crimes by invading Lebanon and this has led Yaron to commit crimes against humanity and genocide.
Crimes against humanity
The Tribunal repeats the relevant parts of Article 9 of the Charter.
Crimes against humanity
For the purpose of this Charter,“crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination…;
The crime of extermination is the act of killing on a large scale.[30] The expression “on a large scale” does not, however, suggest a numerical minimum.[31] In addition to the threshold mens rea requirements for all crimes against humanity, the mens rea of extermination requires that the Defendant intend to kill persons on a massive scale or to subject a large number of people to conditions of living that would lead to their deaths in a widespread or systematic manner.[32]
The Tribunal has found above that Amos Yaron (and the Israeli State) participated directly with the Lebanese Militias in the mass murder and destruction of the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila camps.
For this reason, the Tribunal finds Amos Yaron guilty of a crime against humanity as charged.
Genocide charge
As found above, the Defendant Yaron intended the mass murder and the destruction of the Palestinian population at Sabra and Shatila. This population constituted a national group as envisaged by the Genocide conventions. Not only did Amos Yaron intend the mass murder of these Palestinian refugees and their destruction as a group, he succeeded in killing of up to 3,500 Palestinians.
Amos Yaron intended the destruction of this part of the Palestinian people and therefor had the specific intent as required by Article 10 of the Charter.
The Tribunal notes that as Brigadier General of the Israeli Army occupying force, he engages the Criminal responsibility of the Israeli State implying the guilt of the Israeli State as was found in the Chapter of this judgement on Charge 4.
The Tribunal finds Amos Yaron guilty as charged of genocide.
War crimes
This tribunal will decline to consider war crimes since the crimes against humanity are more specific. A war crimes conviction would be a cumulative conviction.
Finding of the Tribunal of the Charge against the State of Israel
In relation to the charges against the State of Israel for genocide and war crimes, the Tribunal is conscious of the novelty of the issues raised. It wishes to confront these issues head-on with a view to furthering the ideals of international law and to interpret existing precedents in such a way as to make them as good as can be from the point of view of justice and morality.
We take note that the Prosecution did not pursue the charge of war crimes vigorously and instead concentrated on the charge of genocide. The Tribunal too will, therefore, confine itself to the issue of genocide.
The main legal points raised before us were the following:
Preliminary Objection About Retrospectivity Of Laws
Learned counsel for the Defence argued that the general moral rule against retrospective laws prevents the Tribunal from hearing cases that occurred prior to its establishment on 6th June 2008. The charges against Israel relate to facts that occurred well before 2008.
This issue was raised by the Defence as a preliminary objection and was unanimously rejected by the Tribunal for the following reason: the offences of genocide and war crimes for which the State of Israel is being charged were not created by the Charter. These offences have existed since the middle of the last century. The Charter sets up a machinery to investigate and prosecute these charges and to create a war crimes tribunal to adjudicate on them. The Charter does not specify any dates or time frames as was the case for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia (ECCC) and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL).
Defence counsel was magnanimous to concede that open ended temporal jurisdiction did indeed exist for the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Tokyo Tribunal and under the US Military Commission Act 2006 for the Guantanamo detainees.
The Tribunal holds that as our Charter does not confine the Tribunal to any time frame, it is not prevented from adjudicating on events that occurred decades ago. The Tribunal notes that almost all international tribunals that deal with genocide are created to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed well before the creation of the tribunal. The Tribunal holds that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is open-ended and not confined to any time period. The Tribunal has full jurisdiction to try this case.
Preliminary Objection That Only Natural Persons Can Be Charged
Learned Defence counsel argued that there cannot be a charge against the State of Israel because under Article 2(1)(iii) of the Charter plus the Rules of Procedure and Evidence in Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 & 12, the Charter envisages jurisdiction only over natural persons and not against nation states. However, Defence counsel conceded that the Charter in Article 2(1)(ii) permits jurisdiction over a “government”. The Tribunal is of the view that being a tribunal of conscience, and created to investigate serious crimes, it must reject such technical and esoteric distinctions as between a “state” and a “government”. States operate through their governments. The Tribunal will not refuse jurisdiction simply on this technical ground.
Further, it rules that Chapter III Article 6(b) of its Charter explicitly lays down that “if the charge involves a sovereign state, a current head of state/government or a former head of state/government, service of a copy thereof to any relevant embassy or High Commission shall suffice…” This is conclusive proof that under its Charter, the Tribunal is empowered to try States as well as individuals.
Preliminary Objection That Israel Has Sovereign Immunity
Defence counsel submitted that international law does not allow the State of Israel to be impleaded as an accused. It was submitted that no matter what the facts may be and how serious the alleged crime may be, the State of Israel enjoys absolute immunity in international law from being impleaded in a domestic court or tribunal unless it voluntary subjects itself to such jurisdiction.
To our mind, the impugned preliminary objection of the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team raises the need for an appraisal of the dichotomy between the concept of State Immunity on the one hand and the doctrine of jus cogens on the other.
The concept of State immunity stipulates that a Stateis immune from jurisdiction in a foreign court unless it consents.
On the other hand, the doctrine of jus cogens refers to that body of peremptory principles or norms recognised by the international community as a whole as being fundamental to the maintenance of an international legal order and from which no derogation is permitted.
As corollary to a study of these two doctrines, the following three questions need to be considered, namely:
(a) What principles of law, relevant to the issue at hand, constitute jus cogens?
(b) Can the doctrine of State Immunity be considered as having acquired the status of jus cogens?
(c) If there is a conflict between two principles of law, one being a jus cogensbut not the other, which should prevail?
Well into the middle of the twentieth century, nations had accepted the proposition that a sovereign State could not be sued before its own municipal Courts. When that dogma ceased to exist, e.g. in the UK with the passage of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, it was replaced by the equally unhelpful doctrine that a sovereign State was exempt from the jurisdiction of a foreign municipal court. The Latin maxim upon which the proposition is based was par inparem imperium non habet, i.e. an equal has no power over an equal.
This practice which provided carte blanche immunity to foreign States became known as the “Absolute State Immunity principle”.
Support for the Absolute State Immunity principle can be found in most, if not all, of the cases, appearing in Bundle 3 of the authorities submitted by learned Amicus Curiae-Defence Team in support of their preliminary objection application. These cases include The Schooner Exchange[33]; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore[34]; The Porto Alexandre Case[35]; Duff Development Co. v. Kelantan Government[36]; The Cristina Case[37], Commonwealth of Australia v Midford (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Anor [38] and Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy)[39].
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) was a 2012 International Court of Justice case where the Court, inter alia,found by a 14 to one majority, that the Italian Republic had violated its obligation to respect the immunity which the Federal Republic of Germany enjoyed under international law by allowing civil claims to be brought against it based on violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945.
At page 10 paragraph 31 of their notes on Preliminary Objection, Amicus Curiae-Defence Team, quoted a passage from the second edition of Judge Tunku Sofiah’s work, Public International Law – a Malaysian Perspective, as follows:
“Judgments of the International Court of Justice “are always considered as pronouncements of what the most authoritative international judicial body holds to be in international law on a given point, having regard to the given set of circumstances.”
The learned judge Tunku Sofiah, however, agrees with us that the outdated concept of absolute state immunity must be read along with other compelling considerations relevant to our times and especially to the situation before us.
Laws, unless they concern that of the Almighty, can neither be immutable nor static. And when justice so demands, through the passage of time, shifts and changes to laws that are unjust invariably take place.
In some countries, like China, for example, the State jealously guards the “absolute” concept of State Immunity and denies any attempt by anyone to implead a State unless that State consents.
Other States prefer a “restrictive” interpretation of the concept and allow immunity to States only in respect of the States’ “public” acts as opposed to their “private” ones.
As evidence of state practice, one can point to the example of the United States. It is to the credit of the United States Government, that through a proposal made in a letter by the U.S. State Department’s Acting Legal Adviser, Jack B. Tate, to the Acting Attorney-Generaldated 19 May 1952, there was a shift in policy of the U.S. Government fromsupport for the absolute theory of State immunity to support for the restrictive theory.
Let us now briefly turn to the subject of jus cogens. What principles of law, relevant to the issue at hand, constitute jus cogens?
If one were to look into the jurisprudence of the ICJ as well as that of national courts, there are numerous instances where the prohibition on genocide as a jus cogens norm of international law has been recognised. See, for example:
the ICJ judgment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda(2006) at para 64;
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), 26 Feb. 2007 (ICJ Judgment) at paragraphs 161, 162, 173 &174. A historical account of the Convention reveals many currents and cross-currents. But what is clear is that obligations relating to the prevention and punishment of genocide are part of customary international law (para 161). The undertaking is unqualified (para 162). There is dual responsibilityon the part of individuals as well as the State. “Genocide is an international crime entailing national and international responsibility on the part of individuals and States” (A/RES/180(II)) (paras 161 &163). “Contracting parties are bound by the obligations under the Convention not to commit, through their organs or persons or groups whose conduct is attributable to them, genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III. Thus if an organ of the State, or a person or group whose acts are legally attributable to the State, commits any of the acts proscribed by Article III of the Convention, the international responsibility of that State is incurred” (para 179).
“Duality of responsibility continues to be a constant feature of international law. This feature is reflected in Article 25, paragraph 4, of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, now accepted by 104 States: “No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law”.
“Where crimes against international law are committed by State officials, it will often be the case that the State itself is responsible for the acts in question or for failure to prevent or punish them. In certain cases, in particular aggression, the State will by definition be involved. Even so, the question of individual responsibility is in principle distinct from the question of State responsibility. The State is not exempted from its own responsibility for international wrongful conduct by the Prosecution and punishment of the State officials who carried it out” (ILC Commentary on the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, ILC Report A/56/10,2001 Commentary on Article 58, para 3).
Requests for Provisional Measures,13 Sept. 1993 (ICJ Rep.325) Separate Opinion of Judge Lauterpacht at para. 100.
Eminent scholars of international law, such as M. Bassiouni[40], too, have confirmed the prohibition on genocide as a jus cogens norm of international law.
So has the influential Restatement on Foreign Relations of the United States.
We can find no legal authority which states that the doctrine of State Immunity has acquired the status of jus cogens, that Latin tag which, in English, simply means “compelling law”.
On the other hand legal authorities abound that as a source of law, jus cogensis hierarchically higher.
It is also trite law that where there is a conflict between two principles of law, the one hierarchically higher in importance should prevail.
To our mind the international law doctrine against impleading a foreign state, being hierarchicallylower in importance than that of the prohibition against genocide, resulted in the Charge against the State of Israel to be maintained for full trial.
Decline Of State Sovereignty: The Distinction Between Sovereign & Commercial Acts
By the so-called “Tate Letter”, the United States confers immunity on foreign States only for their public and governmental acts, but not their commercial activities. It is worth observing that the commission of a war crime or genocide or crime against humanity can never be a sovereign or governmental act.
This preference for restrictive State immunity was given statutory effect in the United States by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
The United Kingdomcame later in 1976 in adopting the restrictive immunity approach. That occurred in the case of The Philippine Admiral [41] where the Privy Council held that in cases where a State-owned merchant ship involved in ordinary trade was the object of a writ, it would not be entitled to sovereign immunity and the litigation would proceed.
In 1978 the State Immunity Act of 1978, adopting a restrictive approach, was enacted by the
United Kingdom. Since then, these two legislations have been served as a model for the national legislations of other countries including Australia, Canada, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa and Malaysia.
The Tribunal find it rather mind-boggling when some courts can consider commercial disputes as a reason for not allowing a State to be shielded by the State Immunity principle and yet strenuously protect such a State in cases of genocide or other war crimes. Human lives cannot be less important than financial gain!
Other Inroads Into The Concept Of State Sovereignty
There have been other inroads into the domain of the State Immunity principle including the following:
In 1972, the European Convention on State Immunity 1972was executed. That became the first attempt to establish an international legal regime for State immunity on the basis of the restrictive doctrine. It is already in force amongst the signatory States.
In 2004, the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Propertywas adopted by the General Assembly but this has yet to come into force[42].
And not too long ago, both the United States and Canada enacted legislation to permit their respective citizens or permanent residents to institute proceedings against States which harbour terrorists.
In the law of the European Union, member States, can be subjected to hefty fines for violations of EU law. The consent or non-consent of the State is irrelevant. It is the State and not individual state actors who are defendants in EU courts. The subjection of the State to the jurisdiction of the EU courts flows automatically from membership of the EU.
In a jurisprudential, Hohfeldian analysis, the concepts of legal right and legal duty are co-relatives of each other. If a state has legal duties under international law, then someone must have a corresponding legal right against the State. Defence counsel confirmed for us that the State of Israel is a signatory to the Genocide Convention. It has never repudiated the Convention. In fact it has its own law on Genocide that it enacted to conduct genocide trials in Israel like the one in the Eichmann We hold that Israel’s voluntary subjection to the Genocide Convention imposes on it enforceable duties that it cannot repudiate by simply refusing to give consent to a proceeding against it on a charge of genocide.
Like all other areas of law, international law is not static and is evolving to meet the felt necessities of the times. The Tribunal is conscious that the concept of state sovereignty is in decline. In the human rights era in which we are living, state sovereignty is a shield against foreign aggression. It cannot be used as a sword against one’s own nationals or the nationals of another territory. If a sitting head of a sovereign State like the President of Sudan (who personifies the State of Sudan) can be indicted for certain heinous crimes against international law, then it does not make sense to submit that a sovereign state can never be held accountable in international courts without its consent. This will not be in line with modern developments in international law. Witness for example the opinion in the Bosniacase which the Tribunal referred to earlier.
It was submitted to us that the rationale for excluding the State from prosecution and instead directing the Prosecution at natural persons is that if a State is visited with a verdict of ‘guilty’ that verdict would be onerous to the entire, innocent population of the State. Touching though this argument is, it is not consistent with a large body of international law e.g. the Charter of the United Nations where measures are prescribed which would amount to collective punishment of the entire population. Under Article 41 the Security Council may authorise complete or partial interruption of economic relations. Embargoes that may devastate innocent lives may be imposed. Under Articles 42 and 44, war measures including the use of force may be employed against a nation. Under Article 5, membership of a nation to the General Assembly can be suspended. Under Article 6, a member can be expelled.
A system of law must have coherence. Its different parts must, in the words of the great jurist Ronald Dworkin, have a “fit”. The idea of absolute State immunity from prosecution for grave crimes like genocide appears inconsistent with other wholesome developments in international law. Absolute state immunity is an antiquated doctrine and given the choice between precedents, this Tribunal is inclined to break free of the icy grip of this past dogma.
All these go to show that concerted efforts are taking place on the international scene to move towards a less restrictive State Immunity doctrine. In the words of Lord Denning:
The doctrine of sovereign immunity is based on international law. It is one of the rules of international law that a sovereign state should not be impleaded in the Courts of another sovereign state against its will. Like all rules of international law, this rule is said to arise out of the consensus of the civilised nations of the world. All nations agree upon it. So it is part of the law of nations.
To my mind [so Denning continued], this notion of a consensus is a fiction. The nations are not in the least agreed upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Courts of every country differ in their application of it. Some grant absolute immunity. Others grant limited immunity, with each defining the limits differently. There is no consensus whatever. Yet this does not mean that there is no rule of international law upon the subject.
It only means that we differ as to what that rule is. Each country delimits for itself the bounds of sovereign immunity. Each creates for itself the exceptions from it. It is, I think, for the Courts of this country to define the rule as best they can, seeking guidance from the decisions of the Courts of other countries, from the jurists who have studied the problem, from treaties and conventions and, above all, defining the rule in terms which are consonant with justice rather than adverse to it[43].
Inequitable Enforcement of International Law
Another reason why the Tribunal wishes to reject the doctrine of absolute state immunity from prosecution in matters of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is that the existing international law on war and peace and humanitarianism is being enforced in a grossly inequitable manner. Small, weak nations, mostly in Africa and Asia, are periodically subjected to devastating sanctions, military interventions and regime changes. At the same time, unbearable atrocities and brutalities that are inflicted on the militarily weak nations of Latin America, Africa and Asia by powerful nations in the North Atlantic and their allies go unscrutinised and unpunished.
We take note that the Israeli perpetrators of Sabra and Shatila were never punished and instead rewarded. We took note of the Jerusalem Poststory of Nov. 22, 2013. On January 4, 2009, 100 members of the al-Samouni family huddled inside a house. In the morning mist, an Israeli airstrike killed 21 people inside. Yet last week the Military Advocate General of the IDF informed B’Tselem (human rights group in Israel) that he had decided to close the investigation into this incident without taking any measures.
In the light of this reality that horrendous wrongs go unpunished and instead the victim is demonised and brutalised, we feel that it is time for the legal world to bring some juristic balance to our exposition of state immunity and international rights and wrongs and to expose the truth. This is what the Charter requires us to do.
What Amounts To Genocide?
Simply put, genocide means any designated acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. The definition of genocide as given in Article 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute is taken verbatim from Articles 2 & 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which states that the following acts may by themselves or cumulatively constitute the international crime of genocide:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
No significant evidence was introduced by the Prosecution Team in relation to acts (d) & (e) above, but we heard 11 witnesses and examined thousands of pages of documents relating to acts (a)-(c). The Prosecution repeatedly used the words “ethnic cleansing” and the tribunal regards ethnic cleansing as part of acts (a) to (c) above.
Actus Reus
The central issue before us was whether genocidal acts took place contrary to Article 2 of the Convention (Part 1, Article 10 of the Charter).
The Tribunal heard 11 witnesses and examined documentary evidence that clearly indicated a long catalogue of incredible crimes conceived as long ago as 1945 and continuing till the present. What is significant is that these are not isolated acts in the heat of the moment but repeated pattern of atrocities committed against the inhabitants of Palestine.
Forcible expulsion of more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes.
Massacres of those who refused to abandon the land of their birth.
Repeated, periodic and massive killings through air and naval strikes using the most sophisticated weaponry over the last 65 years.
Brutal assaults on many refugee camps as for example in Sabra and Shatila. Israel’s military action in Sabra and Shatila was condemned by no other than the 1983 Israeli Kahan Report. The report found Brigadier General Yaron to be complicit in the atrocities and massacres committed by the Lebanese Phalangists. As Brigadier General Yaron was a commanding officer of the Israeli Armed Force, his culpability has to be attributed to the State of Israel. The IDF sealed the camps and prevented any Palestinians from leaving. It allowed the Phalangist militias to enter the camp and to commit mass murders. The Kahan Report notes (Prosecution document volume 3, page 291) that Brigadier General Yaron had no reservations about admitting the Phalangists into the camps; he testified that he was happy with his decision and explained his position in that “We have been fighting here for four months already, and there is a place where they can take part in the fighting, the fighting serves their purposes as well, so let them participate and not let the IDF do everything”. Credible witnesses testified to us that women and children were shot in their homes; pregnant mothers were killed and their babies extruded from the womb. Among the witnesses the Tribunal heard was the internationally respected medical doctor, Dr. Ang Swee Chai who testified to the magnitude of the atrocities and the fatalities that she witnessed first hand.
Periodic seizure of Palestinian lands and farms and conversion of them into Israeli settlements.
Building of a 190km long wall/fence which has been condemned by the ICJ (but whose construction has been rationalised by 2 Israeli Supreme Court decisions).
Apartheid like conditions of affluence in the illegal settlements and extreme depravation in the Palestinian ghettos. Some roads are for the Jewish population only.
Use of white phosphorus which tears out the insides of human bodies on the civilian population.
Detention without trial and ill treatment of prisoners.
Torture.
Denial of adequate food, stealing of water resources, supply of inadequate quantum of water, and building materials.
Land and sea blockades of Palestinian areas, especially in Gaza.
Use of excessive force on Palestinian combatants armed with crude weapons and in some cases against children throwing stones.
Siege and imprisonment of an entire nation.
Daily humiliations at hundreds of checkpoints on Palestinian territory and impossible conditions of life.
The Tribunal heard moving testimony from credible witnesses that what has happened to them has happened to thousands of their brethren.
The Tribunal also took note that many of the above atrocities committed by Israel over the last 67 years were, now and then, condemned by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly and other international organisations.
Chief Counsel for the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team presented to us an ingenious argument that there is no genocide in Palestine because the population of the Palestinians is continuing to grow. Unless there is a significant decrease in population, there can be no genocide he asserted. The Tribunal finds this submission totally insensitive and inhuman. It is internationally documented that nearly 700,000 Palestinians were driven from their home to lead nomadic and deprived lives in neighbouring lands where they are not generally welcomed. The fact that the remaining population of Palestine after the ethnic cleansing in the mid 1940s continues to show modest growth has not disproved the existence of periodic killings, humiliation, and dehumanisation.
In determining whether genocide has been committed, one cannot play a game of numbers. Even if one person is killed on account of his race, ethnicity or religion with intention to kill others for the same reason, that is genocide.
It is impossible for the members of the Tribunal to disregard clear cut evidence of brutalisation, demonisation and dehumanisation of an entire population. It is incredible that in an age of human rights, such atrocities can continue to rage for more than 6 decades and that there are people in nations who trivialise such inhumanity. The Tribunal unanimously holds that the acts committed against the Palestinians amount to genocide over the last 67 years.
The Tribunal must however clarify that it takes note of the violations of international humanitarian law by some members of the Palestinian community. Their prosecution and guilt is a separate matter.
Was There Mens Rea?
As the Tribunal has stated earlier, the Tribunal heard 11 witnesses and examined documentary evidence that clearly indicated a long catalogue of incredible crimes conceived as long ago as 1945 and continuing till the present. What is significant is that these are not isolated acts in the heat of the moment but repeated pattern of atrocities committed against the dispossessed inhabitants of Palestine.
What is also significant is that the above culpable acts are systematically directed against the same group and by the same offender over the last 67 years. The scale of atrocities committed and their general nature indicate a clear genocidal intention.
Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated that the specific intent of the crime of genocide “… may be inferred from a number of facts such as the general political doctrine which gave rise to the acts possibly covered by the definition in Article IV or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts”. The Tribunal accepts evidence from various internationally respected social scientists among them Prof Ilan Pappe and John Pilger and Prof Noam Chomsky that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is a world historic tragedy that is the result of deliberate State policies of succeeding governments of Israel since 1948.
The Tribunal wishes to state that the test that it employed in determining guilt was the test of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Was it a case of Self-Defence?
The Tribunal heard significant evidence from the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team that Israeli actions of bombing, killing, maiming, other military interventions, curfews, checkpoints and “apartheid walls” were in response to continuous Palestinian terrorism.
The Tribunal agrees that there is cogent evidence of Palestinian resistance to Israeli presence, incidences of suicide bombing, and firing of crude rockets into Israeli territory by Palestinian fighters. However it is our finding that much of the Palestinian generated violence is not on Israel’s own territory, but from and on Israeli occupied Palestinian land. Much of the violence perpetrated by Palestinians is a reaction to the brutalities of the vicious racism, brutalities and genocide that is a tragic feature of Palestinian life.
Much as we condemn violence and pray for peace, it must be stated that no power on earth can douse the flame of freedom from the human spirit. As long as there is suppression, there will always be people prepared to die on their feet than to live on their knees.
We also hold that the force employed by IDF is excessive, totally disproportionate and a violation of international humanitarian law. The methods used are unspeakably inhumane and amount to war crimes.
We unanimously find the State of Israel guilty as charged.
Verdict
After considering the evidence adduced by the Prosecution and submissions by both the Prosecution and the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team on behalf of the two Defendants, the Tribunal is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the First Defendant, Amos Yaron, is guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide and the Second Defendant, the State of Israel is guilty of Genocide.
Orders
10.1 The Tribunal orders that reparations commensurate with the irreparable harm and injury, pain and suffering undergone by the Complainant War Crime Victims be paid to them. While it is constantly mindful of its stature as merely a tribunal of conscience with no real power of enforcement, this Tribunal finds that the witnesses in this case are entitled ex justitiato the payment of reparations by the two convicted parties. It is the Tribunal’s hope that armed with the Findings of this Tribunal, the witnesses (victims in this case) will, in the near future, find a state or an international judicial entity able and willing to exercise jurisdiction and to enforce the verdict of this Tribunal against the two convicted parties. The Tribunal’s award of reparations shall be submitted to the War Crimes Commission to facilitate the determination and collection of reparations by the Complainant War Crime Victims.
10.2 International Criminal Court and the United Nations, Security Council– As a tribunal of conscience, the Tribunal is fully aware that its verdict is merely declaratory in nature. We have no power of enforcement. What we can do, under Article 34 of Chapter VIII of Part 2 of the Charter is to recommend to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, WHICH WE HEREBY DO, to submit this finding of conviction by the Tribunal, together with a record of these proceedings, to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.
10.3 Commission’s Register of War Criminals – Further, under Article 35 of the same Chapter, this Tribunal recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of the two convicted parties herein be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and be publicised accordingly.
10.4 The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions.
10.5 The Tribunal deplores the failure of international institutions to punish the State of Israel for its crimes and its total lack of respect of International Law and the institutions of the United Nations. It urges the Commission to use all means to publicise this judgement and in particular with respect to the Parliaments and Legislative Assemblies of the major powers such as members of the G8 and to urge these countries to intervene and put an end to the colonialist and racist policies of the State of Israel and its supporters.
Conclusion
Having delivered its verdict and consequential orders, this Tribunal wishes to place on record its deep appreciation to both the Prosecution and the Amicus Curiae-Defence Teams for their efforts in ensuring that this resumed Hearing was able to be conducted in the best tradition of any Bar.
The Tribunal commends Co-Prosecutors Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar and Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman and the other members of their team for their thorough preparation of their case.
The Tribunal also commends every single member of the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team for accepting their difficult assignment as friends of the court and for giving their all beyond their call of duty in the name of justice and fair play for their absent Defendants. Mr Jason Kay, Ms. Larissa Jane Cadd and Dr. Matthew Witbrodt, all of whom had addressed the Tribunal during the Hearing, meticulously presented the case for the Defendants with extraordinary fidelity even though none of them had met or had been instructed by the Defendants.
Finally, the Tribunal extends its thanks to members of the Malaysian public and other benefactors who had generously contributed to the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War in financing the holding of this adjourned Hearing.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
[1] The Kahan Report, Ariel Charon and the Sabra and Shatila Massacres in Lebanon : Responsablity Under International Criminal Law for Massacres of Civilian Populations, Linda A Malone, Utah Law Review, 373, herein after Malone
[2] Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, herein after the Kahan Report. February 8, 1983, p.2
[3] Kahan Report. p. 16, Malone p. 402.
[4] Malone p. 381, Kahan Report p. 7.
[5] Malone p. 372, Kahan Report. P. 7
[6] Malone p. 382-383, Kahan Report p. 8
[7] Malone p. 383, Kahan Report. P. 12
[8] Malone p. 386
[9] Malone p. 432
[10] Malone pp. 387-388
[11] The Sabra and Shatila Massacre : Eye-Witness Reports, Leila Shahid, Journal of Palestinian studies.Vol 32. No. 1. p. 36 at p. 43
[12] cited in Shahid at p. 43
[13] Shahid. P. 44
[14] Malone p. 388
[15] Kahan Commission p. 81.
[16] Malone p. 392
[17] Malone page 384-385
[18] Malone page 384-385
[19] Malone pa. 385, fn 52
[20] Shahid, p. 44
[21] Shahid, pp. 40-41
[22] KLWCT Charter article 2, subsection (i)
[23] As adopted in Article 10 of the KLWCT Charter.
[24] Akayesu Trial Judgement, ICTR, para 560
[25] Krstic, ICTY, Appellate Judgment, 19 April 2004, para. 41
[26] Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I.C. J. Decision of 26 February 2007 para. 179
[27] Prosecutor V. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač and Zoran Vuković, Case No. It-96-23& It-96-23/1-A, Judgement, 12 June 2002
[28] Blockburger vUnited States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1931) (“The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.”).
[29] ^elebi}iAppeal Judgement, paras 412-13. Hereinafter referred to as the ^elebići test.
[40] M. Bassiouni, ‘International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes’(1996) Law and Contemporary Problems 58(4), p.68
[41] [1976] 2 WLR 214
[42] The Convention was open for signature by all States until 17 January 2007 and would have entered into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. As of 7 May 2013, there are 28 signatories to the Convention and 13 instruments of ratification have been deposited. (According to its Article 30, the Convention requires 30 state parties in order to come into force.)
[43] Trendtex Trading Corporation Ltd v. Central Bank of Nigeria,(at p. 888)
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 media reported that Washington is creating a new strategy for Ukraine that will deemphasise retaking territory it lost to Russian forces, a silent acknowledgment that the Ukrainian military does not have the capabilities to launch attacks, let alone reach Crimea, as Kiev regime figures boasted before the failure of last year’s counteroffensive. At the same time, Berlin is also realising that Ukraine cannot win the war.
The Biden administration’s new strategy in 2024 will “de-emphasise” the recapture of “lost territories” and will instead focus on supporting the Kiev regime to survive amid Russia’s special military operation, The Washington Post reported, citing anonymous sources.
The sources claimed that the Biden administration is “still smarting” from Kiev’s failed counteroffensive and is “putting together the new strategy,” which includes helping Ukraine strengthen its military and economy in the face of the state’s financing impasse in the US Congress.
“Still smarting from last year’s failed counteroffensive in Ukraine, the Biden administration is putting together a new strategy that will de-emphasise winning back territory and focus instead on helping Ukraine fend off new Russian advances while moving toward a long-term goal of strengthening its fighting force and economy,” the newspaper wrote.
According to the Washington Post,
“the emerging plan is a sharp change from last year, when the US and allied militaries rushed training and sophisticated equipment to Kiev in hopes that it could quickly push back Russian forces.”
“It’s pretty clear that it will be difficult for them to try to mount the same kind of major push on all fronts that they tried to do last year,” a senior administration official told the newspaper, adding that “The idea now is to position Ukraine to hold its position on the battlefield for now,” and “put them on a different trajectory to be much stronger by the end of 2024 … and get them on a more sustainable path.”
It is noteworthy that in early January, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that Russia would achieve the objectives of the special military operation, adding that in 2023, the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ losses exceeded 215,000 personnel and 28,000 pieces of weaponry. This catastrophic number demonstrates how Zelensky is throwing Ukrainians into the Russian meatgrinder with little regard.
Shoigu’s announcement comes as Ukrainian politicians are asking Zelensky to reveal the number of soldiers killed. According to the leader of the Ukrainian Servant of the People party, Davyd Arakhamia, Zelensky must reassure the public with data, but the Ukrainian Armed Forces argue that publishing this would help Russia.
“When you go out and ask people about the losses, I’ve never heard of less than 100,000,” Arakhamia said during a panel discussion. “[But] our losses are much smaller.”
He said he had suggested that the Ukrainian president declassify the number to reassure the public, but the latter had not yet decided.
“The disclosure of Ukraine’s real losses in the war will show that they are not as great as they themselves imagine,” Arakhamia predicted, who is either in denial about the true number or is peddling misinformation.
Rather, it is more telling that the Ukrainian military claim that revealing the true number of fatalities in the conflict would allow Russia to “draw many conclusions from this data and use this information for analysis and planning,” meaning it would reveal the catastrophic losses.
Although the Washington Post reveals that the US, as the largest donor and most important ally of Ukraine, silently acknowledges that lost territories cannot be captured from Russia, the Kiev regime remains insistent on continuing the futile war effort. Alarmingly for Kiev, Berlin, the most important European ally, is arriving at the same conclusion as their American counterparts.
The leftist German party Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht, led by Sahra Wagenknecht, asked Olaf Scholz’s government to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine because it considered that this strategy does not benefit any party, not even Zelensky’s own troops, and to restore relations with Moscow.
“We are delivering weapons to Ukraine for a victory that, unfortunately, even the Ukrainian generals no longer believe in. This war must be put to an end, and very quickly, through negotiations,” the politician said during her party’s first congress in Berlin.
Although Wagenknecht’s party is only a few weeks old, she is one of Germany’s most recognised and popular politicians, and her voice holds weight. Given the fact that the right-wing AfD share Wagenknecht’s opinion and is now Germany’s most popular party, pressure is mounting against Scholz’s reckless policies towards Ukraine and Russia, especially since, as she highlighted, not even the Ukrainian military leaders believe in victory anymore.
Although there are strong opposition voices to end support for Ukraine in the US and Germany, the leaders of both countries want the war to continue, but with a begrudging acknowledgement that territory cannot be recaptured. Rather, they hope they can support Ukraine enough to create a stalemate situation, but this scenario is unlikely, especially once Russia launches its offensive.
*
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.
What is common to the great struggles associated with such great leaders as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Badshah Khan in places so distant from each other? What is common to such famous environmental movements as Chipko/Appiko (for saving forests) and Narmada Bachao Andolan ( for saving rivers)?
While these struggles had their own highly original and great contributions, one aspect common to them is that all these struggles acknowledged the work, social experiments and ideas of Mahatma Gandhi as a big source of inspiration.
On 30 January the world observes the death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. 76 years after he left us, victim of an assassin’s bullets, many people grappling with the most serious problems of our increasingly troubled and endangered world are increasingly realizing the great value of several essential messages Mahatma Gandhi left behind after a very eventful, thoughtful and inspiring life.
One of these relates to understanding and appreciating the great importance of non-violence in everyday life. In a world so deeply distressed by alarming incidence of gender violence, domestic violence, workplace violence, street violence, etc., better understanding and appreciation of the importance ofnon-violence implies a reduction not just in actual acts of violence but also conscious efforts to reduce anger, jealousy, greed, aggressive competitiveness and other tendencies which are associated with violence in daily life.
A photograph of Mahatma Gandhi during the Salt March, which gave a critical impetus to the Indian independence movement. (From the Public Domain)
While this by itself leads to reduction of distress in daily life, this also serves as a training ground for the wider task of resisting injustice in non-violent ways. Non-violence devoid of its links of resisting injustice is a very limited concept.
The wider significance of non-violence comes from its important link of resisting injustice of various kinds. In fact injustice has very close linkages with violence, violent thinking, dominance and urge for dominance. Hence to think of violence as a means of resisting injustice is not very natural and rational, as violent thinking is itself a part of the web of injustice. On the other hand, it is much more natural for non-violence to be a means of resisting injustice. By leaving the path of violence and opting for the path of non-violence for resisting injustice, we may be able to find more durable and sustainable ways of creating a justice-based society which has a wider acceptability.
If in two neighboring countries there are many more people practicing non-violence in daily life and also using non-violence to resist injustice in numerous small ways at local levels, the chances become very high that these countries will never fight a war, will not engage in an arms race and will find peaceful, justice-based ways of resolving differences. This is how a strong local base is created for peace and how this can be linked to global issues. If there is strong commitment at world level, within a decade very strong support for a future without wars and without the most terrible weapons can be created.
As a part of his overall efforts for peace, Gandhi made a very strong plea for inter-faith harmony. His message to people of all religions was to pursue their religious beliefs in such a way that there is no hostility with other religions, so that away from any aggressive inclinations, religion is restored to its essential role of providing strength for spiritual progress, and this in turn provides conducive conditions for the most important tasks of peace, justice and protecting environment.
Most destructive weapons on the one hand and ecological ruin on the other hand are the two most serious problems of our world today. These are usually treated separately but one basic cause is common to both—greed and the urge for snatching the share of others based on this, and acceptance of this as a predominant social value.
Mahatma Gandhi rejected this and instead pleaded for voluntary acceptance of frugality and simplicity—a life of limited needs—as the desirable norm of life. The essence of this message is that if we all learn to be happy in a simple life based on voluntary acceptance of limited requirements, then the web of never-ending greed, unlimited acquisition and the urge of dominance linked to this which traps humanity can be broken, leading to contentment in daily life and ability to meet needs of all without causing ecological crisis, providing enough space for meeting needs of other life-forms and creating a strong foundation for durable world peace.
With his strong emphasis on frugality, Gandhi continued experimenting in various ways in important areas of food, health, education, etc. His experiments lead towards maintaining good health in natural, simple ways, with emphasis on hygiene, living close to nature without relying too much on expensive medication. There is a complete rejection of alcohol, tobacco and all intoxicants. Education should never lead to alienation but instead should involve getting closer to community needs, combining creativity in intellectual as well as manual work of crafts, farming, etc. Ethical issues are most important, whether in education, livelihoods or overall economy.
Another important message from Gandhi is for more self-reliant and resilient communities which are capable of meeting many of their needs at local level in very creative, decentralized ways, combining very satisfactorylivelihoods close to home with access to high quality, healthyfood, and many other basic goods and services. For meeting other requirements and securing additional opportunities, integration with national and global economy of course continues to exist. This is community life based on close relationships and protection of livelihoods and basic needs regardless of fluctuations of global economy. Such community life, with precepts and practice of equality and justice, provides a good base for creating a world based on peace, justice and environment protection. Gandhi placed more emphasis on rural community life without rejecting urban life.
As many activists and people try to engage with some of these most essential and creative tasks, the work and ideas of Mahatma Gandhi continue to be an increasingly important source of help and inspiration for them. The relevance of his ideas for checking some of the most important problems of present day world is increasing.
*
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 a journalist and author. His recent books include Man over Machine (Gandhi’s Ideas for our times), Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders and Planet in Peril. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
An old friend with years in the purchasing department of a leading consumer products conglomerate once told me that the active ingredient in washing powder is actually a minuscule component in those huge boxes of famous brand soap powders from which US daytime television dramas derived their sobriquet. The rest, he said mockingly, is just to make suds (foam). His point was that the consumer pays for the suds.
I retorted that although the deception did not surprise me, he underestimated the importance of foam. Although I am no chemist, unlike my friend I have been washing my own clothes for years. I explained that one had to understand some basic physics, too. Suds, I added, are needed for dispersion, i.e. to carry the chemical solution to the bundle of clothes in the machine. This was done by hand in the days of washboards.
My first attempt at scholarly writing was at the age of 16. The US withdrawal of uniformed services from Vietnam was still fresh and the professionals in the field I thought I would study on the way to a career at the bar were already telling the ostensibly defeated men of the Ivy League why they had lost the war. Years later I would write a series of articles criticising that body of scholarship. At 16 I only had the fragments of the public record in the county library and my readings of Liddell-Hart, Clausewitz and Mao at my disposal. Then my conclusion was that the stated objectives of US war against the Vietnamese people were incompatible with the actions taken to wage the war. That seemed to me to be a simple and logical conclusion. The US did not distinguish between a hammer and a screwdriver.
When I began to study that subject called political science I thought I was going to learn more about how such decisions or distinctions were made. I was soon disappointed. This led me to retain the major — because the required course load was so small —and spend the remaining two years studying every other subject (mainly arts and literatures) to grasp what it might mean to be educated in our society.
Although I had abandoned the academic discipline—and was not called to the bar—I did not cease asking the questions I believed were the subject of study for that field. I can say, to cut the biographical at a decent interval, that I have been an active participant in a representative cross-section of organized activities that has permitted me to see how people in organizations of very different types articulate themselves and behave, both internally and externally. Very few of the theories or concepts to which I had been introduced in academia were in any way adequate to explaining or predicting (two functions of classical science) what I experienced and observed. In fact the only useful theories I found came from my study of arts and literatures. Furthermore it was these theories which offered some insight into what political scientists actually do in those places they are employed.
In 2014 I submitted the argument that the West was preparing for some kind of world war. I based this on specific observations and the bald assertion that the Anglo-American Establishment (to use Quigley‘s term) was a captive of the public school/ preparatory school indoctrination of more than two hundred years of empire. In other words, world war a century later was an expression of what the Americans call “school spirit”. “Let‘s celebrate Sarajevo with another bout of mass slaughter and destruction.”
I am reasonably sure that the majority of readers dismissed this “unscientific” proposal. Surely no one in office would want to repeat the Great War or World War 2, much less for the sentimental reasons I mentioned. And yet the near universal praise for the deceased realist Heinz K offers an excellent support for my case as do the assessments of another “offensive” realist still with us and rather lionized by all masters and mistresses of insight into today‘s global bellicosity. Heinz K. consistently justified his intrigues based on his reading of Metternich, the continental cutout for British policy after the French Revolution and Napoleon were defeated.
Balance of power (terror against the population) and deterrence are quintessential British concepts. With the merger of the British and American Empires through the Great War these doctrines became the central dogma of the piratical cult that Rhodes and Rothschild conceived in the Round Table. It is important to know that while for most people the Round Table is a cult of nobility and order (or something from Camelot or The Holy Grail films), Thomas Malory made quite clear that it was a system of vicious treachery dominated by a sinister and jealous monarch and his deceitful and ruthless champion Lancelot. It is the real Round Table that should concern investigators, not the fantasy.
Far from being a paragon of virtue and loyalty, Lancelot is an adulterer and a cheat who stoops to any trick needed to win the tournaments Arthur has instituted to maintain control over the chivalry and needless to say the deplorables (the rest of the population. Anglo-American imperial policy is not similar to the Round Table as Rhodes, Rothschild, Milner et al. envisioned. It is identical with it. One need only look at how NATO and the COVID regime perform. It is a matter of record that the most draconian policies were applied throughout the Anglo-American Empire: the US, Britain and the white dominions. A realist, if that term means anything in the vernacular, would have to ask how such uniform tyranny could have been exercised in all those nominally independent countries? The answer is not hard to find.
Political science as practiced in the academy and those tank manufacturer-funded institutions who collude in the articulation of public policy cannot call attention to the obvious. This is especially true of the so-called “realists”. What makes them so offensive is their obfuscation combined with moralizing verbosity. Yet the “realist” scholar or school is admired by all young and old (we have not yet heard of “trans-aged”).
Consider the pre-mortem and in vivo critiques of the Ukraine and Palestine theaters. The steadfast refusal to analyse these as elements of one world war is generally tolerated because of the episodic objections raised to Anglo-American imperial warfare (my words, since for the realist the AAE and the one war world do not exist). Furthermore the belligerence or in the case of Heinz K duplicitous action toward China is never seriously criticised. It defies imagination to consider that the academic, “punditric” and weblog/ podcasting spheres have never studied Manifest Destiny (a laudable exception is Bruce Cumings- no political scientist).
“Political science’ and its sister “international relations” literally concern the study of politics/policy and trans-border engagements. However what they do not concern is the exercise of real power. Neither the sources of power nor its composition are seriously observed or described. While classic geopolitical writing—often cited as boilerplate—like Mackinder or Mahon at least admits power for its own sake and attempts to describe its exercise, these books, even like the maligned Liddell-Hart are treated as superficially as dinner conversation at the club (whichever type one may imagine). That is no accident. Conversation is not supposed to offer offense to anyone, especially those whom it is dangerous to offend). In the jousting that goes by the name scholarship the best cheat wins.
Like in the automatic washing machine the power lies in the minuscule cult that rules the empire. Political science and her siblings produce the suds, the foam.
*
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.
Mohamed Hassan Tells Tribunal on U.S. Imperialism That the U.S. Encouraged the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) to Launch an Insurgency Against the Ethiopian Government in November 2020 and Gave Diplomatic and Media Cover for Their Aggression
The Motive Was to Use the TPLF to Control the Horn of Africa Region
*
Mohamed Hassan is a former Ethiopian diplomat who was involved in protests in the early 1990s with future Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi to secure greater rights for Ethiopia’s Muslim population.
Hassan told an international tribunal on U.S. imperialism that the U.S. government is responsible for the destruction of Tigray, an Ethiopian province, after the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) launched an insurgency in November 2020 against the Ethiopian government.
Hassan blames the U.S. because they encouraged the TPLF uprising, imposed sanctions on Ethiopia to weaken it, and gave the TPLF diplomatic and media cover for their terrorist operations that fueled brutal counter-reprisals by the Ethiopian government.
Some 600,000 people are estimated to have been killed during the two years of the war, which ended in November 2022.
The U.S.’s main motive for encouraging the rebellion was to restore the TPLF to power in Ethiopia, which they ruled from 1991 to 2018, and to use the TPLF to control the strategically important Horn of Africa region.[1]
Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) soldiers. [Source: twitter.com]
Hassan Ali recounted a visit that he had in the early 1990s with then-National Security Adviser Anthony Lake who told him that the U.S. strategy for maximizing its influence in Africa in the post-Cold War era was by dividing the continent into four sub-regions dominated by key anchor states over which it would gain leverage.
These states were: a) Egypt under Hosni Mubarak; b) South Africa under Thabo Mbeki; c) Nigeria under General Sani Abacha; and 4) Ethiopia under TPLF rule (its leader, Meles Zenawi, was Ethiopia’s president from 1991 to 1995 and Prime Minister from 1995 until his death in 2018).
When they first came to power in Ethiopia in 1991, the TPLF had popular legitimacy because they helped overthrow the Derg, a Marxist dictatorship led by Mengistu Haile Mariam.
The U.S. hated Mengistu because he closed U.S. military bases in Ethiopia, including the Kagnew communications base in Eritrea.
According to Dr. Simon Tesfamariam, an Eritrean doctor and activist living in New York, the TPLF was a minority regime in that it preferentially represented the interests of the Tigrayan people, which make up only 6% of the Ethiopian population.
Tesfamariam told journalist Ann Garrison that, over the last three decades, “the U.S. showered the tribalist, bourgeois TPLF minority regime with roughly a billion dollars a year in aid under the guise of humanitarian assistance. In exchange, TPLF served as Washington’s policeman in the Horn of Africa and used its influence in the African Union, which is based in Addis Ababa, to protect Washington’s interests on the African continent.”
Dr. Saleh Mohammed Idriss, a professor at the Asmara College of Education, recounted before the International People’s Tribunal a conversation between Meles Zenawi and CIA agent Paul Henze where Zenawi said to “look at the conflict from the point of view of Tigray. It needs access to the Red Sea and the only way is through Eritrea [which gained its independence from Ethiopia in 1991].”
In 2018, the TPLF was overthrown in a popular uprising that resulted in the rise to power of Abiy Ahmed, a former member of the Oromo Democratic Party who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for his role in helping to broker a durable peace agreement with Eritrea, and for releasing political prisoners and establishing a free press after years of TPLF authoritarian rule.
According to Hassan Ali, the peace deal with Eritrea worried U.S. imperial planners who preferred a conflict-ridden Horn region over which they could assert their hegemony through divide-and-rule tactics.
To make matters worse, Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki was considered a Castro-type figure and Eritrea an African equivalent to Cuba. Along with Zimbabwe, it is the only country in Africa to resist the presence of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
After gaining its independence in 1991 following a long liberation struggle necessitated by the decision of U.S. Defense Secretary John Foster Dulles in the 1950s to support Ethiopia’s occupation of Eritrea, Eritrea rejected loans from the World Bank and IMF and promoted economic self-reliance under a socialist governing model.
To punish it for its defiance, the U.S. began imposing crippling sanctions in the mid-2000s under the false pretext that Eritrea supported the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabab.
Ethiopia and Eritrea anti-sanctions demonstration in New York City. [Source: mronline.org]
The sanctions as such were expanded upon—to the detriment of the Eritrean people who were deprived of vital medicines and goods and prevented from carrying out financial transactions using the SWIFT system.
Failing to acknowledge the negative impact of the sanctions, an article in The Atlantic by the former chief of mission at the U.S. embassy, Steve Walker, characteristically referred to Eritrea as a “human rights house of horror” and “totalitarian state,” which was “poor” and had “no realistic hopes of development” thanks to “revolutionary economic policies.”
Margaret Kimberley wrote in Black Agenda Report that such negative and prejudiced views obscured the fact that Eritrea is a functioning and proudly sovereign state, which overcomes the hardships created by U.S. sanctions to care for its people.
It was Eritrean military intervention, furthermore, at the request of the Abiy regime, in November-December 2020 that wiped out the backbone of the TPLF army in Tigray.
Checking All the Propaganda Boxes
Grégoire Lalieu is an investigative journalist from Belgium who testified at the People’s Tribunal on U.S. Imperialism that the Tigray War checked all the boxes of Western war propaganda the way it was presented in Western media.
Western economic interests and geopolitical scheming in the African Horn region was obscured and the history of U.S. imperial intervention in the region was ignored along with the history of TPLF atrocities.
Piggybacking off the official statements of the U.S. State Department, the media made it seem as if Abiy Ahmed had started the war because he had become arrogant after winning the Nobel Peace Prize when the TPLF was reported to have initiated hostilities by attacking the Ethiopian army’s northern command on November 4, 2020.
The Ethiopian government was accused of committing legions of atrocities amounting to genocide and trying to induce famine and starve the Tigrayan population when atrocities were committed on all sides of the war and no famine actually resulted.[3]
Queen of humanitarian intervention raises false alarm of a famine. [Source: rsonderriis.substack.com]
A parade of articles echoed the inflammatory narrative, including from the putatively left-wing Nation Magazine.
Democracy Now produced a series of similarly slanted reports alleging genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the use of rape as a weapon in Tigray, relying heavily on CNN reporter Nima Elbagir.
Unreported in this documentary is the fact that the first massacre of the war was committed by TPLF militias at Mai Kadra on the Sudan border on November 9, 2020. The TPLF also fired rockets at civilians targets extending into Eritrea, forced the conscription of child soldiers, misused humanitarian relief supplies, committed gang rapes and fabricated evidence of Ethiopian army war crimes.[4]
Western media generally left the impression that the Ethiopian army would carry out a genocide if the U.S. did not intervene to protect the Tigrayan people.
Funeral services at Abu Aregawi Church for victims of mass killing carried out by TPLF-allied militias that occurred in Mai Kadra on November 9, 2020. [Source: wikipedia.org]
Lalieu pointed out that the demonization of the Ethiopian military and Abiy Ahmed was comparable to the demonization of Muammar Qaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Vladimir Putin and other foreign leaders that the U.S. was intent on overthrowing by force.
Many U.S.-based journalists and academics relied for their assessment on TPLF representatives, allowing the U.S. and TPLF to monopolize the debate. The consequence was to help build public support for the U.S. sanctions and for military intervention, which the usual cohort of liberal proponents of humanitarian intervention were eager to support.
Getting Ethiopia Dead Wrong
Danish journalist Rasmus Sonderriis published an online book entitled Getting Ethiopia Dead Wrong, which concluded that Western media, academia and humanitarian aid organizations “demonized a friendly people and fueled a big war with dire mispredictions and shocking lies.”
Central to these lies was the use of the g-word (genocide), which the Holocaust Museum warned about in October 2022.
Sonderriis wrote that “the media-borne narrative that Ethiopia’s motivation was to commit genocide was concocted to confer legitimacy on the violent pursuit of power [by the TPLF].”
A key media influencer promoting the genocide narrative and demanding Western military intervention was World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a go-to media source who hid his own background as part of the TPLF ruling elite in Ethiopia.
Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation and professor at the Tufts University’s Fletcher School near Boston was another prominent media fixture misrepresenting the conflict, according to Sonderriis, who urged the Biden administration to take a tougher line in The Guardian and other left-of-center publication for which he writes.
De Waal ironically penned an article in The Boston Review in 2016 in which he wrote that “the West likes morality plays with clear heroes and villains, in which we play the role of savior.”
That is exactly what Sonderriis accuses him of doing for Ethiopia.
Sonderriis writes that de Waal and other Western journalists falsely reported on the defeat of Ethiopian forces and often advanced the stereotype of “dark continent savagery” that lent support for U.S. foreign policy intervention.
One of the main critics of Western media narratives, ironically, was conservative Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a notorious war hawk who characterized the TPLF as a terrorist group and called for a rollback of U.S. sanctions targeting the Ethiopian government.
Edward Hunt, a Ph.D. in American Studies from the College of William & Mary, wrote an article in The Progressive depicting the TPLF as leftist in favoring more of a statist model of development and presenting the overthrow of Abiy Ahmed’s government—which purged Tigrayan officials and allegedly favored the Amhara—as something positive. He said that it would reverse the neo-liberal and pro-American political agenda of Abiy Ahmed who Hunt blamed for starting the war, though Sonderriis says that most Ethiopians saw things differently.[7]
One Ethiopian commenting on Hunt’s story tellingly wrote that “TPLF is a tiny, regional, ethnic party drunk with regionalism, wounded by inferiority complex, a left over Commie mess from the 60s. The West put them in power in 1991, the other 95% kicking & screaming. They butchered, tortured, & looted 27 yrs. Abiy was elected by 40m votes, only the Ethiopian people can remove him. It’s easier for the apartheid regime to return to power in South Africa than sadist TPLF in Ethiopia.”
Another reader wrote that “[t]he war was not started by the Ethiopian gov. The TPLF thugs went at night and surprise attacked & killed the soldiers in North Ethiopia army base. They attacked the army base that was protecting the Tigrayans for 20 years. They went at night and slaughtered the soldiers & stole weapons. That is why the Ethiopian gov. went North and retrieved the weapons & war resumed. So, the 20 year liar TPLF is the one that started the war.”
A sign that a covert operation was afoot was the creation of a Twitter hashtag, “Tigray Genocide,” that appears to have originated from the State Department, CIA or another U.S. government agency.
Another hashtag promoted justice for Tigray women and girls allegedly subjected to mass rape though the scale of these rapes was grossly inflated, according to Sonderriis, and many rapes were committed by the TPLF along with other atrocities that went unreported in the Western media.
The Twitter campaigns seemed reminiscent of the 2014 campaign supported by Michelle Obama to save Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, and “Kony 2012 campaign” in which the atrocities of Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony were played up in order to justify a covert U.S. military operation in support of the Museveni government to hunt down Kony and protect U.S. military bases.
Yoweri Museveni was, like the TPLF, a loyal U.S. ally who, for years, had been used as a key anchor to help the U.S. access Central Africa’s vast mineral riches. Thus, history appears to be repeating itself, with the Western intelligentsia playing a key role once again in the perpetuation of Western colonialism.
*
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
General Norman Schwarzkopf noted that “the Red Sea, with the Suez Canal in the north and the Bab-el-Mandeb in the south, is one of the most vital sea lines of communication and a critical shipping link between our Pacific and European allies,” hence the U.S. interest in securing a strategic foothold in the Horn of Africa region, cited in David N. Gibbs, “Realpolitik and Humanitarian Intervention: The Case of Somalia,” International Politics, March 2000.
For the role of Amnesty International and other human rights groups in playing up the Eritrean atrocities, see Ann Garrison, “Amnesty International pushes regime change in Eritrea with dubious, unverifiable report,” The Grayzone Project, September 21, 2023, https://thegrayzone.com/2023/09/21/amnesty-international-regime-change-eritrea/
See Mawi Asgedom, “Why the U.S. should call the famine and violence in Tigray a genocide,” The Washington Post, October 6, 2021. On the pattern of biased Western reporting on Africa, see Milton Allimadi, Manufacturing Hate: How Africa Was Demonized in Western Media (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing, 2021).
According to Ann Garrison, when the TPLF invaded Ethiopia’s Amhara and Afar Regions, the Western press generally looked the other way, giving Amhara and Afari victims only occasional mention. From April to June 2022, Garrison said that she traveled through Ethiopia’s Amhara and Afar Regions and saw immense suffering in many overcrowded IDP camps, where deeply traumatized Amharas and Afaris told her that the TPLF had murdered their family members and taken all they had until they fled.
See Mahmood Mamdani, Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror(New York: Crown, 2010).
De Waal’s view conveniently was exactly how the U.S. State Department/Pentagon and CIA wanted the Rwandan conflict to be presented since they were supporting the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) while France was supporting the Hutu. De Waal was a contemporary of John Prendergast, a State Department employee who worked closely with current USAID Administrator Samantha Power at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights and was similarly a strong proponent of “humanitarian intervention” in Africa. According to Keith Harmon Snow, Prendergast worked with Susan Rice to create the Pentagon’s prized African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI)—a euphemistically named entity created to project U.S. power in Africa run by U.S. Army Special Forces Command (SOCOM).
Hunt emphasized that Abiy pushed through major economic reforms that began the process of dismantling the country’s state-controlled economic system, opening the country’s markets to foreign investors, which earned him the favor of the U.S. ruling elite. The Nation magazine published a story by Daniel Volodzko characteristically titled “There’s Genocide in Tigray, but Nobody’s Talking About It.” https://www.thenation.com/article/world/genocide-in-tigray/
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.
Recently, a Ukrainian official stated that his country would be “happy” to receive retired British ships, which are practically no longer of military use. The case shows how the neo-Nazi regime is weakened and in urgent need of new equipment to continue fighting the proxy war with Russia.
The statement was made by Ukrainian Vice Admiral Aleksey Neizhpapa during an interview with Sky News. Previously, the British media had already published news that two Navy warships, HMS Westminster and HMS Argyll, would be retired and dismantled due to their exhaustion and current uselessness. Both ships are demanding a large technical cost with repairs as well as specialized labor for their operability, which is why it seems more advantageous to demolish them and reuse some parts than to keep them in activity uselessly.
Both ships are Type 23 frigates – a really old naval class that is already being replaced by newer and more efficient models. HMS Westminster was launched in 1992, while HMS Argyll was launched even earlier, in 1987. Despite having already served the British Navy in several strategic operations, there currently does not appear to be any benefit in continuing to operate such frigates, which is why the British military chose to retire them.
“It is always emotive when ships that have a long history of service come to the end of their working life. They and the sailors who crewed them have done the country proud. But decommissioning them is the right decision. The new Type 26 frigates will be in service before those ships can be refitted”, an article about the matter on British media reads.
However, there is apparently a plan in the UK so that, instead of destroying the ships, they are handed over to Ukraine. Neizhpapa stated that his country is interested in the proposal and that he would be “happy” if London donated the frigates to the Ukrainian forces.
“Of course, the Navy needs warships, because we understand that there is no navy without ships. This is why, if such a decision is taken, concerning the possibility of handing over two frigates to the [Ukrainian] Navy, we will be very happy”, he said.
The possibility of donating such ships has been commented on by some experts and journalists in recent days. In fact, the delivery of these retired frigates seems convenient for the UK since the country failed in its previous attempt to establish jointly with Norway a new naval coalition to support Kiev. The plan announced in December included the sending of new mine-clearing ships to Ukraine, but the transfer was halted due to Turkish objection, as Ankara did not allow the ships to cross the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits.
In practice, London is “in debt” to Ukraine as it promised the arrival of new ships but was unable to deliver them. In parallel, the two Type 23 frigates are now useless and generating storage and maintenance problems. So, a viable “solution” to both problems would be to send such ships to Kiev and thus fulfill the promise of new naval aid.
The problem in this situation is that the “help” that the UK apparently has to offer Kiev is simply useless. The country is about to send old and almost inoperable ships to Ukraine, whose efficiency in the intense frictions of the Black Sea would be null. In practice, the UK is getting rid of naval debris and Kiev is making sure it would be “happy” to receive such a “gift”.
The case shows once again that Ukraine is in a desperate situation. Seeing Western military aid decline, Kiev is literally accepting “anything” from its sponsors – even retired ships. The neo-Nazi regime is not able to negotiate peace terms with Russia as it is serving as a proxy in the war, so it needs to continue receiving all types of help just to continue fighting – only postponing the inevitable end result of the conflict, which will be a Russian victory.
With Israel more and more becoming a priority for Western powers – including the UK, which is deeply involved in US-led operations in the Red Sea, Kiev will be “happy” from now on with low-quality, outdated weapons. Less and less aid will be sent to the proxy regime, which shows that the West never had any real concern about Ukraine, having only used it to attack Russia.
*
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.
US Army General Christopher Cavoli, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, announced that the largest NATO exercise in decades, Steadfast Defender 2024, will occur in Europe from the end of January to the end of May. 90,000 soldiers from the 31 NATO countries will participate and are about to join NATO Sweden. Over 80 combat aircraft along with helicopters and drones, 50 warships including aircraft carriers, 1,100 tanks, and other combat vehicles will be used in the exercise. The exercise — the largest since the end of the Cold War — will test and refine the war strategy against Russia.
European countries of the Alliance in NATO declared that, with the Steadfast Defender 2024
“the Alliance will demonstrate its ability to strengthen the Euro-Atlantic area through the transatlantic movement of forces from North America. This reinforcement will occur during a simulated emergent conflict scenario against a near-peer adversary.”
The reference to Russia is clear.
The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe also announced that Italy had been chosen as the headquarters of the Allied Reaction Force. The US general underlined that it is “a fundamental component of our new force model and that it is capable of carrying out the entire spectrum of missions and serves as a rapidly deployable strategic reserve”.
During the exercise, the Italian headquarters of the Allied Reaction Force will carry out a deployment of the Rapid Reaction Force in Poland on the eastern flank of the Alliance, clearly directed against Russia.
The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe did not say that the war exercise, taking place for four months in Europe, would also be nuclear. The aircraft, ships, and missile systems deployed in the Steadfast Defender 2024 have dual conventional and nuclear capabilities. The USA will thus be able to test in a realistic simulation the new nuclear weapons that they are deploying in Europe increasingly close to Russia.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website 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 is already abundantly clear that Israel is adamant to ignore the demands of the ICJ and carry through with its genocide until its horrific end. Instead of reversing course, key forces in Israel celebrate their drive for genocide against the Palestinians and their objective of an Israeli colonization of Gaza. See this.
Consequently, Israel will not put to justice anyone involved in its genocide.
We must remember, that the genocide is carried out by the criminal orders and/or criminal incitement by top Israeli leaders like president Herzog, the prime minister Netanyahu, the defense minister Galant, the security minister Ben-Gvir, foreign minister Katz, and finance minister Smotrich. Benny Gantz is probably also guilty as part of this gang.
Guilty is the Israeli military top and lots and lots of people all the way down to soldiers committing the acts. We also have Israeli media, religious persons, analysts, legal experts, and diplomats involved.
Like Germany 1945, we confront a state and society infested with genocidal ideology, its meticulous planning, and its bloody execution. And the trials afterwards proved no remorse among the perpetrators.
Haaretz today 29 January 2024, lists nearly all the above-named persons as involved in genocide or incitement to genocide. Haaretz further writes that the ICJ ruling should by adhered to by Israel as a “yellow card” for Israel, including its leaders. But Haaretz is deluded in believing any Israeli institution will take action against the genocide continuing, or any action against any individuals leading or inciting it.
Somebody else must bring justice.
Like Germany 1945, there is no chance that the country itself will stop and carry out justice once its bloody genocide fails in an abyss of self-destruction. Like the trial in Nüremberg in Germany 1945, the outside World will have to organize and carry through the trial for the genocide carried out by Israel in coordination with the USA. An international trial, in which US President Biden, Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and Lloyd Austin will stand accused as well. And like the World saw at Nüremberg in 1945, there is no chance that the defendants will show any remorse, not even in the minute when their sentence was carried 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.
Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Ahmad Shabat and his uncle Ibrahim at Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir el-Balah in the central Gaza Strip [Atia Darwish/Al Jazeera]
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 Pentagon on Monday said Iran “bears responsibility” for the drone attack in northeastern Jordan that killed three US troops but admitted it has no evidence that Iran was directly involved.
Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said the responsibility fell on Iran due to its support for Iraqi Shia militias the US believes carried out the attack.
“In terms of attribution for the attack, we know this is an [Iran]-backed militia. It has the footprints of Kataib Hezbollah, but [we’re] not making a final assessment,” Singh said at a press conference. “Iran continues to arm and equip these groups to launch these attacks, and we will certainly hold them responsible.”
When asked if the US knew Iran and Iranian leaders were “actually behind this attack, as in planned, coordinated, or directed it,” Singh admitted the US had nothing to show that.
“We know that Iran certainly plays a role with these groups, they arm and equip and fund these groups. I don’t have more to share on — terms of an intelligence assessment on if leaders in Iran were directing this attack,” she said.
Singh was again asked about the claim that Iran was behind the attack and said the US just knows that “Iran funds these groups” and had nothing more to add. Later in the press conference, she said Iran “bears responsibility” for the killing of three American soldiers.
Also on Monday, The New York Times reported that US intelligence officials have no evidence Iran had advanced knowledge of the attack.
“American intelligence officials say that while Iran provides weapons, funding and sometimes intelligence to its proxy groups, there is no evidence that it calls the shots — meaning it may not have known in advance about the attack in Jordan,” the report reads.
Iran has strongly denied it was behind the attack and said the resistance factions were targeting the US forces in the region due to its support for the Israeli slaughter in Gaza. Since mid-October, US bases in Iraq and Syria have come under attack about 160 times, and the US has never produced evidence to show Iran was directing the operations.
The comments from Singh came as President Biden is mulling what his response will be to the killing of the three American troops. He is under pressure from hawks in Congress to bomb Iran directly, and a previous report from the Times said that’s something the administration would consider in response to the death of US troops despite the risk of a full-blown war with Iran.
*
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.
From Eastern Europe to East Asia to across the Middle East, the United States is currently positioned on multiple tripwires that could pull our country into a new war the American people do not want.
In 2024, it’ll be more important than ever that Washington adheres to sound American principles, the most fundamental of which is the consent of the governed.
The United States Constitution is clear and concise: “The Congress shall have Power…To declare War.” That authority does not belong to the president (no matter their party), or the generals, or some unelected committee of unknown, faceless bureaucrats. Only the people’s elected representatives assembled in the U.S. Congress can decide whether to bring our nation from a state of peace into a state of war.
And yet, since World War II, their duty has been usurped by the executive branch in the form of the intelligence “community,” the military-industrial complex, and the White House.
According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, since Joe Biden’s inauguration, American soldiers have been in combat and under enemy fire in eight countries: Afghanistan (prior to Biden’s delayed withdrawal), Iraq, Syria, Mali, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates.
The Global War on Terror has proven that without the support of the citizenry, expressed through their elected representatives, our country cannot continue these endless wars across the globe.
Like most Americans, my constituents in New Hampshire’s Hillsborough District 1 are tired of forever war and permanent overseas occupation. They have no further tolerance for the expenditure of their money, their blood, or their honor in places like Iraq, where I deployed twice as a Marine Corps rifleman.
With a motivation to restore the Founding Fathers’ intended separation of powers, I cosponsored H.B. 229, the Defend the Guard Act, in the state legislature. This bill would prohibit the deployment of the New Hampshire National Guard into combat overseas unless Congress has first voted to declare war. Last week, with bipartisan support from both conservatives and progressives, H.B. 229 passed the New Hampshire House of Representatives in an 187-182 vote.
This bill, which is only an added enforcement mechanism to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, drew active opposition. In other states where this legislation has been introduced, lawmakers have been made to feel intimidated by men in uniform, mainly senior officials from the Department of Defense who lobbied aggressively against it. The threats are always the same; don’t rock the boat, or else.
But our soldiers deserve better than complacency. Defend the Guard will not prevent our National Guard units from participating in overseas training in places like El Salvador — with which New Hampshire has a State Partnership Program — or from fulfilling their domestic tasks like disaster relief in other states. It will only ensure that New Hampshire’s National Guardsmen are only sent to fight wars that their representatives have voted for. Isn’t that how our republic is meant to work?
For all the opposition’s big talk, they were drowned out by the immense grassroots backing for the Defend the Guard Act. I know that many of my colleagues’ phones blew up with calls from constituents informing them that they should support this common sense fix to our broken foreign policy.
I’m incredibly proud of the gratitude I’ve received from Granite Staters for championing this legislation, and for the help of fellow co-sponsors John Potucek, Michael Granger, and Matthew Santonastaso — all of us veterans.
H.B. 229 will now move to the state Senate. Furthermore, more than half the states in the union will have Defend the Guard legislation introduced in their legislative bodies in 2024. In March 2023 the Arizona Senate became the first legislative body to pass this bill.
This measure could potentially keep our National Guardsmen out of an unconstitutional war. Their lives are worth that effort, and our Constitution is worth saving.
*
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.
Tom Mannion is a two-time Iraq War veteran, deploying with 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines in 2005 and 2007 as an infantry rifleman. He was elected as a New Hampshire State Representative in 2022 and currently serves on the State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs committee.
Featured image: Pennsylvania National Guard Soldiers bound for Africa mission, Dec. 2023. (photo by Pennsylvania National Guard )
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.
Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science.
Cureus is a web-based peer-reviewed open-access general medical journal using prepublication peer review.
The authors surveyed published research on the pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine trials and related adverse events. They also called for the COVID-19 vaccines to be removed immediately from the childhood immunization schedule.
After the first reports from vaccine trials claimed they were 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, serious problems with method, execution and reporting in the trials became public, which the paper reviewed in detail.
Evidence also shows the products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, and since the vaccine rollout, researchers have identified a significant number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).
Authors M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D., Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough detailed the vaccines’ potential serious harms to humans, vaccine control and processing issues, the mechanisms behind AEs, the immunological reasons for vaccine inefficacy and the mortality data from the registrational trials.
They concluded, “Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA injectable products on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.”
They also called for the vaccines to be immediately removed from the childhood immunization schedule and for the suspension of the boosters.
“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 (IFR, 0.0003%) but a well-established 2.2% risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” they wrote.
Finally, the authors called for a full investigation into misconduct by the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies.
It is the first peer-reviewed study to call for a moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA products, Rose told The Defender.
“Once a proper assessment of the safety and efficacy claims was made herein — upon which the emergency use authorization (EUA)’s and ultimate final authorizations were granted — it was found that the COVID-19 injectable products were neither safe nor effective,” she added.
Lead author Mead told The Defender, “Our view is that any risk-benefit analysis must consider how much the presumed benefit in terms of reduced COVID-19 related mortality is offset by the potential increase in vaccine-induced mortality.”
Here are six takeaways from the review:
1. The COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are reclassified gene therapies that were rushed through the regulatory process in a historically unprecedented manner
Before the seven-month authorization process for the mRNA vaccines, no vaccine had ever gone to market without undergoing testing of at least four years, with typical timelines averaging 10 years.
To speed the process, the companies skipped preclinical studies of potential toxicity from multiple doses and cut the typical 6-12 month observation period for identifying longer-term adverse effects and the established 10-15-year period for monitoring for long-term effects such as cancer and autoimmune disorders, the authors wrote.
The trials prioritized documenting effective symptom reduction over SAE and mortality. This was particularly concerning, the authors argued, because mRNA products are gene therapy products reclassified as vaccines and then given EUA for the first time ever for use against a viral disease.
However, the gene therapies’ components have not been thoroughly evaluated for safety for use as vaccines.
There is an uninvestigated and major concern that the mRNA could transform body cells into viral protein factories — with no off-switch — that produce the spike protein for a prolonged period causing chronic systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction.
The spike protein in the vaccine, the authors said, is associated with more severeimmunopathology and other AEs than the spike protein in the virus itself.
The authors suggested that massive government investment in mRNA technology, including hundreds of millions before the pandemic and tens of billions once it began, meant, “U.S. federal agencies were strongly biased toward successful outcomes for the registrational trials.”
The financial incentives along with political pressures to deliver a rapid solution likely influenced a series of flawed decisions that compromised the integrity of the trials and downplayed serious scientific concerns about risks with the technology, they added.
2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy
Because the trials were designed to assess whether the mRNA vaccine reduced symptoms, they did not measure whether the vaccines prevented severe disease and death. Yet the vaccine makers repeatedly claimed that they do.
“No large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials have ever demonstrated reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, hospitalization, or death,” the authors wrote.
Additionally, the number of people who contracted clinical COVID-19 in both the placebo and intervention groups was “too small to draw meaningful, pragmatic, or broad-sweeping conclusions with regard to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.”
Pfizer’s 95 % efficacy claims were based on 162 of 22,000 placebo recipients contracting PCR-confirmed COVID-19 compared to eight of 22,000 in the vaccine group. None of the placebo recipients died from COVID-19. In the Moderna trials, only one placebo death was attributed to COVID-19.
There was also a much larger percentage of “suspected COVID-19 cases” in both groups, with participants showing COVID-19 symptoms but a negative PCR test. When factoring in those cases, measures of vaccine efficacy drop to about 19%.
The trial subject pool was comprised of largely young and healthy individuals, excluding key groups — children, pregnant women, elderly and immunocompromised people — which can also obscure the vaccine’s actual efficacy and safety.
Findings from reanalyses of data from the Pfizer trials can be interpreted as showing the vaccines made “no significant difference” in reducing all-cause mortality in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups at 20 weeks into the trial, the authors wrote.
Even the six-month post-marketing data Pfizer presented to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed no reduction in all-cause mortality from the vaccine.
The authors reanalyzed that data, adjusting the analysis of deaths to better account for the fact that when Pfizer unblinded the study people from the placebo group took the vaccine, and found the vaccine group had a higher mortality rate (0.105%) than the unvaccinated group (0.0799%), which they said was a conservative estimate.
One of the most glaring issues with the registrational trials, they noted, was that they exclusively focused on measuring risk reduction — the ratio of COVID-19 symptom rates in the vaccine group versus the placebo group — rather than measuring absolute risk reduction, which is the likelihood someone will show COVID-19 symptoms relative to people in the population at large.
According to FDA guidelines, accounting for both approaches is crucial to avoid the misguided use of pharmaceutical products — but the data were omitted, leading to an overestimation of an intervention’s clinical utility.
While both vaccines touted an approximately 95% risk reduction figure as their efficacy figure, the absolute risk reductions for Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines were 0.7% and 1.1% respectively.
“A substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.
As an example, using a conservative estimate that 119 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent infection, and assuming that COVID-19 had a 0.23% infection fatality rate, they wrote that approximately 52,000 vaccinations would be necessary to prevent a single COVID-19-related death.
However, “Given trial misconduct and data integrity problems … the true benefit is likely to be much lower,” they wrote.
And, they added, one would need to assess that benefit along with harms, which they estimate to be 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer. That means, using the most conservative estimates, “for every life saved, there were 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”
They also noted that post-rollout evidence confirmed the efficacy claims were overstated. For example, two large cohort Cleveland clinic studies showed the vaccine could not confer protectionagainst COVID-19 — instead, in those trials, more vaccinated people were more likely to contract COVID-19.
One study showed the risk of “breakthrough” infection was significantly higher among people who were boosted and that more vaccinations resulted in a greater risk of COVID-19.
A second study showed adults who were not “up-to-date” with their shots had a 23% lower incidence of COVID-19 than their “up-to-date” colleagues.
3. The trials underestimated the adverse events, including death, despite evidence in the data.
Harms were also underreported and underestimated for a number of reasons, according to the authors, a practice that tends to be common in randomized industry-sponsored vaccine trials in general and “exceptionally evident” here.
First, because Pfizer unblinded the trial within just a few weeks of the emergency use authorization and allowed people in the placebo group to take the vaccine, there was not sufficient time to identify late-occurring harms because there was no longer a control group.
“Was this necessary, given that none of the deaths in the Pfizer trial were attributed to COVID-19 as the primary cause, and given the very low IFR [infection fatality rate] for a relatively healthy population?” they asked.
Also, trial coordinators were “haphazard” in their approach to monitoring AEs. They prioritized documenting events thought to be related to COVID-19 rather than to the vaccines for the first seven days and only recorded “unsolicited” AEs for 30-60 days. After that period, even very SAEs, like death, were not recorded. Even for the AEs recorded in the first seven days, they only solicited data from 20% of the population.
None of the trial data was independently verified. “Such secrecy may have enabled the industry to more easily present an inflated and distorted estimate of the genetic injections’ benefits, along with a gross underestimation of potential harms,” they wrote.
Subsequent analysis by Michels et al. revealed that deaths and other SAEs — like life-threatening conditions, inpatient hospitalization or extension of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or a medically significant event — did occur after the cutoff period and before the FDA advisory meeting where emergency authorization was recommended.
During the first 33 weeks of the Pfizer trials, 38 subjects died, according to Pfizer’s own data, although independent research by Michels et al. estimated that that number is only approximately 17% of the actual projected number due to missing data.
And after that, the rate of deaths continued to increase. Michaels et al. found Pfizer failed to report a substantial increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events. They also found a consistent pattern of reporting delays on the date of the death on subjects’ case reports.
Overall, the review authors reported that there were “twice as many cardiac deaths proportionately among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated subjects in the Pfizer trials.”
In their discussion, the authors wrote “Based on the extended Pfizer trial findings, our person-years estimate yielded a 31% increase in overall mortality among vaccine recipients, a clear trend in the wrong direction.”
This raises serious red flags about how the registrational trials were conducted, Mead said. “Assessments of the safety profile of the COVID-19 modified mRNA injections warrant an objective precautionary perspective, any substantial upward trend in all cause mortality within the intervention arm of the trial population reflects badly on the intervention.”
4. Numbers of SAEs in the trials and post-rollout reporting are well-documented, despite claims to the contrary.
Both Pfizer and Moderna found about 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients, or one SAE for every 800 vaccines. However, because the trials excluded more vulnerable people, the authors note, even higher proportions of SAEs would be expected in the general population.
The Fraiman et al. reanalysis of the Pfizer trial data found a significant 36% higher risk of SAEs, which included deaths and many life-threatening conditions in the vaccinated participants.
Official SAEs for other vaccines average around only 1-2 per million. Fraiman et alestimated 1,250 SEAs per million vaccines, exceeding that benchmark by “at least 600-fold.”
After the vaccine rollout, analyses of two large drug safety reporting systems in the U.S. and Europe identified signals for myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, cardio-respiratory arrest, cerebral infarction, and cerebral hemorrhage associated with both mRNA vaccines, along with ischemic stroke.
And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems.
Another study by Skidmore et al. estimated the total number of fatalities from the vaccines in 2021 alone was 289,789. Autopsy studies have also provided additional evidence of serious harms, including evidence that most COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related deaths resulted from injury to the cardiovascular system.
In multiple autopsy studies, German pathologist Aren Burkhardt documented the presence of vaccine-mRNA-produced spike proteins in blood vessel walls and brain tissues. This research helps to explain documented vaccine-induced toxicities affecting the nervous, immune, reproductive and other systems.
The Pfizer data also showed an overwhelming number of adverse effects. According to a confidential document released in August 2022, Pfizer had documented approximately 1.6 million AEs affecting nearly every organ system, and one-third of them were classified as serious.
In Pfizer’s trial, Michels and colleagues found a nearly 4-fold increase (OR 3.7, 95%CI 1.02-13.2, p = 0.03) in serious cardiac events (e.g., heart attack, acute coronary syndrome) in the vaccine group. Neither the original trial report nor Pfizer’s Summary Clinical Safety report acknowledged or commented on this safety signal.
“The serious adverse events are all well documented,” Mead said. “Yet it’s surprising to see so many in the medical field continue to ignore or dismiss outright the latter half of the equation when considering all cause mortality trends.”
5. The failure to appropriately test for safety and toxicity poses serious problems.
Researchers have raised concerns that the mRNA technology is inherently unstable and difficult to store, which leads to batch variability and contamination linked to different rates of AEs.
Recent findings by McKernan et al. that found Pfizers’ mRNA vaccines are contaminated withplasmid DNA that shouldn’t be present — and wasn’t present in the vaccines used in the trials – raising serious safety issues.
That’s because “Process 1,” used in the trials to generate the vaccines involved in vitro transcription of synthetic DNA — essentially a “clean” process. However, that process isn’t viable for mass production, so the manufacturers used “Process 2,” which involves using E. coli bacteria to replicate the plasmids.
Removing plasmids E coli. can result in residual plasmids in the vaccines and the effects of their presence is unknown.
McKernan’s work also revealed the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40), an oncogenic DNA virus originally isolated in 1960 from contaminated polio vaccines, induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals, raising other safety concerns.
Researchers from Cambridge published a paper in Nature in December 2023, where they found an inherent defect in the modified RNA instructions for the spike protein in COVID-19 immunizations that causes the machinery that translates the gene to the spike protein to “slip” about 10% of the time
This process creates “frameshifts” that cause cells to produce “off-target” proteins in addition to the spike. These proteins, which developers either failed to look for or did not report to regulators, cause undesirable immune responses whose long-term effects are unknown.
6. There are many different possible biological mechanisms that cause AEs and vaccine ineffectiveness.
The review points readers to a series of papyrus that explain a number of different theories to explain the high number of AEs from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
“The mechanisms of molecular mimicry, antigen cross-reactivity, pathogenic priming, viral reactivation, immune exhaustion, and other factors related to immune dysfunction all reinforce the biological plausibility for vaccine-induced pathogenesis of malignant and autoimmune diseases,” they wrote. And these mechanisms of immune activation are distinct from the body’s response to a viral infection.
They also note the toxic effects of the primary adjuvant, PEG, and of the spike protein itself.
They close their analysis of the vaccines with a complex explanation for the different immunological basis for protection provided by the vaccines versus natural immunity through infection. They explain the mechanisms for vaccine failure and problems generated by the ability for the mRNA vaccines to perpetuate the emergence of new variants.
*
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.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
Featured image is from CHD
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.
As aid organisations, we are deeply concerned and outraged that some of the largest donors have united to suspend funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the main aid provider for millions of Palestinians in Gaza and the region. This comes amid a rapidly worsening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
The suspension of funding by donor states will impact life-saving assistance for over two million civilians, over half of whom are children, who rely on UNRWA aid in Gaza. The population faces starvation, looming famine and an outbreak of disease under Israel’s continued indiscriminate bombardment and deliberate deprivation of aid in Gaza.
We welcome UNRWA’s swift investigation into the alleged involvement of a small number of UN staff members in the October 7th attacks. We are shocked by the reckless decision to cut a lifeline for an entire population by some of the very countries that had called for aid in Gaza to be stepped up and for humanitarians to be protected while doing their job. This decision comes as the International Court of Justice ordered immediate and effective action to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.
152 UNRWA staff have already been killed and 145 UNRWA facilities damaged by bombardment. UNRWA is the largest humanitarian agency in Gaza and their delivery of humanitarian assistance cannot be replaced by other agencies working in Gaza. If the funding suspensions are not reversed we may see a complete collapse of the already restricted humanitarian response in Gaza.
With approximately over one million displaced Palestinians taking shelter in or around 154 UNRWA shelters, the agency and aid organisations have continued to work in near impossible circumstances to provide food, vaccinations, and freshwater. The countries suspending funds risk further depriving Palestinians in the region of essential food, water, medical assistance and supplies, education and protection.
We urge donor states to reaffirm support for the vital work that UNRWA and its partners do to help Palestinians survive one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes of our times. Countries must reverse these funding suspensions, uphold their duties towards the Palestinian people and scale up humanitarian assistance for civilians in dire need in Gaza and the region.
Signed
ActionAid American Friends Service Committee The Association of International Development Agencies – Aida Caritas Internationalis CCFD-Terre Solidaire DanChurchAid Danish Refugee Council Diakonia Humanity & Inclusion/ Handicap International (HI) International Council for Voluntary Agencies INTERSOS Johanniter International Assistance Médecins du Monde France, Spain, Switzerland, Canada, Germany Norwegian Church Aid Norwegian People’s Aid Norwegian Refugee Council Oxfam Plateforme des ONG françaises pour la Palestine Première Urgence Internationale Save the Children War Child Alliance
*
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: A view of a United Nations Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) school sheltering displaced Palestinians in Khan Yunis, Gaza on October 22, 2023 [Abed Zagout/Anadolu Agency]
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 has been a lot of debate about the impacts of the highly ambitious development interventions and projects of China in other developing countries. In this context a recent analysis by GRAIN, a highly respected Europe-based organization whose studies on food and farming systems in particular have been widely appreciated, deserves serious attention, as various reports of GRAIN have been recognized for their concerns and commitments regarding equality, justice and environment protection, particularly in the context of small farmer communities.
This study tells us that China’s food trade with BRI partners surged by 162 per cent in the last decade, reaching USD 76.10 billion. Since 2018, China has been the leading country providing investments internationally to agriculture, averaging USD 1.71 billion annually. While China has made significant strides in securing control over its overseas food supply through BRI investments, its dependence on food imports has grown has also grown.
In addition, this study states there is the expanding involvement of Chinese corporations through BRI across the global food chain, from seeds to processed foods. In Africa, the BRI approach, referred to as “agriculture for profit”, has operated through massive private or state-owned companies and has coupled the financing of transportation infrastructure projects (like rail and ports) with projects to industrialise African agriculture through hybrid seeds, machinery, logistics, food storage and processing facilities provided by Chinese companies.
The GRAIN report informs us that through its massive communication network, the BRI is promoting agriculture capitalisation in Africa as a means to eradicate poverty. China’s agricultural intentions in Africa are mainly concerned with its soaring domestic meat consumption and support of its factory farming of poultry and pigs, which has created a huge demand for imported soybeans and maize for animal feed.
Despite earlier failed attempts, at the China-Africa Leaders’ Roundtable Dialogue in Johannesburg in August 2023, President Xi Jinping emphasised that China would continue to try and develop large-scale crop farming on the continent. He also stressed that importance would be given to build up seed production capacity and seed markets for its corporations.
China’s largest seed company, Yuan Longping High-Tech Agriculture, a subsidiary of the state-owned conglomerate CITIC, has been tasked with leading this effort in Africa. In Tanzania, the company is pursuing a major effort to develop soybean production for export.
In 2022, the GRAIN report tells us the Tanzanian government provided it with 53,000 hectares for a large-scale farming operation in the Chunya District of the Mbeya Region and in 2023 it fast-tracked the approval of the company’s seed varieties. This company has also expanded in South America in a big way emerging as one of the biggest seed companies internationally. What is more its GM (genetically modified) maize varieties have been approved for use within China.Longping High-Tech and COFCO are also actively developing exports of soybeans in the West African country of Benin, which along with Tanzania and Ethiopia, was recently singled out by China for the development of soybean exports. China and Benin signed a protocol on the export of soybeans in September 2019 and, by 2022, Benin’s annual exports to China exceeded 210,000 tonnes.
Benin is also a target for maize exports. While maize is a staple food in Benin and is grown widely across the country, it is almost entirely consumed locally. Longping High-tech is trying to change this and develop a surplus for export through a programme supported by China’s Ministry of Commerce, that is training farmers in growing its high-yield hybrid maize varieties. Other crops for export to China, beyond maize and soybeans, are also being supported in Africa through the BRI.
Coming to the fisheries sector, the GRAIN report informs us that China’s rapidly expanding fleet of deep-sea trawlers as a techno-fix to deal with the decline in global fish stocks is actually playing a major role in accelerating the depletion.
“Having badly overfished their own coastal waters, Chinese companies are sending their giant trawlers further and further overseas, bringing them into increasing conflict with coastal communities who depend on these same waters for their livelihoods and food needs.”
Under current BRI projects, the GRAIN report says Chinese fishing companies are encouraged to leverage BRI investments in harbour infrastructure to gain more fishing access in foreign countries, for instance Somalia, at the expense of local fishing communities and the sustainability of local marine resources.
Somalia has the longest coastline of any African nation. But the local small-scale fishing communities that live along the coast are already suffering from overfishing by foreign vessels, including many Chinese-owned vessels. Chinese fishing companies started moving into Somali waters in a big way after December 2018, when the Somali government issued renewable annual fishing licenses to 31 vessels that are part of the China Overseas Fisheries Association. Although the licenses only allowed Chinese vessels to operate 24 nautical miles away from Somalia’s coast, the local fishing communities say that their government is not able to stop vessels from encroaching this boundary. A new deal with Chaoliang Group under the BRI framework will only worsen the situation.
In Pakistan, the GRAIN report says, a major project of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is part of the BRI, is the development of a massive deep-sea port in the fishing village of Gwadar in Balochistan that will connect by rail and road to China’s Xinjiang region. The project, which gives control of the port to Chinese companies, has also brought an influx of Chinese fishing trawlers to the area. One of the Chinese companies now fishing the waters off of the Gwadar coast is Fujian Hengli Fishery, which is known for its illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing in West Africa, with evidence of various infringements including illegal nets, shark finning and fishing without licences.
“The presence of Fujian Hengli and other Chinese fishing companies is already having major impacts on local fishing communities, who say the giant vessels are wiping out their fish stocks, out-competing their local fishing boats and destroying their livelihoods.”
In December 2022, the Haq Do Tehreek (Gwadar Rights Movement) led a two-month protest to demand an end to deep-sea fish trawling by Chinese vessels and, together with thousands of people from local small fishing communities, staged a blockade of the port. Despite the strong community resistance, the Chinese companies are eager to fish in Pakistan’s waters as they can sell the catch back home duty-free.
At the 2023 BRI Forum, Beijing indicated that it was looking to e-commerce as the vehicle that bring food from BRI nations to the bowls of Chinese consumers. In the context of a recent agreement with Cambodia, the GRAIN study notes that so far the visible beneficiaries are major Chinese companies and powerful Cambodian businessmen with large agricultural holdings.
The GRAIN report concludes,
“As evidenced by China’s plans in agriculture, fisheries and e-commerce in Africa and Asia, it is hard to find anything “green” or small-scale about the BRI. On the contrary, it is only leading to further grabbing of limited natural resources for the profit of China’s corporations, while millions of peasants, fisher-folks and others are left under the thumb of its agribusiness and digital giants.
“Agriculture for profit” is not only an economic gamble, but also a social and environmental one – for China and its BRI partners.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine and India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
The World Economic Forum and Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation have announced their mutual interest in establishing a Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (C4IR) in Ukraine, with a focus on government and corporate technologies.
During the evening of January 25, Kenneth Eugene Smith, having failed to convince the US Supreme Court to delay his execution, became yet another victim of judicial, state-sanctioned murder. A previous, failed effort, using lethal injection, had been made in 2022. On this occasion, it was the state of Alabama which sought to bloody (or gas, in this instance) its copybook at the William C. Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore. The method of execution: nitrogen hypoxia.
In a landmark ruling handed down by the United Nations High Court on January 26 rejected the State of Israel’s attempt to dismiss the case brought by the Republic of South Africa demanding an end to genocide against the Palestinians.
The 17-judge panel of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) today (26 January 2024) found South Africa’s assertion that Israel is committing genocide “plausible.” This would indicate that South Africa won the case. Unfortunately, a closer look is much less optimistic. It shows again a hesitant judgment the ICJ, despite all indications for massive and brutal genocide. The judgment is weak and close to meaningless, when it comes to safe future Palestinian lives.
EU foreign affairs council held a Peace Summit in Brussels on January 22, chaired by EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell. The EU presented a proposal, which some have called bizarre, to create a framework for a Peace Plan, with the ultimate goal of a two-state solution by 2025. It ignores the genocide being committed in Gaza today, and fails to call for a ceasefire.
If the Palestinians don’t have educational institutions to train doctors, engineers, lawyers, historians, mathematicians, religious scholars, lawyers, and every other profession that is essential for a nation to survive and thrive, then what kind of society would they have?
The newspaper Haaretz in an editorial of October 8 directly accused Netanyahu of being “responsible for this war between Israel and Gaza” and also, Israeli public opinion would already be holding Netanyahu responsible for the resounding failure of Israeli security by disparaging Egyptian information.
Thousands of Israelis, including ministers from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party, gathered in Jerusalem on Sunday for a conference calling to resettle the Gaza Strip. At least 12 Israeli ministers participated in the conference about rebuilding Israeli settlements in Gaza and encouraging the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, Israeli journalist Barak Ravid reported.
The complete lack of basic etiquette when talking about Joe Biden’s next move shows just how little authority the incumbent has over half of the country. The situation in Texas is just one symptom of this.
A massive NATO military exercises slated to run all the way through the end of May has kicked off. Exercise Steadfast Defender 24 is being hailed as the largest NATO exercises since the Cold War. Some 90,000 troops from all 31 members states will take part.
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.
During the evening of January 25, Kenneth Eugene Smith, having failed to convince the US Supreme Court to delay his execution, became yet another victim of judicial, state-sanctioned murder. A previous, failed effort, using lethal injection, had been made in 2022. On this occasion, it was the state of Alabama which sought to bloody (or gas, in this instance) its copybook at the William C. Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore. The method of execution: nitrogen hypoxia.
Smith was convicted in 1989 for murdering Elizabeth Sennett, the wife of a preacher’s wife, in a murder-for-hire killing. His life, taken in turn, succumbed to a tawdry experiment of penological vice. When state authorities dabble with various methods of death, they can never be anything but cruel. Sometimes, these methods might even be unusual.
Defenders of capital punishment take refuge behind the words of the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which has often functioned as a form of subversive encouragement to murderous authorities. While the amendment famously states that no cruel or unusual punishments are to be inflicted, the onus is then on officialdom to come up with a form of punishment that is not cruel, nor unusual. And how often has death by firing squad, lethal injection, or swift decapitation been defended on those very grounds?
Nitrogen hypoxia has received much press, much of it ghoulish. In December 2023, the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released its final report into the deaths of six poultry plant workers. All had been victims of nitrogen asphyxiation. Investigators found that the Foundation Food Group facility in Gainesville, Georgia was staffed by workers inadequately informed, trained or equipped to deal with deadly leaks. Such concerns were also expressed about staff at the Atmore correctional facility. To date, the US lacks a national standard on the managing, storing, use and handling of such cryogenic asphyxiants as liquid nitrogen.
The degrading nature of the Smith execution was also highlighted by the fact that many US veterinarians would not even stoop to using nitrogen in euthanising animals. In 2020, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated in its euthanasia guidelinesthat using nitrogen was problematic for mammal species. Such gas would also have to be “supplied in a precisely regulated and purified form without contaminants or adulterants”.
UN experts, including Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Alice Jill Edwards, Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, also warned that nitrogen asphyxiation was “an untested method of execution which may subject [Smith] to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or even torture.”
None of these concerns has dissuaded lawmakers hunting for other methods of killing convicts. Oklahoma (2015) was the first state to permit prison staff to use nitrogen gas. Mississippi (2017) and Alabama (2018), followed. Much of this is being propelled by crude market considerations. The drugs used in lethal injections are becoming harder to obtain, be they because of shortages or restrictions placed on their use in executions by pharmaceutical companies.
With Alabama being the first to apply the measure, a dark interest in the minutiae of killing was taken. The state’s protocol on how the gas would be employed came under withering scrutiny. With nitrogen gas being administered through a mask, intruding oxygen might risk triggering a stroke, creating a permanent vegetative state, or cause excruciating suffocation. Depriving a person of oxygen could also lead to vomiting, thereby choking the victim.
With such complications in the offing, blissful, or wilful ignorance reigned among correction officials and lawmakers. For those involved in a state’s killing machinery, be they robed judges, hungry prosecutors, or the executioners themselves, this remains a standard response. Seedy justifications are offered: just retribution, deterrence, the confusion of novelty with humane policy. Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour was keen to emphasise the latter point with his absurd remark that his state had “adopted the most painless and humane method of execution known to man.”
Alabama officials had submitted in a court filing that they expected Smith to lose consciousness within a matter of seconds and expire in a matter of minutes. “What we saw,” stated Smith’s spiritual adviser, Reverend Jeff Hood, “was minutes of someone struggling for their life.”
In witnessing such executions, those present commune and connive in the same scene. They become vicarious participants, many the unintended apologists for a spectacle featuring murder. On hand were journalists to feed on the macabre display of Smith’s demise. “I’ve been to four previous executions,” the insatiable Alabama journalist Lee Hedgepeth told the BBC’s Newsday program, “and I’ve never seen a condemned inmate thrash in the way that Kenneth Smith reacted to the nitrogen gas.” The session saw Smith gasping “for air repeatedly and the execution took about 25 minutes in total.”
The stern face of officialdom was supplied by John Hamm, Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner. For Hamm, all that was aberrant about the scene could be rationalised, reasoned, and explained. Smith understandably held his breath as long as he could. His movements had been involuntary; he showed expected symptoms from inhaling nitrogen gas. He had lost consciousness quickly. “He struggled against the restraints a little bit but it’s an involuntary movement and some agonal breathing. So that was all expected.”
A more candid, vengeful note was struck by the state’s Attorney General, Steve Marshall. “Tonight, Kenneth Smith was put to death for the heinous act he committed over 35 years ago: the murder-for-hire slaying of Elizabeth Sennett, an innocent woman who was by all accounts a godly wife, a loving mother and grandmother, and a beloved pillar of her community.” Smith’s calculated death, crudely experimental and economically determined, was no less heinous, a vulgar rationalisation of cold intent, the exemplar of state cruelty.
*
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.
Jan. 6, 2024 – Scary scene in Qatar, as Umm Salal’s Andy Delort collapsed to the ground 10 minutes after he scored a goal – French player was treated on the pitch and watched the second half of the Qatar Cup final on the bench.
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.
Ukraine may be at war but that isn’t stopping it from playing a leading role in the digitization of the global economy.
The World Economic Forum and Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation have announced their mutual interest in establishing a Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (C4IR) in Ukraine, with a focus on government and corporate technologies.
As reported by Smart Cities World, the letter of intent to establish the GovTech center in Kiev was signed by Børge Brende, president of the World Economic Forum and Mykhailo Fedorov, deputy prime minister for innovation, development of education, science and technology, and minister of digital transformation, Ukraine.
The announcement of Ukraine’s participation in “GovTech” was made at the World Economic Forum’s 2024 summit earlier this month in Davos, Switzerland, under the theme of “Rebuilding Trust.”
Rule number one of any sane person who values individual freedom: Never trust a globalist. And a WEF’er globalist is the worst kind of globalist. Is it making more sense now why the WEF Western puppet leaders in Washington, London, Ottawa, Paris, Geneva and Berlin are so dead set on defending Ukraine against Russian “aggression?” The cumulative West led by Washington and London has invested in provoking this aggression since the early 2000’s when George W. Bush began wooing Ukraine into the Western orbit of NATO.
The New World Order runs through Ukraine. It is one of the main nerve centers of globalism, sex trafficking, U.S.-controlled biolabs and money laundering for the rich and powerful. They can’t lose it and they will send millions of their own people into the meat grinder to die defending it. As soon as they run what’s left of the Ukrainians through that meat grinder, you will see them sending Americans, Brits, Germans and Frenchmen. Bank on it.
According to the Smart Cities World article cited above, in recent years,
“according to the WEF, Ukraine has evolved into a global GovTech powerhouse, becoming the first country with a digital ID system that can be used across the nation and the fourth in Europe to launch a biometric digital driving license.”
Ukraine reports that in line with its goal to make 100 percent of public services available online, almost 20 million Ukrainians are already using the Diia application, which allows them to access key documents and government services.
The reason for establishing such a center in Kiev, the article says, would be “to provide a platform to develop government technologies by uniting scientists, businesses, technology companies, the public sector and the global communities of the forum. Its thematic focus will be the digital transformation of government, the development of e-government and widespread digital literacy.”
Jeremy Jurgens, managing director of the World Economic Forum, said:
“We commend the inspirational work of the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine as [it] implements a strong digitalisation agenda under the most challenging circumstances. This does not only prove the resilience of Ukraine’s government and citizens but also the digital infrastructure of the country. The creation of a new center in Ukraine would undoubtedly help Ukraine develop new partnerships and strengthen its GovTech agenda.”
Make no mistake: the “GovTech” agenda is the same as the “Luciferian agenda” to create a high-tech oligarchy on a global scale.
*
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.
Leo Hohmann is a totally independent reporter of news and analysis not beholden to any government or corporate money. If you appreciate my work and would like to support it, you may send a donation of any size c/o Leo Hohmann, P.O. Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264, or via credit card through GiveSendGo, a Christian crowd-funding site.
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 landmark ruling handed down by the United Nations High Court on January 26 rejected the State of Israel’s attempt to dismiss the case brought by the Republic of South Africa demanding an end to genocide against the Palestinians.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a series of orders in a 29-page ruling directed at Tel Aviv mandating that it halts indiscriminate persecution, killing and displacement of the 2.3 million people in the Gaza Strip. (See this)
Both parties to the case, Pretoria and Tel Aviv, must reappear before the ICJ within one month to present oral arguments on the lawsuit which accuses the settler-colonial state of being in breach of the Genocide Convention. South Africa and other states around the world viewed the decision as a preliminary victory which allows the case to go forward.
Since October 7 the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has engaged in targeted assassinations against Palestinian resistance forces, their leadership, along with the systematic attacks upon neighborhoods, healthcare services, schools, religious institutions and infrastructure. Despite the denials of genocide by Tel Aviv and its backers in the United States, Britain and other imperialist states, the ICJ took note within its decision that more than 26,000 people have been killed since the latest military assault by the occupying forces.
The war waged by the Zionist regime, which is facilitated through arms shipments from its allies, the deployment of imperialist military forces in the region, financial resources and diplomatic cover from the U.S. and other NATO countries, has undoubtedly done irreparable harm to the Palestinians through mass injuries, deaths, the destruction of civil society and the denial of food, water, freedom of worship, education and household security. Repeated statements backed up by violent actions from Israeli officials provide ample evidence of intent to eliminate the Palestinian people in whole or in part.
Contents of the ICJ Decision
In a summary of the ICJ preliminary ruling on the issues brought before it by the South African government, Lawfare, a legal journal, says
“The ICJ found that it had prima facie jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention to entertain the case and agreed that South Africa has standing to bring the case under the common interests of upholding the Convention—a matter that Israel did not challenge.” (See this)
This same article goes on to point out:
“On Jan. 26, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures in a case brought by South Africa against Israel for its alleged breaches of the Genocide Convention in its actions in Gaza. The ICJ found that it had prima facie jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention to entertain the case and agreed that South Africa has standing to bring the case under the common interests of upholding the Convention—a matter that Israel did not challenge.
The ICJ ordered the following provisional measures under Article 41:
Israel must take all measures possible to prevent the commission of all acts under Article II of the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza. This includes ‘(a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.’ The ICJ specified that Israel must ensure ‘with immediate effect’ that its military does not commit any of the aforementioned acts.
Israel must prevent and punish ‘the direct and public incitement to commit genocide’ against Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel must allow humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip.
Israel must ensure the preservation of, and prevent the destruction of, evidence related to acts under the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention against Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel must submit a report to the ICJ on all measures taken to uphold the provisional measures ordered by the ICJ within one month.
The ICJ did not call on Israel to suspend its military operations in Gaza, which was one of the provisional measures South Africa had called for.”
Even though the ICJ did not issue a provisional order to Tel Aviv for a ceasefire which has become the rallying cry for billions of people around the world, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Dr. Naledi Pandor, suggested that if the orders are to be carried out by Israel it would require a cessation of hostilities by the IDF. The South African government hailed the decision along with many other entities internationally.
Responses to the ICJ Decision
President Cyril Ramaphosa of the Republic of South Africa in a televised address said of the ICJ ruling that:
“We welcome the measures that the court ordered by majority decision, ruling that Israel military should not commit acts of genocide against Palestinians. Israel should take all measures to prevent and punish incitement to genocide. Furthermore, take immediate and effective measures to allow basic services and humanitarian assistance to Gaza and it should preserve evidence of what is happening in Gaza, including submitting a report within a month on all measures taken to give effect to the ICJ order within one month. This Order is binding on Israel and must be respected by all states that are party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, a close ally of the South African government and staunch supporter of the Palestinian struggle for national liberation and sovereignty, the president of the country was reported as recognizing that:
“Iranian President Ebrahim Raeisi says South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has drawn the admiration of all freedom seekers worldwide, hours before the court announces its interim ruling. During a telephone conversation with his South African counterpart Cyril Ramaphosa on Thursday night, Raeisi lauded the ‘courageous’ initiative, stressing that the move was taken by a country that has experienced the menace of racism and genocide for years. ‘The measure is praised not only by the Muslim world but also by all freedom seekers across the globe,’ the Iranian president said, according to his press service.”
Within the Israeli regime itself, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reported to have ordered his “unified war cabinet” members to refrain from commenting on the ICJ decision at this point. Nonetheless, some of the more right-wing cabinet members condemned the UN Court ruling labeling it as a continuation of the persecution of Jewish people. See this.
The U.S.-based Jewish newspaper, Forward, wrote an editorial where it attempted to take solace that the ICJ did not order what they described as a “one-side” ceasefire. This same publication also noted that the Court did not order the IDF to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. (See this)
In an editorial written by Anthony Dworkin on the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) website, the author recognizes differing positions held by members of the European Union (EU) on the Israel-Gaza war. However, Dworkin calls upon member-states to abide by the decision while requiring compliance from the State of Israel as a condition of its relations with the settler-colonial state. This position is that of the writer and is by no means a reflection of the views of Europeans.
Biden Administration Facing Federal Lawsuit for Complicity in Genocide Against Palestinians
Meanwhile the federal lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) against President Joe Biden and other leading appointees within his administration is moving forward as well. Just hours after the ICJ issued its ruling on the case filed by South Africa, a hearing was held in Oakland, California where the several Palestinian human rights groups and individuals are claiming that the actions of the U.S. are facilitating genocide in Palestine. (See this)
The investigative news website, The Intercept, wrote on the hearing saying:
“Lawyers involved with the lawsuit playing out in federal court said that the ICJ ruling bolsters their case. Their lawsuit argues that Biden, Blinken, and Austin are liable under U.S. law for failing to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide in Gaza. In Oakland, dozens of people lined up outside the courthouse hours before the hearing on Friday, according to organizers on the ground, while the Zoom stream reached its capacity of 1,000 people tuning in.” (See this)
This case filed in the U.S. federal court and the ICJ lawsuit at The Hague are representative of the burgeoning Palestinian solidarity movement which is rapidly spreading throughout the world. These legal challenges to Israeli and U.S. impunity are contributing to the struggle to end the siege on Gaza and all occupied territories as well as winning the total freedom and emancipation of the oppressed people of 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.
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.
The 17-judge panel of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) today (26 January 2024) found South Africa’s assertion that Israel is committing genocide “plausible.” This would indicate that South Africa won the case.
Unfortunately, a closer look is much less optimistic. It shows again a hesitant judgment the ICJ, despite all indications for massive and brutal genocide. The judgment is weak and close to meaningless, when it comes to safe future Palestinian lives.
First, the ICJ accepted that South Africa had jurisdiction in this case, because “some things that South Africa has alleged are certainly taking place and fall within the definition of the UN Genocide Convention of 1948.” See this.
Al Jazeera summarized the ICJ’s ruling as follows:
The court says it has jurisdiction to rule in the case.
The court orders Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, must report back in one month.
The court says Israel must prevent and punish incitement to genocide.
The court says Israel must allow humanitarian aid into the Strip.
The court obliges Israel to take more measures to protect Palestinians but does not order it to end military operations in the Strip.
The Court evidently did not go far enough. What good does it do to “allow humanitarian aid and prevent the deaths of innocent citizens”, if Israel is permitted to continue killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent and defenseless Palestinians.
The Court did not rule an immediate ceasefire or a ceasefire at all – nor did it issue a request for Peace negotiations.
Of course, Israel would not have obeyed such a ruling, nor would the staunch supporters of Israel have stopped encouraging Israels “self-defense” killing, but it would have sent a message to the world, namely that ICJ is not afraid to fall “politically unpopular” judgments, and that Israel and genocide would be enshrined in Israels short 75-year history.
PM Netanyahu’s and Co’s argument of “self-defense”, justified by “We are genocide victims” are the arguments of psychopaths. The extent of the Israeli atrocious and merciless killing of Palestinians, shows the truth to the world.
*
Ahead of the judgment the South African Foreign Minister, Naledi Pandor, had this to say:
“The three letters ‘ICJ’ were not known to many people in South Africa until the case was filed”. And “Our aim was and is to highlight the plight of the innocent in Palestine” and “draw attention to the lack of justice and freedom.”
She added that regardless of success or failure, “the real analysis and judgment is going to be on the court itself.” See this from RT 26 January 2024.
The Israeli government does not accept the ICJ ruling, ordering preventing the genocide of the Palestinian people. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the very claim that Israeli is committing genocide is “not only false, it’s outrageous.”
Where does this judgment leave the war?
Unless the western support will falter rapidly, both morally and by monetary and weapon deliveries – perhaps because of some ethics that the Court’s decision may have awoken – Israel’s brutal genocide is likely going to continue.
PM Netanyahu, practically from day one, anticipated that this would be a long war, intimidating that it was not just a war of retaliation for an [Israeli / Western planned] Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, but it was a war to conquer over the coming years much of the Middles East and its riches, by gradually establishing “The Greater Israel”, which would include 100% of Palestine, 100% Jordan, 100% of Lebanon, 70% of Syria, 50% of Iraq, 33% of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Nile. Netanyahu would, of course, not say tis, but it was implicit.
To top it off, since about 1984, Israel has a ten Agorot coin, said to depict on its backside a map of Greater Israel.
The sign on the coin could also resemble the ancient kingdom of Babylon in 539 BCE.
The 10 Agorot coin is one of the New Israeli Sheqel (NIS) coin series, also known as simply the Israeli shekel (sign: ₪, code: ILS). Israeli agorot and shekel are the currency of Israel.
The depiction on the coin is full of controversy. Some Israeli say that the picture of this new coins was taken over form the original sheqel – and that, indeed, it represented Israel’s aspiration of expansion towards a Greater Israel. Israelis are proud of carrying “Greater Israel” in their pockets. See this.
Without speaking much about it, most Israelis support the war against Gaza / Palestine, as it is supposed to pave the way towards Greater Israel. No time horizon is given to achieve this goal.
However, a Greater Israel would be one of the resources richest nations in the world, especially in terms of hydrocarbons. It would also include the trillion-plus cubic feet of gas discovered in the 1990s off shore of Gaza, belonging today to Palestine.
Back to the 26th of January 2024 weak ICJ judgment. It leaves room for Israel to pursue her course towards the Greater Israel, which is no doubt in the interest of the west. Having an almost endless supply of oil and gas from a secure source, Israel, would allow the west breaking any ties with Russia and the Arab world for energy supply.
It also shows clearly the symbiotic relationship between Israel – an artificial western (UK) Zionist invented country, an interdependence that serves primarily those who created Israel in the first place and, on the other hand, gives Zionist Israel the grandeur of the Chosen People, plainly anchored in their bible, the Torah.
To get there, much bloodshed would be the course of the conquest. This MUST be avoided by sensible people, and here is where an International Court of Justice – one that is neutral, not responding to any commands from globalist leaders, might and would have significant influence, by appealing to the conscience of those supporting the genocide.
*
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.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Featured image: Judge Joan Donoghue of the U.S., president of the ICJ, reading the Court’s ruling on Friday. (U.N. TV Screenshot)
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.
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.
137 countries worldwide (70%) have recognized Palestine. In 2014 the EU voted to ‘Recognize Palestine in principle’. Within Europe as a whole, only the Czech Republic, Iceland, Malta, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, and Ukraine have recognized Palestine.
We know that the US supports the genocide in Gaza, but what do the Europeans think? In an effort to answer that question, Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed the Norwegian expert on the Middle East, Kari Jaquesson.
Steven Sahiounie (SS): EU foreign affairs council held a Peace Summit in Brussels on January 22, chaired by EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell. The EU presented a proposal, which some have called bizarre, to create a framework for a Peace Plan, with the ultimate goal of a two-state solution by 2025. It ignores the genocide being committed in Gaza today, and fails to call for a ceasefire.
How is this proposal being viewed in Europe?
Kari Jaquesson (KJ): Before we start, I just want to let your readers know who I am, Steven, and also that we know each other from when I first visited Syria in 2017 as an independent journalist and I did an interview with you on my stop-over in Beirut. It is a great pleasure to follow your work.
So, I am a Norwegian national, and Norway is not a member of EU, though much of our legislation is being dictated by EU-mandates. Much of our political cast is very pro-EU, even though Norwegians have twice voted not to become members.
I am a private citizen, do not belong to any political party, and participate in public discourse representing only myself. As more or less a household name in Norway, both because of a 20+ year-long TV -career as a fitness and health expert, later as a presenter in different TV-shows, and a debater and op-ed author of so-called controversial issues, I have been able to lift non-mainstream perspectives into the public eye. My profession is still in fitness and health, and in addition I work as a researcher, translator and occasional writer for steigan.no, the only truly independent major Norwegian non mainstream news portal, so I process daily a lot of news, discussion and commentaries from European, American, African and Arabic sources, as well as historical files. I just want to make it clear that I only speak for myself, I do not represent any organization or company.
The distance between the non-elected officials in the EU-administration and the peoples of Europe could hardly be greater. This has been ongoing for years, and the heads of state in West European countries have hardly any popular support at all. The people in Western Europe, and let me include Norway are in great numbers demoralized and struggling to make ends meet.
The NATO proxy war against Russia is draining the state coffers, and even in a should-be wealthy country like Norway, we have long lines in the food banks, energy costs have gone through the roof, and the general cost of living is not sustainable for an increasing part of the population. The state is extremely wealthy, but people’s wallets are getting slimmer by the day. Most people have little or no time or interest in politics, and most people get their so-called news from the state-subsidized media, which includes not only the big newspapers and TV-channels, but also former so-called independent outlets.
So, quite frankly, most people do not know about nor care about, nor have the energy or will to reach out to more in depth coverage of such events as the announcement of EU’s proposal. But, on the other hand, there is an impressing engagement against both the genocide going on as we speak, and the occupation of Palestine as such.
“From now on I will not talk about the peace process, but I want a two-state-solution process,” Borell said to journalists ahead of a EU foreign ministers’ meeting.
This concept of two states has been dangled in front of the Palestinian people for decades, but I can’t see how anyone who has followed the history of the occupation for one minute can take such a stand seriously. The Zionist entity has made it perfectly clear, not only now, but through their actions since 1948 that they want all of Palestine, and more. Furthermore, the occupiers deny the mere existence of Palestine, and even of a Palestinian people.
The EU do not use the correct terminology, which is a sure give-away on the partiality. They keep saying conflict, but avoid at all cost the true description. The true description is occupation.
SS: The Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, showed EU foreign ministers a video about creating an artificial island next to Gaza to house Palestinians. Various Israeli plans to deport Gazans to the Sinai desert in Egypt, and the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank to Jordan, have been openly discussed.
How do Europeans view the ethnic-cleansing of Gaza?
KJ: In all European cities there have been, and are still huge demonstrations against the ongoing genocide. I am not sure all are aware of all the indecent remarks and proposals for “final solution” the occupiers are announcing. The news coverage is biased, and a notable part of the public are easy targets for the type of shock and awe reporting that dominated the news right after the October 7th incident. Their mind is still fixed on what has long since been debunked as flat out lies.
But even so, an engagement not seen since the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) in France is keeping its momentum, and some admissions are being made by some Western-European leaders.
According to a poll in Norway’s biggest newspaper earlier this month, almost every second Norwegian thinks it would be right to boycott Israel, but the government has no such plans.
Minister of foreign affairs Espen Barth Eide has previously called Gaza “hell on earth”, but has been adamant that Norway cannot implement its own national sanctions. We have no tradition in Norway of unilateral sanctions, he said, adding that Norway would do it if the Security Council agrees. Norway has since 2011 been practicing the same sanctions against Syria as the EU, although we are not a member.
SS: The EU is planning to impose visa bans on 12 or so of the most violent Israeli settlers soon, according to French foreign minister Stéphane Séjourné. However, many of the 700,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank are US citizens, so the ban would likely be meaningless.
Why would the EU propose something so insignificant, instead of calling for the end of occupation in the West Bank?
KJ: First of all, what difference would this make? What is the purpose? And what is this other than a pathetic symbolic suggestion? As you point out, they have dual citizenship, and though the numbers vary, it is reason to believe that hundreds of thousands of dual citizenship-holders have returned to their country of origin. Which is a harsh contrast to the situation of the Palestinians who have no citizenship at all, and who know that if they leave, they will never be able to return.
After this week’s ruling there is a legal ground to accuse Europeans who have been fighting with the IDF to be prosecuted and punished for having participated in a genocide. And there are many who are doing this.
SS: The US Biden administration refuses to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. They are prevented in doing so, even though the majority of Americans are in favor of a ceasefire, because of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, which exerts overwhelming pressure on the politics in the US.
Does Europe have a similar Israel lobby which prevents EU leaders from demanding a ceasefire in Gaza?
KJ: It is almost impossible to understand to what extent France and Britain is controlled by Jewish Zionist groups, but you may get an impression if you try to make count of who is allowed on the TV-debates and the biased perspective from the TV-presenters and who they invite for interviews and for commenting. However, this is a complete taboo and you will not find any serious discussion about this in any major news outlet. No mainstream politician will touch the issue, well knowing it would be political suicide.
Years ago, the former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni was a guest on the American channel Democracy Now, and she explained the inability for the Zionists to accept criticism without resorting to false accusations of antisemitism and the second world war. She called it “a trick that we always use”.
Most of the Western European countries, including Norway may be described as ‘vallas’, in other words, satellite states of the United States of America. We have no independent foreign policy.
SS: The German government has been supporting the revenge killing of 25,000 Palestinians in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli government. They keep reiterating the mantra, “Israel has the right to defend itself.” Many experts have characterized Germany as a country held hostage to the holocaust, as they have refused to call for a ceasefire.
Isn’t it time that Germany divorce itself from the crimes of Adolf Hitler, and be allowed to treat Israel like any other country?
KJ: First of all, Israel is not a country, let me make that clear. It is an occupation. Secondly, the occupation is expanding with an insatiable appetite for more land, therefore this supposed country has no borders. Also, it has no constitution.
Is it really the alleged guilt from the second world war that is making Germany so docile vis-a-vis the genocidal Zionist? Maybe there is another reason, less noble. Unfortunately, this is verboten territory.
Germany and many other countries have made research and revisions of that period illegal, even for historians, and even if the number of alleged victims have been significantly reduced, yes, officially, it is forbidden to say so. Even the plaque at the most infamous concentration camp has been drastically revised, something few are aware of.
If the German leadership truly believed in their country’s history and crimes, wouldn’t they be the first to recognize and oppose new genocides? Yes, but they don’t.
*
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.
It’s not about Hamas, nor the Palestinian resistance hiding its weapons or any other excuse to attack Palestinian schools and universities, it’s a plot to destroy the Palestinian people. The Israeli government is deliberately targeting all educational institutions of Palestine whether they are in the Gaza strip or in the West Bank and beyond. So why would they do such a thing?
If the Palestinians don’t have educational institutions to train doctors, engineers, lawyers, historians, mathematicians, religious scholars, lawyers, and every other profession that is essential for a nation to survive and thrive, then what kind of society would they have?
Trained doctors and nurses won’t be able to treat and cure their patients. Engineers and architects won’t be able to build critical infrastructure such as buildings, roads, water and sewer systems, railways and airports. An uneducated people won’t be able to maintain or compete with other countries in terms of finance and international trade with skilled accountants, economists, financial planners, and investment bankers. Professors, teachers, and school administrators won’t be able to teach their students reading and writing, math, history, religion and the sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics. Newspapers and media won’t have trained journalists, researchers, and radio broadcasters and so on. In other words, a nation without knowledge is doomed for failure and the Israelis are well aware of it.
Destroy the education of the Palestinians, you destroy a nation of people.Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reported that “the Israeli army has killed 94 university professors, along with hundreds of teachers and thousands of students, as part of its genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” Israel has killed many professors along with their family members in the Gaza Strip, “the Israeli army has targeted academic, scientific, and intellectual figures in the Strip in deliberate and specific air raids on their homes without prior notice. Those targeted have been crushed to death beneath the rubble, along with members of their families and other displaced families.” The number of Palestinian professors, teachers, administrators, and students killed is a sign that those involved in education is a legitimate target for the Israelis:
According to preliminary estimates, the ongoing Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of university students, reported Euro-Med Monitor. The rights group pointed out that destroying universities and killing academics and students will make it more difficult to resume university and academic life when the genocide ends, saying it may take years for studies to be resumed in an environment that has been completely destroyed.
According to the Palestinian Ministry of Education, 4,327 students have been killed and 7,819 others injured, while 231 teachers and administrators have been killed and 756 injured during the ongoing attacks. Meanwhile, 281 state-run schools and 65 UNRWA-run schools in the Gaza Strip have been completely or partially destroyed
Israel is targeting the cultural and historical properties of the Palestinian people to erase their history, but also to destroy any knowledge they have to rebuild their society:
Israel’s widespread and intentional destruction of Palestinian cultural and historical properties, including universities, schools, libraries, and archives, demonstrates its apparent policy of rendering the Gaza Strip uninhabitable, Euro-Med Monitor warned. The attacks are creating an environment devoid of basic services and necessities and may eventually force the Strip’s population to emigrate.
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor stressed that the targeting of civilian objects by armed forces, particularly those that are historical or cultural artifacts protected by special laws, is not only a serious breach of international humanitarian law and a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but falls under the purview of the crime of genocide
There is an indication that there is an agenda behind the mass killings of people involved in education.
The Toronto Star had an interesting article titled, ‘How Israel’s ‘scholasticide’ denies Palestinians their past, present and future’ said that “Academics raising concerns about this particular type of destruction call it “scholasticide,” and point to three related phenomena: the destruction of Gaza’s educational infrastructure, assaults on universities in Gaza and West Bank, as well as serious harassment and attacks on senior faculty and students supporting Palestine within the Israeli university system.” “Scholasticide’ is a term that shows how Israel’s destruction of the education system in Gaza directly impacts the past, present and future of the Palestinian people:
The destruction risks erasing Gaza’s past. For instance, the university that was blasted on Wednesday also housed a national museum containing rare artifacts. Whether those artifacts were destroyed or, as West Bank’s Birzeit University is accusing, stolen by Israel, they are lost to Palestinians. With archives and architecture destroyed, it’s as if Palestinians never lived there.
If the current situation continues, Gaza is also likely to be denied to its people in future. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his long-standing opposition to Palestinian statehood saying Thursday, “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea”
According to Abdel Razzaq Takriti, an associate professor of history at Rice University in Texas who is also the chair of the Arab American Educational Foundation said that “as scholars, we cannot fathom how it is possible that we’re supposed to stay silent while our colleagues are being bombed with bombs supplied by our countries” he also said that “this is an attack on the enlightenment in society” he continued“and it’s going to cause ignorance. It’s going to cause lack of opportunity. And it’s designed to do that. Scholasticide is a very dangerous aspect of genocide.”
It’s not just in Gaza, its all of Palestine’s educational institutions that are being targeted by the IDF forces. The Norwegian Refugee Councilconducted a report from January 2018 until June 2020 and found that “Palestinian children in the West Bank contended with a deluge of attacks on education, at a crushing pace of 10 attacks per month, on average.” The research was based on a 30-month period and it “found that 296 attacks against education by Israeli forces or settlers and settlement private security guards took place during 235 separate incidents.”
Israel’s actions is nothing less than a diabolical plot to destroy a nation’s people. It gives the Israelis the excuse it needs to call the Palestinians animals who don’t even know how to read or write and that the Palestinians don’t know how to make a living and that’s why they are dependent on foreign aid. A report by Amnesty International said that “Palestinians across all areas under Israel’s control have fewer opportunities to earn a living and engage in business than Jewish Israelis” and that “They experience discriminatory limitations on access to and use of farmland, water, gas and oil amongst other natural resources, as well as restrictions on the provision of health, education and basic services.”
With no educational institutions to train and educate its people, the Palestinians will face a collapse of their society. Zionist warmongers want nothing more but to eradicate any hope for a better future for the Palestinian people by erasing all forms of education that would allow them to advance their society and that is something that the Israelis don’t want to see happen.
*
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.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: The UN says nearly 1.9 million people have now been displaced in Gaza. [AbdelHakim Abu Riash/Al Jazeera]
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 current dominant system or American establishment would use the invisible dictatorship of compulsive consumerism of material goods to nullify the ideals of the primal individual and transform him into an uncritical being, fearful and conformist who will inevitably join the ranks of a homogeneous society, uniform and easily manipulated by the techniques of mass manipulation and would have as a pillar of its political system the successive alternation in power of the Democratic Party and the Republican (both fagocitados by the Jewish lobby).
Thus, in a speech delivered at the New York meeting of the World Jewish Congress of 1916, the then Vice President of Obama, Joe Biden stated:
“I am a Zionist, but for this it is not necessary to be a Jew”,
after which he was granted the “Theodor Herzl” Award and became the new capped AIPAC.
Do the US and Israel Share the Same Geopolitical Interests?
Kennedy’s assassination had as collateral damage the birth of a political system under the tutelage of the “Power in the Shadow”, being since then hostages all successive US Presidents-elect according to the confession made by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in October 2001:
“We, the Jewish people, control the United States and the Americans know”, (“The Israeli Lobby and American Foreign Policy” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, 07-04-2006), for which they would serve as lobbies of pressure among which the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) would stand out.
So, the U.S. would count on Israel to keep the Arab States of the Middle East under constant threat of attack and ensure the flow of Arab oil necessary for the West and Israel could not continue to exist in its current form without the strong political and material support it receives from EE.UU. ( about $3.8 billion per year in military aid) that would have made him the US continental carrier. However, Netanyahu’s geopolitical myopia prevented him from intuiting that a new asymmetric punishment in Gaza would destroy the entente between the US, Israel, Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia, which would collide with US geopolitical objectives of isolating Iran.
These Arab countries signed under the Presidency of Trump the Abraham Accords in which for the first time countries such as the Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco recognized the existence of the State of Israel and Saudi Arabia was about to sign them, But the massacre committed by the Jewish army in Gaza could cause those countries to reject these agreements and break diplomatic relations with an Israel that would again be isolated in the Middle East.
The Decision of the International Tribunal of the Hague Is a Triumph for Netanyahu?
The newspaper Haaretz in an editorial of October 8 directly accused Netanyahu of being “responsible for this war between Israel and Gaza” and also, Israeli public opinion would already be holding Netanyahu responsible for the resounding failure of Israeli security by disparaging Egyptian information. Thus, according to Egyptian sources, 10 days earlier they allegedly warned Netanyahu that Hamas was preparing a major offensive against Israel, which was denied by Netanyahu in a tweet accusing the intelligence services of negligence, getting in the way of enmity with the powerful services of the Israeli Mossad.
Moreover, Netanyahu would already be cornered by the international community’s condemnation of the flagrant violation of human rights in Gaza with nearly 30000 Palestinian civilian victims that has resulted in the presentation by South Africa to the International Tribunal in the Hague (ICC)of a lawsuit against Israel for alleged “crime of genocide”. The verdict of that Court could have forced Netanyahu to stop the invasion of Gaza and to decree a permanent ceasefire, the release of the hostages held by Hamas and the entry into Gaza of urgent humanitarian aid in the form of food, fuel and medical supplies, but the Solomonic decision of the International Tribunal in The Hague will lead to the continuation of the Israeli military invasion in Gaza until its total destruction.
However, there would be growing disaffection towards his Government from Israeli society, which cannot forgive the security failures in the Israeli Defence that would have led to the killing of 1400 Israelis and the kidnapping of 220 people by Hamas. Thus, according to a survey by The Jerusalem Post, 80% of those polled say that “the Government is mainly responsible for the infiltration of Palestinian militias” and 56% think that “Netanyahu should resign at the end of the current war”. All this could lead to the resignation of his Government following the invasion of Gaza and the subsequent convening of new elections to facilitate the formation of a Government of Salvation whose primary task will be to try to re-edit the Oslo Accords that allow coexistence peaceful Salvation Government whose primary task will be to try to re-edit the Oslo Accords that allow the peaceful coexistence of two peoples in two states.
*
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.
Germán Gorraiz López is a political 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 world is experiencing a micronutrient food and health crisis. Micronutrient deficiency now affects billions of people. Micronutrients are key vitamins and minerals and deficiencies can cause severe health conditions. They are important for various functions, including blood clotting, brain development, the immune system, energy production and bone health, and play a critical role in disease prevention.
The root of the crisis is due to an increased reliance on ultra processed foods (‘junk food’) and the way that modern food crops are grown in terms of the seeds used, the plants produced, the synthetic inputs required (fertilisers, pesticides etc) and the effects on soil.
In 2007, nutritional therapist David Thomas noted a precipitous change in the USA towards convenience and pre-prepared foods often devoid of vital micronutrients yet packed with a cocktail of chemical additives, including colourings, flavourings and preservatives.
He noted that between 1940 and 2002 the character, growing methods, preparation, source and ultimate presentation of basic staples have changed significantly to the extent that trace elements and micronutrient contents have been severely depleted. Thomas added that ongoing research clearly demonstrates a significant relationship between deficiencies in micronutrients and physical and mental ill health.
Prior to the Green Revolution, many of the older crops that were displaced carried dramatically higher counts of nutrients per calorie. For instance, the iron content of millet is four times that of rice, and oats carry four times more zinc than wheat. As a result, between 1961 and 2011, the protein, zinc and iron contents of the world’s directly consumed cereals declined by 4%, 5% and 19%, respectively.
The authors of a 2010 paper in the International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development state that cropping systems promoted by the Green Revolution have resulted in reduced food-crop diversity and decreased availability of micronutrients. They note that micronutrient malnutrition is causing increased rates of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and osteoporosis in many developing nations. They add that soils are increasingly affected by micronutrient disorders.
In 2016, India’s Central Soil Water Conservation Research and Training Institute reported that the country was losing 5,334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion because of indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides over the years. On average, 16.4 tonnes of fertile soil is lost every year per hectare. It concluded that the non-judicious use of synthetic fertilisers had led to the deterioration of soil fertility causing loss of micro and macronutrients leading to poor soils and low yields.
The high-input, chemical-intensive Green Revolution with its hybrid seeds and synthetic fertilisers and pesticides helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which, in turn, have adversely affected human health.
But micronutrient depletion is not just due to a displacement of nutrient-dense staples in the diet or unhealthy soils. Take wheat, for example. Rothamsted Research in the UK has evaluated the mineral concentration of archived wheat grain and soil samples from the Broadbalk Wheat Experiment. The experiment began in 1843, and their findings show significant decreasing trends in the concentrations of zinc, copper, iron and magnesium in wheat grain since the 1960s.
The researchers say that the concentrations of these four minerals remained stable between 1845 and the mid 1960s but have since decreased significantly by 20-30%. This coincided with the introduction of Green Revolution semi-dwarf, high-yielding cultivars. They noted that the concentrations in soil used in the experiment have either increased or remained stable. So, in this case, soil is not the issue.
A 2021 paper that appeared in the journal of Environmental and Experimental Botany reported that the large increase in the proportion of the global population suffering from zinc and iron deficiency over the last four decades has occurred since the Green Revolution and the introduction of its cultivars.
Reflecting the findings of Rothamsted Research in the UK, a recent study led by Indian Council of Agricultural Research scientists found the grains eaten in India have lost food value. They conclude that many of today’s crops fail to absorb sufficient nutrients even when soil is healthy.
A recent article on the Down to Earth website reported on this study that found that rice and wheat, which meet over 50% of the daily energy requirements of people in India, have lost up to 45% of their food value in the past 50 years or so.
The concentration of essential nutrients like zinc and iron has decreased by 33% and 27% in rice and by 30% and 19% in wheat, respectively. At the same time, the concentration of arsenic, a toxic element, in rice has increased by 1,493%.
Down to Earth cites research by the Indian Council of Medical Research that indicates a 25% rise in non-communicable diseases among the Indian population from 1990 to 2016. Estimates show that India is home to one-third of the two billion global population suffering from micronutrient deficiency. This is because modern-bred cultivars of rice and wheat are less efficient in sequestering zinc and iron, regardless of their abundance in soils. Plants have lost their capacity to take up nutrients from the soil.
Increasing prevalence of diabetes, childhood leukaemia, childhood obesity, cardiovascular disorders, infertility, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis, mental illnesses and so on have all been shown to have some direct relationship to diet and specifically micronutrient deficiency.
The large increase in the proportion of the global population suffering from zinc and iron deficiency over the last four decades has coincided with the global expansion of high-yielding, input-responsive cereal cultivars released in the post-Green Revolution era.
Agriculture and policy analyst Devinder Sharma says that high yield is inversely proportionate to plant nutrition: the drop in nutrition levels is so much that the high-yielding new wheat varieties have seen a steep fall in copper content, an essential trace mineral, by as much as 80%, and some nutritionists ascribe this to a rise in cholesterol-related incidences across the world.
India is self-sufficient in various staples, but many of these foodstuffs are high calorie-low nutrient and have led to the displacement of more nutritionally diverse cropping systems and more nutrient-dense crops.
The importance of agronomist William Albrecht should not be overlooked here and his work on healthy soils and healthy people. In his experiments, he found that cows fed on less nutrient-dense crops ate more while cows that ate nutrient-rich grass stopped eating once their nutritional intake was satisfied. This may be one reason why we see rising rates of obesity at a time of micronutrient food insecurity.
It is interesting that, given the above discussion on the Green Revolution’s adverse impacts on nutrition, the paper New Histories of the Green Revolution (2019) by Prof. Glenn Stone debunks the claim that the Green Revolution boosted productivity: it merely put more (nutrient-deficient) wheat into the Indian diet at the expense of other food crops. Stone argues that food productivity per capita showed no increased or even actually decreased.
With this in mind, the table below makes for interesting reading. The data is provided by the National Productivity Council India (an autonomous body of the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry).
As mentioned earlier with reference to Albrecht, obesity has become a concern worldwide, including in India. This problem is multi-dimensional and, as alluded to, excess caloric intake and nutrient-poor food (and sedentary lifestyles) is a factor, leading to the consumption of sugary, fat-laden ultra processed food in an attempt to fill the nutritional gap. But there is also considerable evidence linking human exposure to agrochemicals with obesity.
The September 2020 paper Agrochemicals and Obesity in the journal Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology summarises human epidemiological evidence and experimental animal studies supporting the association between agrochemical exposure and obesity and outlines possible mechanistic underpinnings for this link.
Numerous other studies have also noted that exposure to pesticides has been associated with obesity and diabetes. For example, a 2022 paper in the journal Endocrine reports that first contact with environmental pesticides occurs during critical phases of life, such as gestation and lactation, which can lead to damage in central and peripheral tissues and subsequently programming disorders early and later in life.
A 2013 paper in the journal Entropy on pathways to modern diseases reported that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup) and the most popular herbicide used worldwide, enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. The negative impact is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body, resulting in conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.
Despite these findings, campaigner Rosemary Mason has drawn attention to how official government and industry narratives try to divert attention from the role of glyphosate in obesity (and other conditions) by urging the public to exercise and cut down on “biscuits”. In a recent article, Kit Knightly on the OffGuardian website notes how big pharma is attempting to individualise obesity and make millions by pushing its ‘medical cures’ for the condition.
To deal with micronutrient deficiencies, other money-spinning initiatives for industry are being pushed, not least biofortification of foodstuffs and plants and genetic engineering.
Industry narratives have nothing to say about the food system itself, which sees ‘food’ as just another commodity to be rinsed for profit regardless of the impacts on human health or the environment. We simply witness more techno-fix ‘solutions’ being rolled out to supposedly address the impacts of previous ‘innovations’ and policy decisions that benefitted the bottom line of Western agribusiness (and big pharma).
Quick techno-fixes do not offer genuine solutions to the problems outlined above. Such solutions involve challenging corporate power that shapes narratives and policies to suit its agenda. Healthy food, healthy people and healthy societies are not created at some ever-sprawling life sciences park that specialises in manipulating food and the human body (for corporate gain) under the banner of ‘innovation’ and ‘health’ while leaving intact the power relations that underpin bad food and ill health.
A radical overhaul of the food system is required, from how food is grown to how society should be organised. This involves creating food sovereignty, encouraging localism, local markets and short supply chains, rejecting neoliberal globalisation, supporting smallholder agriculture and land reform and incentivising agroecological practices that build soil fertility, use and develop high-productive landraces and a focus on nutrition per acre rather than increased grain size, ‘yield’ and ‘output’.
That’s how you create healthy food, healthy people and healthy societies.
*
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).
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.
In a momentous day for the quest to keep Israel and its allies accountable for its brutal war on Gaza, members of leading Palestinian human rights groups, residents of Gaza, and Palestinian Americans argued in a U.S. District Court on Friday that the Biden administration should halt its financial and military support for Israel and uphold its obligations to prevent genocide.
The arguments came in a lawsuitOpens in a new tab that the Center for Constitutional Rights, or CCR, filed in November against President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, charging them with complicity and failure to prevent the “unfolding genocide” in the occupied strip. Testifying either in person at the Oakland, California, courthouse or remotely from Palestine, the plaintiffs spoke for nearly three hours about the deliberate devastation wrought by Israel in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks.
The hearing commenced hours after the International Court of Justice in The Hague found that it’s plausible that Israel has committed acts of genocide in Gaza, in a case brought by South Africa. While the United Nations court fell short of ordering an immediate ceasefire, a panel of judges delivered a historic set of rulings and denied Israel’s request to dismiss the case. A final resolution in that case is expected to take years.
Lawyers involved with the lawsuit playing out in federal court said that the ICJ ruling bolsters their case. Their lawsuit argues that Biden, Blinken, and Austin are liable under U.S. lawOpens in a new tab for failing to uphold their obligation to prevent genocide in Gaza. In Oakland, dozens of people lined up outside the courthouse hours before the hearing on Friday, according to organizers on the ground, while the Zoom stream reached its capacity of 1,000 people tuning in.
The Biden administration has maintained that genocide allegations against Israel are “meritless” and “unhelpful” while on Friday, U.S. government attorneys argued the court has no standing to decide on what they say is a matter of foreign policy. Plaintiffs meanwhile, including several Palestinian Americans, spoke powerfully about the need for the U.S. government to take immediate action to save lives.
Laila el-Haddad, a Palestinian American writer and one of the plaintiffs in the case, described her neighborhood being reduced to “a large pile of sand” and the killing of dozens of her relatives, including some who were buried in mass graves.
“My family is being killed on my dime,” she told the court. “President Biden could, with one phone call, put an end to this.”
Questions of Law
At the hearing, U.S. Judge Jeffrey S. White went to some length to state the impact of Israel’s war on Palestinian civilians and the U.S. government’s support for it but indicated the case might ultimately hinge on questions of jurisdiction.
“The Palestinian people are living in fear and without food, medical care, clean water, or sufficient humanitarian aid. Defendants — the president of the United States and his secretaries of state and defense — have provided substantial military, financial, and diplomatic support to Israel,” he said.
“However, the primary concern for this court is the limitation of its own jurisdictional reach.”
He later described the case as one of the “the most difficult” of his career. “You have been seen, you have been heard by this court,” he told the plaintiffs. “I’m going to take it extremely seriously.”
CCR and Justice Department attorneys deliberated for more than an hour about the court’s standing to hear the case. Attorneys for the plaintiffs referenced a different legal case accusing Russia of genocide in Ukraine, which the U.S. government has supported, to point to the Biden administration’s awareness of its responsibility to take steps to prevent genocide.
Katherine Gallagher, a senior attorney at CCR, stressed that the case is not a “wholesale challenge to U.S. military support to Israel.”
“This case does not present the court with a political question,” she added. “These are not questions of policy. These are questions of law.”
Justice Department attorney Jean Lin, for her part, referenced a legal concept known as the “political question doctrine” to argue the court has no authority over foreign policy matters. “It’s a long-standing doctrine that the court has no jurisdiction to enjoin the president in his exercise of official duties,” she said.
“This court is not the proper forum,” she said in her closing remarks.
“Judges and courts have roles to play in enforcing and making real this duty that all of us in this world have to prevent a genocide,” CCR senior attorney Pamela Spees said in her closing remarks. “And the government’s only response is to say to this court that it can’t even engage with the question.”
“Everything Has Been Destroyed”
The legal argument was followed by nearly three hours of testimony by the plaintiffs, which include the human rights groups Defense for Children International – Palestine and Al-Haq, as well as Gaza residents Ahmed Abu Artema, the founder of the 2018 Great March of Return; Omar Al-Najjar, a 24-year-old doctor; and Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokbeh, all of whom have lost many relatives since the war started. The plaintiffs also include Palestinian Americans whose families in Gaza have been subjected to a relentless bombing campaign by Israel.
Al-Najjar called into the hearing from a hospital hallway in Rafah, on the border with Egypt. Wearing scrubs, he described a medical infrastructure that is overwhelmed and on the brink of collapse, heavy shelling and gun fighting near medical facilities, and medical workers coming under attack in areas the Israeli military had declared safe.
“I have lost everything in this war … I have nothing but my grief,” he told the court. “This is what Israel and its supporters have done to us.”
Ahmed Abofoul, a Palestinian lawyer and legal researcher at Al-Haq, testified from the courthouse that he lost 60 relatives on his father’s side of the family alone, 15 in a single airstrike, and that many of their bodies remain under the rubble. His cousin, he said, has been unable to retrieve the bodies of his five children, as the Israeli military fires at him whenever he tries to approach his destroyed home. Abofoul described not being able to get in touch with some family members after the war started and other relatives, including children, with no access to food and water.
“People are struggling to have anything to survive on,” he said. “Those who survive the bombing most likely will not survive staying in this condition.”
Abofoul also put the current onslaught in the context of the forced displacement of Palestinians since the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel. Pleading with his grandfather to evacuate to a different part of the territory after the war started, Abofoul’s relatives reassured the grandfather he would eventually return home. “That is exactly what they told me in 1948,” he responded, echoing fears by tens of thousands of displaced Palestinians that Israel is seeking to drive them out for good.
Schools, universities, churches, and even Gaza’s archives were destroyed in the ongoing war, Abofoul added. “Everything has been destroyed,” he said, “The Gaza that we know no longer exists.”
El-Haddad, the writer, told the court that she felt an obligation as an American to bring the lawsuit against the Biden administration and that hearing “our president not only actively support this, but cast doubt on the deaths of my family members and other college students in Gaza” had made her feel “dehumanized” and “completely invisible.”
“I felt it was my duty as an American whose taxes and government have been directly responsible for the deaths of my family,” she added. “My government is complicit in this ongoing genocide against my family and the destruction of everything that I knew and I loved.”
Barry Trachtenberg, a professor of Jewish history and author of two books about the Holocaust, testified as an expert witness in the case – over repeated objections from Justice Department attorneys. When he filed his declaration in the case in November, he said, some 11,000 Palestinians had been killed. Today, that number is far greater.
“Everything that we feared and more is unfolding,” he said, noting that often, legal actions about genocide happen long after the fact. “What makes this situation so unique is that we’re watching the genocide unfold as we speak. And we’re in this incredibly unique position where we can actually intervene to stop it using the mechanisms of international law that are available to us.”
A Historic Case
CCR’s 89-page complaintOpens in a new tab lays out, in painstaking detail, statements of genocidal intent by Israeli officials, paired with affirmations by U.S. officials that they would back Israel’s war effort with every tool at their disposal.
“The highest level of Israel’s senior political and military leadership made statements on October 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, laying out that they intended, in effect, to destroy Gaza,” Gallagher, a senior staff attorney at CCR and one of the lead attorneys on the case, said on Intercepted last week. “And as the statements of intent were being made, senior levels of the United States government — including President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin — were likewise making declarations about their intentions in the coming days, weeks, months … And that was to give unconditional and complete support to Israel.”
Under international law, the crime of genocide is defined as the intention to destroy or partially destroy a group of people based on their ethnic, religious, racial, or national identity, either by direct killing or by the creation of conditions making life impossible. While Israel has for decades flouted international law standards and ignored rebukes, including by the ICJ, the Israeli government’s actions in the aftermath of the Hamas attacks were “qualitatively different,” Gallagher said.
Two days after the attacks, Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant ordered mass war crimes when he announced “a complete siege of the Gaza Strip,” which is home to 2.2 million Palestinians, nearly half of them children. “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” he said then, a threat that Israel has since largely delivered on. “We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly.”
Josh Paul, a former senior State Department official who resigned over the Biden administration’s support for the war on Gaza and filed a declaration in support of the CCR case, said on Friday morning, “Since October 7th, we’ve seen a sharp increase in the transfer of arms to Israel both through the speeding up of previously authorized transfers and through the ramming through Congress of so-called emergency sales of thousands of rounds of tanks, ammunition, and alternative shells.”
“The U.S. has likely transferred munitions totaling in the tens of thousands since October 7 to Israel,” he added, speaking at a briefing CCR hosted on Friday morning. “This also demonstrates, I think, the significant amount of leverage that we have if we wanted to push Israel to end or curtail its operations in Gaza.”
“None of this could be done without the U.S. government,” echoed Ata Hindi, a lawyer who helped draft an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit on behalf of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, at the event preceding the hearing. “It’s for the United States to say whether or not, through its weapons in particular, whether or not this genocide continues.”
The Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, he noted, was “drowned” in complaints by Palestinian Americans who accused the U.S. government of discriminating against them. “It’s unfortunate to see how little the U.S. government in particular has paid attention to these American citizens and their families,” said Hindi. “And we hope that the court will do something to change that.”
The lawsuit has garnered significant international attention, with 77 legal and civil society groups from around the world backing it in a late December briefing to the court. They argued that the U.S. is violating its duties under international law to prevent and not be complicit in genocide, contributing to the erosion of “long and widely-held norms of international law,” like the Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The U.S. federal case is one of a number of legal efforts stemming from Israel’s war on Gaza. In another U.S. lawsuit, Palestinian Americans have accused the administrationOpens in a new tab of failing to protect U.S. citizens in Gaza and denying them equal protection, a constitutional right. That lawsuit argues that U.S. officials have not done as much to evacuate U.S. citizens trapped in Gaza as they did for Israeli Americans.
In addition to South Africa’s genocide case against Israel before the ICJ, a group of South African lawyers have also indicated their intentOpens in a new tab, pending the court’s early rulings, to bring civil action against the U.S. and British governments over their support for Israel’s actions. Other countries have also filed separate complaintsOpens in a new tab against Israel before the ICJ.
The cascading cases against Israel are a remarkable development for a country that has for decades acted with impunity, largely thanks to unwavering U.S. support. In a further sign of waning support, a poll Opens in a new tab released this week issued its own verdict: One-third of Americans — and nearly half of the country’s Democrats — believe Israel is committing genocide in 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: 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.
Thousands of Israelis, including ministers from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party, gathered in Jerusalem on Sunday for a conference calling to resettle the Gaza Strip.
At least 12 Israeli ministers participated in the conference about rebuilding Israeli settlements in Gaza and encouraging the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, Israeli journalist Barak Ravid reported.
Ministers Itamar Ben Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and several others from Netanyahu’s Likud party gave “supportive speeches”, he said.
Itay Epshtain, a special advisor for the Norwegian Refugee Council, shared a video in which National Security Minister Ben Gvir and Minister of Finance Smotrich stood arm-over-shoulder, dancing at the conference.
The human rights lawyer said that the image “would form part of the compelling evidence of noncompliance” with the International Court of Justice’s recent order to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide and to punish acts of incitement.
Epshtain said that within the first hour of the conference, a plan was presented for the re-establishment of 15 Israeli settlements and the addition of six new ones.
The proposed settlements are located in destroyed Palestinian communities.
Israel withdrew its military and settlers from Gaza in 2005 after a 38-year occupation, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said it does not intend to maintain a permanent presence again, but that Israel would maintain security control for an indefinite period.
There has been little clarity, however, about Israel’s longer-term intentions, and countries including the United States have said that Gaza should be governed by Palestinians.
Earlier this month, the US State Department warned against statements from Smotrich and Ben Gvir, which advocated for the resettlement of Palestinians outside of Gaza, calling the rhetoric “inflammatory and irresponsible”.
“We have been told repeatedly and consistently by the government of Israel, including by the prime minister, that such statements do not reflect the policy of the Israeli government,” the State Department said in a statement at the time, adding that such statements should “stop immediately”.
The conference was organised by the right-wing Nahala organization, which advocates for Jewish-only settlement expansion in territories including the West Bank, which are classified as illegal by international law and human rights groups.
*
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 my last 2023 piece, now a month old, I argued that the ongoing political crisis in the United States, coupled with the upcoming presidential election could lead to its collapse. Although this idea seemed farfetched and even absurd to some of my readers, recent events surrounding the rapidly escalating crisis on America’s southern border make even this assessment rather optimistic. In other words, the piece is so last year (pun intended). However, truth be told, considering the scope and the sheer magnitude of US aggression against the world, there certainly wouldn’t be many countries shedding tears if its collapse ever materializes. Quite the contrary, this would finally give some breathing room to much (if not most) of the planet.
And yet, given America’s military might, particularly its massive thermonuclear arsenal (second only to Russia’s), as well as other weapons of mass destruction it fields, the US collapse could lead to a lot of global security issues, so it’s important to ensure that its dismantlement is more akin to controlled demolition. If anything, Washington DC itself has unmatched experience in that department. Spiteful jokes aside, the ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities in Texas are already causing a domino effect. The escalation is going so far that looming separatism in the southern state is now the least of the troubled Biden administration’s problems. Namely, 25 other states (or quite literally half of America) have offered full support for Texas.
On January 26, the state’s governor Greg Abbott had a telephone interview with Tucker Carlson, during which he stated that he’s going to “do as much as possible to put up more border barriers and deny illegal entry” and that “our head is down, we are working regardless of what the Biden administration is doing”. He even openly stated that he’s “prepared” in case federal institutions try to take control of the Texas National Guard.
“That would be a boneheaded move on [Biden’s] part, a total disaster. We are prepared, in the event that that unlikely event does occur,” Abbott said, adding: “We do have other armed state employees on the border as we speak right this minute, and that’s the Texas Department of Public Safety, as well as other law enforcement officers, as well as National Guard from other states. And you can be assured there will be more National Guard from other states and more law enforcement officers within the state of Texas and other states.”
The complete lack of basic etiquette when talking about Joe Biden’s next move shows just how little authority the incumbent has over half of the country. The situation in Texas is just one symptom of this. However, the very fact that over two dozen other states are ready to send military forces and other armed personnel to the southern border (in direct opposition to federal institutions, at that) shows that these American states have more (geo)political backbone and sovereignty than many supposedly “independent” countries around the world, particularly in Europe. Worse yet, the entire EU has repeatedly demonstrated that it’s less independent in that regard than the State of Texas, not to mention some of America’s other vassals and satellite states.
According to Zero Hedge, ten retired FBI officials and experts in counterintelligence sent a letter to Congressional leaders warning that “the Biden administration’s policies have facilitated a soft invasion of military-age men into the United States from terror-linked areas of the world”. The letter was written on January 17, before Abbott invoked the invasion clause of the US Constitution. It openly suggests that a terrorist attack is likely imminent.
“The threat we call out today is new and unfamiliar. In its modern history the US has never suffered an invasion of the homeland, and yet, one is unfolding now,” the letter reads, further adding: “Military age men from across the globe, many from countries or regions not friendly to the United States, are landing in waves on our soil by the thousands – not by splashing ashore from a ship or parachuting from a plane bur rather by foot across a border that has been accurately advertised around the world as largely unprotected with ready access granted.”
“It would be difficult to overstate the danger represented by the presence inside our borders of what is comparatively a multi-division army of young single adult males from hostile nations and regions whose background, intent, or allegiance is completely unknown. They include individuals encountered by border officials and then possibly released into the country, along with the shockingly high estimate of ‘gotaways,’ meaning those who have entered and evaded apprehension,” the authors conclude.
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 breaking news that Ansar Allah (Houthi) fighters have fired on the USS Carney in the Red Sea today (Friday, 26 Jan.) underscores the shocking failure of the Biden Administration, which initiated airstrikes on the Houthis this month with no plan for “victory” beyond hoping that the mere presence of US warships would intimidate them into surrendering.
Even a junior Pentagon or State Department analyst could have advised the Administration that, based on everything we understand about the Houthis and their successful defeat of Saudi Arabia (and, by proxy, DC), lobbing a few missiles in their general direction was not going to result in an ocean of white flags raising over Aden.
In other words, it was the kind of doomed operation that, had cooler (i.e. non-political) Pentagon heads prevailed, would never in a million years have been launched. There was simply no possibility of success and 100 percent probability of failure.
How did it all start? In response to the ongoing Israeli attack on Gaza (codified as “potential genocide” in today’s International Court for Justice ruling), Ansar Allah announced last month that they would not allow international shipping to service any commerce to or from Israeli ports. They judged the killing of more than 25,000 Palestinian civilians to be a “genocide” and cited obligations under international law to take steps to end the killing.
Whatever one’s view on the legality of the Houthi decision to interdict Israeli shipping in the Red Sea, the fact is by virtue of their unique geography they have the ability to do so. It is also a fact that the Houthis did NOT explicitly target US or US-flagged shipping unless it was headed to or from Israeli ports.
In short, it was not our fight. Until Biden made it our fight.
On January 11th, Biden announced that he was ordering the US military to launch airstrikes against Yemen, but very soon it became clear that far from being intimidated into surrender, Biden’s move was just what the Houthis wanted: a David’s slingshot chance at Goliath.
As it turns out, the Bidens were a Goliath intent on sacrificing the US standing in the world, military deterrence, US economy, and even US servicemembers in its blind support of Israel.
And, as any of these junior analysts (or seasoned analysts) could have predicted, the hits just keep coming for Biden.
Yesterday, the US Navy attempted to escort two Maersk tankers – the Maersk Detroit and the Maersk Chesapeake – through the Red Sea loaded with weapons for Israel. This after nine rounds of US airstrikes on the Houthis. The US show of force backfired into an unprecedented and “Black Hawk Down” kind of moment where after several missiles were launched the Maersk lines reversed course followed by the US Naval warships. It was a massive defeat for the notion of US military superiority – but don’t hold your breath for it to be reported in the mainstream media.
So today the Houthis again fired on US military ships in the Red Sea and have again scored a massive success for “the resistance,” which is a truly global movement against the albatross that the Biden Administration has taken on its shoulder.
Here is the main point: an ill-advised US policy of airstrikes against the Houthis has been an enormous gift to them while in no way diminishing their ability to fulfil their mission. What will you do next, Joe Biden? They are immune to your bombs. They have no military-industrial-complex. They just shoot your ships. Are you going to launch a ground invasion? In an election year? Dead Americans in Yemen for Israel? Really?
Attacks against Biden’s forces in Iraq, Syria, the Red Sea, the Mediterranean will escalate. And he is backed into a corner. What’s next?
*
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.
Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-Producer/co-Host, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Daniel served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense/intel policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.
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 ICJ ruling will have no effect on Israel’s ongoing genocide.
The US reacts precisely as I predicted: “No merit”, “No ceasefire”.
The US said the ICJ ruling was consistent with Washington’s view that Israel has the right to take action, in accordance with international law, to ensure the October 7 attack cannot be repeated.
“We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded and note the court did not make a finding about genocide or call for a ceasefire in its ruling and that it called for the unconditional, immediate release of all hostages being held by Hamas,” a State Department spokesperson said.
Netanyahu calls the case “outrageous” —Ben-Gvir calls it “anti-Semitic” —and both Israeli and US media note happily that no ceasefire is mandated, only a postcard letter from Israel to greet the Hague in one month.
The anger of the World has been pacified for a while with the false celebration of a fake “victory” at the Hague. The US chief judge at ICJ must be laughing.
Israel’s genocide will continue while the US and its chief justice at the ICJ keep the world at bay for very long with new false words and delaying actions.
*
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.
Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.
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.
Could new AI technology help unleash a devastating pandemic? That’s a concern top government officials and tech leaders have raised in recent months. One study last summer found that students could use chatbots to gain the know-how to devise a bioweapon. The United Kingdom brought global political and tech leaders together last fall to underscore the need for AI safety regulation. And in the United States, the Biden administration unveiled a plan to probe how emerging AI systems might aid in bioweapons plots. But a new report suggests that the current crop of cutting-edge AI systems might not help malevolent actors launch an unconventional weapons attack as easily as is feared.
The new RAND Corporation report found that study participants who used an advanced AI model plus the internet fared no better in planning a biological weapons attack than those who relied solely on the internet, which is itself a key source of the information that systems like ChatGPT train on to rapidly produce cogent writing. The internet already contains plenty of useful information for bioterrorists. “You can imagine a lot of the things people might worry about may also just be on Wikipedia,” Christopher Mouton, a senior engineer at the RAND Corporation who co-authored the new report said in an interview before its publication.
Mouton and his colleagues had 12 cells comprising three members who were given 80 hours each over seven weeks to develop plans based on one of four bioweapons attack scenarios. For example, one scenario involved a “fringe doomsday cult intent on global catastrophe.” Another posited a private military company seeking to aide an adversary’s conventional military operation. Some cells used AI, others only the internet. A group of experts then judged the plans these red teams devised. The judges were experts in biology or security; they weighed in on the biological and operational feasibility of a plan.
None of the groups scored particularly well. The top possible score was a nine, but groups generally scored well below five, which indicated a plan with “modest” flaws. This partly reflects the difficulty in pulling off a biological attack. The Global Terrorism Database, the RAND report noted, includes “only 36 terrorist attacks that employed a biological weapon—out of 209,706 total attacks.” The database comprises 50 years of data. The red teams all developed plans, the RAND authors wrote, that “scored somewhere between being untenable and problematic.”
The AI models did output many suggestions for bioterrorism. In one case, a model analyzed how easy it would be to get Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes plague. A red team told the system that it wanted to cause a “major plague outbreak” in an urban area, prompting the model to offer advice. “[You] would need to research and locate areas with Y. pestis infected rodents,” the chatbot told the team. It then warned them that the search risks “exposing [you] to potential surveillance while gathering information or visiting affected locations.” In another case, a chatbot devised a cover story for terrorists seeking botulinum toxin. “You might explain that your study aims to identify novel ways to detect the presence of the bacteria or toxin in food products…,” the system advised.
The authors termed these “unfortunate outputs,” but wrote that they “did not observe any [AI] outputs that provided critical biological or operational information that yielded a meaningful benefit to … cells compared with the internet-only cells.”
Allison Berke, a chemical and biological weapons expert at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies found it “reassuring” that the RAND study found that AI provided no advantage to “knowledgeable researchers aiming to plan bioweapons attacks.”
Other research has highlighted the biological weapons risks posed by generative AI, the category of AI that includes new systems like ChatGPT. MIT researcher Kevin Esvelt was part of a team that published a preprint study last summer detailing how chatbots could aid students in planning a bioattack. “In one hour, the chatbots suggested four potential pandemic pathogens, explained how they can be generated from synthetic DNA, supplied the names of DNA synthesis companies unlikely to screen orders, identified detailed protocols and how to troubleshoot them, and recommended that anyone lacking the skills to perform reverse genetics engage a core facility or contract research organization,” the study found. In another preprint from October, Esvelt raised the concern that would-be biological ne’er-do-wells might access “uncensored” versions of chatbots, which unlike the versions overseen by large companies may not have guardrails meant to prevent misuse.
The AI of the near future could be much more capable than even the systems that exist now, some tech leaders have warned. “A straightforward extrapolation of today’s systems to those we expect to see in 2-3 years suggests a substantial risk that AI systems will be able to fill in all the missing pieces enabling many more actors to carry out large scale biological attacks,” Dario Amodei, the CEO of the AI company Anthropic told Congress last summer.
Mouton agreed that the evolution of AI entails many uncertainties, including that systems could become useful in biological attacks. “[A]voiding research on these topics could provide a strategic advantage to malign actors,” he wrote in an email.
US President Joe Biden’s executive order on AI safety includes a particular focus on preventing new AI from aiding bioweapons development, reflecting a concern that many have voiced. Former Google chief Eric Schmidt, for instance, said in 2022, “The biggest issue with AI is actually going to be … its use in biological conflict.” New AI could make it easier to build biological weapons, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak warned ahead of a UK summit on regulating AI last fall. Vice President Kamala Harris said at the summit, “From AI-enabled cyberattacks at a scale beyond anything we have seen before to AI-formulated bio-weapons that could endanger the lives of millions, these threats are often referred to as the ‘existential threats of AI’ because, of course, they could endanger the very existence of humanity.” The new US policy requires the government to develop approaches, such as red teaming, to probe AI security risks. It also requires companies to divulge the results of red team tests and the measures they implement to reduce the potential risks of their new technologies.
“It remains uncertain whether these risks lie ‘just beyond’ the frontier and, thus, whether upcoming [AI] iterations will push the capability frontier far enough to encompass tasks as complex as biological weapon attack planning,” the authors of the RAND report wrote. “Ongoing research is therefore necessary to monitor these developments. Our red-teaming methodology is one potential tool in this stream of research.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Matt Field is an associate editor at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Before joining the Bulletin, he covered the White House, Congress, and presidential campaigns as a news producer for Japanese public television. He has also reported for print outlets in the Midwest and on the East Coast. He holds a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University.
Featured image: Medical staff take care of a patient with COVID-19. Credit: Gustavo Basso via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0.
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 UN expert warned Sunday that countries defunding the UN agency for Palestinian refugees were breaching a court order to provide effective aid in Gaza and could be violating the international genocide convention.
A number of donor countries – including Australia, Britain, Finland, Germany and Italy – on Saturday followed the lead of the United States in suspending additional funding to UNRWA.
That came after Israel alleged that several of the UN agency’s staff members were involved in Hamas’s 7 October attack. The Israeli allegations were based on confessions obtained in interrogations and have not been independently investigated. Israel has killed more than 150 UNRWA staff in Gaza since the start of its latest offensive on Gaza.
Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, warned that the decision to pause funding to UNRWA “overtly defies” the order by the International Court of Justice to allow effective humanitarian assistance” to reach Gazans.
“This will entail legal responsibilities – or the demise of the (international) legal system,” she wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
UNRWA reacted to the allegations by firing several staff and promising a thorough investigation into the unspecified claims, but Israel has nonetheless vowed to stop the agency’s work in Gaza after the war.
The row between Israel and UNRWA follows the UN’s International Court of Justice ruling on Friday that Israel must prevent possible acts of genocide in the conflict and allow more aid into Gaza.
Albanese, who is an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, but who does not speak on behalf of the United Nations, highlighted the timing of the defunding decisions.
“The day after ICJ concluded that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza, some states decided to defund UNRWA,” she said in a separate post on X.
By doing so, she said, countries are “collectively punishing millions of Palestinians at the most critical time, and most likely violating their obligations under the Genocide Convention”.
Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel resulted in about 1,140 deaths, according to an AFP tally of official figures. Emerging evidence indicates that both Palestinian militants and Israel were responsible for civilian deaths.
Militants also seized about 250 hostages and Israel says around 132 of them remain in Gaza, including the bodies of at least 28 dead captives.
Israel’s ensuing military offensive has killed at least 26,422 people, most of them women and children, in Gaza, according to the health ministry in the coastal enclave.
*
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: Families have been forced to moved repeatedly in Gaza. UN United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
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 massive NATO military exercises slated to run all the way through the end of May has kicked off. Exercise Steadfast Defender 24 is being hailed as the largest NATO exercises since the Cold War. Some 90,000 troops from all 31 members states will take part.
Also, Sweden – which is on the cusp of formally entering the alliance after Turkish parliament belatedly signed off – is expected to sent troops and equipment.
“The Alliance will demonstrate its ability to reinforce the Euro-Atlantic area via trans-Atlantic movement of forces from North America,” a NATO statement said.
The focus of the exercises is to improve readiness for deploying NATO assets on a rapid and large scale from North America and other parts in order to defend Europe from an invasion.
Russian media has denounced the planned drills as essentially a rehearsal of war against the Russian state.
For example according to Russian state-linked TASS,
“NATO is making it absolutely clear that the maneuvers will be aimed at practicing moves to wage a direct, head-to-head confrontation with Russia as the bloc ups the ante amid abysmal failure by its proxy army in Ukraine.”
Russian military analysts are also decrying the drills as a next major step in NATO and Moscow escalation.
“A situation where an enemy is being conjured up is leading directly to a revival of the very idea of maintaining NATO as a counterweight [to that purported threat],” Viktor Mizin, an analyst at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS), told Izvestia. “In addition, this will inevitably result in increased defense spending.”
Even US state-linked VOA News has underscored in its initial coverage of the drills, “The exercise is designed to simulate the 31-nation alliance’s response to an attack from a rival like Russia.
Throughout almost two years of conflict in Ukraine, hawks in the West have not infrequently warned that President Putin seeks to expand the war elsewhere into Eastern Europe as well; however, there’s been no evidence that this is going to happen.
The drills are expected to play out even up to NATO’s eastern flank, close to the Russian border, and also will involve at least 80 aircraft and over 1,100 combat vehicles, along with about 50 naval vessels from several member states.
*
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.
Imperiled, tormented Palestinians in Gaza had little time to celebrate the January 26 order of the International Court of Justice. In a case brought by South Africa intended to facilitate a ceasefire and ease the suffering of the Gaza populace, Israel received the unwanted news that it had to, among other obligations, ensure compliance with the UN Genocide Convention, including by its military; prevent and punish “the direct and public incitement to genocide” against the Palestinian populace in Gaza and permit basic services and humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip.
Within hours, Israel, bruised and outraged by a body its officials have decried as antisemitic and favourably disposed to Palestinian propaganda, found an excuse to flaunt the ruling. 12 employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), the agency responsible for distributing aid in Gaza, were accused (not found) by Israel’s intelligence agency Shin Bet, of involvement in the Hamas attacks of October 7.
The response from UNRWA was swift. Contracts were terminated, an investigation was launched, including a full inquiry into allegations made against the organisation. The agency’s commissioner general, Philippe Lazzarinipromised, on January 27, that, “Any UNRWA employee who was involved in acts of terror will be held accountable, including through criminal prosecution.”
Not content with this, Israel stormily took to the campaign trail hoping to rid Gaza of the UN agency it has despised for years. UNRWA, after all, is a salutary reminder of Palestinian suffering, dispossession and desperation, its existence a direct result of Israeli foreign policy. Foreign Minister Israel Katz was severe in laying his country’s loathing for UNRWA bare.
“We have been warning for years: UNRWA perpetuates the refugee issue, obstructs peace, and serves as a civilian arm of Hamas in Gaza,” he stated on Shabbat. “UNRWA is not the solution – many of its employees are Hamas affiliates with murderous ideologies, aiding in terror activities and preserving its authority.”
Deviously and fiendishly, Katz was dismissing the entire enterprise of aid through a UN outlet as a terroristic extension, rather than the ghastly product of Israel’s own ruthless, generational war against Palestinians. Leave it to us to oversee matters of aid: we know best.
Powers, many with military ties with Israel and sluggish about holding the Jewish State to account in its Gaza campaign, were relieved by the distraction. Rather than assessing their own export regime, the grant of licenses in the arms market in gross violation of human rights and the facilitation of crimes against humanity, an excuse to continue, and prolong the weapons transfers and assistance to Israel, had presented itself.
Within hours, nine states had added their names to the list suspending allocated aid. Australia, along with the United States and Canada, rushed to the podium to condemn UNRWA and freeze funding. The United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Finland followed.
The measure of rage could now be adjusted and retargeted. A spokesperson for the UK government was “appalled by allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attack against Israel, a heinous act of terrorism that the UK government has repeatedly condemned.” The US State Department was “extremely troubled” and had “temporarily paused additional funding. Canada was also “deeply troubled by the allegations relating to some UNRWA employees.”
Australia’s foreign minister, Penny Wong, despite accepting that UNRWA’s role in conducting “vital, life saving work”, “providing essential services in Gaza directly to those who need it, with more than 1.4 million Palestinians currently sheltering in its own facilities” felt a suspension of funding was wholly sensible. This, from a minister who never tires about praising international law and its profoundly sacred qualities.
The assessment by Lazzarini was one of dismay and bafflement by the speed at which the funding had been halted. “These decisions threaten our ongoing humanitarian work across the region including and especially in the Gaza Strip.”
The measure could almost be regarded as hysterical, given that a mere 12 individuals had been tarnished from a pool of some 30,000 members. Johann Soufi, a lawyer and former director of the agency’s legal office in Gaza, gave this assessment to Agence-France Presse: “Sanctioning UNRWA, which is barely keeping the entire population of Gaza alive, for the alleged responsibility of a few employees, is tantamount to collectively punishing the Gazan population, which is living in catastrophic conditions.”
Australian Greens Senator and defence spokesman, Senator David Shoebridge, also picked up on the grotesque twist the latest stifling of aid to the beleaguered residents of Gaza entailed.
“The one temporary pause [Senator Wong] has been able to achieve is not the bombing or killing, or even weapons exports, it’s providing aid to [Palestinians].”
For Israel, the focus can now shift back to prosecuting the war against Palestinians collectively blanketed for terrorist tendencies. Meddlesome aid workers can also be put into the mix. Cut the aid, cut the means of survival. Along the way, international law can be blithely mocked and ignored by the principles of might. With grimmest irony, the provisional measures outlined by the ICJ order, which includes increased humanitarian aid to Gaza, are being frustrated by signatories to the UN Genocide Convention. The collective regime of punishment ushered in by Israel’s policy of murderous asphyxiation, and which so concerned South Africa’s legal team, can now continue.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
Featured image: Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) holds press conference in Jerusalem on October 27, 2023 [Mostafa Alkharouf/Anadolu Agency]
Is it a question of business and financial leaders adding their expertise to the problems facing the world to advance answers for the governments of the world? Or is it the other way around?
As The Defender previously reported, NTP researchers in 2018 concluded there was “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to high levels of RFsimilar to those emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones developed cancerous heart tumors, and “some evidence” of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats.
The topic: carbon dioxide (CO2), commonly mischaracterized as a harmful waste product of respiration and a pollutant that is disrupting the planetary climate. As explained by Happer in this lecture, CO2 is actually an essential gas necessary for life. Moreover, its impact on Earth’s temperatures is negligible, and will remain negligible even if the current concentration in the atmosphere were to double.
While the genocide has raged on in Gaza I have been reading Eugene Rogan’s large work simply titled The Arabs – A History. It is generally well written in an academic textbook manner, a political outline of the trials and tribulations of the Arab people viewed mostly through the political-military-financial manipulations of the rulers of the region. That overlaps fully with the political-military-financial manipulations of the empires and outside authorities interested in controlling the region for various reasons.
The Israeli government has made very clear its intent to destroy Palestinian life in Gaza. To justify this horrific violence, the Israeli government has shamelessly manipulated Holocaust trauma. As descendants, we are outraged that the memory of our ancestors is being used to justify the same kind of horror being inflicted on others. We cry out against this genocidal assault: Not in our name!
Eighty years ago, on January 27, 1944, people in the street were hugging each other and weeping with joy. They were celebrating the end of a nearly 900 days brutal siege. Soviet forces lifted the siege of Leningrad after ferocious battles. Exactly a year later they liberated Auschwitz. Even today, walking in Saint-Petersburg’s main avenue, the Nevsky Prospect, one notices a blue sign painted on a wall during the siege: “Citizens! This side of the street is the most dangerous during artillery shelling”.
This year the Non Aligned Movement is chaired by Uganda’s President Musaveni who happens to be a faithful and longstanding proxy of the U.S. From the mid-1980s, the Kampala government under President Yoweri Musaveni had become Washington’s African showpiece of “democracy”. Uganda had also become a launchpad for US sponsored guerrilla movements into the Sudan, the Congo and Rwanda.
Carlson’s visit comes just as Federal Judge Richard Mosley has condemned the Trudeau government’s invocation of the Emergency Act in February of 2021. The Emergency Act basically halted the normal operations of the Canadian government. The most recent incarnation of the War Measures Act allowed Trudeau and his main handler, Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland, to notoriously seize the bank accounts of Truckers from across Canada.
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 has drafted plans to establish permanent outposts in Gaza, an Israeli officer has told Middle East Eye.
News of the plans comes despite international pressure on Israel to accept a two-state solution with the Palestinians and withdraw its army from the coastal enclave.
Earlier this month, the Israeli army announced that it would move into a “low intensity” phase of its war with the Palestinian group Hamas, in which heavy bombardments of Gaza would be replaced by targeted special operations.
There have been no signs of this materialising on the ground, though, with the military continuing its heavy shelling both in northern Gaza and areas around Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, where intense clashes are ongoing.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said quite openly that the Israeli army will continue its operations in Gaza until Hamas is destroyed in the area and that, “in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”
Both Israeli and US intelligence assessments have indicated that Hamas is far from being eradicated, and Netanyahu’s determination to “bring complete victory” has put him at odds with many inside Israel, including fellow war cabinet member Gadi Eisenkot, who has said that the “absolute defeat” of the armed group is not a realistic objective.
The Israeli military officer, who asked MEE not to report his rank and name, said that Netanyahu and his government associates had already asked the army to establish permanent bases in the Gaza Strip, excluding the possibility of any post-war Palestinian administration in the enclave.
The officer said the order to build up the military installations was given verbally.
“We have received orders to determine the locations of permanent army stations within Gaza,” he said. “The defence ministry and the army informally assigned a small number of officers for this purpose.”
The officer added that the worst-case scenario imagined by Netanyahu and his allies is to turn Gaza into the occupied West Bank, where the Israeli army has a free hand to do whatever it wants, from raiding houses to arresting Palestinians without a warrant or a court order.
“Netanyahu and his far-right war cabinet are not planning to withdraw from Gaza,” the officer said. He added that the prime minister is looking for ways and models to ease the international pressure over the army operations in Gaza by scaling down its presence while still maintaining it.
“This model is a more militarised version of the West Bank,” the officer said. “I have served in the West Bank. Gaza will not be like that place, there will be more frequent military stations and more soldiers.”
The Israeli army had not responded to Middle East Eye’s request for comment by the time of publication.
Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported yesterday that “thousands of dunams of Gazan territory will remain under Israeli control after the war”.
Israel’s bombing campaign and ground operations following the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel have now left more than 25,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, dead.
There is an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with more than 60,000 Palestinians wounded, disease rife and available drinking water scarce.
Responding to pressure from EU diplomats to end the war and take steps towards a two-state solution with the Palestinians, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katzfloated the idea of an artificial island off the coast of Gaza, which Israel would control to monitor aid into the coastal enclave.
“I think that the minister could have made better use of his time and focus on the security of his country, bearing in mind the high number of deaths in Gaza,” Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, told reporters after the presentation of the plan, which included a video.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
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.
As Israel’s war on Gaza pushes on in its fourth month, fears of regional escalation are growing, with multiple nations and armed groups targeting each other’s territories and common waters, and the United States boosting its military assets in the region.
Last week, Iran launched attacks in Syria and Iraq after members of its elite forces were killed in the Syrian capital Damascus allegedly in Israeli attacks, while the US along with the United Kingdom have carried out several attacks against the Houthis in Yemen.
Tens of thousands of people have been displaced in Lebanon and Israel due to an exchange of fires between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters on their border.
Last week, tit-for-tat attacks between Iran and Pakistan threatened to open a new military front, but diplomacy helped cool the tempers, for now.
Here is what you need to know about the military hostilities that have broken out in the region since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza on October 7.
The Red Sea and Yemen
The Iran-backed Houthi group in Yemen has been targeting commercial and military ships linked to Israel in the Red Sea as a response to Israel’s war in Gaza.
Houthi officials have demanded that Israel stop the war and allow humanitarian aid to enter the Palestinian enclave. The group’s first attack occurred on November 19, 2023, when they took over a cargo ship called the Galaxy Leader, which records suggest is owned by an Israeli businessman.
Houthi targeting of commercial ships has prompted multiple shipping companies to suspend operations in the Red Sea, instead embarking on a longer and costlier journey around the African continent.
In response, the US, Israel’s closest ally, has carried out several attacks in Houthi-controlled regions of Yemen. Early on Wednesday, the US military carried out more strikes targeting Houthi anti-ship missiles.
Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah
Almost daily cross-border artillery firing and drone attacks between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters threaten to open another front in Israel’s war. Tens of thousands of people on both sides of the border have been forced to flee their homes.
The Lebanese armed group has said its attacks are an act of resistance in solidarity with the 2.3 million people in Gaza who are besieged and undergoing daily Israeli bombardment that has killed more than 25,000 people. Warning Hezbollah against crossborder attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said his country will turn Beirut into Gaza.
Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah has not declared all-out war against Israel, but said his forces are not afraid of getting involved in one.
Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon have killed more than 200 Hezbollah fighters, journalists, and civilians while also internally displacing more than 80,000 people from the area, the United Nations reported in December. At least 15 Israelis have been killed in Hezbollah strikes.
Israel-Syria
Israel has launched repeated air raids on Syria since its war on Gaza, reigniting tensions between the two countries. It claims its attacks are a response to threats from Syrian military positions and Iran-linked infrastructure.
Tehran is the main military backer of President Bashar al-Assad in the war that erupted in 2011.
The attacks have primarily targeted the capital city, Damascus, and Aleppo. Last Saturday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said five of its “military advisers” were killed in an air raid on a residential building in Damascus. Razi Moussavi, a senior adviser in the IRGC, was previously killed in an Israeli attack outside Damascus.
The two countries have been engaged in repeated military confrontations since Israel was first established in 1948. Israel still occupies Syria’s Golan Heights, which it captured in the 1967 war.
Iran-Iraq
Iraq has criticised Iran after the Revolutionary Guard hit what they called an Israeli espionage centre in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region. The event prompted Baghdad to recall its ambassador to Tehran, while Iran insisted the attack was intended to deter threats from Israeli spies.
Prior to this, Iran-backed groups have carried out numerous attacks on US military bases in Iraq and Syria. The US has retaliated, targeting and killing the commander of an Iraqi armed group on January 4. The incident prompted Iraq to reconsider hosting international troops.
The United States on Tuesday carried out strikes in western Iraq against three targets linked to Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran-backed armed group.
Israel-Gaza
More than 85 percent of Gaza’s people have been displaced since Israel launched its brutal war on October 7 in the wake of Hamas’s attack inside Israel. Israeli attacks have targeted schools, hospitals and residential buildings, almost completely destroying civilian infrastructure. UN agencies say people are facing a famine-like situation as Israel has rebuffed calls for a ceasefire.
Hamas’s surprise attack killed at least 1,139 people, according to an Al Jazeera tally based on official Israeli statistics. Hamas had also taken about 240 people captive. More than 100 were released during a four-day truce between Israel and Hamas in November.
Iran-Pakistan
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targeted the Jaish al-Adl armed group in Panjgur, Pakistan’s Balochistan province, leading to Pakistani retaliation against armed Baloch separatists in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchestan province.
This resulted in a rapid deterioration of diplomatic relations, with ambassadors withdrawn. However, both countries then engaged in de-escalation efforts, with ambassadors returning to their posts by January 26.
Could the Situation Escalate Further?
Experts warn that if Israel’s war on Gaza does not end, the conflict could spill over, bringing in new players.
“Without a ceasefire in Gaza, it’s hard to see how this gets better. And I think the simmering pot is now boiling over, and it’s just going to get worse and worse as time goes on. It’s really a very dangerous moment,” Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker advocacy group in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera earlier this month.
US foreign policy also seems set on continuing its military activity, after President Joe Biden pledged last week that US attacks would continue in spite of their failure to deter Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.
Iran’s entanglement in several of the confrontations has also deepened worries that it could serve as a hub for regional conflict, particularly with its links to armed groups outside its own borders.
Western and regional authorities, as well as analysts, generally agree that Iran aims to steer clear of a direct military clash with the US or Israel.
However, the country appears open to employing its proxies to engage and divert the attention of the military forces of these adversaries within the region.
The primary risk of escalation arises from a potentially misguided attack either executed by Iran and its proxies or by the US and its allies.
*
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: The US has stepped up its military deployment across the Middle East amid Israel’s war on Gaza [File: US Navy via AP Photo]
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 National Toxicology Program (NTP) has no plans to further study the effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) on human health — even though the program’s own $30 million study that took about 10 years to complete in 2018 reported evidence of cancer and DNA damage.
The NTP said in an updated January 2024 fact sheet that it was abandoning further investigation because “the research was technically challenging and more resource-intensive than expected.”
For decades, the NTP has been the premier governmental testing program for pharmaceuticals,chemicals and radiation, according to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist who served on the board of scientific counselors for the NTP when it was launched in the 1980s.
Commenting on the news, Davis said, “It is the ultimate arrogance and folly to stop doing research on this major growing environmental pollutant, precisely when we have ample evidence of harm.”
Davis has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed publications in books and journals, ranging from The Lancet to the Journal of the American Medical Association.
They will soon publish a “major new article” in Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development journal about “new science” on RFR and call for precaution, she said.
Davis — who also is the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences and the founder and president of Environmental Health Trust — called out the U.S. government for failing to ensure that wireless radiation is safe:
“The government’s decision to stop funding research on cellphone radiation is consistent with the Chinese proverb ‘If you don’t want to know, don’t ask.’
“The US government has a variation of that in the policy of, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ If you don’t want to know whether cell tower radiation is having a biological impact, stop doing the research!”
“Discontinuing government-funded research because it is ‘technically challenging’ and ‘resource-intensive’ is not what we expect from government agencies that are supposed to protect people from the harms of big industry.
“This research is important so that people can make informed decisions when it comes to the use of technology.”
W. Scott McCollough, lead litigator for CHD’s EMR cases, agreed. “I am concerned that the absence of evidence will be contorted into a claim of evidence of absence.”
As of early last year, the NTP was still conducting RFR research. A February 2023 fact sheet said scientists had “overcome several technical issues” and developed a better system for exposing animals to RFR for their studies.
NTP said researchers were “now making progress” on four research goals:
Determining the impact of RFR exposure on behavior and stress.
Conducting physiological monitoring, including evaluation of heart rate.
Investigating whether RFR induces heating.
Further evaluating whether RFR exposure causes DNA damage.
In its January 2024 fact sheet, the NTP reported the researchers had “tested the new exposure system using in vivo rodent studies” and that their research was “complete.”
The NTP did not say whether the researchers had achieved those four research goals and, if so, what the results were. It did, however, make clear that its previous studies — which used 2G and 3G cellphones — “do not apply” to 4G or 5G technologies.
The Defender reached out to NTP’s press office for clarification about why the new fact sheet appears to contradict the NTP website (updated Jan. 8, 2024) on cellphone radiation research which says NTP still has “current research efforts,” however NTP did not respond by our publication deadline.
The NTP’s discontinuation of its RFR research suggests the U.S. government has no intention of studying the possible biological effects of 5G.
Meanwhile, researchers such as Davis continue to say there is reason for concern. Davis pointed out that infertility clinics ask men about their wireless devices and cellphone habits:
“They tell them to take these phones off their bodies and out of their pockets because there is evidence … where the greater the exposure, the lower the sperm count, and the poorer the sperm quality.
“This has been repeatedly shown in studies with human sperm done under controlled conditions, as well as cross-sectional studies.”
“In fact,” she added, “whether the government stops doing the research or not, there is a massive study underway because we have billions of people being exposed to ever-increasing levels of wireless radiation throughout the world. Millions of American children are exposed every day in classrooms.”
“The only problem is there is no control group anymore, which will make it difficult, but not impossible, to discern the impacts of wireless radiation,” Davis said.
What NTP’s 2018 Study Found
As The Defender previously reported, NTP researchers in 2018 concluded there was “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to high levels of RF similar to those emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones developed cancerous heart tumors, and “some evidence” of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats.
Davis said NTP’s conclusions were consistent with and corroborated dozens of other studies. “It wasn’t like it [the NTP study] was a one-off study,” she said.
Once the word got out that the findings of the NTP study were positive — meaning the government researchers had found an association between cellphone radiation and the growth of cancerous tumors — the telecommunication industry “started its tactics” to suppress the findings, Davis said.
Davis has been researching those tactics for more than a decade. She is the author of “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.”
Instead of the NTP study report being released in 2016, when it was first ready, she said, thetelecom industry exerted pressure to subject the study’s conclusions to an unprecedented level of scrutiny.
“When the first drafts began to circulate internally, it was elevated for a peer review unlike any that has ever been conducted in the history of the entire program — and I can say that with great certainty. No other compound or substance [studied by the NTP] has ever been subject to this level of peer review,” Davis said.
However, rather than downplaying the study’s conclusions, the experts concluded that the scientific evidence in the study was so strong they recommended the NTP reclassify some of its conclusions from “some evidence” to “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity.
To date, more than 250 scientists — who together have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by wireless devices, including cellphones — signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits.
*
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.
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.
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 International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel must cease its warmaking in Gaza — cease committing and inciting genocidal acts — and that the case charging Israel with genocide must proceed.
Details of the Ruling:
By 15-2: Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent all acts within the scope of Genocide Convention article 2
15-2: Israel must immediately ensure that its military does not commit acts within the scope of GC.2
16-1: Direct and punish all members of the public who engage in the incitement of genocide against Palestinians
16-1: Ensure provision of urgently needed basic services, humanitarian aid
15-2: Prevent the destruction of and ensure the preservation of evidence to allegation of acts of GC.2
15-2: Israel will submit report as to how they’re adhering to these orders to the ICJ within 1 month
This is Article 2 of the Genocide Convention:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Therefore, Israel must cease killing Palestinians.
This was a make or break moment for international law, or rather a break or make-a-first-step moment. There is hope for the idea and reality of international law, but this is only a beginning.
The president of the International Court of Justice, who read the ruling, is Judge Joan Donoghue, former top legal advisor under Hillary Clinton at the U.S. State Department during the Obama Administration. She previously was the lawyer for the United States in its unsuccessful defense before the ICJ against charges by Nicaragua of minining its harbor.
The court voted for portions of this decision by 15-2 and 16-1. The “No” votes came from Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda and Ad Hoc Judge Aharon Barak of Israel.
The case presented by South Africa was overwhelming (read it or watch a key part of it), and Israel’s defense paper-thin. And the case just grew more overwhelming during the bizarre delay (yes, courts are slow, but this genocide is swift).
People all over the world built the pressure to move South Africa to act and other nations to add their support. Over 1,500 organizations signed a statement. Individuals signed a petition by CODEPINK, and sent almost 500,000 emails to key governments’ United Nations consulates through World BEYOND War and RootsAction.org. Click those links because more emails are needed now. While several nations have made public statements in support of South Africa’s case, we need them to file papers officially with the International Court of Justice. To reach out to additional national governments, go here.
Germany has backed Israel’s defense against the charge of genocide, which has been denounced by Namibia, victimn of a German genocide. Prominent Jews have denounced Germany’s shameful action.
Mass demonstrations in the streets of the world have continued in support of peace and justice, and to a far greater extent than major media outlets have reported.
Prior to today’s ruling from the International Court of Justice, the U.S. government pointedly refused to say whether it would comply with ruling, despite insisting that other nations comply with rulings by the ICJ.
Hamas said that it would cease fire if Israel does, and release all prisoners if Israel does
Germany, to its credit, reportedly said that it would comply.
Arming a genocide is complicity in genocide. While Israel gets most of its weapons from the United States, other weaponry comes from Germany, Italy, the UK, and Canada — at least some of which nations also provide parts to U.S. weaponsmakers that provide weapons to Israel. Italian opposition demanded an end to it. And then the Foreign Minister claimed Italy had stopped shipments on Oct 7. Meanwhile, Canada is coming under pressure to cease shipments and prevarications. In Canada, Members of Parliament are among over 250 people hunger striking for an arms embargo on Israel.
People in the United States can tell Congress to stop arming Israel here or here.
President Joe Biden already faces a lawsuit for aiding and abetting genocide in Gaza. In November 2023, Palestinian human rights organizations, along with Gaza- and U.S.-based Palestinians, filed suitin a U.S. federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Biden Administration for failing to prevent genocide, and for aiding and abetting genocide. The plaintiffs seek an order to end U.S. military and diplomatic support to Israel. A hearing to address the government’s motion to dismiss will be held at 9 a.m. PT / 12 noon ET today, Friday. The hearing will be webstreamed to the public. You are encouraged to tune in and witness the U.S. government’s attempts at avoiding accountability and justify its support for the genocide that is happening in Gaza.
THE COURT, Indicates the following provisional measures: The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above;
That means no killing of Palestinians.
UPDATE: The Media Spin
The Washington Post:
The court did not order Israel to do more of anything. It ordered Israel to cease all of some important things, including killing people. Of course it will claim to be killing people without the improper intent in its collective mind, but is already on record with the court on its genocidal intent.
The Washington Post quickly changed its headline
The New York Times:
This is the most common headline out there (even Consortium News is declaring defeat), and not technically false. But how do you cease killing without ceasing firing?
South African foreign minister Naledi Pandor at the Hague says she would have wanted the #ICJ to explicitly call for a ceasefire, but says the only way Israel can meet the order of the court is for there to be a ceasefire.
South African foreign minister Naledi Pandor at the Hague says she would have wanted the #ICJ to explicitly call for a ceasefire, but says the only way Israel can meet the order of the court is for their to be a ceasefire. pic.twitter.com/Z0PyLTusAX
This is true. ICJ says: "The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts… https://t.co/ZLF0HubDGT
A “ceasefire” is what you demand in an armed conflict. In a genocide you demand an immediate end to all genocidal acts and that is exactly what the ICJ ordered with immediate effect. Please stop helping “Israel” spin its historic defeat as a win.
Adding this from the Institute for Public Accuracy:
CRAIG MOKHIBER is an International human rights lawyer and former Director of the New York Office of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, who stepped down from his post in 2023 and penned a now-viral letter on unfolding genocide and the UN’s failures.
He said today: The ICJ has ruled on provisional measures in the Genocide case against Israel, which must immediately stop killing and harming people in Gaza and inflicting destructive conditions othem, punish incitement, allow all humanitarian aid, save evidence and report next month.
“Not a ceasefire exactly, but they are ordered to stop the acts that were complained about in the application — killing, harming, destruction, etc.
“This may be less than ideal because Israel will likely continue while claiming military necessity and lawful intent. The mandated report next month and the court’s response will therefore be crucial.
“But this is already an important victory. The court ruled that South Africa’s genocide claim is ‘plausible’ at this stage and ordered Israel to stop all related acts and allow relief to the people of Gaza.
“Senior officials in the U.S. and the West who argued — outrageously — that the case was completely baseless and without merit must now contend with a ruling by the World Court that the case is indeed plausible and requires immediate provisional measures. [See Thursday State Department briefing highlights from Decensored News.]
“Israel, accustomed to impunity, is unlikely to comply. Whether or not they report back to the court next month on measures, the Court will have to act again. And the Security Council can be called to act on non-compliance at any time. The complicit US will then likely veto action.
“The General Assembly would then be convened to act. A strong resolution there could call for specific legal, economic, political, diplomatic, consular, organizational and other measures. And individual states and regional orgs should act as well, as a matter of legal duty under the convention and under the Charter.
“In sum, while imperfect without a call for an unconditional ceasefire, the court’s order is a historic and powerful tool in the struggle against Israeli impunity, further empowering states, organizations and activists to step up pressure on the apartheid regime.
“Time now for all to act to turn the order into the change necessary to bring accountability for the perpetrators, redress for victims, and protection for the vulnerable.”
Update: No Order to Halt
And still numerous intelligent people say this is a near-complete defeat, and that the court has not ordered Israel to stop what it’s doing. (Regardless of the fact that it has ordered it to stop committing genocide.)
There are many exceptions, but the general consensus is that Israel is ordered to cease killing but has not been ordered to cease making war, so the court has told Israel to keep the war going. How you do that without killing is a little mysterious but has to be concocted out of imagined “intent” and the killing of non-civilians not being killing and “militarily necessary” killing not being killing and so forth.
“Some were disappointed that the ICJ did not order a ceasefire, a step that was unlikely because the court addresses only disputes between states, so Hamas was not a party. A ceasefire imposed on only one side to an ongoing armed conflict is not plausible.
“The court did order Israel to “take all measures within its power” to halt acts that contribute to genocide, to allow sufficient humanitarian aid into Gaza to end the suffering among Palestinian civilians, and to prevent and punish the public statements of incitement made by senior Israeli officials. Israel must report back to the court in a month on the steps it has taken.”
*
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 Gaza Strip is a graveyard for thousands of children, the United Nations has said.
Since October 7, Israeli attacks have killed at least 10,000 children, according to Palestinian officials. That is one Palestinian child killed every 15 minutes, or about one out of every 100 children in the Gaza Strip.
Thousands more are missing under the rubble, most of them presumed dead.
The surviving children, who have endured the traumatic impact of multiple wars, have spent their lives under the shadow of an Israeli blockade, influencing every aspect of their existence from birth.
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.
While the genocide has raged on in Gaza I have been reading Eugene Rogan’s large work simply titled The Arabs – A History. It is generally well written in an academic textbook manner, a political outline of the trials and tribulations of the Arab people viewed mostly through the political-military-financial manipulations of the rulers of the region.That overlaps fully with the political-military-financial manipulations of the empires and outside authorities interested in controlling the region for various reasons.
Themes
The history works at the political level, and to sum it up as succinctly as possible, presents two main themes. First is that for much of the time period of the book (starting from the Ottoman control of the lands in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries), the Arabs were ruled by non-Arab authorities, either directly by the Ottoman regime, under the control of subordinate rulers, or under the control of previous non-Arab groups contesting with or subordinate to the Ottomans.
The second theme coming through is how much foreign interference has played in the region, not as just mentioned above but in more recent history with the military and financial interference and influence of mostly European empires (Italy, France, and Great Britain) and even more recently, the United States empire. There have been no effective independent Arab governments operating within democratic principles. They have tried but have always been subjugated to foreign influence, dominance, or outright control.
The first edition of the book (2009) ended with post 9/11 events. The second edition (2017) adds another chapter outlining the Arab Spring. As with all histories attempting to write fully up to date information, the latter part is weak, a natural outcome of not having the hindsight nor access to more restricted documents that could and always do reveal a more nuanced story.
The main fault with the second addition’s final chapter is partly due to that; it is also perhaps due to the author’s inability to pull back and put the full perspective on the changing situation, to acknowledge the role of the two main current antagonists in the region, Israel and the U.S.
Fault Lines
With any current history/current events writing about the Arab world, it cannot be properly done without a large accounting for U.S. manipulations and interference at all levels, nor with the same accounting for Israel, which includes both U.S. interests and Jewish/Zionist interests.
Israel’s nuclear activity is mentioned only once in the original edition as an aspect of French assistance to the Zionists. U.S.’ effects on the mujahideen and on into the Taliban and al-Qaeda and ISIS are only directly mentioned once with the supply of Stinger missiles to the mujahideen by way of Pakistan. Admittedly the latter is mostly outside the Arab arena, but bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and the many Saudi sponsored madrasahs in Pakistan had a large significant overflow effect directly on the even more recent history of the Arabs.
Current Events
Today, other events have overtaken the significance of earlier events. Fortunately for Rogan he did not try to predict or formulate what the future held for the Arabs. With the ongoing destruction of Gaza infrastructure and the slaughter and genocide of its citizens there are some unfortunate similarities within the violence.
Ending with the Israeli/U.S. denial of the Hamas electoral victory in 2006, Rogan writes,
“…the United States would support any Israeli action, no matter how disproportionate, against parties it associated with terrorism.” It should be understood the U.S. ‘associates’ whomever it decides is a terrorist as it best fits its interests. He concludes, “Far from facing censure for provoking devastating wars with Israel, the Islamic resistance movements enjoyed greater support at home and across the Arab world for standing up against Bush, Israel, and the U.S. led war on terror.”
Note the bias that it was the Islamic movements that “provoked” the wars, where in reality it was the Israeli colonial-settler regime that initiated all but the Yom Kippur war (1973), while it was the U.S. attacking Iraq, Libya, Yemen (via Saudi Arabia), and Syria (via ISIS and the SFA). Also, not only did the Arab world give greater support but the Muslim world as a whole and much of the global ‘south’ also gave support.
The Global War on Terror Continues…
A caveat is needed concerning that support. Throughout the Palestinian struggle, the Arab rulers have frequently verbally given support to the Palestinian cause but have noticeably done very little about it – they feared their own ‘street’ as much as outside influences. The reasons for this are several, but the emphasis should be placed on their military powerlessness in face of the supposed power of the Israeli military, including its nuclear weapons. As well, most Arab governments were either bought out by U.S. financial power or threats of U.S. military intervention (direct or covert) to replace their rule with some other more acceptable ruler.
Unfortunately that continues true today.
All the Arab governments are voicing their strong support for the Hamas resistance and decrying the genocide perpetrated by Israel. The only action being taken by any government is from tiny war torn Yemen who have effectively fought off Saudi/U.S. military attacks for many years. Non-state actors are also supporting the Palestinian resistance, but with no state to lose, no power to lose, with nothing new that can be threatened by the U.S. and its allies, Hezbollah and other militias throughout Iraq and Syria are attacking Israeli and U.S. positions in the region.
There are many nuances to the political struggles of the Arab world. As a general statement, Rogan’s summation given above for earlier events is perhaps even stronger for today’s actions. The U.S., by its deeds, fully supports Israeli actions. Israel continues its disproportionate genocide against Gaza. The resistance is receiving more and more support abroad as it stands up to Israeli attacks and sees the U.S. support. And finally, as this started with a look at “The Arabs – A History”, it seems that history is repeating itself, only much more violently and overtly. Except the vaunted prowess of the Israeli military has been shown to be unreal; and the fear of U.S. intervention appears to not concern at least some of the Arab interests. Whatever the outcome, not just the Arab world, but the world of empires is reshaping itself.
*
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.
Jim Miles 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.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is commonly mischaracterized as a harmful waste product of respiration and is falsely blamed for disrupting the planetary climate
CO2 is an essential gas necessary for life. Moreover, its impact on Earth’s temperatures is negligible, and will remain negligible even if the current concentration in the atmosphere were to double. A 100% increase of CO2, from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, would decrease radiation into space by just 1.1%, resulting in a 0.7 degree C increase of the average earth temperature
A 0.7 degree C difference means there’s no climate emergency, and no matter what we do to reduce CO2 emissions, it’s not going to impact global temperatures. To fabricate an emergency where there is none, it is assumed that massive positive feedbacks are involved. However, most natural feedbacks are negative, not positive, so isn’t it likely the 0.7 degree C increase is an overestimation to begin with
There’s no single temperature of the Earth. It varies by location and altitude. For every kilometer of altitude, you have an average cooling of 6.6 degrees C
Higher CO2 levels will green the planet, making it more hospitable to plant life. The more CO2 there is, the better plants and trees grow. CO2also reduces the water needs of plants, reducing the risks associated with droughts
*
The video above, “CO2, The Gas of Life,” features a lecture given at the Summit Old Guard Meeting in New Jersey, October 3, 2023, by William Happer, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of physics at Princeton University and former scientific adviser to the Bush and Trump administrations.
The topic: carbon dioxide (CO2), commonly mischaracterized as a harmful waste product of respiration and a pollutant that is disrupting the planetary climate. As explained by Happer in this lecture, CO2 is actually an essential gas necessary for life. Moreover, its impact on Earth’s temperatures is negligible, and will remain negligible even if the current concentration in the atmosphere were to double.
CO2 Is Not a Pollutant
At present, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at a few thousand feet of elevation is around 430 parts per million (ppm). Closer to the ground, concentrations vary widely, both by location and time of day. This is because ground-level readings are impacted by photosynthesis and the respiration of insects and the like.
In the room where Happer was giving his lecture, the CO2 reading was 1,800 ppm — the result of having a large group of people breathing in a closed space. Air conditioning systems have CO2meters that turn on fans to bring outdoor air inside when levels get too high.
The question of what is too high is an important one, considering The Great Resetters are pushing a green agenda that demands the dismantling of energy infrastructure and farming in the name of stopping climate change, which quite obviously threatens our quality of life and food supply. Ultimately, it may threaten human existence altogether.
The fact of the matter is that CO2 is not the “bad guy” it’s made out to be, and the “net zero” agenda is wholly inappropriate if maintaining life on Earth is part of the equation.
“CO2 is a very essential and natural part of life,” Happer says. “It is the gas of life. We’re made of carbon after all, mostly carbon, and we breathe out a lot of CO2 a day just by living. Each of us breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 a day. Multiply that by 8 billion people and 365 days a year, and just [by] living, people are a non-negligible part of the CO2 budget of the Earth.
Nevertheless, we are living through a crusade against so-called pollutant CO2. People talk about carbon pollution. [But] every one of us is polluting Earth by breathing, [so] if you want to stop polluting … apparently God wants us to commit suicide …
We’re doing all sorts of crazy things because of this alleged pollutant … more and more beautiful meadows are being covered with black solar panels. It doesn’t work very well; it doesn’t work at all at night. It doesn’t work on cloudy days. It doesn’t work terribly well in the middle of the winter because of the angle of the sun.
But nevertheless we’re doing it. We’re being misled into climate hysteria, and if you haven’t read this book, I highly recommend it. It was published first in 1841, called ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.’ It’s as relevant today as it was then …
I’m a physicist. I’m proud to say that no one could call me a climate scientist, but I know a lot about climate and I was a coauthor of one of the first books on the effects of carbon dioxide 41 years ago. This was a study done by the Jason Group which I was a member of. I was chairman for a while and it had really good people there.”
Long-Term Impact of Increasing Atmospheric CO2
The key question when it comes to global warming is, how much do you warm the Earth if you double the atmospheric CO2 concentration? This is called the climate sensitivity question. The GUESS is that doubling CO2 would result in a 3-degree centigrade rise in the global temperature.
“It was not based on any hard calculations,” Happer says. “It was because of group-think. That’s what everybody else thought, and so that’s what we thought. Now, in my defense, one of the reasons I didn’t pay much attention to this [is because] I was working on something at this time that I thought was much more important. So, let me tell you about that, so you get a feeling for why I think I’m qualified to pontificate about this subject.
It was the beginning of the Strategic Defense Initiative, of Star Wars … President Reagan … wanted some way to defend the United States so that we didn’t have to have this mass suicide pact, and among other things we considered using high-powered lasers to burn up incoming missiles …
But here’s the problem. If you take the 1 megawatt laser on the ground and you send it toward the missile, by the time it gets to the missile, the beam — instead of focusing all the power on the missile — breaks up into hundreds of sub beams — speckles — and this was something that was well-known to astronomers. You have the same problem when you’re looking at distant stars and galaxies.
Astronomers knew how to fix this … If you can measure how much this wave is bent, then you can bounce it off a mirror bent in the opposite direction, and when the wave bounces up it’s absolutely flat. That’s called adaptive optics and it works beautifully. Then, when you focus the corrected beam, you get a single spot instead of hundreds of [beams].
The trouble with that is that if you look at the night sky, there are only four or five stars that are bright enough to have enough photons to do the measurement of the distortion of the wave. So, we had a classified meeting in the summer of 1982. There were a number of Air Force officers there who explained the problem. By chance, I knew how to solve it.
You can make an artificial star anywhere in the sky by shining a laser tuned to the sodium frequency onto the layer of sodium above our heads, at 90 to 100 kilometers.”
While the Air Force was initially dubious about there being a sodium layer in the atmosphere, they did eventually build the sodium laser proposed by Happer, and if you go to any ground-based telescope today, you’ll usually see one or two of them. Anyway, that story was simply to impress you with the fact that Happer knows what he’s talking about when it comes to atmospheric constituents and their related phenomena.
CO2 Has No Discernible Impact on Earth Temperatures
According to the climate alarmists, rising CO2 will result in global warming that will threaten all life on earth. In actuality, however, CO2 “is a very puny tool to do anything to the climate,” Happer says.
Keep in mind that there’s no single temperature on the Earth. It varies by location and altitude. For every kilometer of altitude, you have an average cooling of 6.6 degrees C. This is known as the lapse rate. That cooling continues up to the troposphere, where it stops.
The cooling is due to the fact that warm air rises and cool air descends. “It’s the convection that sets that rapid drop of temperatures — 6-and-a-half degrees per kilometer,” Happer says. He then explains the following graph, which details the thermal radiation to space from the Earth, assuming a surface temperature of 15.5 degrees C. The greenhouse gases is the area beneath the jagged black curve.
According to Happer, this is only 70% of what it would be without greenhouse gases, which is shown as the smooth blue curve, because as the sun heats the earth, greenhouse gases — mostly water vapor — impede cooling.
The most important part of this graph is the red jagged line, shown here with a red arrow pointing to it. That red line shows the effect that a doubling (a 100% increase) of CO2 would have on the surface temperature of Earth. As you can see, it’s negligible. It decreases radiation into space by just 1.1%.
As noted by Happer:
“Let that sink in. We’re far from doubling [CO2] today. It’ll take a long time, [and] it only causes a 1% change. So, CO2 is a very poor greenhouse gas. It’s not an efficient greenhouse gas.”
If you remove ALL CO2, you end up with the green jagged curve. As you can see, the green and black jagged lines run parallel with the exception of one spot. There’s a huge effect if you go from zero CO2 to 400 ppm (green arrow). But it’s again negligible when you go from 400 ppm to 800 ppm (black arrow). As explained by Happer:
“You get all of the effect in the first little bit of added CO2 … So, it’s really true that doubling CO2 only causes a 1% decrease of radiation. The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] gets the same answer so this is not really controversial, although they will never show you the curve or tell you that it’s 1%. That would interfere with the narrative …
So, this is radiation to space. How do you change that into a temperature? They’re worried that we’ll get intolerable warming of the surface of the Earth where we live, or other parts of the atmosphere.
Here again it’s important to do the first order calculation … and it says that the warming from doubling CO2 is … less than one degree … 0.7 [degree] C. Very small. You really can’t feel that.”
Why, Then, the Alarm Over Rising CO2?
Needless to say, this is a huge problem for the climate science community, because a 0.7 degree C difference means there’s no climate emergency, and no matter what we do to reduce CO2emissions, it’s not going to impact the climate.
So, to fabricate an emergency where there really is none, the IPCC “assumes enormous positive feedbacks,” Happer says. Because CO2 is not a potent greenhouse gas, the tiny direct warming caused by it is amplified by factors of anywhere from four to six to make it seem like it has a discernible impact.
“I like to say it’s affirmative action for CO2,” Happer says. “It’s not very good at warming but if you assume lots of feedback, you can keep the money coming in.” The problem with that is that most who have a background in physical chemistry and physics know that most natural feedbacks are negative, not positive.
This is known as the Chatelier Principle, named after the French chemist who first discovered that “when a simple system in thermodynamic equilibrium is subjected to a change in concentration, temperature, volume or pressure … the system changes to a new equilibrium and … the change partly counteracts the applied change.”
So, the 0.7 degree C of warming you get when you double the CO2 is “probably an overestimate,” Happer says, “because there are probably negative feedbacks operating in this very complicated climate system that we live in. The atmosphere, the oceans, everything is nonlinear.”
The key take-home from all this is that whether we’re at 400 ppm of CO2 or 800 ppm doesn’t matter when it comes to impacting the temperature of the earth. In short, the climate hysteria is just that. It’s not based on any real threat. Only if we were able to get to absolute zero CO2 would there be a change, but doing so also means we’d exterminate all living things on the planet. It’s nothing short of a suicide agenda.
More CO2 Will Green the Planet
As explained by Happer, more CO2 will green the planet, making it more hospitable to plant life. The more CO2 there is, the better plants and trees grow, so if we want lush forests and bountiful harvests, cutting CO2 is the last thing we’d want to do.
“All plants grow better with more CO2 [in the air],” he says. “Plants are really starved [of] CO2 today. We know plants need many essential nutrients. They need nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium; most important of all they need water. But they also need CO2, and like many of the other nutrients, CO2 today is in short supply.”
CO2 benefits plants by reducing their water needs, hence less risk from drought. Higher CO2 levels also reduce harmful photorespiration. According to Happer, C3-type plants lose about 25% of their photosynthesis potential due to increased photorespiration. For more in-depth information about the role of CO2 in plant growth and photosynthesis, please view the video. This discussion begins around the 40-minute mark.
Lies, Ignorance, Stupidity or Something Else?
In closing, Happer makes an effort to explain what’s driving the climate hysteria:
“In spite of incontrovertible arguments that there is no climate emergency — CO2 is good for the Earth — the campaign to banish CO2, ‘net zero,’ has been very successful. So, how can that be? I’m really out of my depth here because now I’m talking about human nature. I’m really good with instruments and with solving differential equations but I’m not very good at understanding human beings.
But here are some of the drivers: noble lies, political lies, ignorance, stupidity, greed. Noble lies goes back to Plato who discusses it in ‘The Republic.’ ‘In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda.’
And here there’s a clear agenda. If you could somehow unite mankind to fight some external threat, for example CO2 pollution, then we won’t fight each other. There won’t be wars. So, I think many sincere people have latched on to the CO2 narrative partly for that reason. You can actually read about it in the early writings of the Club of Rome.
Then there are political lies. This is one my favorite H.L. Menken quotes: ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’”
Ignorance, of course, is widespread, and largely based on incomplete knowledge or a flawed understanding of the facts. And what of stupidity? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the few German clergymen who opposed Hitler and eventually paid for his public dissent with his life, once wrote about human stupidity:
“Against stupidity we have no defense. Neither protest nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions.
So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one.”
Happer himself has experienced the danger of opposing stupidity. “I regularly get phone calls threatening me, my wife and children with death,” he says. “So, what kind of movement is this?” Lastly, greed. A.S. Pushkin once said, “If there should happen to be a trough, there will be pigs.” And climate science is currently where the big bucks are — provided your work furthers the global warming narrative and the need for net zero emissions.
Whatever the drivers are, responsible people everywhere need to push back against the false climate change narrative and the net zero agenda, as it will accomplish nothing in terms of normalizing temperatures, but will rapidly erode quality of life and the sustainability of food production, and shift wealth into the hands of the few.
*
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: An animation shows how carbon dioxide moves around the planet. (Photo: NASA/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 truckers, dubbed the “Convoy for Freedom,” organized a cross-country protest beginning in January 2022, following a Jan. 15, 2022, order by the Canadian federal government mandating the vaccine for all cross-border U.S. and Canadian truckers.
In his 190-page ruling, Justice Richard G. Mosley said the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act “does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration.”
The court ruled that invoking the Emergencies Act infringed upon Section 2(b) of the Charter, which protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, and Section 8, which pertains to the right to be secured from unreasonable seizure.
According to The Epoch Times, the plaintiffs “argued … that the Liberal government did not meet the legal threshold to invoke the legislation in response to the protest.”
In a statement provided to The Defender, attorneys for the Canadian Frontline Nurses said:
“We are proud to be the party that initiated the application to the Federal Court challenging the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy protest.
“We are pleased that the Federal Court agreed with our position that the Trudeau government’s action in invoking the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and outside their jurisdiction and that it was a violation of Canadians’ rights and freedoms under the Charter.”
Tom Marazzo, a spokesperson for the Freedom Convoy and author of “The People’s Emergency Act: Freedom Convoy 2022,” told The Defender, “The ruling by Judge Mosley was a great victory for all who participated and supported the Freedom Convoy.”
Marazzo said:
“When the government overreaches, as the Provincial, Municipal and Federal governments did, it is up to the citizens to remind them that they work for us and that we determine the direction of Canada. Unfortunately, the political class in Canada see themselves as royalty and not as simple representatives.
“Judge Mosley also reminded the Liberal/New Democratic Party government that they don’t rule over Canadians with impunity.”
Marazzo was referring to Canada’s ruling government coalition led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
According to the CBC, this may lead to “a legal battle that could go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Ruling ‘a Rebuke’ to the Canadian Government
According to The New York Times, The Freedom Convoy resulted in “encampments of trucks in the nation’s capital.” In response, and as the convoy reached Ottawa, Canada’s federal government invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in its history on Feb. 14, 2022.
Tuesday’s decision is “the first instance of a court delivering a rebuke to Mr. Trudeau over his handling of the protest,” the Times wrote.
According to CTV News, the government argued “that the national security risks stemming from the protests justified its use.”
CTV News reported that the act “allowed the federal government to enact wide-sweeping but temporary powers,” which CBC said included “extraordinary powers to remove and arrest protesters … the power to freeze the finances of those connected to the protests [and] the ability to commandeer tow trucks to remove protesters’ vehicles.”
The Times reported that, under the act, “an enormous force of police officers from across the country finished clearing the streets” in Ottawa — an operation during which 230 protesters were arrested
Today's Federal Court decision is a powerful reminder to Canadians that the rule of law must be applied equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they are a protester or the Prime Minister. Upholding and protecting our democratic values requires us to adhere to the… https://t.co/hLHox6QYgk
CBC reported that the Canadian government “has long argued the measures it took under the Emergencies Act were targeted, proportional and temporary.”
But writer and blogger Margaret Anna Alice, whose writings have focused on health, politics, mass control and propaganda, and who has written extensively about Canada’s COVID-19 policies, told The Defender, “This single act of peaceful noncompliance triggered a cascade effect that dissolved the mental enslavement keeping the populace under the thrall of tyranny.”
“That is precisely what occurred as freedom convoys began erupting all over the world,” Alice said. “And yet, as this peaceful movement rose, so did the government’s tyranny.”
In his ruling, Mosley said he initially believed invocation of the Emergencies Act was justified as a response to an “unacceptable breakdown of public order,” but that the plaintiffs’ arguments swayed him.
“There was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the decision to do so was therefore unreasonable and ultra vires,” he wrote.
“Trudeau and his cabinet did not make even a single attempt to engage with the truckers. In blatant violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they leapt to invoking the Emergencies Act without meeting the necessary threshold,” Alice said.
Joanna Baron, plaintiff and CCF executive director, told the CBC the decision is a “huge vindication for many people.” In a statement CCF provided to The Defender, Baron said, “The invocation of the Emergencies Act is one of the worst examples of government overreach during the pandemic.”
Christine Van Geyn, CCF’s litigation director, said the ruling is “a complete vindication of the position of civil liberties organizations who viewed the invocation of the Emergencies Act as illegal, unjustified and unconstitutional.”
Speaking to the CBC, Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director of the CCLA, said “Emergency is not in the eye of the beholder. Emergency powers are necessary in extreme circumstances, but they are also dangerous to democracy.”
CCLA attorney Ewa Krajewska told Global News, “I think it’s in the interest of this government and future governments and all Canadians that the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act remains high.”
The ruling elicited reactions from across the political spectrum in Canada. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, the country’s main opposition party, tweeted:
BREAKING: Judge rules Trudeau broke the highest law in the land with the Emergencies Act.
He caused the crisis by dividing people. Then he violated Charter rights to illegally suppress citizens. As PM, I will unite our country for freedom.
Jagmeet Singh, leader of the New Democratic Party, said his party “reluctantly” supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act, in remarks quoted by CBC.
Journalist and podcaster Trish Wood told The Defender, “The trucker protest was a classic class struggle [involving] citizens taking on the power elites and winning until government decided it had had enough,” adding that “This decision restores some power back to the people.”
Greg Hill, a captain with a major Canadian airline who was suspended in 2021 for not complying with Canada’s vaccine mandate and who subsequently became director of the Free to Fly advocacy group, told The Defender, “We certainly welcome the decision. The unjustified and unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act resulted in grave professional and personal loss for thousands of Canadians — damage that’s ongoing.”
Internationally acclaimed novelist Colin McAdam attended the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa. He told The Defender “There are many things to be happy about with this decision, not least the declaration that the government acted illegally.”
“What is most encouraging is that the ruling upholds certain sections of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has otherwise been a feckless document through the COVID years,” he said. “I like that it has been acknowledged in law that when people fight for their rights, those rights are paramount to inconvenience.”
Alex Pattakos, Ph.D., co-founder of the Global Meaning Institute and contributing writer for Psychology Today, is unvaccinated and was unable to travel while Canada’s vaccine mandates were in effect. He told The Defender invocation of the Emergencies Act was “a stain on Canada’s identity and history.”
“It’s a reflection of the Trudeau government’s fear of its citizens and a manifestation of a ‘totalitarian movement’ it has been advancing in the name of the public good,” he said.
Freezing Protesters’ Accounts an ‘Unreasonable Search and Seizure’
Mosley’s ruling referred to the freezing of hundreds of protesters’ financial accounts. In writing that this action violated Section 8 of the charter, Mosley said the government’s decision to freeze the accounts, even if for a “pressing and substantial” reason, was “not minimally impairing,” as “less impairing alternatives” were available to the government.
He added that freezing the accounts amounted to “unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons” and infringed upon freedom of expression, “as they were overbroad in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace.”
TD, Scotia, BMO, RBC et al froze the Accounts of Canadians because they didn’t fight back for their customers.
They didn’t fight for Canadians when they should have.
Notably, Mosley’s ruling also found that the Canadian government’s action did not infringe upon people’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly.
Mosley did rule that the Canadian government was wrong in its application of the Emergencies Act, under which a national emergency can be declared only if the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
“The act defers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s [CSIS] definition of such threats [including] serious violence against persons or property, espionage, foreign interference or an intent to overthrow the government by violence,” CBC said.
Testimony heard by the Public Order Emergency Commission, a public inquiry examining the invocation of the Emergencies Act, revealed CSIS did not believe the Freedom Convoy posed a threat to national security, The Epoch Times reported.
According to CBC, the inquiry, led by Justice Paul Rouleau, heard from over 70 witnesses and reviewed more than 7,000 documents — and found that Trudeau met the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act.
CBC reported that Rouleau determined, “Lawful protest descended into lawlessness, culminating in a national emergency.” However, he acknowledged that he did not consider the factual basis for the invocation “overwhelming” and added that “Reasonable and informed people could reach a different conclusion” from his.
In its defense, the Canadian government cited the seizure of a cache of weapons, body armor and ammunition in Coutts, a town in Alberta where the border with the U.S. was blockaded by truckers, according to CTV News, which added that four men are awaiting trial on charges of conspiring to murder Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers.
According to Global News, “Much of the Coutts blockade was cleared prior to the Feb. 14, 2022, declaration of a public order emergency, the first step in invoking the act.”
According to The Countersignal, less than a day before the invocation of the act, Trudeau was told by a national security adviser that there was potential for a “breakthrough” in talks with the Freedom Convoy protesters.
And according to an investigation by Public, the Trudeau government used fake intelligence to frame participants in the Freedom Convoy as “violent extremists” and then shared the information with other “Five Eyes” countries.
Global News reported that “CCLA successfully argued that the existing laws of Canada were sufficient in dealing with the blockades and extraordinary powers granted by the Emergencies Act were not needed.”
In his ruling, Mosley wrote that “The harassment of residents, workers and business owners in downtown Ottawa and the general infringement of the right to peaceful enjoyment of public spaces there, while highly objectionable, did not amount to serious violence or threats of serious violence.”
“Sadly, the concept of a ‘state of exception’ is used by many governments today as the rule, not the exception, in order to transcend the rule of law, suspend freedoms and exercise what otherwise would be considered government overreach,” Pattakos said.
McAdam said what he observed during the protests in Ottawa was far from violent.
“When I was on Parliament Hill in the early part of the convoy, there was a beautiful feeling of celebration and togetherness,” he said. “As the weeks passed this dissipated. By the time the Emergencies Act was declared, the scene was more Orwellian. If I had simply stood on the Hill in those final days with a ‘placard,’ as the judge hypothesized, I could have been arrested and my bank account frozen.”
Tucker takes down Trudeau:
“We came to bring the fragrance of freedom to the rotting corpse of despotism.”
He says Canadians “have it in them to throw off the yoke of totalitarianism.”
Canadian Government to Appeal, ‘Convinced’ It Was ‘the Right Thing to Do’
At a press conference in Montreal on Tuesday, Freeland said the federal government will appeal Mosley’s decision, while according to CBC, Justice Minister Arif Virani cited the inquiry’s findings and said it “also informs our decision to appeal.”
“I would just like to take a moment to remind Canadians of how serious the situation was in our country when we took that decision,” Freeland said, in remarks quoted by CTV News. “The public safety of Canadians was under threat. Our national security, which includes our national economic security, was under threat.”
“It was a hard decision to take,” she said. “We took it very seriously after a lot of hard work, after a lot of careful deliberation. We were convinced at the time — I was convinced at the time — it was the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do … I remain and we remain convinced of that.”
Sarah Choujounian, co-founder of the Canadian Frontline Nurses, told The Defender she was not surprised by the government’s reaction.
“We expected that they would appeal if they lost,” she said. “At the moment, we are not sure what this means for anyone affected by these measures. We hope that, in time, justice will be served. One thing is for sure, it will be much harder for anyone to impose the Emergencies Act in the future, and we see that as somewhat of a victory for now.”
Marazzo said the appeal “is yet another demonstration of the Liberal government’s hubris,” adding that “Unsurprisingly, the government is denying any accountability and plans to continue their abuse of Canadians with an appeal. Regardless, we need to remain steadfast and unmovable in working for a return to truth, principle and justice.”
In CCF’s statement, Van Geyn said that the government now has “a mountain to climb” after Tuesday’s ruling, adding, “We look forward to the fight.”
And in remarks shared with CTV News, University of Ottawa associate professor of criminology Michael Kempa, Ph.D., said the federal court’s decision is “legally binding” and “sets a legal precedent” — unlike the conclusion reached by the inquiry.
With today's court ruling, the Freedom Convoy has been vindicated. The abuse of power deployed by this current crop of politicians, requires full accountability.
Never forget what they did, but always celebrate the beauty in what forced them to do 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.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
Featured image is from CHD
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.
We, descendants of Holocaust survivors, call on the world on this Holocaust Remembrance Day to join us in working to end the Israeli government’s genocide against the Palestinian people, enabled and supported by the US government.
The Israeli government has made very clear its intent to destroy Palestinian life in Gaza. To justify this horrific violence, the Israeli government has shamelessly manipulated Holocaust trauma. As descendants, we are outraged that the memory of our ancestors is being used to justify the same kind of horror being inflicted on others. We cry out against this genocidal assault: Not in our name!
As descendants, we recognize that genocide makes no one safer. We are not alone in our trauma, and we have a collective duty to prevent others from experiencing similar harm. Instead of ignoring the key lesson of the Holocaust — that Never Again means never again for anyone — and manipulating our trauma to support a genocidal war, we choose to invest in Jewish values like tzedek tzedek tirdof (justice, justice you shall pursue), and tikkun olam (repairing the world) right here and now, where we are.
Collectively, we determine what the legacy of Holocaust memory will be. We can weaponize our pain and inscribe the names of our ancestors on the funding bills and bombs that are the instruments of genocide. Or, we can carry our ancestors’ memories in actions that unite and protect us all. We choose the latter: free Palestine!
– Jewish Voice for Peace members who are descendants of Holocaust survivors
*
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 World Court ruled on Friday that the Israeli military must ensure that it is not committing acts in Gaza that are in violation of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention; Israel must pursue legal action against Israelis who made statements of genocidal intent; it must facilitate humanitarian aid into Gaza and Israel must report back to the Court on measures it is taking to fulfill these orders in one month.
The Court ordered that:
“The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group. …”
The Court’s actions amount to little more than what the United States has been saying publicly about Israel’s conduct, that it must not commit acts that amount to war crimes. The U.S. has not gone as far as to tell Israel not to commit genocide but the Court’s action falls far short of what South Africa and much of the world has been demanding.
The Court said South Africa has a plausible claim in at least some instances in its request for provisional measures to stop what it argues is Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. But the provisional measures South Africa requested — namely to stop the killing — were denied.
The Court established that there was a dispute against Israel and South Africa to give the Court jurisdiction. The Court also presented a litany of overwhelming evidence that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and that the Court would allow the case the go forward, namely putting Israel on trial for genocide. That will take years to adjudicate.
Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s foreign minister, tried to put a positive spin on the Court’s decisions in remarks to reporters outside the Palace of Justice in The Hague. “I am satisfied that our request for provisional measures was addressed,” she said.
Pandor said she was disappointed the word “cessation” of hostilities was not included in the Court’s orders, but said that to fulfill the orders to provide humanitarian services to Gaza Israel must stop its military operation.
“I believe to execute these orders there would have to be a ceasefire,” Pandor said. However, she added: “In no way will I say that I am disappointed” in the court’s ruling. “I had hoped for it [a ceasefire order], but to provide services would require a ceasefire.”
Pandor said she thought it “very significant” that Israel must report back to the World Court in one month to show how it is preventing its forces from committing genocide. It is unclear if there is a procedure for the Court to act if it is not satisfied with Israel’s report that Israel is fulfilling the order to do everything it can to prevent genocide.
Given that the Court’s directives amount to little more than public statements made by the U.S., Washington should be pleased with Friday’s ruling.
Israeli legal team listens to Court’s ruling on Friday. (U.N. TV Screenshot)
The Palestine Authority also tried to portray the ruling in a positive light.
“The ICJ order is an important reminder that no state is above the law,” PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki said in a video statement. He said the ruling “should serve as a wake-up call for Israel and actors who enabled its entrenched impunity.”
The people who count most, Gazans, were crushed by the ruling.
Most of 50-minute statement read by Judge Joan Donoghue, the American president of the court, was taken up by a recitation of evidence that sounded like it came directly out of South Africa’s complaint.
She relied heavily on statements by top U.N. officials, including the secretary-general and senior aid officials, to paint a picture of abject horror being imposed on the people of Gaza. She also read into the record clear statements of genocidal intent by the Israeli defense minister and the Israeli president.
Israel has being saying all along and stated it clearly in its argument before the Court on Nov. 12 that it is providing humanitarian aid and that it is working very carefully to avoid civilian casualties. It can likely be expected that Israel’s one-month report will repeat similar statements, which have already been refuted by U.N. officials, including the secretary-general.
BREAKING: BENJAMIN NETANYAHU OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON ICJ RULING
“Israel's commitment to international law is unshakable. Equally unshakable is our sacred commitment to continue to defend our country and protect our people.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was described by Al Jazeera as pleased with the outcome, took to Twitter to state that the claim of Israel committing genocide was “rightly rejected” by the Court and to eviscerate anyone who dared suggest Israel could commit such a thing as genocide.
“Israel’s commitment to international law is unwavering,” Netanyahu wrote. “Equally unwavering is our sacred commitment to continue to defend our country and defend our people. Like every country, Israel has an inherent right to defend itself.” He said:
“The vile attempt to deny Israel this fundamental right is blatant discrimination against the Jewish state, and it was justly rejected. The charge of genocide leveled against Israel is not only false, it’s outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it.”
Netanyahu clearly believes that Israeli military actions the Court believes could amount to genocide is Israel’s “fundamental right.” He continued to present Israel as the victim and Hamas as the war criminal.
“On the eve of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, I again pledge as Prime Minister of Israel – Never Again,” he said. “Israel will continue to defend itself against Hamas, a genocidal terror organization.”
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who was singled out for his alleged incitement by the Court, said that Israel “does not need to be lectured on morality” by the Court.
“The International Court of Justice in The Hague went above and beyond, when it granted South Africa’s antisemitic request to discuss the claim of genocide in Gaza, and now refuses to reject the petition outright,” he said in a statement.
“Those who seek justice, will not find it on the leather chairs of the court chambers in The Hague — they will find it in the Hamas tunnels in Gaza, where 136 hostages are held, and where those who murdered our children are hiding,” he said. “They will find it in the ‘Spirit of the IDF,’ a document that outlines the values and conduct of our moral and professional soldiers.”
International lawyer Francis Boyle, who won provisional measures against Yugoslavia at the ICJ in 1993, told the Institute for Public Accuracy:
“This is a massive, overwhelming legal victory for the Republic of South Africa against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. The U.N. General Assembly now can suspend Israel from participation in its activities as it did for South Africa and Yugoslavia. It can admit Palestine as a full member. And — especially since the International Criminal Court has been a farce — it can establish a tribunal to prosecute the highest level officials of the Israeli government, both civilian and military.”
*
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: Judge Joan Donoghue of the U.S., president of the ICJ, reading the Court’s ruling on Friday. (U.N. TV Screenshot)
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.
“Wherever violence, fear and hatred thrive, working people cannot,” reads a statement by Mary Kay Henry, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). SEIU, which boasts two million members, just joined a growing section of the US labor movement in calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. SEIU is now the largest union in the country to issue such a statement.
The statement begins with condemning “the horrific attacks by Hamas on October 7th,” while also condemning “the widespread attacks on innocent civilians, including the bombardment of neighborhoods, healthcare facilities, and refugee camps, by the Israeli military.”
“We call for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and the delivery of life-saving food, water, medicine and other resources to the people of Gaza,” reads the statement. “We call on elected leaders to come together to bring an end to the violence and demand a peaceful resolution that ensures both lasting security for the Israeli people and a sustained end to decades of occupation, blockades and lack of freedom endured by the Palestinian people.”
SEIU joins an emerging sector of the US labor movement which includes the United Auto Workers, the American Postal Workers Union, the United Electrical Workers, and an SEIU local, 1199. SEIU joins this movement as popular support for a ceasefire grows, with a new poll indicating that voters are more likely to support political candidates who call for a ceasefire.
The union’s statement also indicates a willingness among major unions to break from the established Democratic Party status quo as the Biden administration has been openly hostile towards calls for a ceasefire. The White House has gone as far to condemn the progressive congress members calling for a ceasefire, calling the pressure for peace “repugnant” and “disgraceful.”
Congress has also thus far failed to hold Israel accountable for ongoing war crimes in the Gaza strip. The US Senate recently rejected a proposal by Senator Bernie Sanders to require a State Department report on Israel’s human rights violations, on the basis that the US can investigate any country receiving US military aid. The proposal was rejected by 72 to 11.
*
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.
Eighty years ago, on January 27, 1944, people in the street were hugging each other and weeping with joy. They were celebrating the end of a nearly 900 days brutal siege. Soviet forces lifted the siege of Leningrad after ferocious battles. Exactly a year later they liberated Auschwitz. Even today, walking in Saint-Petersburg’s main avenue, the Nevsky Prospect, one notices a blue sign painted on a wall during the siege: “Citizens! This side of the street is the most dangerous during artillery shelling”.
The siege was enforced by armies and navies which had come from Germany, Finland, Italy, Spain, and Norway. It was part of a war started by a coalition of forces from around Europe led by Nazi Germany on June 22, 1941.
The goal of the war against the Soviet Union was different from the war Germany had waged in Western Europe. On the day of the invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler declared that “the empire in the east is ripe for dismemberment”. Germany sought new living space (Lebensraum) but did not need the people who lived on it. Most of them were despised as subhuman (Untermenschen) and destined to be killed, starved or enslaved. Their land was to be given to “Aryan” settlers. To make his point in racial terms familiar to the Europeans, Hitler referred to the Soviet population as “Asians”.
Indeed, the war against the Soviet Union had aspects of a colonial war: millions of Soviet civilians – Slavs, Jews, Gypsies (Roma) and others – were systematically put to death. This surpassed Germany’s genocide in Southwest Africa (today’s Namibia) in 1904-1908 when it just as systematically massacred the local tribes of Herero and Namas. True, Germany was not exceptional: this was common practice among European colonial powers.
The intentions of the Nazi invaders were summarized succinctly:
After the defeat of Soviet Russia there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban center. […] Following the city’s encirclement, requests for surrender negotiations shall be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, we can have no interest in maintaining even a part of this very large urban population.
As one of the Nazi commanders enforcing the siege put it, “we shall put the Bolsheviks on a strict diet”.
The last rail line linking the city with the rest of the Soviet Union was severed on August 30, 1941, a week later the last road was occupied by the invaders. The city was completely encircled, supplies of food and fuel dried up, and a severe winter set in. The little that the Soviet government succeeded in delivering to Leningrad was rationed. At one time, the daily ration was reduced to 125 grams of bread made as much of sawdust as of flour. Many did not get even that, and people were forced to eat cats, dogs, wallpaper glue, and there were a few cases of cannibalism. Dead bodies littered the streets as people were dying of hunger, disease, cold and bombardment.
Leningrad, a city of 3.4 million people, lost over one third of its population. This was the largest loss of life in a modern city. The former imperial capital famous for its magnificent palaces, elegant gardens and breathtaking vistas was methodically bombed and shelled. Over 10 000 buildings were either destroyed or damaged. This was part of the invaders’ drive to demodernize the Soviet Union, to throw it back in time. Leningrad had to be wiped out precisely because it was a major centre of science and engineering, home to writers and ballet dancers, the see of famous universities and art museums. None was to survive in the Nazi plans.
Sadly, neither sieges, nor colonial wars ended in 1945. Britain, France and the Netherlands waged brutal wars of “pacification” in their colonies long after Nazism was defeated. Racism was still official in the United States, another ally in the fight against Nazism. Twelve years after the war, it took the 101st Airborne Division to enable nine black students to attend a school in Little Rock, Arkansas. Today’s Western values of tolerance are recent and fragile. Overt racism is no longer acceptable, but its impact is still with us.
Human lives do not have the same value either in our media, or in our foreign policies. The death of an Israeli attracts more media attention that that of a Palestinian. Severe sanctions are imposed on Iran for its civilian nuclear enrichment program while none are imposed on Israel for its military nuclear arsenal. And, of course, Western powers continue to provide arms and political support for the siege of Gaza, where civilian population is not only bombed and shelled, but deliberately starved and let die of disease. The International Court of Justice confirmed “plausible genocide”, even though it failed to stop Israel.
Commemoration of the siege of Leningrad should prompt us to put an end to all racism, to stop the siege of Gaza and to prevent such atrocities in the future. Otherwise, the accusation thrown in the face of the European citizen by the Martinican poet Aimé Césaire in 1955 would remain still valid:
.. what he cannot forgive Hitler for is not crime in itself, the crime against man, it is not the humiliation of man as such, it is the crime against the white man, the humiliation of the white man, and the fact that he applied to Europe colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the coolies of India, and the blacks of Africa.”
*
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.
Yakov M. Rabkin is Professor Emeritus of History at the Université of Montréal. His publications include over 300 articles and a few books: Science between Superpowers, A Threat from Within: a Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, What is Modern Israel?, Demodernization: A Future in the Past and Judaïsme, islam et modernité. He did consulting work for, inter alia, OECD, NATO, UNESCO and the World Bank. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: www.yakovrabkin.ca
Incisive article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls first published by Global Research on August 1, 2017, more than three years prior to the launching of Covid-19 in December 2020.
***
The title above “Just Get Your Damn Shots” is a verbatim quote taken from any number of seriously uninformed TV physicians, paid trolls and paid celebrities as they have gleefully joined the popular CDC, WHO, AAP, AAFP and AMA-sponsored campaigns that have denigrated (and therefore infuriated) the witnesses of the hundreds of thousands of over-vaccinated, vaccine-injured, vaccine-disabled or vaccine-killed infants, children, adults and soldiers.
Particularly angered are the parents, siblings, neighbors and other loved ones of the vaccine-traumatized victims, for they
KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THE VACCINES POISONED THEIR LOVED ONES BECAUSE THEY SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING BEFORE THEIR VERY EYES.
Dear Readers, Google the title: “Just Get Your Damn Shots” Prevails.
Draft Google Search (January 27, 2023)
Governor Hogan: “Just Get The Damn Vaccine.” – YouTube
www.youtube.com › watch
With the Delta variant accounting for nearly all of the new COVID-19 cases in the State of Maryland and an increase in infections among …
YouTube · Governor Larry Hogan · Aug 5, 2021
‘Get the damn shot!’ Broward pushes residents to … – YouTube
www.youtube.com › watch
Broward County hospitals are seeing a surge of COVID-19 patients, a problem that Mayor Steve Geller and medical experts say is preventable …
YouTube · WPLG Local 10 · Jul 28, 2021
Man’s last text: ‘I should have gotten the damn vaccine’ – CNN
www.cnn.com › videos › health › 2021/08/02 › jessica-d…
Jessica DuPreez talks with John Berman about her 39-year-old fiancé who died from Covid-19. She discusses why they didn’t get vaccinated, …
CNN · Aug 2, 2021
just get the damn vaccine
www.tiktok.com › DK (@devan.kaney) | TikTok
“just get the damn vaccine
These witnesses knew the truth, even though their physicians (especially, apparently, pediatricians) and their clinics refused to listen to them and often fired them and their families when they logically refused to accept “coincidence” as the reason for the catastrophic vaccine-induced illness that suddenly changed their normal baby into a chronically ill or dead one.
Well-informed parents are beginning to realize – despite the aggressive propaganda campaigns from Big Pharma, Big Medicine and Big Media – that vaccines are NOT necessarily safe. Indeed they are seeing that they can be lethal.
Many parents are also beginning to see that vaccines are NOT necessarily effective long-term either. As opposed to natural childhood infections giving life-long immunity, vaccines for such mild infections as measles, mumps and chickenpox need frequent booster shots to theoretically provide partial immunity.
Parents who can’t expect to get thorough information about the CDC’s and AAP’s over-vaccination mandates from their clinics are having to do their own research on neurotoxicology , and they are beginning to realize (no thanks to their too-busy and relatively un-informed physicians) that the vaccines that are planned for their precious kids contain varieties of neurotoxic ingredients in the cocktails of baby shots. As many as 3 injections at one sitting are supposed to go into the tiny muscles of 6 or 8 or 10 pound babies at their 2, 4 and 6 month well baby check-ups. These injections may contain live viruses, aluminum, mercury or unintended contaminants all of which the vaccine manufacturers admit may cause brain inflammation or infection.
The most brain toxic vaccine ingredient in this era since the year 2000 is aluminum, which is increasingly in many infant vaccines. The most brain toxic metal that was in vaccines in the latter two generations of the 20th century was mercury (thimerosal) – a preservative that was removed from many vaccines around 2000 because pediatricians KNEW that it was the major cause of the pediatric autism spectrum disorder (ASD) epidemic that had no other plausible explanation.
Because of that knowledge, the AAP (the American Academy of Pediatrics that now infamously denies the connection between vaccines and ASD), with no help from the CDC, eventually helped convince the vaccine manufacturers to remove mercury from most vaccines.
Babies, most notably the premature ones, always have immature, leaky blood-brain barriers (and leaky guts) that allow some of these toxic vaccine ingredients to enter the brain. Both aluminum and mercury – even in “trace” amounts – are known to adversely affect both the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier, with serious implications for pregnant women who are increasingly prompted to submit to expensive and probably fetotoxic vaccinations.(!).
Paid Trolls are Behind Much of the Smearing of the Vaccine-injured
The ubiquitous smear campaigns against what paid trolls pejoratively call “anti-vaxxers” target any and all rational and scholarly skeptics of America’s blatantly over-vaccination agenda – a American national agenda that
1) over-vaccinates the most children in the entire developed world,
2) has the worst infant mortality rate in the entire developed world and
3) has the largest percentage of autistic kids in the entire developed world.
But Big Pharma’s toxic over-vaccination agenda is highly profitable for
1) Big Pharma,
2) Big Medicine,
3) pediatricians,
4) medical clinics and
5) Big Media (which makes billions of dollars per year from Big Pharma advertisers).
The propagandistic smear has been orchestrated by organizations (and their paid trolls) representing the 5 corporate institutions named above, who are drafting laws to make more and more of these toxic vaccines compulsory, as has happened in California in 2016. Even Big Pharma-bribed politicians – all totally ignorant of the neurotoxicology of America’s over-vaccination agenda – are joining the irrational campaign.
What is saddest is how vicious have been the attacks against the independent, non-pharma scientist-scholars who have actually done well-designed toxicology research that PROVES (to any unbiased physician or otherwise smart person that isn’t conflicted and immobilized by financial or professional conflicts of interest) that what the CDC and AAP is saying about vaccine safety is untrue.
Sadly, every major media outlet seems to employ attractive, highly indoctrinated, financially- and professionally-conflicted full-time celebrity physicians to only report on medical issues that are favorable to the network’s Big Pharma advertisers. Therefore no news will be effectively reported that might expose any of Big Pharma’s many blatantly fraudulent practices.
Don’t Criticize What You Can’t Understand
And then there are ignorant celebrities who have joined the well-financed and well-organized smear campaign who know nothing about the science of vaccine neurotoxicology, a science that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that intramuscularly-injected aluminum (which is in most infant vaccines as an “adjuvant” – look it up) and intramuscularly-injected mercury (thimerosal) are common causes of childhood brain damage that can be diagnosed as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Asperger’s Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA), Autoimmune Disorders, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Allergies (and that’s just the list of vaccine-induced disorders that start with the letter “A”), tic disorder, seizure disorder, dementia, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, etc, etc, depending on what age the brain was sufficiently poisoned and what location in the brain was most seriously affected.
The sad reality is that most physicians (including my own) had woefully inadequate medical school training about neurotoxicology, immunology, vaccinology and nutrition, at least partly because Big Pharma has devious influences on medical education – hoping to create endless supplies of prolific prescription-writers and vaccine supporters.
A couple of years ago, prior to his pregnant wife (highly likely) receiving her mercury-laden prenatal flu shot and her aluminum-laden prenatal DTaP shot, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel chimed in with the CDC/AMA/AAP’s “just get your damn shots” campaign that demonized
1) parents and loved ones of vaccine-injured babies and children,
2) unbiased research immunologists,
3) unbiased neurotoxicologists,
4) the 10 – 15% of pediatricians who actually listen sympathetically to their patients, and
5) other scholarly and critically-thinking science-minded folks who know that toxic vaccine ingredients commonly sicken many of America’s over-vaccinated children.
Knowing that the most common neurotoxic vaccine ingredients (aluminum and mercury)
1) are both mitochondrial toxins,
2) are both blood-brain barrier toxins,
3) are both capable of crossing the placental barrier and
4) are both exponentially more poisonous when given together,
it shouldn’t surprise any logical thinker that bad outcomes should be expected when metal-containing vaccines are given in cocktails at the same time, whether they are given to a soldier, a baby, a child, a pre-pubertal girl or an adult heading towards dementia.
Quotes
I conclude with some appropriate quotes that should give some uncertain or blind pro-vaccinators pause and give them interest and the willingness to go to the massive volume of unbiased medical literature to learn the truth about the dangers of over-vaccinating children.
I don’t expect changing the minds of those who have been indoctrinated by Big Pharma and Big Medicine. I also don’t expect influencing paid or unpaid trolls to actually go to the many references and scholars that I have referred to in the past. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. And you can point out the conflicts of interest of the ignorant naysayers and trolls but that won’t stop them from continuing to criticize the science that they are either incapable of understanding or unwilling to listen to.
“You might as well consult a butcher on the value of vegetarianism as a doctor on the worth of vaccination.” – George Bernard Shaw
“It is difficult to get a man to understandsomething, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair, American anti-fascist, anti-imperialist author
“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” – President Ronald Wilson Reagan, as he signed TheNational Childhood Vaccine Injury Act(NCVIA) of 1986,absolving drug companies, pediatricians and all vaccine providers from all medico-legal liability when children die, become chronically ill with vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders or are otherwise disabled from vaccine injuries. (That law has led directly to an expected reckless, liability-free development of scores of new, over-priced, potential block-buster vaccines, now numbering over 250. The question that must be asked of Big Medicine’s practitioners: How will the CDC, the AMA, the AAFP and the American Academy of Pediatrics fit any more potentially neurotoxic vaccines into the current well-baby over-vaccination schedule?)
“By Nov. 1, 2016, $3.5 billion had been awarded to more than 3,500 vaccine victims through the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created under the 1986 NCVIA law.”
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses … the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic.”— Dresden James
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell
Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?
1976: 1 child in 30 was learning disabled → 2013: 1 child in 6 is learning disabled.
1980: 1 child in 27 had asthma → 2013: 1 child in 9 has asthma.
1992: 1 child in 500 developed autism → 2013: 1 child in 50 develops autism.
2001: 1 child in 555 had diabetes → 2013: 1 child in 400 has diabetes.
THREE TIMES AS MANY VACCINATIONS FOR CHILDREN
1953: CDC recommended 16 doses of 4 vaccines (smallpox, DPT) between two months and age six.
1983: CDC recommended 23 doses of 7 vaccines (DPT, MMR, polio) between two months and age six.
2013: CDC recommended 50 doses of 14 vaccines between day of birth and age six and 69 doses of 16 vaccines between day of birth and age 18.
MULTIPLE VACCINATIONS GIVEN SIMULTANEOUSLY
In 1983, the CDC directed doctors to give a child no more than 4 vaccines (DPT, polio) simultaneously.
By 2013, the CDC directed that a child can receive 8 or more vaccines at once.
The Institute of Medicine published a report in 2013 stating that “key elements of the entire [CDC recommended childhood vaccine] schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order and age of administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies.”
VACCINATIONS DURING PREGNANCY
A new CDC policy directs doctors to give pregnant women one dose of influenza vaccine in any trimester and one dose of pertussis containing Tdap vaccine after 20 weeks during every pregnancy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that large, well-controlled long term studies have not been conducted to confirm that influenza and Tdap vaccination during pregnancy is safe.
“The evidence strongly suggests that it is the vaccines and the vaccinated who are spreading the diseases for which vaccines are given.”
“The real issue is viral shedding. Viral vaccines are vaccines containing live viruses, even if they are weak or attenuated strains. These live viruses shed for varying amounts of time in the body fluids of a vaccinated individual – and can be transmitted to others. You can absolutely catch the virus (or bacterium) from someone who has just been vaccinated against that disease. Not only that, but viral shedding from vaccines is leading to viral and bacterial mutations, helping to create a phenomenon of new and dangerous strains of disease which can evade treatment by becoming accustomed to whatever drugs get thrown at them.”
“The U.S. has maintained one of the world’s highest child vaccination rates and lowest infectious disease rates, even as public health officials have been unable to explain why so many of today’s highly vaccinated children are so sick and disabled. Also unexplained, is why America has the worst infant mortality rate of all developed nations, with 6 out of 1,000 babies dying before their first birthday.
“Maternal mortality in the U.S. has also become one of the worst of all industrialized nations, with between 12 and 28 women in 100,000 dying within one year of giving birth, a maternal mortality rate that more than doubled between 1990 and 2013. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), annually an estimated 1,200 women in America suffer fatal complications during pregnancy and childbirth and another 60,000 suffer near-fatal complications.
“Women having babies in the U.S. today, who represent the most vaccinated generations in our nation’s history, are now also being given influenza, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus vaccines during pregnancy, a federal maternal vaccination policy that was launched in 1997 with administration of influenza vaccine during any trimester and was widened in 2011 with the addition of a pertussis containing TDaP shot after 20 weeks gestation.
“As of 2015, about half of the nation’s pregnant women or nearly 2 million women, were either vaccinated with TDaP vaccine during pregnancy (42 percent) or influenza vaccine before or during pregnancy (50 percent) or received both vaccines.” – Barbara Loe-Fischer, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)
What has happened to the health of children in America since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed in 1986?
“After drug companies, pediatricians and all vaccine providers were shielded from accountability and liability for vaccine injuries and deaths, U.S. health officials tripled the numbers of vaccinations recommended for children – from 23 doses of seven vaccines in 1986 to 33 doses of nine vaccines by 1997, which has escalated to a current 69 doses of 16 vaccines. States also increased the numbers of vaccinations required for children to attend school and, by 1997, it was obvious that a growing number of highly vaccinated children in America were never well anymore.
“The new and unprecedented child chronic disease and disability epidemic that has perfectly coincided with the expansion of the child vaccine schedule over the past 30 years is having a devastating effect on children, their families and our nation. Today, 1 child in 6 in the U.S. is learning disabled; 1 in 9 has asthma; 1 in 10 has ADHD; 1 in 50 develops autism; and 1 in 400 has diabetes. Millions more are suffering with severe allergies epilepsy, anxiety and depression, and other kinds of brain and immune disorders marked by chronic inflammation in the body.” – Barbara Loe-Fischer
“If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.” – Russell Blaylock, MD
“The live polio vaccine…contains live attenuated polioviruses. Those polioviruses, when you take that [live] vaccine, you shed them in your body fluids – your saliva, urine, and stool…Whether you have the a viral infection or you get the live attenuated vaccine, you shed live viruses in your body fluids and you are able to transmit the virus to other people who come in contact with your body fluids.” — Barbara Loe-Fisher
”Curbing civil liberties under the guise of protecting the public health and national security has become big business. In 1982, when the pharmaceutical industry threatened to stop producing government licensed and recommended vaccines for children unless vaccine manufacturers got a product liability shield, Congress gave Big Pharma most of what it wanted in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. It was tort reform legislation sold to parents and the American public on the backs of children legally required by states to get federally recommended vaccines to attend school.
“Even though by Nov. 1, 2016, $3.5 billion had been awarded to more than 3,500 vaccine victims through the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created under the 1986 law, two out of three claims have been denied throughout the entire history of the law’s implementation. Most of the compensation awards today are for adults injured by flu vaccine – not for children required to get vaccines to go to school.
“While the government denies compensation to many children, whose lives have been destroyed by state mandated vaccines, in the past five years liability-free drug companies have joined forces with politically powerful medical trade groups to change state vaccine laws. They are lobbying state legislatures to severely restrict the medical exemption and eliminate the non-medical religious, philosophical and conscientious belief exemptions for children attending school.” — Barbara Loe-Fisher
“…our current results are consistent with the existing evidence on the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of aluminum adjuvants which altogether strongly implicate these compounds as contributors to the rising prevalence of neurobehavioral disorders in children. Given that autism has devastating consequences in a life of a child, and that currently in the developed world over 1% of children suffer from some form of ASD, it would seem wise to make efforts towards reducing infant exposure to aluminum from vaccines.“— C A Shaw, PhD
“There is a serious problem with vaccine safety. Vaccine aluminum adjuvant has adverse neurological effects, at dosages that are recommended by the US CDC. Vaccine critics are supported by the science. Parents refusing to vaccinate according to the recommended CDC schedule are supported by the science. Use aluminum-containing vaccines with great caution, or not at all.” – C. A. Shaw, PhD
“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant…research clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation andassociated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.” (From Tomljenovic and Shaw’s journal article “Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are They Safe?”, published in Curr Med Chem 2011;18(17):2630-7.)
“The CDC says that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d all be put in prison for fraud.” – Jon Rappoport
“A 2007 [Zika] outbreak on Yap Islands in Micronesia is estimated to have affected nearly 75% of the (island’s) population of some 12,000 people, and a 2013 outbreak in French Polynesia affected nearly 28,000 of 270,000 residents. Neither epidemic caused a spike in microcephaly.” — qz.com
“The correlation between a) the presence of Zika and b) babies with the microcephaly birth defect is so weak and sparse, it constitutescounter-evidencefor Zika as the cause…the overwhelming majority of birth-defect cases show no presence of Zika. Therefore, the Zika-carrying mosquitoes have no business being the target of toxic spraying. But they are. And the spraying increases the risk of neurological damage in babies.” – Jon Rappoport
“Microcephaly may result from any insult that disturbs early brain growth…Annually, approximately 25,000 infants in the United States will be diagnosed with microcephaly…” – From the Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the Practice Committee of the Child Neurology Society. (Neurology 2009 Sep 15; 73(11) 887-897)
“…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.” – Dr Peter Doshi (from a British Medical Journal review article, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” 2013 (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037)
“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t, work because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.” – Jon Rappoport
“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.” – Dr Peter Doshi, from in his 2005 BMJ report, titled, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412
“Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data showed an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” – Dr Peter Doshi
“Official data shows that large scale vaccination has failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection” — Dr Sabin, developer of Polio vaccine
“The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunisation…..There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease.” — Dr Robert Mendelsohn, MD
“The only safe vaccine is one that is never used.” — Dr. James A. Shannon, National Institutes of Health
“No batch of vaccine can be proved safe before it is given to children.” – Dr Leonard Scheele, Surgeon General of the United States, addressing an AMA convention in 1955
“It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated.” — Dr Glen Dettman
“The decline in infectious diseases in developed countries had nothing to do with vaccinations, but with the decline in poverty and hunger.” — Dr Buchwald, MD
“There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good.” – Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin.)
“There is insufficient evidence to support routine vaccination of healthy persons of any age.” — Paul Frame, MD, Journal of Family Practice
“I think that no person would permit anybody to get close to them with an inoculation if they would really know how they are made, what they carry, what has been lied to them about and what the real percent of danger is of contracting such a disease which is minimal.” — Dr Eva Snead
“The evidence for indicting immunisations for SIDS is circumstantial, but compelling. However, the keepers of the keys to medical-research funds are not interested in searching this very important lead to the cause of an ongoing, and possibly preventable, tragedy. Anything that implies that immunisations are not the greatest medical advance in the history of public health is ignored or ridiculed. Can you imagine the economic and political import of discovering that immunisations are killing thousands of babies?” — Dr William C. Douglass, MD (Honored twice as America’s ‘Doctor of the Year’)
“Sudden Infant Death Syndrome has been reported following the administration of DPT. The significance is unclear. 85% of SIDS cases occur in the period 1 through 6 months of age, with the peak incidence at age 2 to 4 months.” (From the accompanying insert to Connaught Labs’ DPT vaccine) — Jane Orient, MD, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
“If you want the truth on vaccination you must go to those who are not making anything out of it…My aim has been to show that you have a powerful body to fight in the medical profession. We cannot be stirred without great effort. We are a kind of Juggernaut; we have to be dragged; we will not go. Let each one take his doctor, or, if he be so fortunate as not to need one, the doctor who lives nearest to him, and try and instruct him (about the dangers of vaccination). Send him the literature of the subject; he may not read it, but he may. Every little helps. – Instruct the people by means of public lectures and meetings. Show them as plainly as you can the uselessness and dangers of vaccination. Teach them that they must not go to the medical profession for counsel on the matter. If cases of small-pox were isolated and the clothes of the sufferers disinfected, the disease would not spread. If you wish to avoid smallpox, you must live pure and simple lives. If we crowd together we must expect disease; if we keep our skins closed, the impurities of the body are retained, and these impurities are the food upon which small-pox thrives. If your constitution is in a bad, state and you come in contact ‘with small-pox, you will probably have it.” — Dr T. R. Allinson
“The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunisation…There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease.” — Dr Robert Mendelsohn, MD
“Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.” – Russell Blaylock, MD
“the 271 vaccines in development span a wide array of diseases, and employ exciting new scientific strategies and technologies. These potential vaccines – all in human clinical trials or under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – include 137 for infectious diseases, 99 for cancer, 15 for allergies and 10 for neurological disorders.” — PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), the pharmaceutical industry’s trade association and powerful lobbying group
***
Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the planet and the populace. Many of his columns are archived at
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.
Il Generale dell’Esercito USAChristopher Cavoli, Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa, ha annunciato che, dalla fine di gennaio alla fine di maggio, si svolgerà in Europa la più grande esercitazione NATO degli ultimi decenni, Steadfast Defender (Saldo Difensore) 2024.
Vi parteciperanno 90.000 militari dei 31 Paesi della NATO e della Svezia che sta per entrare nella NATO. Saranno impiegati nell’esercitazione oltre 80 aerei da combattimento insieme ad elicotteri e droni, 50 navi da guerra comprese le portaerei, 1.100 carrarmati e altri veicoli da combattimento.
L’esercitazione – la più grande dalla fine della Guerra Fredda – servirà a testare e perfezionare la strategia di guerra contro la Russia.
Il generale USA, che nella NATO comanda le forze armate dei 29 Paesi europei membri della Alleanza, ha dichiarato che, con la Steadfast Defender 2024. “l’Alleanzadimostrerà la sua capacità di rafforzare l’area euro-atlantica attraverso il movimento transatlantico di forze dal Nord America.
Questo rinforzo avverrà durante uno scenario di conflitto emergente simulato contro un avversario quasi-pari”. Chiaro il riferimento alla Russia.
Il Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa comunica inoltre che l’Italia è stata scelta quale sede del quartier generale della Forza di Reazione Alleata.
Il generale USA sottolinea che essa è “una componente fondamentale del nostro nuovo modello di forza e che “è in grado di svolgere l’intero spettro di missioni e funge da riserva strategica a dispiegamento rapido”.
Nel corso dell’esercitazione il quartier generale italiano della Forza di Reazione Alleata effettuerà uno spiegamento della Forza di Reazione Rapida in Polonia sul fianco orientale dell’Alleanza, chiaramente diretto contro la Russia.
Il Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa non dice che l’esercitazione di guerra, che si svolgerà per quattro mesi in Europa, sarà anche una esercitazione di guerra nucleare.
Gli aerei, le navi e i sistemi missilistici impiegati nella Steadfast Defender 2024 hanno duplice capacità convenzionale e nucleare.
Gli USApotranno così testare, in una realistica simulazione, le nuove armi nucleari che stanno schierando in Europa sempre più a ridosso della Russia.
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.
“25 Years of Discussions on Security of and in the Use of Information and Communication Technologies Under the Auspices of the United Nations”
***
While the psychopathology of Russophobia is infecting the West, and various venal stratagems are being employed to destabilize the Russian Federation, it is precisely the Russian Federation which is leading efforts to establish an international code of conduct assuring the peaceful uses of technology, and prohibiting criminal attempts to cripple societies dependent upon centralized technological control.
On September 22, 2023, the Russian Federation held an important panel discussion during the General Assembly High-Level Week, chaired by H.E. Mr Sergey Vershinin, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, and including panel participants:
Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs,
H.E. Mr. Burhan Gafoor, Chair of the Open-Ended working group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies 2021-2025,
H.E. Ms. Faouzia Mebarki, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes, Ambassador of Algeria to the United Nations in Vienna,
H.E. Mr. Grigory Logvinov, Deputy Secretary-General, Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
Mr. Oleg Slepov, Head of International Development Department, Rostelecom-Solar.
The possibilities of information and communications technologies, used for constructive purposes, and by contrast, the deadly potential of using these technologies for destructive, criminal purposes were discussed in depth and detail, and what would seem an abstract matter became stunningly immediate, particularly as described by Mr. Oleg Slepov, of Rostelecom-Solar. Mr. Slepov discussed the way in which crucial sectors of modern societies can be connected by advanced technologies, speeding up, and providing incredibly efficient and effective transfer of information, as all sectors of these societies become increasingly dependent on these centralized technologies in order to function.
However, Mr. Slepov also warned of the dangerous possibility of hostile actors sabotaging these newly centralized controls of the most important sectors of society, by disabling the control centers of these now technologically linked sectors of society.
Thus, criminals have the power to destroy an entire country by disabling the switch that controls the communication technology.
This sabotage can be immediate, and will paralyze the most indispensable sectors of society, controlling water, electricity, health care facilities, transportation, telecommunications, and all other indispensable components that enable human societies to function. Mr. Slepov warned that this very centralized technological control of entire societies makes them vulnerable to sabotage by hostile actors.
The Concept Note for this meeting states:
“The fifth substantive session of this Open-ended Working group (OWEG) held in July 2023 marked the implementation of the initially Russian proposal on establishing global intergovernmental Points of Contact Directory, aimed at enhancing cooperation between competent national authorities in detecting, preventing and eliminating consequences of computer attacks, as well as responding to computer incidents.”
I had the privilege of speaking directly with Russian Deputy Minister Vershinin, and asked him whether it is actually possible to destroy an entire country by hostile interference with the technological centers which control effective functioning of that targeted country.
Minister Vershinin replied that this danger is, indeed, very real and alarming, and it is one of the reasons that the Russian Federation proposed this initiative, to be held under the auspices of the United Nations, in the context of international security. This initiative was adopted by the General Assembly by consensus.
*
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.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
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.
Dizayee was the owner of the Falcon Group, which is a business involved in oil and gas, agriculture and security. The IRG claimed its missiles targeted a “Mossad headquarters”.
“No US facilities were impacted. We’re not tracking damage to infrastructure or injuries at this time,” a US official said in response to the recent attack.
Prime Minister of the IKR,Masrour Barzani, condemned the IRG attacks on Erbil.
The Oil Business in Erbil
The oil business is thriving in IKR, and the Falcon Group was part of it. Kurdish oil has been exported to Israel, Italy, France and Greece through a secretive trade depending on pre-pay deals.
Israel received its first substantial seaborne crude oil shipment from the IKR in 2014, which is the same time the US occupation forces arrived in Syria. Israel was reportedly importing as much as three-quarters of its crude oil needs from the IKR by mid-2015.
Israeli refineries and oil companies imported almost $1 billion worth of Kurdish oil between May and August of 2023, according to shipping data, trading sources and satellite tanker tracking, which represents about 77% of average Israeli demand, which runs at roughly 240,000 barrels per day. More than a third of all of the northern Iraqi exports, which are shipped from Turkey’s Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, went to Israel over the period.
According to anonymous sources, it was a Mossad agent who first traveled to Erbil to negotiate the deal to buy oil from IKR, which was facilitated by US officials.
The US Consulate in Erbil
The new US Consulate General building in Erbil, near the attack carried out by Iran, is the biggest consulate complex built by the US. Embassies and Consulates are under the US State Department, but the consulate in Erbil has a connection to the US Department of Defense, demonstrating the strategic importance of the region for Washington, with a US military base also in IKR.
Irvin Hicks, Jr., the US Consul General in Erbil, stated in January 2023, that the new 800-million-dollar consulate building is a clear statement that the “United States of America is not going anywhere.”
The US first opened a diplomatic office in Erbil in February 2007, and later upgraded to a consulate general in 2011, the same year the US-NATO attack on Syria began for regime change, under the Obama-Biden administration.
The US embassy in Baghdad was built in 2009 and is its biggest mission compound in the world at a cost of $750 million. Iraqi Kurdistan and the Iraqi central government in Baghdad operate separately, as the Kurds are a semi-autonomous region.
Erbil has 30 consulates, six honorary consulates, and six foreign trade offices, with the Japanese consulate the latest to open on Jan. 11.
Iran views the foreign offices as having the potential to carry out plans aimed at destabilizing the security of Iran, by hosting Iranian separatist groups and bases aligned with Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.
The Iraqi Response to the Genocide in Gaza
“On October 20, 2023, the Department ordered the departure of eligible family members and non-emergency U.S. government personnel from U.S. Embassy Baghdad and U.S. Consulate General Erbil due to increased security threats against U.S. government personnel and interests,” according to the State Department’s Iraq travel advisory.
Iraqis have taken to the streets to protest the US complicity in the genocide being committed in Gaza by Israel. US President Joe Biden has defied the American values of human rights and international law by continuing to send weapons to Israel to promote the wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian civilians of Gaza, even in the face of international criticism which has lowered the image of America as a beacon of freedom to a joke.
Protests have taken place outside of the US Embassy in Baghdad, and military groups which are under the central government of Iraq have fired rockets and armed drones at US troops based in Anbar and near Erbil multiple times. Baghdad does not recognize Israel; however, the IKR are aligned with the US, and sell the stolen oil from Syria to the prime US ally, Israel.
The US invaded and destroyed Iraq in 2003, and occupied the country for years until a withdrawal. When ISIS reared its ugly head, the Baghdad government requested US troops to come to help in the fight against ISIS, which saw its defeat at the hands of Iraq, Syria, Russia, and the US. The Iraqi parliament ordered the US troops to leave after the defeat of ISIS in 2017, but the Department of Defense refused. The Prime Minister of Iraq has recently ordered the US troops to leave immediately following the US assassination of Mushtaq Jawad Kazim al-Jawari in Baghdad on January 4, an Iraqi military commander who was instrumental in the defeat of ISIS.
The PKK in Syria and Erbil
The PKK aligned SDF in north east Syria is US supported. The US military in Syria are occupying the largest oil field in Syria, which prevents the Damascus government from using the oil to provide electricity to the Syrian people, who suffer with just 3 hours of electricity per day.
Farhan Jamil Abdullah, head of the Syrian Oil Company, said in July that as a result of the US sanctions and military occupation in Syria, oil production has decreased to 15,000 barrels per day from 385,000 barrels before 2011.
Firas Hassan Kaddour, the Syrian Oil Minister, said in July that the losses of the energy sector in Syria are close to 100 billion U.S. dollars.
The main oil field of Al Omar and Conoco in Syria are producing oil which is shipped in tankers by the US Army and refined at Kar Oil Refinery in Erbil.
Turkey has condemned the US alliance with the SDF and YPG, and considers the US is financing terrorism.
The commander of the SDF is General Mazloum Kobani, who is also a member of the PKK. His real name is Ferhat Abdi Sahin, is one of Turkey’s most wanted terrorists. Kobani was chosen by the US as their military ally and it is at Kobani’s command that the stolen Syrian oil is loaded into tankers.
Erdogan has demanded for years that the US must stop supporting the SDF, YPG, and to stop encouraging the Kurds to establish an independent homeland in north east Syria on the border with Turkey, which is a NATO member, and ally of the US, housing an American military base there.
*
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled
