All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on December 20, 2023
***
The unspoken truth is that a non-existent pandemic has provided a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire planet into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.
Destabilizing the social, political and economic structure of 190 sovereign countries cannot constitute a “solution” to combating a novel coronavirus which mysteriously emerged in Wuhan, Hubei province (PRC) in late December 2019.
That was the imposed “solution” —implemented in several stages from the very outset:
-The March 2020 Lockdown, applied Worldwide which has triggered economic and social chaos.
-The December 2020 Rollout of the Covid 19 “Vaccine” which has resulted in an upward trend in excess mortality.
-The Global Debt Crisis which is currently unfolding.
It’s the destruction of people’s lives Worldwide. It is the destabilization of civil society.
We are at the crossroads of the most serious economic and social crisis in world history.
It’s a war against humanity.
Video: Fake Pandemic Triggers Worldwide Economic and Social Collapse
Michel Chossudovsky Interview with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media
The original Global Research video produced by Ariel Rodriguez in February 2021, aired by Vaccine Choice Canada in June 2021 was taken down by Vimeo on March 5, 2022
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
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
**
“People are dying! Entire ecosystems are collapsing! We are in the beginning of a mass extinction! And all you can talk about is money! And Fairy Tales of eternal economic growth! HOW DARE YOU! – Greta Thunberg, September 23, 2019, at the United Nations Climate Summit [1]
“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” – Henny Penny aka “Chicken Little” [2]
“Of course I’ve been called a denier. And my response is “tell me what I’m denying!” Because I’m quoting from you directly from the official UN Scientific reports!” – Physicist Stephen Koonin, as quoted in the movie Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth [3]
Greta Thunberg, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, and all the other great saviours of our modern day scientistic religion tell us that we must all perform a penance to atone for our individual and collective environmental sins! We must burn less fossil fuels! We must part forever from the demonic internal combustion engine! We must refrain from raising and eating non-kosher flatulating cows!
While we all cloak our deeds in scientific jargon, our behaviour seems to indicate prehistoric patterns of superstition is once again creeping into our lives. Yesterday, people trusted the judges presiding over the Salem Witch trials, to the detriment of the many accused women. Today, the authority of our day includes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change alerting us to huge climate catastrophes on the horizon.
But today’s authorities claim their arguments rest on science. SCIENCE, the modern day heroic discipline that has rewarded our people with unprecedented riches and gifts of knowledge that put us light years ahead of any other practise of worshipping old-fashioned deities brought to appeasement by mumbling old-fashioned mumbo jumbo.
However, when people who have adapted the scientific credentials with their experiments and published papers, and then state the most outrageous attacks on the dogma of today known under the label of man-made carbon dioxide fueling climate change, people in the trade look desperately for counter-arguments. Receiving boons from “Big Oil” companies is the modern version of the epithet “Heretic!”
This week’s episode of the Global Research News Hour attempts to listen to the statements from some of these dissident scientists and possibly come to a different array of conclusions actually consistent with the true nature of scientific progress of questioning authorities no matter what the cost!
In our first half hour, Tom Nelson, a climate skeptic, joins us to talk about his recent film Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth, which features a number of high profile scientific leaders who are now, not unlike skeptics of COVID, branded dragons of “dis-information.”
What follows is a free exhibition of his film.
And in our second half hour, we speak with Jacob Nordangard, about his recent book, Rockefeller: Controlling the Game, which looks at the role J.D. Rockefeller and his descendants played in setting the stage for this connecting of human activities to the climate change hysteria, and for developing a political response.
Tom Nelson holds a Masters Degree in electronics and electrical engineer and hosts a regular podcast debunking climate change/energy myths from the beginning.
Jacob Nordangard is a Swedish researcher, author, lecturer, and musician. He holds a Ph.D. in Technology and Social Change at Linköping University. He holds a Master of Social Science in Geography, and a Master of Social Science in Culture and Media Production. He is the author of Rockefeller: Controlling the Game, and blogs regularly at substack.com/@drjacobnordangard.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs Global Research News Hour excerpts infrequently during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
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 are several dimensions to the mosquito crisis.
The release of gene-edited male mosquitoes, coupled with the development of a dengue and malaria vaccine.
But that is but the tip of the iceberg.
According to F. William Engdahl in 2018, the weaponization of insects is on the drawing board of the Pentagon:
There is strong evidence that the Pentagon, through its research and development agency, DARPA, is developing genetically modified insects that would be capable of destroying agriculture crops of a potential enemy. The claim has been denied by DARPA, but leading biologists have sounded the alarm on what is taking place using new “gene-editing” CRISPR technology to in effect weaponize insects. It’s like a 21st Century update of the Biblical plague of locusts, only potentially far worse.
Under the DARPA project, Genetic Alteration Agents or viruses will be introduced into the insect population to directly influence the genetic makeup of crops.
DARPA plans to use leaf hoppers, white flies, and aphids to introduce select viruses into crops. Among other dubious claims they say it will help farmers combat “climate change.” What no one can answer, especially as neither the Pentagon nor the US FDA are asking, is how will the genetically engineered viruses in the insects interact with other microorganisms in the environment?
If crops are constantly being inundated by genetically modified viruses, how could this could alter the genetics and immune systems of humans who depend on the crops?
The Release of 5 Billion Gene-edited Mosquitoes in Brazil. Will It Save Lives?
“It may sound like the premise for a horror movie, or a biblical plague”:
The World Mosquito Program plans to release five billion mosquitoes into Brazil.
“And the hope is they will help save lives.
“[Once] you see the reductions in disease transmission, it doesn’t seem like a horror movie any more,” Scott O’Neill, director of the World Mosquito Program” (CBC, April 2023)
Implemented concurrently with the influx of 5 billion friendly mosquitoes, Brazil approved in March 2023 a vaccine against dengue.
In turn, the Brazilian government has confirmed its support for the creation of a Mosquito Factory which is slated to produce 5 billion mosquitoes a year starting in 2024.
I should mention that the British Company Oxitec has been actively involved in the development of genetically modified mosquitoes in the course of the last eight years:
“They will mate with the females of the ordinary mosquitoes, spawning babies with a genetically inbuilt flaw that causes them to die quickly.
Oxitec says its factory in the town of Piracicaba, northwest of Sao Paulo, can produce 60 million mutant mosquitoes a week.” (Phys.org, 2016)
Coordination of “Mosquito Production” and Vaccine Against Dengue
There is a coordination of Brazil’s factory production of gene-edited mosquitoes with that of the vaccine to halt dengue by the non-profit World Mosquito Program (WMP)funded by Big Pharma’s Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
“These mosquitoes are allies in the fight against dengue and other deadly viruses.”
“The demand for these lifesaving mosquitoes continues to grow and that means the World Mosquito Program needs to produce hundreds of millions of Wolbachia mosquitoes.
This might sound the beginnings of a Hollywood writer’s horror film plot.
But it’s not.
This factory is real.
And the mosquitoes being released don’t terrorize the local population. Far from it. They’re actually helping to save and improve millions of lives.
That brings us back to the factory in Medellín, which is currently the world’s largest mosquito breeding facility in the world, producing more than 30 million mosquitoes per week. [1.5 billion per annum]
With regard to the Vaccine against Dengue, more than 3 million people are slated to receive the jab against Dengue in 2024” (CBC Report, April 2023, That report was published almost a year ago).
The 2024 Brazil “Mosquito Horror Story”
Today Brazil is experiencing something beyond the “The Premise for A Horror Movie”.
The release of 5 billion male gene-edited mosquitoes in 2023 was intended to REDUCE the number of mosquitoes in Brazil.
The underlying logic was that the male gene-edited mosquitoes would be mating with normal female mosquitoes with a view to undermining the reproductive process and significantly reducing the number of normal mosquitoes.
That did not happen.
What is now happening is exactly the opposite. Early 2024: There is a tendency for the number mosquitoes to increased. WHY?
Brazil’s Health Minister casually blames it on the hot weather and “above-average rainfall.”
According to a Yale University research project quoted by Engdahl,
“some of the [gene edited] mosquitoes likely have “hybrid vigor,” resulting from “a hybrid of the natural mosquito with the gene-edited mosquito.”
What has occurred is the creation of “a more robust population than the pre-release population [of mosquitoes] which may be more resistant to insecticides, in short, resistant “super mosquitoes.””
What’s the OUTCOME?
According to Engdahl:
After an initial period in which the target mosquito population markedly declined, after about 18 months the mosquito population recovered to pre-release levels.
August 2023
Here is the official media narrative, which blatantly contradicts what is actually happening:
“The firm has developed a version of the male Aedes aegypti mosquito which carries a gene that kills female offspring before they reach maturity, suppressing the population. Only female mosquitoes bite and transmit diseases.
Eggs for the mosquitoes are placed inside a box and water is added to activate them.
“They complete the cycle inside these boxes in about ten days and the adult insects come out to do their work,” said Oxitec’s general manager in Brazil, Natalia Ferreira.
“in the first five weeks of this year [2024], 364,855 cases of infection have been reported, the health ministry [Brazil] said, four times more than dengue cases in the same period of 2023.”
Below are the figures of Brazil’s Ministry of Health, comparing 2023 and 2024.
Is this surge in dengue infection the result of hot weather and “above-average rainfall” as outlined by Ministry of Health?
Or is it the result of the release of the 5 billion gene-edited “modified mosquitoes” in 2023?
The impacts of the release of gene-edited mosquitoes have over the years been the object of extensive laboratory research.
Was there foreknowledge in terms of prior scientific research as to what was going to happen, namely the surge in the number of hybrid “Super Mosquitoes” as well as the reproduction (through the mating process) of the hybrid variety of mosquitoes?
Brazil had committed itself to supporting the factory production of gene-edited mosquitoes, with a commitment to release another 5 billion gene-edited mosquitoes in 2024. Will that project be carried out?
SEATTLE — To accelerate the development of a vaccine to prevent dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever, debilitating diseases affecting children in the developing world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced a $55 million grant to the International Vaccine Institute (IVI) to support the Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative (PDVI).
This posting includes excerpts from Jordan Shachtel, Amie Wek and Jamie White followed by the article of F. William Engdahl.
—Michel Chossudovsky, March 2, 2024; revised on March 3, 2024
By Jordan Schachtel
The World Health Organization and its partner organization, the Bill Gates-controlled GAVI, announced Wednesday [July 2023] that they will be flooding Africa with 18 million doses of malaria vaccines.
During a Wednesday press conference, [July 2023] WHO director Tedros Adhanom declared that 12 African countries will be receiving 18 million doses of malaria vaccine in the coming months, declaring that climate change is largely responsible for the continuing disease burden in the continent.
Now, Gates Inc and its middleman partners have released a white paper detailing their roadmap for the deployment of these shots. They are seeking to establish a system in which 80-100 million shots are injected into the arms of sub Saharan African children on an annual basis by 2030. This would create a malaria vaccine industry in Africa that is poised to rake in close to $1 billion annually.
There is no evidence that these shots work to prevent malaria, but that hasn’t stopped Big Pharma and global “Public Health” institutions from executing its designs upon the African continent.
Inside a two-story brick building in Medellín, Colombia, scientists work in muggy labs breeding 30 million genetically modified mosquitoes weekly in labs.
They tend to the insects’ every need as they grow from larvae to pupae to adults, keeping the temperature just right and feeding them generous helpings of fishmeal, sugar, and, of course, blood. They are then released into the wild in 11 countries.
Billionaire Bill Gates, who is funding the project, assures us it’s not a scene from a horror movie.
“The factory is real. And the mosquitoes that are released do not terrorize the locals. They help save and improve millions of lives.”
Just as his ‘covid vaccines’ have ‘saved’ millions of lives or his’ previous vaccination projects have left thousands of women sterile in India and Kenya. Or even his Polio vaccines have caused paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions in Sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, Congo, and the Philippines.
“Dengue fever has spiked fourfold in Brazil in 2024 following the release of millions of gene-edited mosquitoes by the United Nations’ World Mosquito Program.”
In the first five weeks of 2024, over 364,000 cases of dengue infection have been reported, according to the country’s health ministry, which is 4x greater than previous cases in the same period of 2023.
The dramatic spike in dengue cases has prompted Brazil to purchase millions of doses of the dengue vaccine.
“Brazil has bought 5.2m doses of the dengue vaccine Qdenga, developed by Japanese drugmaker Takeda, with another 1.32m doses provided at no cost to the government, a ministry statement said.
Three Brazilian states have declared emergencies, including the second most populous state, Minas Gerais, and the Federal District, where the capital, Brasília, is located and is facing an unprecedented rise in infections.
Brasília will start vaccinating children aged 10-14 on Friday with Qdenga, the local government said on Wednesday.
Cases of dengue in Brasília since the start of the year have exceeded the total for the whole of 2023, with a rate of infection of 1,625 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with the national average of just 170.
The UN’s World Mosquito Program announced in 2023 a plan to release billions of gene-edited mosquitoes in Brazil over a 10-year period in a bid to eradicate dengue fever in the country.
“Brazilian health officials in five cities have been releasing clouds of lab-grown Aedes aegypti mosquitoes infected with Wolbachia bacteria, which prevents dengue virus transmission to humans,” Harvard Public Health reported in August 2023.
“The country will be the first to launch a nationwide program to release Wolbachia-modified mosquito And it’s building a factory to scale up mosquito production: Beginning 2024, the factory will mass-produce five billion mosquitoes a year.”
Now a year after the mosquito initiative began, dengue cases have risen sharply rather than fallen.
In other words, Bill Gates Foundation money is involved in all sides of the situation, from the gene-edited mosquitoes — which has apparently exacerbated the dengue crisis — to bankrolling companies who are providing the in-demand dengue fever vaccine to Brazil.
A British-American gene-editing company has released millions of genetically modified mosquitoes containing a dominant lethal gene, each week for 27 months in the Bahia, Brazil region in a test to see if the gene-edited mosquitoes would mate with local mosquitoes carrying Zika, malaria or other mosquito-borne diseases.
A new study documents the alarming fact that following an initial reduction of the target population of mosquitoes, after some months the “population which had been greatly suppressed rebounded to nearly pre-release levels.” Scientists to date have no idea what dangers are presented by the new mutations. This once more highlights the dangers of uncontrolled gene-editing of species.
According to a new published study in Nature Reports journal, genetically engineered mosquitoes produced by the biotech company, Oxitec, now part of the US company Intrexon, have escaped human control after trials in Brazil and are now spreading in the environment.
On paper the theory was brilliant. Strains of “yellow fever” male mosquitoes taken from Cuba and Mexico were altered using gene-editing to make it impossible for their offspring to survive. Oxitec then began a systematic release of tens of millions of the manipulated mosquitoes over more than two years in the the city of Jacobina in the region of Bahia in Brazil. The Oxitec theory was the altered mosquitoes would mate with normal females of the same type which carry infectious diseases like dengue fever, and kill them off in the process.
A team of scientists from Yale University and several scientific institutes in Brazil monitored the progress of the experiment. What they found is alarming in the extreme.
After an initial period in which the target mosquito population markedly declined, after about 18 months the mosquito population recovered to pre-release levels.
Not only that, the paper notes that some of the mosquitoes likely have “hybrid vigor,” in which a hybrid of the natural with the gene-edited has created “a more robust population than the pre-release population” which may be more resistant to insecticides, in short, resistant “super mosquitoes.”
The scientists note that,
“Genetic sampling from the target population six, 12, and 27–30 months after releases commenced provides clear evidence that portions of the transgenic strain genome have been incorporated into the target population. Evidently, rare viable hybrid offspring between the release strain and the Jacobina population are sufficiently robust to be able to reproduce in nature…” They continue, “Thus, Jacobina Ae. aegypti are now a mix of three populations. It is unclear how this may affect disease transmission or affect other efforts to control these dangerous vectors.”
They estimate that between 10% and 60% of the Bahia natural Ae. Aegypti mosquitoes now had some gene-edited OX513A genome. They conclude that “The three populations forming the tri-hybrid population now in Jacobina (Cuba/Mexico/Brazil) are genetically quite distinct, very likely resulting in a more robust population than the pre-release population due to hybrid vigor.”
This was not supposed to happen. Professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, Jeffrey Powell, senior author of the study, remarked on the findings:
“The claim was that genes from the release strain would not get into the general population because offspring would die. That obviously was not what happened.” Powell went on to note, “But it is the unanticipated outcome that is concerning.”
A Gates Foundation Project
The Brazil study deals a major alarm signal on the uncontrolled release of gene-edited species into nature. It calls to mind the horror plot of Michael Crichton’s 1969 science fiction novel, Andromeda Strain. Only it is no novel.
The Oxitec mosquitoes were developed using a highly controversial form of gene-editing known as gene drive. Gene Drive, which is also being heavily funded by the Pentagon’s DARPA, combined with CRISPR gene-editing, aims to force a genetic modification to spread through an entire population, whether of mosquitoes or potentially humans, in just a few generations.
The scientist who first suggested developing gene drives in gene-editing, Harvard biologist Kevin Esvelt, has publicly warned that development of gene editing in conjunction with gene drive technologies has alarming potential to go awry. He notes how often CRISPR messes up and the likelihood of protective mutations arising, making even benign gene drives aggressive. He stresses,
“Just a few engineered organisms could irrevocably alter an ecosystem.”
Esvelt’s computer gene drive simulations calculated that a resulting edited gene “can spread to 99 percent of a population in as few as 10 generations, and persist for more than 200 generations.” This is very much what has now been demonstrated in the mosquito experiment in Brazil.
Notable is the fact that the Oxitec Brazil mosquito experiment was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In June, 2018 Oxitec announced a joint venture with the Gates Foundation, “to develop a new strain of Oxitec’s self-limiting Friendly™ Mosquitoes to combat a mosquito species that spreads malaria in the Western Hemisphere.” The Brazil results show the experiment is a catastrophic failure as the new strain is anything but self-limiting.
The Gates Foundation and Bill Gates have been backing development of the radical gene-editing technology and gene drive technology for more than a decade. Gates, a long-time advocate of eugenics, population control and of GMO, is a strong gene-editing promoter.
In an article in the May/June 2018 magazine of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, Gates hails gene editing technologies, explicitly CRISPR. In the article Gates argues that CRISPR and other gene-editing techniques should be used globally to meet growing demand for food and to improve disease prevention, particularly for malaria. In his article he adds,
“there is reason to be optimistic that creating gene drives in malaria-spreading mosquitoes will not do much, if any, harm to the environment.”
Every bit as alarming as the failure of the Brazil gene-editing mosquito experiment is the fact that this technology is being spread with virtually no prior health or safety testing by truly independent government institutions. To date the US Government relies only on industry safety assurances. The EU, while formally responsible to treat gene-edited species similarly to GMO plants, is reportedly trying to loosen the regulations. China, a major research center for gene-editing, has extremely lax controls. Recently a Chinese scientist announced an experiment in human gene-editing allegedly to make newborn twins resistant to HIV. Other experiments are proliferating around the world with gene-edited animals and even salmon. The precautionary principle has been thrown to the winds when it comes to the new gene-editing revolution, not a reassuring situation.
Currently Oxitec, which denies that the Brazil results show failure, is now trying to get regulatory approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a similar experiment with the same gene-edited species in Texas and Florida. One of the people involved in the attempt, Texan Roy Bailey, is a Washington lobbyist and close friend of Randal Kirk, the billionaire CEO of Intrexon, owner of Oxitec. Bailey is also a major Trump fundraiser. Let’s hope that regulatory prudence and not politics decide the outcome.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Os Estados Bálticos continuam a promover políticas racistas contra o povo russo, criando uma grave atmosfera de hostilidade na Europa. A Letônia planeja erradicar completamente a língua russa do currículo escolar, o que terá certamente consequências catastróficas para a estabilidade social do país, uma vez que uma parte substancial da população letã é de etnia russa. Além de afetar desnecessariamente pessoas inocentes, a medida deixa claro que a russofobia continuará a ser uma prioridade para o governo letão.
De acordo com uma recente decisão governamental, a partir de Setembro de 2025, nenhum estudante letão poderá aprender russo nas escolas. As únicas línguas que poderão ser ensinadas nas escolas, além da língua nativa, serão as línguas dos países da Europa Ocidental. A medida afeta tanto os cidadãos de etnia russa como os de etnia letã que pretendem estudar russo como segunda língua estrangeira – o inglês é a primeira língua estrangeira obrigatória em todas as escolas letãs.
25% da população letã é de etnia russa, enquanto pelo menos 36% dos cidadãos são falantes de russo. O russo é a língua mais falada no país depois do letão e sempre foi um importante mecanismo de comunicação para uma parcela substancial dos letões. Na prática, nunca houve uma distinção entre saber russo ou letão, podendo qualquer cidadão utilizar qualquer uma destas línguas nas suas atividades públicas, mas as recentes políticas de genocídio cultural estão a gerar um verdadeiro apartheid, excluindo cidadãos de etnia russa da vida social. .
Como todos os países ex-soviéticos, a Letônia é o lar de muitos russos. Durante o período comunista, todas as repúblicas socialistas pertenciam ao mesmo país. Quando a URSS entrou em colapso, milhões de russos tornaram-se “estrangeiros” nos recém-criados países pós-soviéticos, gerando uma das maiores tragédias sociais da história recente. Em países como os Estados Bálticos, o fim da URSS coincidiu com a ascensão de um nacionalismo chauvinista fortemente encorajado pelas potências ocidentais. Estes sentimentos russofóbicos tornaram-se cada vez mais comuns e perigosos nos últimos anos.
Desde o início da operação militar especial, a onda russofóbica nos países bálticos atingiu níveis cada vez mais preocupantes. Os cidadãos russos foram submetidos a testes obrigatórios de proficiência na língua letã. Os resultados insatisfatórios nestes testes legitimam o governo letão a expulsar estes cidadãos e cancelar a sua cidadania letã. Este tem sido um problema grave, especialmente para os idosos da era soviética, que viveram em solo letão durante décadas e nunca aprenderam a língua local, uma vez que o russo sempre foi amplamente falado no país. Estes idosos estão a ser as maiores vítimas do apartheid linguístico letão, com milhares deles a temerem ser expulsos do país a qualquer momento.
Além do genocídio cultural anti-russo implementado através da proibição da língua, foram praticadas outras medidas coercivas contra cidadãos de etnia russa. Por exemplo, cidadãos russos foram ameaçados de expulsão do país por terem votado nas eleições presidenciais da Federação Russa em março. Os agentes da polícia letã declararam simplesmente que estavam a monitorizar as áreas em redor das instalações diplomáticas russas, deixando claro que qualquer russo que votasse teria os seus dados pessoais descobertos pelas autoridades e perderia o direito de viver no país.
Segundo o governo letão, o mero ato de participar na vida política russa é um gesto de apoio à operação militar especial – chamada de “invasão injustificada da Ucrânia” no Ocidente. Neste sentido, os cidadãos russos que queriam votar eram vistos pela Letônia como verdadeiros criminosos, tendo de ser punidos e sendo “indignos” de continuar a viver no país. É evidente que, ao implementar políticas racistas tão draconianas, a Letônia está a esforçar-se por tornar a vida impossível aos cidadãos russos, forçando-os a abandonar o país o mais rapidamente possível.
A Letônia quer basicamente que 25% da sua população deixe o país – ou que negue a sua própria etnia russa e aceite ser assimilada culturalmente, forçando-se a falar letão e a desistir da sua identidade original. Estas medidas são obviamente repreensíveis do ponto de vista dos valores europeus. Não há nada de humanitário ou democrático na promoção do apartheid étnico e do genocídio cultural. No entanto, aparentemente, o Ocidente Coletivo dá carta branca aos seus aliados para implementarem qualquer medida contra os russos.
No caso da Letônia, em vez de uma erradicação absoluta da cultura russa, é mais provável que haja uma grave instabilidade social e uma crise de legitimidade, com o povo russo local a sair às ruas para protestar contra as medidas nazistas do governo.
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 new study on harms resulting from the COVID vaccine was published on April 8 in the U.S.-based peer-reviewed medical science journal Cureus. It represents the largest study to date on adverse effects of the COVID vaccine, and the results are shocking, to put it mildly.
In the study, titled “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan,” five Japanese scientists used an entire dataset of the country’s 123 million population (Japan has the highest vaccination rate in the world) to study excess cancer mortalities coinciding with mass COVID vaccination.
The authors also provide a sound explanation as to why these deaths occurred after the mRNA injection.
As a former vaccine researcher, I read the Cureus article with great interest. My fellow Epoch Times columnist, Megan Redshaw, has written an excellent article on this study. Here, I would like to highlight some points that I think are worth reiterating.
Excess Deaths Following the Third Shot
The study shows there were 1,568,961 total deaths in Japan in 2022. About 1,453,162 deaths were expected based on statistical predictions using pre-pandemic information, which means there were 115,799 excess deaths in 2022.
The 115,799 “age-adjusted excess number of deaths” in 2022 occurred after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third dose of COVID vaccine.
Based on Japan’s Ministry of Health data, I calculated that there were 39,060 COVID deaths reported in 2022. So, the majority of Japan’s excess deaths in 2022 were not caused by COVID infection, but rather are strongly associated with the vaccination.
Harm Done by the Vaccine, Not the Virus
The study shows that in 2020, after COVID-19 began to spread in Japan but before vaccination was available, the age-adjusted number of deaths was 28,000 fewer than what was predicted. And in 2021, as the virus continued and there was limited COVID-19 vaccination (it started in February), there were 25,000 more deaths than what was predicted.
Based on the number of excess deaths in 2022, the Japanese scientists concluded:
“Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine.”
“These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown,” the authors wrote.
In plain English, this study revealed the mRNA COVID jab is likely the cause of the extra deaths that occurred in Japan.
Six Types of Cancer Had Significant Excess Deaths
The study presented the numbers for all-cause death, but also looked into the details of deaths caused by cancer. It found that of the 20 types of cancer, six of them—ovarian, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancer—had statistically significant excess mortalities in 2021 and increased further in 2022.
The significant increase in mortalities for the six specific cancer types cannot be blamed on a shortage of health-care services during the pandemic. Reduced cancer screening and health care due to lockdowns should increase deaths for all cancers. However, such an increase was not observed in other types of cancers in Japan in 2022.
So what is so special about the six specific cancer types? They are all known as estrogen receptor alpha (ERα)-sensitive cancers.
The scientists explained why these cancers not only occurred after vaccination, but also killed people in a short period of time after they received the shot.
Cancer After the Jab: A Scientific Explanation
I worked as a research scientist at Sanofi Pasteur, one of the world’s largest vaccine companies, for more than 10 years. As the person who spearheaded Sanofi’s SARS-CoV-1 vaccine development in 2003, I personally found the hypothesis presented by the Japanese scientists very reasonable.
Please bear with me on the scientific terms, because they are important in understanding the possible roles the mRNA vaccine may have played in cancer development.
ERs (estrogen receptors) are a group of proteins found inside cells. They are receptors that can be activated by the sex hormone estrogen. ERα is one of the two classes of ERs, an important regulator in the body’s reproductive system.
Research published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances in November 2022 screened 9,000 human proteins to see which protein binds better with the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2, and found the S protein specifically binds to ERα. The binding “upregulates the transcriptional activity of ERα.”
In other words, the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 (from infection or vaccination), when introduced into the human body, binds to ERα and functions as a nuclear receptor coregulator, interfering with the cell’s normal function and leading to malfunction of the cells and organs.
This may explain why death caused by the six types of ERα-sensitive cancers increased in 2022 in Japan after two-thirds of the population received the third dose of the mRNA vaccine.
The vaccine carries the S gene of SARS-CoV-2, hijacking the host cells to produce S proteins. The S proteins produce inside the cell, then bind to ERα, disrupting the cell’s normal function and leading to cancer development.
Cancer is a disease in which some of the body’s cells grow uncontrollably and spread to other parts of the body.
For any healthy person, some cells die, some age, and some become cancerous. All this happens without the person knowing it because the body’s immune system is constantly working to deal with such problems. However, if the immune system is compromised, illness then develops, including cancer.
Plenty of evidence has started to emerge showing that the COVID-19 vaccine has the potential to severely interfere with the human body’s immune system. This new Japanese study provides further evidence of the extent of this phenomenon.
Vaccination and Suppression of Cancer Immunosurveillance
It has been shown the mRNA vaccine not only has the potential to cause cancer, it may also weaken the immune systems’ ability to recognize and repress cancerous tumours.
In a study published last October, Konstantin Fohse and colleagues reported vaccination with BNT162b2 modulated innate immune responses, resulting in a weakened cancer immunosurveillance.
The damage caused by COVID vaccines would have been less if the vaccination wasn’t as widespread, and the dosage of the vaccines were not as high due to boosters.
The Japanese scientists found that for each Pfizer-BioNTech dose, there are about 13 trillion SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP molecules. For Moderna, the number is 40 trillion. Since the average human body has about 37.2 trillion cells, one COVID-19 mRNA-LNP dose would have enough molecules to spread into each and every human cell.
As I wrote previously, contrary to what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s claim that “after the body produces an immune response, it discards all of the vaccine ingredients” because uridines in normal RNA are now replaced with pseudo-uridines in this COVID-19 mRNA-LNP, we know the modified RNA now lives in the body for months and can even find its way into babies through breast milk.
The Japanese study was written before October 2023 using information from 2022 and earlier. As COVID vaccination continues in many countries, it is scary to think how many people may die or develop cancer if the 2022 trend continues.
Uncertain Future
As authorities across the world still claim that the COVID-19 vaccine is “safe and effective” and continue pushing vaccination, it is uncertain what the future holds.
This is because the COVID-19 mRNA-LNP molecules already in the bodies of hundreds of millions of people will remain there and continue producing the S protein, interfering with the immune system and causing cancer and other diseases.
Studies like the one by the Japanese scientists should have been undertaken in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the UK and published in top medical journals without censorship so that we can learn from mistakes and prevent the mistakes from happening again. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
However, hopefully more and more scientists and researchers will be brave enough to point out the very obvious: that the COVID-19 vaccine is not safe.
It is worth noting that the Cureus medical journal was recently acquired by the Springer Nature Group in December 2022. The group also owns renowned scientific publications such as Nature and Nature Medicine.
COVID vaccine injury has been a taboo subject for scientists and medical journals. Many people were cancelled when they tried to defy the censorship. It is refreshing to see Springer Nature publish the Japanese study.
*
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.
Joe Wang, Ph.D., was a molecular biologist with more than 10 years of experience in the vaccine industry. He is now the president of NTD Television Network (Canada), and a columnist for The Epoch Times.
Featured image is from Hal Turner Radio Show
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.
Apart from causing large-scale distress the prolonged Ukraine conflict also has very dangerous possibilities of escalation. There do not seem to be any visible efforts on the part of Ukraine and its NATO backers for ending the war as early as possible despite all the adversities the Ukraine forces have suffered in recent times. In these circumstances, and keeping in view the urgent need for peace, Russia should take a bold initiative with unilateral declaration of ceasefire. This should be on the basis of the existing line of control. Russia should also announce that the ceasefire, if reciprocated, would be followed by extensive, longer-term talks to resolve various differences in conditions of peace.
If Russia announces such a unilateral ceasefire then this should be welcomed by various forces of peace all over the world as well as by various eminent persons known for their commitment to peace. This will increase the chances of a positive response by Ukraine.
If Ukraine respects the ceasefire and responds in similar fashion, a big breakthrough for peace would be achieved. Peace will get a big chance. Both sides should work carefully to build further on this so as to achieve more durable peace in a spirit of give and take. Meanwhile everyone can pray that NATO or the USA will not obstruct or sabotage this.
If Ukraine does not respond to this ceasefire, then Russia will still not lose much as it can regretfully continue its war effort after clarifying to the world that its ceasefire offer was not accepted or respected. In its existing strong position Russia will not incur any big loss and so it has nothing much to lose by declaring a unilateral ceasefire and initiating a peace effort on this basis.
On the other hand if Ukraine responds well and also declares a ceasefire, then a very big achievement and opening for peace will be made and the entire world should support this.
If both sides cooperate in this way then chances will increase that the war ends not on a note of frozen conflict with all its continuing dangers and risks, but instead ends with genuine goodwill and peace. The United Nations should try its best to help to take this forward if and when such opportunities emerge.
Senior scholars, diplomats and statespersons of various countries, particularly Western countries, can make an important contribution to such efforts by extending their support. The peace movement worldwide should of course extend very enthusiastic support to any such initiative.
Of course such an initiative can also start with Ukraine making a ceasefire offer. The reason why a Russian initiative has been emphasized here is that while Russia is very capable of entirely independent decision making, in the case of Ukraine, for the time-being at least, the decision making is heavily impacted by the USA in particular and therefore the chances of such an independent initiative emerging from Ukraine are much lesser.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, A Day in 2071 and Earth without Borders. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
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 Economic Forum’s plan for global carbon surveillance is nearly complete.
Journalist Whitney Webb joins us to talk about how this is all tied together with a digital ID, CBDC’s, and removal of personal property.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In 2009, Russian President Medvedev (President from May 7th, 2008 to May 7th, 2012) called for a new European security policy known as “Fourteen Points” as a new security treaty to be accepted to maintain European security as the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and functional integrity (this Russian draft European security treaty was originally posted on the President’s website on November 29th, 2009).
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.
In 1986, an Israeli civil servant who worked in the state-owned nuclear industry flew to London where he was invited to meet with reporters working for The Sunday Times. In these press briefings, Mordechai Vanunu revealed Israel’s top secret – the Israelis had gained control of a growing stockpile of nuclear warheads.
The current unrest of pro-Palestinian “encampments” and “liberated zones” at 33 college campuses in the US protesting against what is clearly a genocide taking place in Gaza by calling for a ceasefire and a halt to institutional investment in Israel as well as a suspension of ties to Israeli government educational bodies.
NATO armed aggression ended 25 years ago, but aggression by other means of political, economic, financial and propaganda character – continued throughout this period and since recently have been even intensified. Using UNSC’s mandate, NATO practically keeps Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija under occupation.
Russia has repeatedly expressed concerns that NATO expansion to Finland would mean that assault troops and advanced weapon systems would be deployed within the country, threatening Russia’s national security interests. As previously mentioned, Finland has not only refused to reassure its eastern neighbor, but has actually doubled down on the deployment of foreign forces, particularly American.
A senior Health Canada official says pharma giant Pfizer made a conscious decision not to advise regulators that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contained a DNA sequence from the Simian Virus 40 (SV40).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In 2009, Russian President Medvedev (President from May 7th, 2008 to May 7th, 2012) called for a new European security policy known as “Fourteen Points” as a new security treaty to be accepted to maintain European security as the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and functional integrity (this Russian draft European security treaty was originally posted on the President’s website on November 29th, 2009).
This treaty proposal was passed to the leaders of the Euro-Atlantic States and the executive heads of the relevant international organizations such as NATO, EU, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and the Organization of Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In this proposal, Russia stressed that it is open to any democratic proposal concerning continental security and is counting on a positive response from Russia’s (Western) partners.
However, not so surprisingly, D. Medvedev’s call for a new European security framework (based on mutual respect and equal rights) became interpreted particularly in the USA in the fashion of the Cold War 1.0, in fact, as a plot to pry Europe from its strategic partner (USA).
Nevertheless, this program in the form of a proposal was the most significant initiative in IR by Russia since the dismissal of the USSR in 1991. From the present perspective, this proposal could save Ukrainian territorial integrity but it was rejected primarily due to Washington’s Russophobic attitude.
As a matter of fact, Moscow since 1991, and particularly since 2000, viewed NATO as a Cold War 1.0 remnant and the EU as no more but only as a common economic-financial market with many crisis management practices. Nevertheless, Medvedev’s 2009 “Fourteen Points” was announced on November 29th, 2009 Russia published a draft of a European Security Treaty. Medvedev’s program resembles the program drawn up by US President Woodrow Wilson (issued on January 8th, 1918), who had emancipated peace aims in his well-known “Fourteen Points”. These two programs have two things in common:
1) Both documents advocate multilateralism in the security area and devotion to international law; and
2) They are very idealistic in terms of the tools needed for their implementation.
The Russian proposal from 2009 is founded on existing norms of international security law according to the UN Charter, Declaration on Principles of International Law (1970), and the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975) followed by the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (1982) and the Charter for European Security (1999).
The 2009 Russian proposal on European Security (ten years after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia) can be summarized in the following six points:
Parties should cooperate on the foundation of the principles of indivisible, equal, and unrelieved security;
A Party to the Treaty shall not undertake, participate in, or support any actions or activities significantly detrimental to the security of any other party or parties to the treaty;
A Party to the treaty which is a member of military alliances, coalitions, or organizations shall work to ensure that such alliances, coalitions, or organizations observe principles of the UN Charter, the Declaration of Principles of International Law, the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter for European Security followed by certain documents adopted by the OSCE;
A Party to the treaty shall not allow the use of its territory and shall not use the territory of any other party to prepare or carry out an armed attack against any other party or parties to the treaty or any other actions affecting significantly the security of any other party or parties to the treaty;
A clear mechanism is established to address issues related to the substance of this treaty and to settle differences or disputes that might arise between the parties in connection with its interpretation or application;
The treaty will be open for signature by all states of Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian space followed by several international organizations: the EU, the OSCE, the CSTO; NATO, and the CIS.
Russia, in fact, understood the treaty as a reaffirmation of the principles guiding security relations between states but above all respect for independence, territorial integrity, sovereignty within nation-state borders, and the policy not to use force or the threat of its use in IR.
Actually, the security issue in Europe became a strategic agenda for Russia from 2000 onward. During its whole post-Soviet history, Russia felt very uncomfortable as put on the margins of the process of the creation of a new (US/NATO-run) security order in Europe based on the NATO enlargement toward the borders of Russia.
It has to be remembered that Moscow at that time proposed to Washington and Brussels three conditions that, if accepted by NATO, might make enlargement acceptable to Russia:
A prohibition against stationing nuclear weaponry on the territory of new NATO members;
A requirement for joint decision-making between NATO and Russia on any issue of European security especially where the use of military force was involved; and
Codification of these and other restrictions on NATO and rights of Russia in a legally binding treaty.
However, none of these proposed conditions of NATO-Russia security cooperation in Europe was accepted.
After this failure, a new military doctrine of the Russian Federation from 2010 accepted the reality that the existing international security architecture including its legal mechanism does not provide equal security for all states (a phenomenon of the so-called “asymmetric security”). The same doctrine clearly stressed that NATO’s ambitions to become a supreme global actor and to expand its military presence toward Russia’s borders became a focal external military threat for Russia. Surely, from 2010, it became clear to Moscow that NATO has not accepted the Russian proposal to create a common European security framework functioning on the principle of “symmetric” relations including certain duties and rights equal for both sides.
Nevertheless, the time when Moscow suggested a new security initiative was very appropriate for the matter of the declination of both soft and hard power of the Collective West (USA/EU/NATO) as a result of the second war against Iraq and the global economic meltdown. Since the disasters of Iraq, Guantánamo, and Abu Ghraib, Washington and its Western allies lost any moral credibility and authority to claim global leadership. In addition, Western support for Georgian aggression and the corrupted regime of Mikheil Saakashvili revealed once more the Atlanticist disregard for real democracy and justice. Simultaneously, the global economic and financial crisis spelled the end of the neoliberal fiction of globalization confirming at the same time Western unsuccess in regulating global finance. Consequently, the unipolar IR around the Collective West ceased to shape and direct both global geopolitics and geoeconomics.
The Russian (in fact, President Dmitry Medvedev’s) proposal for a new security agreement with NATO was a serious test of the honesty of the Collective West versus Russia.
Simply, the proposal called for a new treaty to implement already accepted previous declarations since the end of the Cold War 1.0 that the West and Russia are friends, security is indivisible, and nobody’s security can be enhanced at the cost of others.
Basically, the new security treaty should be founded on a multilateral system, rather than a system based on hegemony or bipolarity.
Behind the proposal was the rejection of a hegemonic role for the USA.
However, the crucial question was:
Does the USA want to participate in multilateral efforts to address issues of both European and global security challenges?
Nonetheless, very soon it became clear that this Russian agenda for a new European security concept was seen by Western policymakers as an attempt to undermine NATO and its eastward expansionistic policy.
In other words, President D. Medvedev’s proposal for the new security design in Europe was understood by the Westerners as a perfidy intention to change the terms of the debate on the future of the European security system without the participation from NATO to the direction of the new body that includes Russia as a founding member and, therefore, as a pillar of a new security framework of the Old Continent. Therefore, his proposal, as such, was unacceptable to the Collective West.
It has to be stressed that the most difficult step in the rapprochement between Russian and Western competing European security agendas after the Cold War 1.0 was and still is the politicized attitude by the pro-Western part of Europe (EU/NATO) that Russia is posing security danger to the continent. However, on the opposite side, Russia’s security fears come primarily at least from the policy of NATO’s eastward enlargement if not from the question of NATO’s existence after 1991 in general.
NATO enlargement
After all, it appears that, in fact, the focal problem was not about keeping the status quo in terms of the European security framework, but, however, what a new security system was going to be. In other words:
Should it be a NATO-centric structure (as it has been since 1991)? In this case, NATO will be turned into a forum for consultation on both European and global security questions; or
Should it be a new institutional framework founded on a legally framed treaty that guarantees equality and indivisibility of security of all political subjects (states)?
The Russian 2009 “Fourteen Point” security program represented at that time, actually, the first positive foreign policy initiative by Moscow since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This D. Medvedev’s initiative had both real geopolitical meaning and many diplomatic symbolic features. The initiative’s crucial value was that:
It advocated the formation of a new European security framework founded on new and democratic principles of the indivisibility of international security and the inclusiveness of all interested and relevant actors; and
The focal objectives of the initiative were to upgrade the already existing (but ineffective) European security system and to expand it into the region of Asia-Pacific for the sake of creating a common security area from Alaska to Siberia.
It was, however, obvious that the creation of such a security system would preserve primarily Russian national interests in both regions primarily in Europe but in Asia-Pacific as well. In addition, the proposal will pave the way for integrating a rising China and other countries of Asia into a complex network of the European security framework. Nonetheless, the proposal was rejected in the name of further NATO eastward expansion which was in many Western eyes the most fateful error of the US policy during the whole period of the post-Cold War 1.0 era.
Such NATO policy, in fact, inflamed nationalistic, anti-Western, and militaristic feelings in Russia, and finally restored the policy of Cold War 1.0 into Cold War 2.0 (a renewed East-West security competition in Europe) keeping in mind the fact that in Russia, exists strong belief, based on accounts by Mikhail Gorbachev, Evgenii Primakov, and other Russian most influential policymakers, that Washington has broken its commitment not to expand NATO as a precondition for German reunification in 1989−1990.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Baltic states continue to promote racist policies against the Russian people, creating a serious atmosphere of hostility in Europe.
Latvia is planning to completely eradicate the Russian language from the school curriculum, which will certainly have catastrophic consequences for the country’s social stability, as a substantial portion of the Latvian population is ethnic Russian. In addition to unnecessarily affecting innocent people, the measure makes it clear that Russophobia will continue to be a priority for the Latvian government.
According to a recent government decision, from September 2025 on, no Latvian students will be able to learn Russian in schools. The only languages allowed to be taught in schools, in addition to the native one, will be the languages of Western European countries. The measure affects both ethnic Russian citizens and ethnic Latvians who want to study Russian as a second foreign language – English is the first mandatory foreign language in all Latvian schools.
25% of the Latvian population is ethnic Russian, while at least 36% of citizens are Russian speakers.
Russian is the most spoken language in the country after Latvian and has always been an important communication mechanism for a substantial portion of Latvians.
In practice, there has never been a distinction between knowing Russian or Latvian, with any citizen being able to use either of these languages in their public activities, but recent policies of cultural genocide are generating a true apartheid, excluding ethnic Russian citizens from social life.
Like all ex-Soviet countries, Latvia is home to many Russians. During the communist period, all socialist republics belonged to the same country. When the USSR collapsed, millions of Russians became “foreigners” in the newly created post-Soviet countries, generating one of the greatest social tragedies in recent history. In countries such as the Baltic states, the end of the USSR coincided with the rise of a chauvinistic nationalism strongly encouraged by Western powers. These Russophobic sentiments have become increasingly common and dangerous in recent years.
Since the beginning of the special military operation, the Russophobic wave in the Baltics has reached increasingly worrying levels. Russian citizens have been subjected to mandatory Latvian language proficiency tests.Unsatisfactory results in these tests legitimize the Latvian government to expel these citizens and cancel their Latvian citizenship. This has been a serious problem especially for elderly people from the Soviet era, who have lived on Latvian soil for decades and have never learned the local language, as Russian has always been widely spoken in the country. These elderly people are being the biggest victims of the Latvian linguistic apartheid, with thousands of them fearing that they will be expelled from the country at any moment.
In addition to the anti-Russian cultural genocide implemented through the language ban, other coercive measures against ethnic Russian citizens have been practiced. For example, Russian citizens were threatened with expulsion from the country for voting in the Russian Federation’s presidential elections in March. Latvian police officers simply stated that they were monitoring the areas around the Russian diplomatic facilities, making it clear that any Russian who voted would have their personal data discovered by the authorities and would lose the right to live in the country.
According to the Latvian government, the mere act of participating in Russian political life is a gesture of support for the special military operation – called an “unjustified invasion of Ukraine” in the West. In this sense, Russian citizens who wanted to vote were seen by Latvia as true criminals, having to be punished and being “unworthy” of continuing to live in the country. Clearly, by implementing such draconian racist policies, Latvia is striving to make life impossible for Russian citizens, forcing them to leave the country as quickly as possible.
Latvia basically wants 25% of its population to leave the country – or to deny their own Russian ethnicity and accept to be culturally assimilated, forcing themselves to speak Latvian and give up their original identity. These measures are obviously reprehensible from the point of view of European values. There is nothing humanitarian or democratic about promoting ethnic apartheid and cultural genocide. However, apparently, the Collective West gives carte blanche to its allies to implement any measure against Russians.
In the Latvian case, instead of an absolute eradication of Russian culture, there is more likely to be a serious social instability and crisis of legitimacy, with the local Russian people taking to the streets to protest against the government’s Nazi-like measures.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
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.
Due to the immense suffering of the people of Gaza, the attention of the entire world has understandably been concentrated more on Gaza lately. There is also the risk of escalation here. However both due to human suffering as well as the risk of escalation the situation in Ukraine should also continue to get the world’s serious attention. In fact the danger of escalation is even more serious here, and in the worst possible scenario the possibility of the ongoing Ukraine conflict blowing up ultimately into a nuclear war and the Third World War also exists.
Even if the possibility is just about 5 to 10% just now, its implication, the destruction associated with it is so serious that this should get very serious attention from the point of view of striving to ensure that such a horribly destructive situation never arises. Russia and NATO countries have over 11000 nuclear weapons and if even 5 to 10% of these ever get actually used, this would be the end of the world as we have known it, and probably our own end as well, mine and yours, no matter where we live, even if only from the longer term impacts of the ‘nuclear winter’.
Most people would say that the big leaders would never allow such a destructive course of action to take place. However large-scale use of nuclear weapons against Soviet Russia had come up for serious consideration by a section of influential leaders of the USA and its closest ally Britain soon after the Second World War ended even though the Soviet Union had been their close ally in the War and had played such an important role in the defeat of Hitler.
Hawkish sections of US military leadership had considered use of nuclear weapons in the Korea war too, although here Truman (who had cleared the first use of two nuclear weapons against Japan) played a preventive role.
Again hawkish elements in the USA military and security establishment had argued much in favor of nuking the Soviet Union and allies at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, despite the fact that the Soviet Union had acquired its own nuclear weapons by then and would have retaliated. Ultimately it was left to the great statesmanship of two great leaders on both sides, John Kennedy and Khrushchev, to bring back the world from the brink of nuclear war. Unfortunately we do not have anyone like John Kennedy (who ultimately had to sacrifice his life for advocating the path of peace) in the western leadership today, we only have Biden, Sunak and Macron, and they have been as irrationally anti-Russia in times as anyone can possibly be.
Recently the Ukraine conflict has been going very badly for Ukraine forces. Almost everyone agrees that the ill-planned, reluctantly undertaken Ukrainian offensive last year was a big failure and after that there has been no recovery, only further losses, and this is despite all the billions poured into a highly corrupt system by western allies. As future prospects indicate the high possibility of continuing losses, the best course of action at present to prevent further loss of life, human suffering and loss of even more territory is for Ukraine to reach an agreement with Russia for immediate and unconditional ceasefire and peace. The various contentious points can be sorted out later by prolonged talks which should continue whatever the difficulties in reaching agreements. Meanwhile large-scale reconstruction and relief work should start very soon in Ukraine with the help of all countries of the world who can afford to help in this.
However this course of action, which minimizes the further sufferings of the Ukrainian people while increasing possibilities of early start of a big relief and rehabilitation effort, is unacceptable to President Zelenskyy as well as to the USA and its close allies for two reasons. Firstly, Biden has been personally very hawkish in the context of Ukraine and the strategy followed by him and his key officials has been to bleed Russia as much as possible using Ukraine as a proxy regardless of the high costs for Ukrainian ordinary people—several hundred thousand of them have died or suffered serious injuries while millions have been displaced internally and externally. The chosen path of Zelenskyy has been to follow the US-recommended path for his country—his last independent effort was to sincerely participate in a Turkey-mediated peace initiative at an early stage of the war but this was aborted by the USA and Britain.
So under the present circumstances Ukraine is most likely to continue experiencing military reverses and at some stage its military efforts may be almost in a state of collapse. The NATO members led by the USA would be aware of this on the basis of their intelligence. They would never like to see a collapse taking place, but what can they do? They have already sent their billions of dollars. They have already sent as much weapons as they could send, and more of the same may not help much. They have already even sent limited numbers of their trainers to accompany their weapon systems. It is at this stage that they may consider sending their own forces to Ukraine. Macron has already flagged this, indicating his willingness to send some French troops for special types of operations. He does not yet have the support of his own people for this, and his proposal did not get much support from other NATO members, particularly the more important ones. Despite this, it is just possible that due to the very strong reluctance on the part of the USA in particular to accept anything that looks like a defeat in Ukraine, ultimately there may be wider acceptance for what was initially criticized as a rather wild and highly escalatory proposal of Macron.
If this happens, then this would be a very dangerous beginning of direct confrontation between Russian and NATO forces.
As these forces try to destroy each other using more and more destructive weapons, where will this end? In such a situation, the chances of using nuclear weapons and moving towards the Third World War will be much higher. As such a confrontation will take place in conditions of very high suspicions and tensions, the chances of exchange of nuclear weapons taking place even on the basis of misunderstandings and misjudgment of the intentions of the other side will be a possibility. Either of the two sides can make the first strike, followed by even bigger retaliation and one does not know where this will end. As very fast delivery systems have been developed, chances of start of nuclear war based on misunderstanding and misjudgment have increased. This is also because of the possibilities of launch of certain conventional weapons being confused with the launch of nuclear weapons, in conditions of high tensions and suspicions.
Due to this possibility and potential of destruction on a very massive scale, there is great urgency of preventing the Ukraine conflict from escalating towards such much more horrible possibilities. Due to the inability of the UNO to take up big responsibilities of this kind as seen in recent times (although of course it can still play a helpful supportive role), the lead has to be taken by a renewed effort by senior, not-in-active-service diplomats and statesmen of all the involved countries, helped by fast growing peace activism, to prevent such horrible possibilities under all circumstances and to bring peace to Ukraine as early as possible.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071 and Earth without Borders. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3 Year: 2012 Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Of relevance to the crimes currently committed by the Netanyahu government against the People of Palestine, we bring to the attention of our readers the 2013 Judgement of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, an initiative of former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who headed the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC).
On a personal note, I was a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War (2005). I was subsequently invited to become a member of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) which was created in 2007.
I should mention that the indictment directed again the State of Israel was the object of sabotage.
One of the appointed foreign judges was a Zionist who was in “conflict of interest” with links to the State of Israel. Members of the KLWCC brought this issue to the attention of Prof. Francis Boyle who had acted as prosecutor on behalf of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission chaired by Tun Mahathir Mohamad. The numerous witnesses from Palestine refused to provide testimony.
The Tribunal hearings were postponed and reconvened on November 13, 2013 following the act of recusal and the appointment of a new judge.
The Kuala Lumpur Judgment is all the more significant in view of the current procedure of the International Criminal Court’s instigated by the Republic of South Africa against the State of Israel, on charges of genocide directed against the People of Palestine.
Read it carefully, particularly the testimonies. Forward this text far and wide.
In solidarity with the People of Palestine.
Michel Chossudovsky, January 18, 2024
Video. Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
Global Solidarity in Support of Palestine
November 4, 2023
The 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War
under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
Signatories of the 2005 Kuala Lumpur Declaration. From Left to Right:
Francis A.Boyle, Helen Caldicott, Denis J. Halliday, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Hans-Christof Von Sponeck, Michel Chossudovsky, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
.
Important Excerpt from the 2013 Judgment
What Amounts To Genocide?
Simply put, genocide means any designated acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. The definition of genocide as given in Article 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute is taken verbatim from Articles 2 & 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which states that the following acts may by themselves or cumulatively constitute the international crime of genocide:
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)
Comments Off on On Record: The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal’s 2013 Indictment of the State of Israel on Charges of War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, Genocide
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
If you were wondering why or how the mainstream media coverage of what is taking place in Gaza is so slanted as to make it look like a real war between two well-armed and competitive adversaries instead of a massacre of civilians, wonder no longer! A leak has exposed a New York Times internal document that provides editorial guidance about words that should not be used in any article relating to Gaza or to Palestine. They include “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “occupied territory,” and even “Palestine” itself. The intent is clearly to eliminate any words with negative connotations what might be applied in some fashion to Israel and to what Israel is doing, even going so far as to not include any suggestion that Palestine itself might be considered a legitimate political entity. At the same time the media is letting be heard arguments that Israelis killing Palestinians is justified as they are all “terrorists,” even the little ones who will grow up to become enemies of Israel and Jews worldwide.
To a large extent, it is the Zionists themselves that created the need to censor the language being used to describe developments between Israel and its neighbors and that is because Israel, which de facto and illegally occupies all of historic Palestine, made itself de jure “the nation state of the Jewish people” back in 2018 in spite of its Christian and Muslim citizens which, at the time, amounted to something like 20% of the population. To put it simply, a Jewish state cannot also be a democracy for all of its citizens any more than the US can be a Christian state, so it is necessary to divert attention away from that paradox. And there are other degrees of unpleasantness that spring from that necessity, including the fact that devout Jewish believers actually do follow the ten commandments, including “Thou shall not kill!” while Israel has been doing nothing but killing since its foundation as well as plenty of violations of “Thou shall not steal” and “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor!” So instead of behaving better and trying to live peaceably with its neighbors, the “Jewish state” opted instead to cultivate a partly mythical saga of victimhood referred to as the “Holocaust” and to label all of its lethal overreactions as legitimate “right to defend itself” responses.
This in turn has spawned another line of defense, what has become the virtual industry which might be referred as the pursuit of “antisemitism.” And to make it really dangerous for the average American citizens who still believe that it is possible to criticize the behavior of foreign countries, the chant of “antisemitism” has been picked up wholeheartedly by the politicians and it is being turned into laws particularly at state levels to punish people who attempt to criticize Israel. National level politicians in Congress are also submitting draft laws that would apply similar restraints throughout the country so it will inevitably be goodbye the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
The current unrest of pro-Palestinian “encampments” and “liberated zones” at 33 college campuses in the US protesting against what is clearly a genocide taking place in Gaza by calling for a ceasefire and a halt to institutional investment in Israel as well as a suspension of ties to Israeli government educational bodies. The movement is, as a consequence, being assiduously labeled a manifestation of “antisemitism” by Congress, by Joe Biden in the White House and by nearly all of the mainstream media.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, responding to the unrest, is saying, inevitably, that “antisemitic mobs have taken over leading universities” similar to Nazi rallies in the 1930s and he called for a major security crackdown on the demonstrators. And it should be observed how the reaction by the universities has been fairly consistent, i.e. to shut down Palestinians groups or speakers on campus while leaving Jewish groups supporting Israel’s actions alone, indicating clearly that this has not been an even-handed response to political unrest.
The House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has made his pro-Israel sentiments very clear, spoke at Columbia University, where the movement began, on Wednesday and dismissed suggestions that the protests were legally protected free speech. He was addressing what he thought were “Jewish students” but was nevertheless heckled by demonstrators as he said the university must restore order on campus and had “failed to protect Jewish students amid concerns about antisemitism on and around campus. This is dangerous. We respect free speech, we respect diversity of ideas, but there is a way to do that in a lawful manner and that’s not what this is.”
Speaking of the Columbia University administration, Johnson asked plaintively whether
“They cannot even guarantee the safety of Jewish students? They’re expected to run for their lives and stay home from class? It’s just, it’s maddening.”
If the Speaker had done a little more investigating he would have learned that nearly all alleged instances of “antisemitism” on campus have been greatly exaggerated by organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whose Director Jonathan Greenblatt has been a prime rabble rouser in calling for criminal charges against all those he accuses of “hating Jews.” Neither Greenblatt nor Johnson, himself a Christian Zionist, is evidently troubled at all by the fact that Israel has slaughtered likely well upwards of 40,000 unarmed civilians, including many children. It is a death toll that includes the torture and killing of prisoners execution style, mass graves of victims and the deliberate destruction of hospitals, schools and churches. It even encompasses the removal of organs from captives and cadavers for transplant, for which product Israel has a well-known and highly developed international clientele. But such details are regarded as unproven or even as an irrelevancy to Greenblatt and Johnson, as is the reality that many American Jews possessing consciences are participating in the demonstrations. They presumably will soon be labeled as “self-hating Jews” to make the approved narrative complete.
It is difficult to ignore what a monster Israel has become under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of thugs. When Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvirresponded to reports that Israel has run out of jail room for its circa 10,000 Palestinian prisoners by saying the solution was to take some of them out and kill them to make more room, there was no response from Washington. Perhaps a better solution would be to free the majority of those prisoners, who are being detained without charges, since imprisoning people without due process is considered to be unacceptable in most “rule of law” civilized countries, which Israel and Joe Biden’s US consider themselves to be but manifestly are not.
So, I welcome the student rebellion against Israeli atrocities even though they have already been confronting a massive wave of oppression from the school authorities and even from alumni who are withholding donations and also forming groups that will advise prospective employers of the names of students who are regarded as anti-Israel, presumably denying them employment after graduation. The universities themselves are engaging in suspension or expulsion of the protesters, including an email sent by Princeton University to all students on Wednesday threatening that students participating in Pro-Palestinian protests like those at Columbia, Yale and other universities would be subject to “arrest and being immediately barred” from campus followed by expulsion. Meanwhile the civil authorities will be called upon to continue to arrest protesters, when necessary, using both police and the National Guard resources. It all recalls the shooting of nonviolent student demonstrators at Kent State University 54 years ago! Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a major recipient of Israel Lobby money, is advocating that demonstrators, whom he describes as “pro-Hamas criminals,” be confronted by angry citizens who ought to “take matters into [their] own hands” and directly punish the offenders.
May 4th will be the 54th anniversary of the government cops killing 4 students at Ohio's Kent state University for protesting our killing squads in Vietnam (My Lai massacre). pic.twitter.com/bgBEranvDT
And meanwhile the government of this fair country, which has become the full-time defender of Israel, will be bleating in unison that the demonstrators are “antisemites” and even Hamas-aligned “terrorists,” demeaning them to such an extent that anything done to them will be considered okay by the media and opinion makers.There will not be a critical word uttered about what Israel is doing apart from vague Biden-esque appeals to take some “humanitarian” steps to kill less, which are routinely ignored by Netanyahu.
On the contrary, Congress and Biden are rewarding Israel for its behavior with their recent foreign aid grant of $26 billion to rearm the Jewish state, which an in-debt Washington can no longer afford even though Biden claims that the gift will “make the world safer” and be remembered as a “good day for world peace.” Ironically, part of the money is intended for “humanitarian aid” which might suggest something for the Palestinians, but as the US refuses to deal with the UN assistance agency (UNRWA) and most certainly will not work with what remains of existing formerly Hamas government in Gaza, Israel will no doubt limit and control the aid, just as it is doing now, before pocketing all of the leftover cash. How Israel treats the United States as a chattel, a source of money, weapons and unlimited political cover without providing anything at all in return apart from constant unrest and complicity in crimes against humanity is what the real tale should be all about. One can only hope that the courage of the students who have begun some pushback with their encampment at Columbia will produce some understanding among the American public of how uncritical deference to Israeli “needs” and interests has seriously corrupted the United States and might well lead to the brink of ruin for both countries.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
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.
Achinthya Sivalingam, a graduate student in Public Affairs at Princeton University did not know when she woke up this morning that shortly after 7 a.m. she would join hundreds of students across the country who have been arrested, evicted and banned from campus for protesting the genocide in Gaza.
She wears a blue sweatshirt, sometimes fighting back tears, when I speak to her. We are seated at a small table in the Small World Coffee shop on Witherspoon Street, half a block away from the university she can no longer enter, from the apartment she can no longer live in and from the campus where in a few weeks she was scheduled to graduate.
She wonders where she will spend the night.
The police gave her five minutes to collect items from her apartment.
“I grabbed really random things,” she says. “I grabbed oatmeal for whatever reason. I was really confused.”
Student protesters across the country exhibit a moral and physical courage — many are facing suspension and expulsion — that shames every major institution in the country. They are dangerous not because they disrupt campus life or engage in attacks on Jewish students — many of those protesting are Jewish — but because they expose the abject failure by the ruling elites and their institutions to halt genocide, the crime of crimes. These students watch, like most of us, Israel’s live-streamed slaughter of the Palestinian people. But unlike most of us, they act. Their voices and protests are a potent counterpoint to the moral bankruptcy that surrounds them.
Not one university president has denounced Israel’s destruction of every university in Gaza. Not one university president has called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. Not one university president has used the words “apartheid” or “genocide.” Not one university president has called for sanctions and divestment from Israel.
Instead, heads of these academic institutions grovel supinely before wealthy donors, corporations — including weapons manufacturers — and rabid right-wing politicians. They reframe the debate around harm to Jews rather than the daily slaughter of Palestinians, including thousands of children. They have allowed the abusers — the Zionist state and its supporters — to paint themselves as victims. This false narrative, which focuses on anti-Semitism, allows the centers of power, including the media, to block out the real issue — genocide. It contaminates the debate. It is a classic case of “reactive abuse.” Raise your voice to decry injustice, react to prolonged abuse, attempt to resist, and the abuser suddenly transforms themself into the aggrieved.
Princeton University, like other universities across the country, is determined to halt encampments calling for an end to the genocide. This, it appears, is a coordinated effort by universities across the country.
The university knew about the proposed encampment in advance. When the students reached the five staging sites this morning, they were met by large numbers from the university’s Department of Public Safety and the Princeton Police Department. The site of the proposed encampment in front of Firestone Library was filled with police. This is despite the fact that students kept their plans off of university emails and confined to what they thought were secure apps. Standing among the police this morning wasRabbi Eitan Webb, who founded and heads Princeton’s Chabad House. He has attended university events to vocally attack those who call for an end to the genocide as anti-semites, according to student activists.
As the some 100 protesters listened to speakers, a helicopter circled noisily overhead. A banner, hanging from a tree, read: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free.”
The students said they would continue their protest until Princeton divests from firms that “profit from or engage in the State of Israel’s ongoing military campaign” in Gaza, ends university research “on weapons of war” funded by the Department of Defense, enacts an academic and cultural boycott of Israeli institutions, supports Palestinian academic and cultural institutions and advocates for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.
But if the students again attempt to erect tents – they took down 14 tents once the two arrests were made this morning – it seems certain they will all be arrested.
“It is far beyond what I expected to happen,” says Aditi Rao, a doctoral student in classics. “They started arresting people seven minutes into the encampment.”
Princeton Vice President of Campus Life Rochelle Calhoun sent out a mass email on Wednesday warning students they could be arrested and thrown off campus if they erected an encampment.
“Any individual involved in an encampment, occupation, or other unlawful disruptive conduct who refuses to stop after a warning will be arrested and immediately barred from campus,” she wrote. “For students, such exclusion from campus would jeopardize their ability to complete the semester.”
These students, she added, could be suspended or expelled.
Sivalingam ran into one of her professors and pleaded with him for faculty support for the protest. He informed her he was coming up for tenure and could not participate. The course he teaches is called “Ecological Marxism.”
“It was a bizarre moment,” she says. “I spent last semester thinking about ideas and evolution and civil change, like social change. It was a crazy moment.”
She starts to cry.
A few minutes after 7 a.m, police distributed a leaflet to the students erecting tents with the headline “Princeton University Warning and No Trespass Notice.” The leaflet stated that the students were “engaged in conduct on Princeton University property that violates University rules and regulations, poses a threat to the safety and property of others, and disrupts the regular operations of the University: such conduct includes participating in an encampment and/or disrupting a University event.” The leaflet said those who engaged in the “prohibited conduct” would be considered a “Defiant Trespasser under New Jersey criminal law (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3) and subject to immediate arrest.”
A few seconds later Sivalingam heard a police officer say “Get those two.”
Hassan Sayed, a doctoral student in economics who is of Pakistani descent, was working with Sivalingam to erect one of tents. He was handcuffed. Sivalingam was zip tied so tightly it cut off circulation to her hands. There are dark bruises circling her wrists.
“There was an initial warning from cops about ‘You are trespassing’ or something like that, ‘This is your first warning,’” Sayed says. “It was kind of loud. I didn’t hear too much. Suddenly, hands were thrust behind my back. As this happened, my right arm tensed a bit and they said ‘You are resisting arrest if you do that.’ They put the handcuffs on.”
He was asked by one of the arresting officers if he was a student. When he said he was, they immediately informed him that he was banned from campus.
“No mention of what charges are as far as I could hear,” he says. “I get taken to one car. They pat me down a bit. They ask for my student ID.”
Sayed was placed in the back of a campus police car with Sivalingam, who was in agony from the zip ties. He asked the police to loosen the zip ties on Sivalingam, a process that took several minutes as they had to remove her from the vehicle and the scissors were unable to cut through the plastic. They had to find wire cutters. They were taken to the university’s police station.
Sayed was stripped of his phone, keys, clothes, backpack and AirPods and placed in a holding cell. No one read him his Miranda rights.
He was again told he was banned from the campus.
“Is this an eviction?” he asked the campus police.
The police did not answer.
He asked to call a lawyer. He was told he could call a lawyer when the police were ready.
“They may have mentioned something about trespassing but I don’t remember clearly,” he says. “It certainly was not made salient to me.”
He was told to fill out forms about his mental health and if he was on medication. Then he was informed he was being charged with “defiant trespassing.”
“I say, ‘I’m a student, how is that trespassing? I attend school here,’” he says. “They really don’t seem to have a good answer. I reiterate, asking whether me being banned from campus constitutes eviction, because I live on campus. They just say, ‘ban from campus.’ I said something like that doesn’t answer the question. They say it will all be explained in the letter. I’m like, ‘Who is writing the letter?’ ‘Dean of grad school’ they respond.”
Sayed was driven to his campus housing. The campus police did not let him have his keys. He was given a few minutes to grab items like his phone charger. They locked his apartment door. He, too, is seeking shelter in the Small World Coffee shop.
Sivalingam often returned to Tamil Nadu in southern India, where she was born, for her summer vacations. The poverty and daily struggle of those around her, to survive, she says, was “sobering.”
“The disparity of my life and theirs, how to reconcile how those things exist in the same world,” she says, her voice quivering with emotion. “It was always very bizarre to me. I think that’s where a lot of my interest in addressing inequality, in being able to think about people outside of the United States as humans, as people who deserve lives and dignity, comes from.”
She must adjust now to being exiled from campus.
“I gotta find somewhere to sleep,” she says, “tell my parents, but that’s going to be a little bit of a conversation, and find ways to engage in jail support and communications because I can’t be there, but I can continue to mobilize.”
There are many shameful periods in American history. The genocide we carried out against indigenous peoples. Slavery. The violent suppression of the labor movement that saw hundreds of workers killed. Lynching. Jim and Jane Crow. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya.
The genocide in Gaza, which we fund and support, is of such monstrous proportions that it will achieve a prominent place in this pantheon of crimes.
History will not be kind to most of us. But it will bless and revere these students.
*
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.
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor, and NPR. He is the host of show The Chris Hedges Report.
Featured image: Where Have All the Flowers Gone – 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.
24 March 2024 marked the 25th anniversary of the start of the NATO war against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). To mark the occasion, the Belgrade Forum and other organisations organised a major international conference under your leadership.
Current Concerns (CC): What were the most important results for you?
Živadin Jovanović (ZJ): We are really proud that about 200 friends from all the continents have gathered in Belgrade to once again condemn the illegal 1999 military aggression of NATO on Yugoslavia and pay their respects to more than 4,000 killed people including children. Participants of the Conference have sent strong appeal for ending of ongoing wars and defuse escalation before the whole humanity is absorbed into global nuclear conflict. In my opinion the most important result is Conference’s appeal to the world leaders to start strategic dialogue on stopping the conflicts and massive killings of people, concentrate on the roots and causes of ongoing wars. The other result is strong support to the new inclusive World Order based on sovereign equality of all countries and non-interference in internal affairs. This position is paired with firm opposition to the policy of expansion, domination and neo-colonialism. Our friends came from different cultures, races, religions, ideologies, even from different civilisations, but there were no difficulties in reaching mutual understanding and consensus about the issues which were discussed.
CC: Numerous foreign guests from all continents of the world took part or delivered lectures at the conference. What does their participation in your conference mean for Serbia and your concerns?
ZJ: It means a lot. NATO armed aggression ended 25 years ago, but aggression by other means of political, economic, financial and propaganda character – continued throughout this period and since recently have been even intensified. Using UNSC’s mandate, NATO practically keeps Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija under occupation. Using the EU, international financial organisations, mass-media and other instruments, leading NATO member countries – USA, GB, Germany and France – exert tremendous pressures, to oblige Serbia to recognize illegal, unilateral secession of its autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija. They want to create another Albanian state beside Albania itself, unite them in so called Greater Albania, thus expanding NATO. It is quite clear that behind rhetoric of defending democracy and human rights, stands NATO strategy of expansion. So, the participants of the Belgrade Conference have expressed their support and solidarity to Serbia to resist continued aggression, stay independent, neutral and pursue defending own sovereignty and territorial integrity based on the UN Charter, OSCE Helsinki Final Document, particularly, on the UN SC resolution 1244 (1999). Law, truth and justice make firm common ground.
CC: We had the impression that your conference was more strongly supported by official Serbia than ever before in the past 25 years. Is this the case? How can this be explained and what does this support mean for the work of the Belgrade Forum?
ZJ: Openness has been and remains one of the basic principles of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals as independent, non- profit, non-partisan, voluntary association. Forum always keeps the public and the state institutions informed of our work and views on essential national and international issues. We are very satisfied that this time three Government ministers – defense Miloš Vučević, interior Bratislav Gašić and employment Nikola Selaković – have participated at our conference.
One of them Mr. Milos Vucevic, in the meantime, has been nominated to be next Prime minister of Serbia.
Some 15 years ago even the local government would hardly notice that the Belgrade Forum exists. We are satisfied with positive evolution showing that the present Government values what we have been doing over the past 25 years. Our program centered on truth, justice and morality, our principles of voluntary engagement, equality, freedom and independence, as well as our worldwide friendship with so many organizations and renown persons, I believe, will be even better valued.
CC: What support does your conference have among the Serbian population?
ZJ: I think the Conference and the whole program of commemorative events – exhibitions, international review of the documentary films, international memorial marathon Belgrade Thessaloniki and other activities – have been widely supported in the public of Serbia. Similar commemoration events have been taking place all over the country. Belgrade Forum has been pioneer of these activities from the time when previous governments would not dare to pronounce “NATO aggression”. Members of our associations – Belgrade Forum, Serbian Generals and Admirals Club, Veterans Association SUBNOR and others – have been invited to public meetings, to holding lectures at schools and universities, talking on radio and TV stations. Serbian Diaspora all over the world has also been organising commemorations recalling thousands of innocent victims of NATO aggression. These activities will, most likely, continue, probably, until the end of the year.
In general, we stick to the principle – do what you think is right to do for your country and people, do it the best way you can and do not feel discouraged if it is not sufficient to meet all the needs. Also, doing this do not harm anybody else, always respect equality.
CC: What was the feedback from the participants of the conference from abroad? Is there an international echo?
ZJ: First, it is noteworthy to remind that many of our friends and associations all over the world, particularly in Europe, have been organising commemorative events of their own. Some of them came to Belgrade first, and then returned to their capitals to carry on own programs.
The feedback has been so far very positive. Our friends have been expressing their satisfaction with the framework of the Conference “From Aggression to a New, Fairer World Order”, by democratic atmosphere, by what they have learned from the others and by constructive, principled content of the Belgrade Declaration. To many of participants Belgrade Conference looked like the world assembly of independent academicians, concentrated to identify the roots of the ongoing conflicts, of the looming danger of global catastrophe and to shed the light on the way out of the present European and global situation. The most of them were happy to have had opportunity to strengthen old friendships and establish new ones. Many of our guests had the possibility to pass their messages and ideas to Belgrade based national and international mass media, many of the domestic organisers to pass their views to the foreign mass media. We are still receiving comments, letters of thanks, gathering articles, interviews from China to Portugal and from Tierra del Fuego to Petersburg. I think the main, general, feedback that we keep getting is the will and readiness of all to engage in building peace, equality and prosperity for everybody, to avoid catastrophe of humanity.
CC: What plans do you have for the future?
ZJ: We plan to publish several books, including collection of speeches from the recent International Conference. We will continue projects on bibliography and collection of the books and publications on NATO aggression in as many languages as possible. Conferences, round tables, seminars for young researchers, international exchange will also be on our agenda.
Generally, we follow developments; make our assessments and try to find the way to air our views. We pay particular attention to strengthen cooperation with our partner associations from all the continents.
We are very happy with our decades long, fruitful cooperation with “Mut zur Ethik” which we will continue to mutual benefit.
CC: Thank You for this interview.
The Global Majority Opts for Multipolarity and an Inclusive World Order
Speech of Živadin Jovanović at the International Conference “From Aggression to a New, Fairer World Order”, held on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of NATOs armed aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) (excerpt)
Thank you all for responding to the invitation to attend the International Conference whose theme is “From Aggression to a New, Fairer World Order” and other events of the program marking the 25th anniversary of the beginning of NATO’s armed aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We are extremely honoured and grateful to all our friends who, by their presence here, express their solidarity with Serbia and the Serbian people, as they have done all the past decades. This gives us strength and strengthens the belief that we are on the right path, both in the defence of our legitimate interests and in the fight for peace, equality and a fairer European and world order.
Today we are gathered here in a kind of global people’s assembly, with friends from all parts of the world. We belong to different nations, religions, political orientations and civilisations, but we are united in honouring the human victims of a rampaging power, in condemning NATO’s aggression and its expansionism. At the same time, we are united in our efforts to contribute to peace, freedom and progress for all countries and peoples. We are here also because we preserve the truth, strengthen the value of law and justice, and to search for a more humane and safer future for everyone.
Today we pay tribute to the defenders of a freedom-loving and independent country that was attacked even though it did not pose a danger to any other country, least of all NATO members. Armed aggression ended two and a half decades ago, but its initiators continue it by other means until today. That is why we condemn all forms of aggression and say that we will resolutely oppose it, regardless of the “tools” that are used.
The people of Serbia will not and cannot forget the human sacrifices and suffering for which the aggressor is responsible. The crimes committed against the Serbian people must never and anywhere be repeated. Peace, equal security, equal cooperation and progress are our universal right and we do not allow anyone to trample on or steal that right from us. Our aspirations are aimed at building a new world order centered on people, their equality, security and progress. We are committed to an order of freedom, understanding and openness without imposing other people’s interests, values and understandings. We ask that historical, cultural and spiritual specificities be respected, that differences be treated as wealth and not as an occasion for new divisions, confrontation and wars. We are fighting for a new, more original order based on the universal principles of equality, coexistence and non-interference in internal affairs.
The global majority of humanity does not accept an order based on force, privileges and “rules” in the interests of the minority. The time has passed when it was possible for a minority to mask its hegemony and neo-colonialism with the garb of democracy and human rights, to impose it on the global majority through aggression and colour revolutions. The trap of division into “democracies” and “autocracies” does not pass. The global majority opts for multipolarity and an inclusive world order in which the interests of humanity and not the interests of the “golden billion” are at the centre.
*
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: “May the memory of the victims of aggression, consequences there- of, and our struggle, light up the way ahead of us so to help us fol- low the footsteps of our ancestors with dignity.” from the fore- word by Aleksander Skakić in “1999–2024 – We remember …” (picture Media Center “Odbrana”, 2024)
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, participants of the International Conference held in Belgrade on March 22-24, 2024, on the occasion of marking the 25th anniversary of NATO’s armed aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) dedicated to the theme “From the Aggression to a New Just Order”, gathered from all over the world, hereby declare:
–We belong to different countries, nations, ideologies, religions and civilizations, but stand firmly united in our commitment to peace, equality, and prosperity for all peoples, as well as in our condemnation of interventionism, expansion, domination, and hegemonism.
–We firmly condemn the unprovoked armed aggression by NATO against the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999 as an unlawful, invading and criminal war against a sovereign, peace-loving European country, waged devoid of a UN Security Council mandate, in blatant violation of the United Nations Charter, the OSCE Helsinki Final Act (1975) and the fundamental principles of international law.
–We underline:
That the aggression was carried out under false pretexts and that therefore NATO’s responsibility cannot be diminished. It was not state authorities but, instead NATO’s expansionism that actually threatened a ‘humanitarian disaster’. What happened in Rachak was not a ‘massacre of civilians’, but instead legitimate response of the state to terrorism.
The ‘Horseshoe Plan’ did not exist. ‘Humanitarian’ wars or interventions do not exist. Prevention of human suffering can hardly be achieved by destruction of homes and hospitals, use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs, by poisoning air, soil and water.
Back in 1999, NATO reintroduced the war on European soil, ironically, a war that Europe waged on itself.
It was neither a “little Kosovo war”, but rather a war of these geopolitical goals:
a) carving the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija out of Serbia and a full control over the Balkans;
b) deployment of the US troops in the Balkans for the purposes of the strategy of Eastward expansion;
c) creating a precedent for subsequent interventions conducted in violation of international law and of the inviolability of the UN Security Council;
d) justifying the existence of NATO and its acting beyond the area defined in its Founding Act of 1949. “Wherever the law presented obstacle to the policy of expansion, it must be removed” – was yet another NATO new rule.
The NATO aggression embodied the undoing of the legal order of peace and security in Europe and the world, established on the outcome of the Second World War. Today, the Balkans is more unstable, Europe militarized on dangerous tracks, without autonomy, identity and vision.
The aggression took lives of 1,139 soldiers and police officers, about 3,000 civilians also including 89 children, while some 10,000 people were wounded. However, the consequences of prolonged effects of weapons filled with depleted uranium and toxic compounds are by far greater.
NATO, also, bombed the Embassy of the PR of China, in Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists and destroying the building of the Chinese Embassy.
We pay our highest respect to all the fallen innocent people and express our deepest, sincere condolences to their families.
The aggressor had been systematically destroying or badly damaging civilian infrastructure, such as railways, roads, bridges, airports, energy system, as well as apartment buildings, industrial facilities, schools, hospitals, kindergartens, and many more objects. Over thirty radio and TV stations and transmitters had been bombed including the national public TV RTS killing 16 professional employees on duty. The direct damage totals some USD 100 billion.
We emphasize that NATO and its member states, participants in the illegal act of aggression, are obliged to compensate Serbia for the war damage they have inflicted.
We appeal that special state and expert bodies, tasked with determining the consequences of aggression on the health of people and the environment, resume their work, and that the war crimes against civilians and crimes of non-compliance with the war-related conventions be prosecuted and sanctioned.
We express our strong support and solidarity with Serbia’s efforts to mitigate the consequences of the aggression and her endeavoring to prevent the continuation of NATO’s armed aggression by other means.
We express our full support to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia in her internationally recognized borders within which she continued her membership in the UN, the OSCE, and other universal international organizations.
We are deeply concerned about the mass-scale violation of the basic human rights of the Serbian community in Kosovo and Metohija embodied in continuation of their systematic expulsion from, and in preventing the free and safe return of over 250,000 expelled Serbs and other non-Albanians to, their homes and property.
We firmly believe that the future status of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija may be resolved only in accordance with international law and, in particular, with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999, which is lasting, legally binding document. We demand that all provisions of the UNSC resolution 1244 be fully respected and implemented.
We condemn each and all violations of that Resolution and the policy of blackmail and pressuring, and all one-sided steps aimed at legalizing the seizure of state territory and completing the ethnic cleansing of the remaining Serbian population, in preparation to create the so-called Greater Albania.
We oppose the unipolar world order based on the strategy of hegemonism and global domination with NATO as its military feast. The aggression against the FRY in 1999 was speeding up of the strategy of expansion to the East, and a source of danger to peace in Europe and the world. At the time of the aggression, NATO had 19 members, and today counts 32. After the erection of US military base Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo and Metohija, there followed dozens of new NATO bases. Presently, Europe hosts a far larger number of foreign military bases and stockpiles of nuclear weapons than it did during the bipolar world and the Cold War era.
We express our deepest concern about the accelerated escalation of hostilities and conflicts in global relations that add fuel to the fire of conflict, continued provocations, and the looming danger of a global conflict. The world sits on the brink of the abyss. Humanity will either restrain the rampant aggressiveness of the alienated power centers, or fall into that abyss.
This makes us stand unified in the demand for an immediate beginning of the dialogue at the strategic level, under the auspices of the UN, aimed at putting to a halt the escalation, the accumulation of conventional and nuclear weapons, and the breaching of international agreements.
We demand the closure of foreign military camps, the complete withdrawal from Europe of the US tactical nuclear weapons and installations of the so- called anti-missile defenses that make security more volatile.
We call for an end to war-mongering rhetoric, and invite all responsible statesmen to resort to dialogue and to finding peaceful, just and sustainable solutions to the ongoing conflicts and crises.
We appeal to all peace-loving forces in the world to join forces in the struggle for the observance of international law, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, reinforcing the authority and role of the United Nations and other universal international organizations, the observance of principles of equality, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for cooperation and coordination in the fight against terrorism and separatism as global threats.
We support the process of multi-polarization of global relations and their democratization on the basis of the sovereign equality of all states and peoples.
We support the peace, security and development initiatives that are based on the principle of mutual indivisibility of peace, security and development, and that take note of the root causes of problems. The key roles in that process play BRICS, EAEU, Global Initiative “Belt and Road”, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, NAM. We support the abolition of all monopolies, privileges based on ‘exceptionalism’. We refuse unilateral sanctions, erection of new ‘walls’ or divisions. Attempt to divide the world into ‘democracies’ and ‘autocracies’ is a trickery of the power-centers designed to extend the life of the unipolar world order.
The policy of confrontation, interventionism, and interference in internal affairs, backed by the military-industrial complex and large financial capital, must give way to dialogue, partnership, respect for fundamental norms of international law and the multi-polar world order.
Peace, stability, democracy and inclusive development require radical changes in present global relations, observance of sovereign equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, multilateralism, respect of common interests, and exclusion of any egoism, protectionism and privileges of the past.
The biggest obstacle to the world order of sovereign equal nations is the relics of the Cold War. That is why NATO should be dissolved and the doctrine of hegemonism, expansionism and neo-colonialism consigned to history.
We condemn the mass-scale killing of the innocent Palestinian people, in particular of children, and call for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and other areas inhabited by the Palestinian people, in order to finally stop this human suffering unprecedented in recent history, and for unhindered delivery of food, medicines, water, and other necessities of life to the vulnerable population.
We support a two-state solution, the free and safe return of all expelled persons, the abolition of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state within the pre-June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital, all in accordance with the United Nations Resolutions.
We express our solidarity with the people of Cuba who have been suffering the devastating consequences of the unilateral US embargo for many years. The Cuban people have an inalienable right to choose the paths of internal development of their own, without external interference. We demand respect for the UN positions on the lifting of the US blockade of Cuba, and the removal of Cuba from the list of ‘states sponsoring terrorism’ because it was inserted without any bases.
We hold that the Ukrainian crisis is a corollary of NATO’s strategy of expansion to the East, under betrayal of all agreements of the otherwise.
We believe this crisis can be resolved peacefully, by acknowledging and removing the causes and by guaranteeing equal security for all countries. The common future of humanity excludes egotism and selfish approaches such as the ‘golden billion’ security thesis.
We express our acknowledgment and gratitude to our hosts – the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia, SUBNOR of Serbia, the Diaspora Fund for Serbia, and the Association of Veterans of the Military Intelligence Service, as well as to the citizens of Serbia – for their hospitality and good organization of the Conference.
The organizers express their acknowledgment to the participants of the Conference, including the World Peace Council and all its members, for their decades long solidarity and support to Serbia and the Serbian people, as well as for their extraordinary contribution to the results of this Conference.
*
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: April 27, 1999, Surdulica, Serbia, in the series of NATO’s civilian bombing
This incisive article by Michael Carmichael first published on January 15, 2007 provides a historical focus on Israel’s nuclear weapons program.
***
In 1986, an Israeli civil servant who worked in the state-owned nuclear industry flew to London where he was invited to meet with reporters working for The Sunday Times.
In these press briefings, Mordechai Vanunu revealed Israel’s top secret – the Israelis had gained control of a growing stockpile of nuclear warheads.
In the weeks immediately following these explosive revelations, Mr Vanunu visited Rome where Israeli espionage agents abducted him and forced his return to Israel. Back in Tel Aviv, Mr Vanunu was placed on trial for treason. Tried before a secret tribunal, Mr. Vanunu’s conviction was a foregone conclusion, and he served an eighteen-year prison sentence with eleven of those years in solitary confinement.
Released in 2004, Mr Vanunu was placed under orders prohibiting him from travel to other nations where he has been offered academic posts.
Mr Vanunu is now living in the sanctuary of a Christian Church in Israel, but this refuge has not stopped his political persecution by the government of Israel. Since his release, Mr Vanunu has been arrested four times, and he is now facing 21 charges of contravening a lawful direction, a charge that carries a penalty of two years in prison for each count (ie. 42 years).
The European Parliament condemned the state of Israel’s persecution of Mr. Vanunu. Amnesty International published a report charging that Israel’s treatment of Mr. Vanunu was, “cruel, inhuman and degrading . . . such as is prohibited by international law.”
Since his exposé of Israel’s nuclear arsenal, Mr. Vanunu has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize a total of seventeen times.
Even though Joseph Rotblat placed Mr. Vanunu’s name in nomination, Vanunu’s Nobel nominations have always faced systematic opposition organized by friends and supporters of the state of Israel who wield immense influence in the Nobel deliberations.
In 1987, Mr. Vanunu received the alternative Nobel Peace Prize (ie. the Right Livelihood Award). In 2005, he was awarded the Peace Prize of the Norwegian people and an honorary doctorate from the prestigious University of Tromso.
The state of Israel has consistently blocked Mr. Vanunu’s taking up his academic post as a Lecturer in history at the University of Glasgow. The Israeli government prohibits Mr. Vanunu from traveling beyond their borders apparently for fear that he will hold press briefings about their now well-known arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Expert opinions vary but some now rank Israel third or fourth behind only the USA, Russia and possibly France in holding the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
In addition to the nuclear devices themselves, Israel has a formidable arsenal of delivery systems. Israel’s Shavit rocket has been used to launch satellites into orbit, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported that the Shavit could be converted to an ICBM with a range of 7,000 miles allowing an Israeli nuclear strike anywhere in the Middle East as well as eastern and western Europe and Central Asia. Additionally, Israel now has a fleet of Dolphin class submarines armed with cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported that Israel may have developed nuclear artillery shells as well as nuclear land-mines that could be deployed in the Golan Heights to discourage Syrian designs on the region.
Video on Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Facility
English subtitles
Even though the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal is now a well-established fact, the state of Israel has consistently refused to confirm its nuclear status. Furthermore, Israel refuses to become a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel’s adamant nuclear insularity and denials have created tensions – not only in the Middle East – but globally.
America’s acquiescence to the Israeli nuclear arsenal may have encouraged India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other states now known to be capable of developing nuclear capabilities. For instance, in 2003, leading members of the government of Saudi Arabia announced that due to worsening relations with the United States they were considering the development of nuclear weapons. The worsening relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States are predicated upon the policies of Israel: its rogue nuclear arsenal and its harsh treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Some reports indicate that India has secretly provided Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons.
In the early 1990s, one of America’s premiere journalists, Seymour Hersh, published a best-selling book, The Samson Option, detailing Mr Vanunu’s testimony. Hersh’s book contained a great deal of new information about Israel’s vaunted nuclear defense capability.
Since 1986, the overwhelming majority of the global population has known about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, but many Americans remain completely unaware of the existence of hundreds of nuclear warheads under the direct control of the Israeli defense establishment. In the mid-1990s, Michael Moore – a person who is not known for his conservatism nor for his reflexive support for the policies of the state of Israel – made disparaging remarks during an interview that touched on the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal. Moore made this gaffe because – even though he is usually well-informed – it was obvious that he was oblivious to either Mordechai Vanunu’s testimony or Mr Hersh’s bestselling book.
In the reports linked below, The Sunday Times have now revealed new evidence that Israel is currently [early 2007] planning to launch a nuclear attack against Iran.
Aimed at destroying the embryonic Iranian nuclear industry, the Israeli missiles armed with nuclear warheads will be delivered via conventional jet fighters.The Sunday Times reported that Israeli jet pilots are already undergoing advanced training to fire the nuclear warheads at targets in Iran – – in a tactical replay of their attack that destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1982. In The Sunday Times coverage, no reference was made to the possibility of a nuclear strike from Israeli submarines that have been equipped with cruise missiles that could be armed with nuclear warheads. Military experts have been reporting the presence of Israel’s Dolphin class submarines in the Persian Gulf for the past two years ostensibly to support US naval operations in case Iran attempts to close the Straits of Hormuz.
Two years ago, Seymour Hersh began publishing a series of papers in The New Yorker detailing a vast planning project in Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon to attack and wage war on Iran. In the interim, many other authors have now reported details of the highly publicized policy of the Bush-Cheney White House to use military force to compel Iran to abandon any ambitions she might have to develop nuclear weapons. These American military options involve the use of nuclear weapons sometimes called bunker busters that are designed for striking deeply embedded underground locations such as Iran’s nuclear laboratories.
It is worthy of note that Elizabeth Cheney, the eldest daughter of Vice President Richard Cheney, is the US government official at the State Department responsible for a budget of circa $100 million per year to encourage “democracy” inside Iran – ie. covert operations designed to construct a fifth column inside Iranian society that is hostile to the existing government.
From a lengthening series of reports, it is now clear that the Bush-Cheney administration has been severely weakened by the recent midterm elections, and they apparently no longer feel capable of launching a direct nuclear strike against Iran using American forces, American weapons and America’s formidable nuclear arsenal. In negotiations that took place in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President George Bush – as well as in the highly publicized negotiations between Vice President Dick Cheney and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia – it would now appear that the joint planning to strike Iran has altered only slightly from the grandiose schemes originally designed by Donald Rumsfeld prior to his abrupt retirement on the day after the midterm elections last year.
According to The Sunday Times, there has been a slight re-calibration of the plans for the war against Iran. Rather than a direct American nuclear strike against Iran’s hard targets, Israel has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz, Isfahan and Arak.
What remains to be seen is whether the American media – now ranked 53rd on the International Press Freedom Index – will cover the story, and whether the American people will be informed of the intimate collaboration between the Bush-Cheney White House, the Olmert government in Israel and other governments now known to be involved in the military planning to contain Iran’s still nascent nuclear development.
Following The Sunday Times’ detailed coverage of Israeli’s plans to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, the government of Israel issued an unconvincing denial. One Israeli official made an ambiguous statement when he said that the story could have been leaked intentionally in order to prevent the nation of Israel from doing something, “crazy.” When Israeli government officials offer praise – even in this odd manner – it is time to take note that a political realignment may be taking place in Tel Aviv.
In America, there is no doubt whatsoever that a major political realignment has already taken place. The American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and its cheerleaders are concerned that the trend to criticize Israel is now intensifying both on the left and in the center of the political spectrum in the US. The government of Israel’s support for the disasters brought about by the neoconservative ideology has triggered an American political backlash in the wake of years of disappointment over the war in Iraq – a war that was to have been the crowning achievement of the Bush-Cheney administration.
Former President Jimmy Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid is now standing high on the bestseller lists even though he has faced a firestorm of protest from the Israel-Firsters led by Abraham Foxman, the formidable propagandist of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
Against this rapidly shifting backdrop, American politicians of both parties – and from all parts of the political spectrum: left, right and center – are now openly expressing their opposition to the war in Iraq. That said, relatively few members of Congress have taken any position on the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plans for war with Iran.
Last week, the new Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) challenged Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, about her inflammatory remarks threatening a military intervention to confront what she termed Iran’s “aggression.” In striking terms, Senator Biden warned Secretary Rice that Congress would not tolerate any US military attack across the Iraq-Iran border. Senator Biden arrested Secretary Rice with his promise of a “constitutional confrontation” between Congress and the White House if President Bush orders US forces to cross the border. Currently the most outspoken opponent of America’s plans to wage war on Iran in the US Congress, Senator Biden is an unannounced candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
In a parallel development, top-ranking staff at the White House ordered Tony Snow to issue a weak statement designed to allay rising public concerns about expanding the unpopular war into Iran. Snow attempted to pour scorn on what he deemed to be an “urban legend” – that the Bush White House has made plans for war with Iran.
Coming as they did in the aftermath of Condoleezza Rice’s provocative remarks about Iranian “aggression” and the highly publicized seizure of five Iranian officials by US forces in Iraq, Mr. Snow’s attempt to quell the concerns of Americans was underwhelming, unconvincing and little more than a transparent attempt to disinform the public. The appointment of Mr. Snow, a former personality from Fox News, was, perhaps, one of the worst of many questionable decisions made by a White House besieged on so many fronts.
During his confirmation hearings last month, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates responded to a question about potential US military intervention against Iran. Mr. Gates stated that such an attack could have, “devastating consequences,” for America and her friends in the region.
Mr. Gates was right. The reality is stark. If Israel attacks Iran, she will be playing Russian roulette on a grand scale. The retaliation from a broad spectrum of nations and multinational militias in the Middle East could bring about a concerted series of devastating hard power attacks against both Israeli and American forces arrayed in a dense cluster from Iraq to Kuwait, Qatar and the Persian Gulf.
During his recent appearance at the Oxford Union, Avi Shlaim, one of the premiere historians of Israel, said,
“There was never any special relationship between America and Britain. Whenever Bush was confronted with the choice of pleasing Blair or Sharon, he always sided with Sharon. The real special relationship is between America and Israel.”
There is an old adage in politics: It’s never your enemies who get you into trouble: it’s your friends.
(Mordechai Vanunu in Israel)
Michael Carmichael is Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, The Planetary Movement, Oxford, UK and a frequent contributor to Global Research
Below, I have reproduced a year-by-year timeline of America’s wars, which reveals something quite interesting: since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.
To put this in perspective:
* Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
* No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
* The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
* The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.
* * *
Year-by-year Timeline of America’s Major Wars (1776-2011)
1776 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamagua Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War
1777 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Second Cherokee War, Pennamite-Yankee War
1778 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1779 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1780 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1781 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1782 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1783 – American Revolutionary War, Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War
1784 – Chickamauga Wars, Pennamite-Yankee War, Oconee War
1785 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1786 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1787 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1788 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1789 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1790 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1791 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1792 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1793 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1794 – Chickamauga Wars, Northwest Indian War
1795 – Northwest Indian War
1796 – No major war
1797 – No major war
1798 – Quasi-War
1799 – Quasi-War
1800 – Quasi-War
1801 – First Barbary War
1802 – First Barbary War
1803 – First Barbary War
1804 – First Barbary War
1805 – First Barbary War
1806 – Sabine Expedition
1807 – No major war
1808 – No major war
1809 – No major war
1810 – U.S. occupies Spanish-held West Florida
1811 – Tecumseh’s War
1812 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Seminole Wars, U.S. occupies Spanish-held Amelia Island and other parts of East Florida
1813 – War of 1812, Tecumseh’s War, Peoria War, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in West Florida
1814 – War of 1812, Creek War, U.S. expands its territory in Florida, Anti-piracy war
1815 – War of 1812, Second Barbary War, Anti-piracy war
1816 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war
1817 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war
1818 – First Seminole War, Anti-piracy war
1819 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war
1820 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war
1821 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)
1822 – Anti-piracy war (see note above)
1823 – Anti-piracy war, Arikara War
1824 – Anti-piracy war
1825 – Yellowstone Expedition, Anti-piracy war
1826 – No major war
1827 – Winnebago War
1828 – No major war
1829 – No major war
1830 – No major war
1831 – Sac and Fox Indian War
1832 – Black Hawk War
1833 – Cherokee Indian War
1834 – Cherokee Indian War, Pawnee Indian Territory Campaign
1835 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War
1836 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Missouri-Iowa Border War
1837 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Second Creek War, Osage Indian War, Buckshot War
1838 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars, Buckshot War, Heatherly Indian War
1839 – Cherokee Indian War, Seminole Wars
1840 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade Fiji Islands
1841 – Seminole Wars, U.S. naval forces invade McKean Island, Gilbert Islands, and Samoa
1842 – Seminole Wars
1843 – U.S. forces clash with Chinese, U.S. troops invade African coast
1844 – Texas-Indian Wars
1845 – Texas-Indian Wars
1846 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars
1847 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars
1848 – Mexican-American War, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War
1849 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians
1850 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, California Indian Wars, Pitt River Expedition
1851 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars
1852 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, California Indian Wars
1853 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Utah Indian Wars, Walker War, California Indian Wars
1854 – Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians
1855 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Cayuse War, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Yakima War, Winnas Expedition, Klickitat War, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay
1856 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Puget Sound War, Rogue River Wars, Tintic War
1857 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Utah War, Conflict in Nicaragua
1858 – Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Mohave War, California Indian Wars, Spokane-Coeur d’Alene-Paloos War, Utah War, U.S. forces invade Fiji Islands and Uruguay
1859 Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, California Indian Wars, Pecos Expedition, Antelope Hills Expedition, Bear River Expedition, John Brown’s raid, U.S. forces launch attack against Paraguay, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1860 – Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Paiute War, Kiowa-Comanche War
1861 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign
1862 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Dakota War of 1862,
1863 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Southwest Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Goshute War
1864 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Cheyenne Campaign, Colorado War, Snake War
1865 – American Civil War, Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Colorado War, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War
1866 – Texas-Indian Wars, Navajo Wars, Apache Wars, California Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Franklin County War, U.S. invades Mexico, Conflict with China
1867 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, U.S. troops occupy Nicaragua and attack Taiwan
1868 – Texas-Indian Wars, Long Walk of the Navajo, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Snake War, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Red Cloud’s War, Comanche Wars, Battle of Washita River, Franklin County War
1869 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War
1870 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War
1871 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Franklin County War, Kingsley Cave Massacre, U.S. forces invade Korea
1872 – Texas-Indian Wars, Apache Wars, Utah’s Black Hawk War, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Franklin County War
1873 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Modoc War, Apache Wars, Cypress Hills Massacre, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1874 – Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Red River War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1875 – Conflict in Mexico, Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche Wars, Eastern Nevada, Mason County War, Colfax County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1876 – Texas-Indian Wars, Black Hills War, Mason County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1877 – Texas-Indian Wars, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Black Hills War, Nez Perce War, Mason County War, Lincoln County War, San Elizario Salt War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1878 – Paiute Indian conflict, Bannock War, Cheyenne War, Lincoln County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1879 – Cheyenne War, Sheepeater Indian War, White River War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1886 – Apache Wars, Pleasant Valley War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1887 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1888 – U.S. show of force against Haiti, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1889 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1890 – Sioux Indian War, Skirmish between 1st Cavalry and Indians, Ghost Dance War, Wounded Knee, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1891 – Sioux Indian War, Ghost Dance War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1892 – Johnson County War, U.S. forces invade Mexico
1893 – U.S. forces invade Mexico and Hawaii
1894 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1895 – U.S. forces invade Mexico, Bannock Indian Disturbances
1896 – U.S. forces invade Mexico
1897 – No major war
1898 – Spanish-American War, Battle of Leech Lake, Chippewa Indian Disturbances
1899 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1900 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1901 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1902 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1903 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1904 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1905 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1906 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1907 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1908 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1909 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1910 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1911 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1912 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars
1913 – Philippine-American War, Banana Wars, New Mexico Navajo War
1914 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico
1915 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico, Colorado Paiute War
1916 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico
1917 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S. invades Mexico
1918 – Banana Wars, World War I, U.S invades Mexico
1919 – Banana Wars, U.S. invades Mexico
1920 – Banana Wars
1921 – Banana Wars
1922 – Banana Wars
1923 – Banana Wars, Posey War
1924 – Banana Wars
1925 – Banana Wars
1926 – Banana Wars
1927 – Banana Wars
1928 – Banana Wars
1930 – Banana Wars
1931 – Banana Wars
1932 – Banana Wars
1933 – Banana Wars
1934 – Banana Wars
1935 – No major war
1936 – No major war
1937 – No major war
1938 – No major war
1939 – No major war
1940 – No major war
1941 – World War II
1942 – World War II
1943 – Wold War II
1944 – World War II
1945 – World War II
1946 – Cold War (U.S. occupies the Philippines and South Korea)
1947 – Cold War (U.S. occupies South Korea, U.S. forces land in Greece to fight Communists)
1948 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)
1949 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)
1950 – Korean War, Jayuga Uprising
1951 – Korean War
1952 – Korean War
1953 – Korean War
1954 – Covert War in Guatemala
1955 – Vietnam War
1956 – Vietnam War
1957 – Vietnam War
1958 – Vietnam War
1959 – Vietnam War, Conflict in Haiti
1960 – Vietam War
1961 – Vietnam War
1962 – Vietnam War, Cold War (Cuban Missile Crisis; U.S. marines fight Communists in Thailand)
1963 – Vietnam War
1964 – Vietnam War
1965 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic
1966 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic
1967 – Vietnam War
1968 – Vietnam War
1969 – Vietnam War
1970 – Vietnam War
1971 – Vietnam War
1972 – Vietnam War
1973 – Vietnam War, U.S. aids Israel in Yom Kippur War
1974 – Vietnam War
1975 – Vietnam War
1976 – No major war
1977 – No major war
1978 – No major war
1979 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)
1980 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)
1981 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), First Gulf of Sidra Incident
1982 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon
1983 – Cold War (Invasion of Grenada, CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon
1984 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Persian Gulf
1985 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)
1986 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)
1987 – Conflict in Persian Gulf
1988 – Conflict in Persian Gulf, U.S. occupation of Panama
1989 – Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, U.S. occupation of Panama, Conflict in Philippines
1990 – First Gulf War, U.S. occupation of Panama
1991 – First Gulf War
1992 – Conflict in Iraq
1993 – Conflict in Iraq
1994 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti
1995 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti, NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina
1996 – Conflict in Iraq
1997 – No major war
1998 – Bombing of Iraq, Missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan
1999 – Kosovo War
2000 – No major war
2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan
2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen
2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq
2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2005 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2006 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen
2008 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2009 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2010 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen
2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in Libya (Libyan Civil War)
In most of these wars, the U.S. was on the offense. Danios admits that some of the wars were defensive. However, Danios also leaves out covert CIA operations and other acts which could be considered war.
Let’s update what’s happened since 2011:
2012 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen
2013 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen
2014 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine
2015 – War on Terror in Somalia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine
So we can add 4 more years of war. That means that for 222 out of 239 years – or 93% of the time – America has been at war. (We can quibble with the exact numbers, but the high percentage of time that America has been at war is clear and unmistakable.)
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.
Most of the planet is perfectly aware of this disparity and is making it clear that cooperation with Beijing is a matter of choice, while having anything to do with Washington DC mostly boils down to coercion, as the political elites there are simply incapable of conducting “diplomacy” without resorting to arm-twisting.
Blinken is going to China precisely with such bearing, pompously announcing that he “arrives with a warning that the US and its European allies are no longer prepared to tolerate China’s sale of weapon components and dual-use products to Russia”. The political West insists that this is “helping Vladimir Putin rebuild and modernize his arms factories, enabling him to intensify his onslaught on Ukraine”. Caught in the web of its own endless stream of lies, the belligerent power pole is trying to blame anyone but itself. However, this is all futile, particularly when it comes to superpowers such as China. Beijing will certainly decide whether or not to do business with someone and the political West has no say in it whatsoever. Blinken will have three days to relay the US position and if that time will be used to make toothless threats and attempt blackmail, he should’ve certainly picked another country.
However, the simple fact that none of the top-ranking officials greeted him when he flew in indicates something completely different. Blinken is supposed to meet Beijing’s veteran Foreign Minister Wang Yi tomorrow. The encounter is expected to last at least six hours and might even include President Xi Jinping. This will certainly depend on Blinken’s command of actual diplomacy, as the aforementioned threats he pompously announced are only for domestic consumption and are entirely void in China. The US might threaten with sanctions, but this is a two-way street and any reciprocal measures would certainly hurt America’s economic and maybe even national security interests. It’s entirely up to the US whether things will take such an unpleasant turn.
“Let me stress again that China’s right to conduct normal trade and economic exchanges with Russia and other countries in the world on the basis of equality and mutual benefit should not be interfered with or disrupted,” Wang Wenbin, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, stated just before Blinken’s arrival, adding: “China’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests should not be infringed on.”
US officials insist that Beijing supposedly “gave up on the idea of sending weapons directly to Moscow thanks to their threats“. However, the entire claim is essentially a multilayered lie, as there’s no evidence whatsoever that China ever planned on arming Russia, let alone that it stopped doing so because of the political West’s pressure. On top of that, Washington DC is trying to disrupt the rapidly growing trade between the two (Eur)Asian giants, particularly through claims that Beijing is supplying so-called “dual-use” industrial goods. This is where the endless hypocrisy and mental gymnastics of the political West become most evident. While the US just decided to send dozens of billions worth of weapons to directly undermine Russia’s and China’s basic national security interests, it’s accusing the latter of “helping” the former by simply trading with it, as the so-called “dual-use” industrial goods can be pretty much anything.
Worse yet, the US and its vassals and satellite states are surrounding both Beijing and Moscow with long-range missiles and deploying troops not only in their vicinity, but directly on their borders. Still, according to their own admission, “the Blinken team is worried that China’s response to pressure over Russia could be to slow down progress in other areas of the bilateral relationship”. This also includes the (Eur)Asian giant’s close ties with North Korea, as the US wants it to put pressure on Pyongyang. Washington DC is particularly terrified of the prospect that Russia, China and North Korea are forming a more monolithic alliance that the political West will be simply hopeless to match. However, they have nobody else to blame but themselves. Constant threats and attempts to undermine all three of these countries left them with no other choice but to work together. After all, that’s one of the reasons why BRICS itself exists.
*
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.
I would add several more. For example, the independence of doctors requires private practice. Private practice is being destroyed systematically by medical insurance, malpractice insurance, Medicare, Big Pharma, and the US Congress which panders to Big Pharma for campaign contributions. Medical doctors are being forced into becoming employees for HMOs where they have to follow their employer’s protocols or be fired. This means that they must abandon the Hippocratric Oath and follow the profit-enhancing practices of their employer HMOs. Big Pharma provides software for diagnosis and treatment, and doctors have to prescribe according to what Medicare and insurance companies will pay a percentage of the billing amount. Even doctors in private practice find that what they can prescribe and what operations they can perform is limited to insurance and medicare decisions.
During the orchestrated “Covid pandemic,” the entire propaganda operation was geared toward maximizing Big Pharma’s profits from the Covid “vaccine” and to cancelling people’s control over their own health care by imposing “vaccine” mandates. This was the first exercise in the imposition of mass tyranny in the Western World. Individual countries had experienced tyranny, but never before the entire Western world simultaneously.
In order to maximize Big Pharma’s profits and impose mass tyranny, it was necessary to prohibit two safe, effective, known preventatives and cures for Covid–hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. Doctors who successfully used these cures and preventatives to protect their patients were subject to persecution by medical authorities and governing boards. Some were fired from their HMO jobs and university medical schools, some were stripped of their licenses, some were prosecuted. In order to mass inject people with an untested “vaccine” under an emergency use order the requirement was that there were no cures. So, the fact that there were cures had to be suppressed. The utterly corrupt US medical establishment, the whore media and the Western governments suppressed the cures and ridiculed them as “horse medicine.”
If the Western peoples were not so insouciant, so gullible, so trusting of “authorities,” so utterly stupid and incapable of thinking for themselves, there would have been no orchestrated “Covid pandemic” and no mass vaccination, which is against all medical protocols in the face of a pandemic. According to all available scientific evidence to date, the “Covid vaccine” has killed and destroyed the health of more people than the Covid virus. The corrupt “authorities” have done their best to cover this up, but as I have reported the coverup has failed. Still nothing is being done about it.
Nothing can be done as long as Congress is dependent on campaign contributions from corporations. “Our” representatives are really representatives of those interest groups that fund election campaigns. Congress reports to them, not to us. The idiot US Supreme Court actually ruled that corporations had a legitimate Constitutional right to purchase the US government.
This ruling converted a government that represented the people into one that represented the political campaign contributors.
Another addition I would make is the destruction of manners. Try to find today any sign of the manners I grew up with or the civilization that existed. Men were taught to respect women, and women in those days were safer than they are in our feminist times. Even when I was in my 20s, when a woman entered the room, the men stood up. Car and restaurant doors were opened for women. Women were helped into their seat at the table. Only when women were seated did men sit down. Men were trained to be gentleman, and ladies to be ladies. No gentleman ever used a four-letter word in a woman’s presence, and no woman ever spoke one. Listen to the barbaric youth today. Even the terms ladies and gentlemen have passed out or have been driven out of use. Feminists said that civility was the way men patronized women and demanded an end to civility.
Elegance in dress and demeanor has left us. When is the last time you saw a well dressed man or woman on an air flight even in first class, in an airport, shopping mall, restaurant, on the street? It has been years.
I remember a few years ago a first class flight from a New York meeting to Atlanta. My seat mate was a young attractive black woman bursting out of her cut off shorts and minimal halter. She was happy and celebrating with her drinks. I asked her what her good news had been. She said that she had just been signed by a Jewish firm as a recording artist and that her future was made. I asked her about her music, and she played some for me from her cell phone. Every other word was four-letter. What struck me was that she had no sense of inappropriate language, much less shame, in presenting a litany of four-letter words to a person long outside her generation. For her, it was normality, what she knew. No reason for me to be disturbed.
In other words, she simply reflected her times. That told me that my civilized time had passed, and that we were headed down, not up.
Today in the Disunited States we have a government in power that was not elected; instead it used control over the blue cities in swing states and the whore American media to steal the election. Massive amounts of evidence was provided by experts that the election was stolen, but this was strongly denied by the whore media, and experts were prosecuted for making the facts known.
Today America is governed by an illegitimate tyrannical regime, and nothing has been done about it. The Republican Party is useless. Only Trump soldiers on with four orchestrated criminal indictments and a number of civil cases arrayed against him. The media, Democrats, and Rino Republicans are all against him. Only the people are for him, and the people are powerless. They don’t even have the vote as the Democrats made clear by stealing the last two elections. Those prosecuting Trump have no concern that they are destroying America’s reputation and reducing the power of all future presidents, making them even more subservient to the deep state.
America’s only representative–Donald Trump–is so overloaded with criminal and civil prosecutions that he has no time to campaign and even as a billionaire is overwhelmed with the legal costs of defending himself from obvious nonsensical charges.
The legal profession, the law schools, the bar associations, the Congress, the courts, the media stand aside as if they are not also endangered and as if the weaponization of law isn’t a foundation of tyranny.
What we are witnessing most certainly is the transformation of American law into a weapon for subjecting the American population and eliminating anyone who dares to protest or challenge the tyrannical ruling establishment.
This is the reason that the United States of America is a totally dead and buried formerly free nation. Americans have sat on their butts and allowed the destruction of civility, the rule of law, the Constitution, and their nation.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this commentary was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
“A tissue of lies” has served to justify the killing in the Gaza Strip of more than 34,000 civilians, of which 70% are women and children coupled with total destruction and an endless string of atrocities. The cat is out of the bag. Netanyahu has tacitly acknowledged that it was “a false flag” which was intent upon justifying a carefully planned genocidal attack against Palestine.
A senior Health Canada official says pharma giant Pfizer made a conscious decision not to advise regulators that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contained a DNA sequence from the Simian Virus 40 (SV40).
When Moscow sent Russian forces into eastern Ukraine in February 2022, it did so without any plan of conquest or intention to permanently control Ukrainian territory. As Western military observers pointed out at the time, the Russian force that intervened was far too small and incapable for any mission beyond limited intervention for a brief period.
Washington is pragmatic and will abandon Europe with the Ukrainian conflict they caused, said Éric Denécé, director of the French Centre for Intelligence Studies. Likewise, he stressed that Russia had no choice but to launch its special military operation against Ukraine.
Dr. Loudon asked Dr. McCullough about the cause of long-COVID syndrome. Here it is important to understand that the Spike protein gets into the body with the infection and to a much greater degree is produced by mRNA within the body in the vaccinated. Sadly most vaccinated persons has both forms of Spike protein.
War for Peace has never worked in the history of mankind. Those who say War is Peace, know it is a lie. Those who say it, also never go to war. They plan wars – they force young people to the front and fight their wars for naught. Sorry. Not for naught, for profit and power for those who are planning these wars for Peace.
American businessman David Sacks predicted the collapse of Ukraine despite a new $61 billion aid package approved by the US House of Representatives since Kiev will need an even larger annual cash injection “to stave off total defeat.”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In the last couple of years, particularly since the special military operation (SMO) started, the geopolitical landscape of Europe has been marked by NATO-orchestrated tensions that keep escalating. The belligerent alliance’s unceasing expansionist tendencies are the main source of instability, especially since it officially extended its warmongering tentacles to Scandinavia, specifically Finland, a country that shares a very long border with Russia. Helsinki’s decision to not only join NATO, but also host US military bases left Moscow with no choice except to further reinforce its newly (re)established Leningrad military district that now includes the republics of Karelia and Komi, the regions (oblasts) of Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Murmansk, Novgorod and Pskov, as well as the federal city of St. Petersburg and the Yamalo-Nenets autonomous oblast.
Russia has repeatedly expressed concerns that NATO expansion to Finland would mean that assault troops and advanced weapon systems would be deployed within the country, threatening Russia’s national security interests. As previously mentioned, Finland has not only refused to reassure its eastern neighbor, but has actually doubled down on the deployment of foreign forces, particularly American. Thus, Moscow was left with no choice but to enhance the security of its second most important city and what has perhaps become one of the premier military districts in the country. This includes the deployment of the now legendary “Iskander-M” missiles precisely in the Leningrad military district. Various missiles of the “Iskander-M” system are known for hypersonic speed (up to Mach 8 while also maneuvering) and a maximum range of approximately 500 km.
In practice, this means that the entire territory of Finland is completely exposed now, the consequence of its suicidal decision to join the world’s most aggressive military cartel/racketeering organization. The “Iskander-M’s” missiles can use massive 700 kg HE warheads that are excellent against higher concentrations of troops in the rear. Virtually the same goes for much faster 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” air-launched hypersonic missiles that could also see more active deployment to the Leningrad Military District. According to military sources, Karelia has established a special missile brigade equipped with precisely the “Iskander-M” missile systems. The 14th Army Corps has been transferred to the command of the newly (re)established district and deployed in the Murmansk oblast, which, along with Karelia, is situated along Russia’s border with Finland.
Valuev also noted that the missile brigade would quickly respond to any threat posed by NATO troops in the area by “carrying out relevant operations”. And while Finland is bolstering its ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems, the “Iskander-M” uses missiles with enhanced countermeasures that have only been improved in the context of the SMO. On the other hand, if Finland were to ever accept or even call for the deployment of American nuclear weapons on its soil, “Iskander-M” is perfectly capable of carrying thermonuclear warheads that Russia would have no other choice but to aim at any strategically important target. Even in the case that the potentially less destructive tactical nuclear weapons are used, this would have disastrous consequences for Helsinki. Obviously, this is not to say the “Iskander-M’s” conventional capabilities are any less frightening.
Its missiles have demonstrated remarkable performance in the SMO, obliterating high-value targets with pinpoint accuracy. As previously mentioned, when taking only the 9M723 hypersonic missiles into account, the immediate danger for any larger troop concentrations in Finland lies in its speed and destructive power. On the other hand, this is only one of the two notable versions of the missiles used by the system. The other is the 9M729, essentially a land-based iteration of the “Kalibr” family of cruise missiles. Its range has been a matter of debate for quite some time now, but it could be around 2500 km, meaning that the entire Scandinavia would be covered, including Sweden and Norway. It should be noted that both Helsinki and Stockholm were previously a strategic buffer zone that limited the possibility of a direct Russia-NATO conflict.
However, that’s now gone thanks to the belligerent alliance’s unrelenting greed for expansionism. Worse yet, it could be argued that Norway has also lost with Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to NATO, as there are now no directions that Russia couldn’t use because of their previous “neutrality”.
This directly jeopardizes Oslo’s southern regions, the most important part of the country. Moscow is also forced to respond in such a way as Norway is directly participating in the militarization of the increasingly contested Arctic region where the United States is trying to establish a firmer presence. Obviously, this is part of the much larger strategy of encircling Russia and placing additional strategic weapons in its proximity, particularly the latest iterations of the B61 thermonuclear bomb. All this is forcing Moscow to make moves it never wanted to, but it’s simply left with no other option.
*
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.
A senior Health Canada official says pharma giant Pfizer made a conscious decision not to advise regulators that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contained a DNA sequence from the Simian Virus 40 (SV40).
This information appears among multiple emails between staff from key drug regulators, including Health Canada (HC), the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The information was obtained through an access-to-information request.
On Aug. 23, 2023, Dr. Dean Smith, a senior scientific evaluator in Health Canada’s Vaccine Quality Division, wrote an email to a colleague at the FDA about SV40.
Health Canada had obtained confirmation two weeks earlier from Pfizer that SV40 DNA sequences were present in its COVID-19 vaccine.
“I understand that there have been internal discussions at CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] regarding the presents [sic] of an SV40 enhancer/promoter sequence, noting that its presence is unrelated to the purpose of the Pfizer’s plasmid as a transcription template for their mRNA COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote Dr. Smith.
“Pfizer has communicated to us recently, that they apparently chose not to mention this information to EMA, FDA or HC at the time of their initial or subsequent submissions.”
Dr. Smith added the information had been independently made public in April 2023, via a pre-print study from U.S. scientist Kevin McKernan.
Mr. McKernan, a genomics expert, had found quantities of DNA in the mRNA shots above the regulatory threshold set out by the health agencies. Dr. Smith wrote that the study had resulted in “questions coming to agencies.”
The Epoch Times contacted HC on the matter on July 17, 2023. The first SV40-related email released in Health Canada’s access-to-information package was sent two days later, on July 19.
In that email, Dr. Tong Wu of Health Canada’s Vaccine Quality Division reached out to his colleague Dr. Michael Wall, a senior biologist evaluator.
“Co [Pham, executive director of HC’s Centre for Vaccines, Clinical Trials and Biostatistics] agreed to have an IAS [possibly a reference to an Issue Analysis Summary to evaluate a new regulatory affair] for the SV40 promoter sequence as we discussed today. We can talk about it tomorrow,” Dr. Wu wrote.
As first reported by The Epoch Times in October, Health Canada was not aware of the SV40 enhancer presence. Since then, the FDA and the EMA have both confirmed they also weren’t aware of its presence.
Health Canada has since maintained that the SV40 enhancer/promoter sequence is a “residual DNA fragment” in Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. “The fragment is inactive, has no functional role, and was measured to be consistently below the limit required by Health Canada and other international regulators,” the agency has repeatedly said.
‘ZERO Checks’
This view has been challenged by Mr. McKernan and others, including Dr. Philip Buckhaults, professor of cancer genomics and director of the Cancer Genetics Lab at the University of South Carolina.
In response to the information released by Health Canada, Mr. McKernan posted a thread on the X platform. “No prior vaccine in Canada has been approved with such a sequence contaminant,” he said.
Well, well, well,
As health agencies assure the public that the DNA contamination is of no consequence, behind the scenes they are scurrying to have it removed from future vaccines! No prior vaccine in Canada has been approved with such a sequence contaminant.@FLSurgeonGen
“Pfizer assured [HC] the sequence is not material to plasmid manufacturing,” he added. “This is an overt lie. You cannot make plasmids without the promoter for the antibiotic resistance gene. It is active in mammalian cells. If it’s not needed, why is it in there?”
Mr. McKernan also noted that HC has asked Pfizer for its Polymerase Chain Reaction (PRC) protocol, saying this means
“they have performed ZERO checks on this DNA contamination themselves and are entirely relying on the word of the manufacturer.”
A response to a Canadian Member of Parliament’s question tabled by Health Canada in the House of Commons appears to be in line with this observation.
“It is important to assess the results using the authorized validated assays performed by the vaccine manufacturers to ensure that the quality of commercial vaccine lots are comparable to lots shown to be safe and efficacious in clinical studies,” said Health Canada in December.
Concerns raised by some scientists about the presence of unintended DNA in the mRNA shots relate to their potential to integrate into the human genome and cause issues like cancer. The Florida State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo has called for a halt of mRNA shots over these risks.
In March, Health Canada said in a document tabled in Parliament that “any claims that the presence of the SV40 promoter enhancer sequence is linked to an increased risk of cancer are unfounded.”
Dr. Buckhaults has started a scientific study to ascertain those risks. On April 23, he wrote on X that he had confirmed previous findings that the amount of DNA in mRNA shots exceeds the limit set by regulators.
“Yes, there was more than 10 ng/dose,” he wrote, referencing the threshold applied by Health Canada. “I am sure of it now.”
Even if the amount of DNA had been lower, concerns remain that the threshold was set for regular vaccines and not the new technology using lipid nano particles (LNP).
Dr. Buckhaults wrote that the “10 ng limit is not appropriate for LNP encapsulated DNA,” adding that “as far as I know there have been no safety studies for this situation. It was not possible because of the abbreviated timeline during the emergency you saw authorization.”
yes, the 10 ng limit is not appropriate for LNP encapsulated DNA. as far as I know there have been no safety studies for this situation. it was not possible because of the abbreviated timeline during the emergency you saw authorization. But now that we are no longer under an…
— Phillip J. Buckhaults, Ph.D. (@P_J_Buckhaults) April 23, 2024
Seeking ‘Remedy’
In his Aug. 23 email to an FDA colleague, Dr. Smith said Health Canada did not view the SV40 issues as an “urgent risk topic,” although he expressed concerns about how the SV40 news could impact the upcoming fall 2023 vaccination campaign.
“It would be unfortunate if the information circulating had a negatively [sic] impact on public acceptance of the vaccine this year or in the future,” he said.
Despite having that concern, Dr. Smith, the official responsible for evaluating the safety of vaccines, said regulating agencies should work to encourage Pfizer to “remedy the situation” before the campaign.
In the email, Dr. Smith said Health Canada believed the upcoming rollout of the fall COVID-19 vaccine campaign meant the agencies should be “on the same page.”
Dr. Smith’s email was written a day after Pfizer provided a response to a Quality Clarifax—a Health Canada request for additional information if deficiencies are identified in clinical trial applications—related to the SV40 promoter.
On Aug. 29, Health Canada senior biologist Dr. Wall wrote an email to Dr. Wu, the senior evaluator, saying he and Dr. Smith agreed they should not inform Pfizer of their interaction with the EMA and U.S. FDA on the SV40 promoter, “especially they [sic] do not seem to care much at this moment.”
Dr. Wall then added, “However, we can not say nothing! Please see the following text that Julie and I worked out.” He provided a blacked-out draft comment to Pfizer’s response.
The same day, Dr. Wall also sent an email to Dr. Wu with a draft of the Clarifax questions to be sent to Pfizer, which included the statement, “Health Canada would continue to work with international regulatory partners to achieve harmonisation regarding removal of these sequence elements from the plasmid for future strain changes.”
Pfizer did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times
Commenting on DNA contamination, Health Canada reiterated its previously-stated position on the matter.
“Based on its evaluation of the data and scientific information for the vaccine, Health Canada has concluded that the risk/benefit profile continues to support the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” said spokesperson Anna Maddison.
Dr. David Speicher, a Canadian virologist who replicated the findings from Mr. McKernan and Dr. Buckhaults with Canadian mRNA vials, told The Epoch Times he’s preoccupied with the revelations in the internal Health Canada emails. He notes that while Health Canada has dismissed the DNA fragments as biologically inactive with no functional role, they were judged important enough to discuss with other regulators.
“We know from testing several vials that the level of SV40 enhancer-promoter in the XBB.1.5 booster is at similar levels as the others Pfizer COVID modRNA vaccines, making it just as problematic,” he said. “Pfizer has not cleaned up the vaccine, yet the regulators are sadly more concerned about vaccine uptake in the population rather than the health risks from these vaccines.”
*
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.
Noé Chartier is a senior reporter with the Canadian edition of The Epoch Times. Twitter: @NChartierET
Featured image: A sign is displayed in front of Health Canada headquarters in Ottawa on Jan. 3, 2014. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The Russian Federation’s armed forces conducted an artillery operation in Kharkov on April 22, destroying a huge TV tower in the center of the city. Images circulate on the internet showing the moment the facility was hit, being heavily damaged. Ukrainian media and their Western supporters spread disinformation about the attack, describing it as a terrorist incursion into civilian infrastructure – ignoring the fact that the Kiev regime was using the tower for military purposes, legitimizing Moscow’s reaction.
The tower was one of the tallest buildings in the city, measuring more than 240 meters. A third of the building was completely destroyed in Russian bombing, with the rest of the structure partially damaged. Local sources claim that the projectile used by the Russians was an X-59 missile. The operation was carried out with the highest precision, reaching the target exactly and without generating damage for the surrounding structures.
The Russian attack came amid a recent wave of high-precision bombing raids on targets in Kharkov. The aim is to neutralize the infrastructure that allows the Kiev regime to conduct terrorist operations against the Russian side of the border. As I reported in a recent press expedition in Belgorod, Russian borders are often the target of heavy attacks by Ukrainian artillery, which has resulted in many civilian casualties. On the very day of the Russian bombing on the tower, a Ukrainian Tochka U missile was launched against Belgorod, being fortunately neutralized in the air by Russian defense forces.
Data recently published by Russian authorities shows that so far 120 people, including 11 children, have died from Ukrainian missiles and drones in Belgorod. In addition, 651 people, including 51 children, were injured in such attacks. In the neighboring oblast, Kursk, a similar situation is occurring, with constant incursions of Ukrainian drones and missiles. This has led Russian forces to increase attacks in the Ukrainian region of Sumy, aiming to destroy the infrastructure that makes enemy bombings possible.
Russian attacks have faced some operational difficulties due to intelligence and radar systems strategically placed by Ukrainian forces in civilian infrastructure. Kiev was using the Kharkov TV tower to maintain military equipment that facilitated anti-aircraft operations, thus creating a problem for Russian bombers in the region’s airspace. The regime’s forces are known for using illegal tactics, such as human shields and allocation of military resources into civilian infrastructures. This was precisely the case at the TV tower.
According to international law, if a civilian structure is being used for military purposes, it is legitimate to attack it – as long as civilian lives are spared from the targeting. Russia did not launch attacks against inhabited regions or generate civilian casualties, only hitting with high precision facilities used by Ukrainian forces. Obviously, every attack on infrastructure generates collateral damage for ordinary people. When Ukrainian electrical facilities are destroyed by the Russians, many citizens lose their power supply. Likewise, when the Kharkov tower was destroyed, many Ukrainians lost TV communication. However, these damages are small when compared to the humanitarian disaster being caused by the Ukrainians in Belgorod and Kursk, which is why there is nothing that illegitimates Russian actions.
Moscow has always avoided hitting enemy infrastructure. The final outcome of the special military operation would be achieved much more quickly if the Russians frequently hit Ukrainian strategic facilities, but the Russian priority has always been to avoid generating any problems for the civilian population. Not by chance, attacks against the Ukrainian critical infrastructure have been interrupted since May 2023, having now been resumed as retaliatory measures against Ukrainian bombings on the borders.
Protecting Belgorod and Kursk has become the Russian Federation’s top humanitarian priority in recent months. Moscow is not willing to tolerate that its undisputed and demilitarized territory continues to be targeted in terrorist raids by the Kiev regime. So, if it is necessary to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure in order to protect its border cities, Moscow will do it. It remains for the Kiev regime to show that it is in some way concerned about the well-being of its own people and then stop terrorist actions, fighting only on the battlefield – if this happens, Moscow will again cease attacks on infrastructure, as it has already done for almost one year, since May 2023.
Since the beginning of the special military operation, there has been a permanent situation in the conflict: the Russians show willingness to de-escalate and reduce collateral damage to the population, while the neo-Nazi regime seems completely willing to take hostilities to their ultimate consequences, regardless of the impact on the civilians. The Ukrainian insistence on bombing the Russian borders, even aware of retaliations against the infrastructure, shows this difference in mentality between the sides in the conflict.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
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 an axiom of warfare that it is always desirable to have friendly territory beyond one’s own borders or the capacity to prevent the buildup of significant military power in neutral territory for an attack against one’s own territory. When it lacked the military strength to do much, the United States promulgated the Monroe Doctrine with a similar purpose in mind.
When Moscow sent Russian forces into eastern Ukraine in February 2022, it did so without any plan of conquest or intention to permanently control Ukrainian territory. As Western military observers pointed out at the time, the Russian force that intervened was far too small and incapable for any mission beyond limited intervention for a brief period. In fact, Western observers predicted Russian forces would soon run out of ammunition, equipment, and soldiers.
The rationale for Moscow’s limited military commitment was obvious. Moscow originally sought neutrality for Ukraine as a solution to Ukraine’s hostility toward Russia and its cooperation with NATO, not territorial subjugation or conquest. Moscow believed, not unreasonably, that a neutral Ukrainian nation-state could be a cordon sanitaire that would shield Russia from NATO and, at the same time, provide NATO with insulation from Russia.
Nearly three years of Washington’s practically limitless funding for modern weapons and support in the form of spaced-based surveillance, intelligence, and reconnaissance for a proxy war designed to destroy Russia makes this approach laughable. Chancellor Merkel’s admission that the Western sponsored Minsk Accords were really designed to buy time for Ukraine to build up its military power is enough for Moscow to reject Western promises to ever respect, let alone enforce, Ukrainian neutrality.
When questioned on January 19 about the potential for negotiations with Washington and NATO, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said,
“We are ready [for negotiations]. But unlike the Istanbul story, we will not have a pause in hostilities during the negotiations. The process must continue. Secondly, of course, the realities on the ground have become different, significantly different.”
What do Lavrov’s words mean?
In 1982, Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, Chief of the Soviet General Staff, argued that control of the Rhine River would determine the outcome of any future war with NATO in Central Europe. There is little doubt that Russia’s senior military leaders have already concluded that Russian control of the Dnieper River is essential to Russian national security.
In addition to annexing historically Russian cities like Odessa and Kharkiv, Moscow will almost certainly insist on a modern demilitarized zone from the Dnieper River to NATO’s eastern border to prevent the reemergence of a hostile military force in Western Ukraine.
Whether the Poles, Hungarians, or Belarusians decide to engage Moscow in discussions regarding Ukrainian territory with historic connections to their countries is unknown, but the imminent collapse of the Ukrainian state and armed forces will no doubt inform such discussions.
Washington’s strategy toward Moscow, if it can be called a strategy, consisted of organizing coercive measures across the Atlantic Alliance—economic, diplomatic, and military—to harm Russia fatally and destabilize its government. Washington’s unrealistic approach failed, and NATO, the framework for its implementation, is now fatally weakened, not Russia.
As a result, Washington’s brand has been grievously diminished, even enfeebled. Washington’s belief that with the combined might of NATO’s scientific-industrial power it could achieve a strategic victory over Russia by arming Ukrainians to do the fighting for them backfired badly. Like FDR in 1939, who expected the Germans to end up in a stalemate with the Anglo-French Armies on the model of the First World War, Washington did not consider the possibility that Ukraine would lose the fight.
During the 1930s, FDR became trapped in a debt spiral of “special interest” spending. In defiance of logic and affordability, FDR opted for more Federal spending until he realized that it was not working. With the onset of war in Europe, FDR saw the opportunity to extricate American society from the Depression by steering the United States into war. FDR’s scheme worked. The Second World War reinvigorated the American economy and ended America’s chronic unemployment. At the same time, America’s physical insularity kept American infrastructure and the American People beyond the reach of its enemies.
President Biden and Congress are on a similar course with profound consequences, but today, horrifically destructive modern weapons make the war option suicidal.
Put another way, 21st-century problems cannot be solved with the use of 20th-century plans and policies. Instead of framing another false narrative to justify funding for a corrupt Ukrainian state that is collapsing, Washington and its allies should question the rationale for a new, costly cold war directed against Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and a host of countries with world views that diverge sharply from our own.
Business schools teach their students that good brands have the power to sway decision-making and create communities of like-minded people. It isn’t just companies that need brands; countries need them, too. When asked about Washington’s ability to cope with wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, President Biden said,
“We are the most powerful nation in the world, in the history of the world. We can take care of both of these [wars].”
Biden was and is wrong. America’s resources are not limitless. Our power is constrained.
In Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, the American brand has been damaged. Americans need (and should demand) a sober-minded analysis of the facts from the men who want to be president. They should be compelled to identify the United States’ true national interests; a process that should also identify the political and cultural realities that are not Washington’s to change.
*
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.
Douglas Macgregor, Col. (ret.) is a senior fellow with The American Conservative, the former advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration, a decorated combat veteran, and the author of five books.
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.
Despite all the initiatives and pressures of the Greeks and Greek Cypriots, the European Union (EU) avoided addressing EU-Türkiye relations at the December and March summits. At the April Special Summit of EU Heads of State and Government held in Brussels on 17-18 April, the issue was reluctantly discussed within the scope of “strategic discussion” due to the pressure from Greece and Greek Cypriots.
While EU state and government leaders decided to initiate the necessary work to improve relations with Ankara, they added the following sentence:
“Negotiations should be restarted for the solution of the Cyprus problem, which has been expressed for 50 years, within the framework of the United Nations (UN) parameters.”
However, whether this sentence is in the final declaration of the April summit or not, nothing changes.
When the negotiations, which the Greeks and Greek Cypriots had neglected and stretched as much as possible in order not to make the Turkish Cypriots partners in the newly established state, collapsed due to their maximalist demands, suddenly these UN Parameters, which they had never paid attention to, became valuable. They are trying to add this recommendation to the queue of statements made after every meeting in the Atlantic alliance, even though it has been talked about for the last fifty years and has not been implemented.
It is debatable whether the EU’s recommendations, decisions and other statements are valid. If these UN parameters were valid, they would have been implemented by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots long ago and the Cyprus issue would have been resolved. After doing their best to make the island of Cyprus Greek territory and reduce the Turkish Cypriots to a second-class minority, they saw that Türkiye was in a position where pressure could not be exerted in the region. The promise of EU membership will not work; Then it was necessary to highlight the UN parameters that they had avoided implementing for 50 years.
Let’s come to the section on Türkiye in the final declaration of the April summit of EU heads of state and government. The confusing joint declaration, which also touches on EU-Türkiye relations, was prepared by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and the EU Commission.
In the section regarding the recommendations in the Joint Declaration, there is no concrete decision, no financial restrictions, no implementation, no embargo, no trade restrictions, no economic sanctions. Apparently, the EU did not dare to put pressure on Türkiye and confront it, and they added a recommendation of “questionable validity” to the final declaration, saying let’s do something to shut the mouths of the Greeks and Greek Cypriots.
Although Greek leader Hristodulidis tried to make his people believe this paragraph about EU-Türkiye relations in the final declaration with a sentence containing words such as “I linked EU-Türkiye relations to the Cyprus issue and we won victory”, the truth is not like that.
In the declaration, which I have read at least ten times in a row, in addition to the recommendation for the solution of the Cyprus problem within the framework of the UN parameters, which has been voiced for 50 years, it clearly states that “the European Union is committed to a stable and secure environment in the Eastern Mediterranean and a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with Türkiye.” It has a strategic interest in its development. “Türkiye’s constructive participation will help develop the various areas of cooperation identified in the joint declaration.”
Apparently, the balance of interests has shifted in favor of Türkiye as we enter the second quarter of the 21st century. The answer to the question “Which side’s desire will be more dominant in the solution of the Cyprus problem?” seems to be given more clearly in the coming years!
*
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.
Forçado a continuar a lutar, o regime de Kiev tenta desesperadamente fornecer novos recrutas às suas tropas na linha da frente. Tendo já esgotado as suas reservas, o governo ucraniano aposta agora no recrutamento de crianças nas escolas como uma forma eficiente de substituir as suas vítimas no campo de batalha. De um ponto de vista realista, contudo, tal medida tende a aumentar ainda mais a impopularidade do regime.
Um projeto de lei está sendo discutido no Parlamento ucraniano para estabelecer o treinamento militar básico nas escolas do país. Os estudantes ucranianos do ensino médio seriam obrigados a frequentar aulas de treinamento militar nas escolas, nas quais aprenderiam lições básicas de combate, manejo de armas, além de receberem uma “educação patriótica” – que na Ucrânia, como se sabe, significa basicamente neonazismo e lavagem cerebral anti-russa.
Segundo a Comissão Parlamentar da Juventude e Desporto, este tipo de medida “contribuiria para a melhoria da formação militar inicial e da educação militar-patriótica da juventude ucraniana”. A proposta parece ter amplo apoio tanto do Ministério da Defesa como do Ministério da Educação e Cultura. Espera-se que ambas as instituições desenvolvam em conjunto o currículo militar que será adicionado às atividades normais nas escolas ucranianas.
O projeto de lei estabelece a obrigatoriedade do treinamento militar para os homens e um regime voluntário para as mulheres. No entanto, já houve declarações da principal conselheira militar de Kiev, Oksana Grigorieva, de que todas as mulheres do país estão prontas para o recrutamento militar. Na prática, isto significa que todas as estudantes do sexo feminino serão provavelmente forçadas a participar nos programas de formação das suas escolas.
É necessário também enfatizar que os batalhões nacionalistas ucranianos não são obrigados a obedecer aos protocolos do exército, tendo luz verde para recrutar crianças e adolescentes. Assim, na prática, os estudantes ucranianos serão certamente cooptados pelas tropas neonazistas para o alistamento precoce assim que receberem instruções básicas nas escolas.
Na verdade, espera-se que a medida ucraniana seja aprovada, uma vez que o parlamento do país parece completamente cooptado por agentes estrangeiros, servindo os interesses da OTAN e não os do povo ucraniano. Os políticos do regime estão a aprovar todas as medidas possíveis para aumentar o recrutamento militar e assim tornar viável a continuação da guerra. Embora seja impossível para o regime alterar o resultado final do conflito, continuar a lutar é uma “necessidade”, uma vez que o Ocidente Coletivo exige que as hostilidades contra a Federação Russa sejam mantidas.
Várias medidas semelhantes foram recentemente aprovadas para aumentar o número de tropas disponíveis para serem enviadas para o campo de batalha. A idade mínima de alistamento foi reduzida e, além disso, mulheres, idosos, pessoas com graves problemas de saúde e até adolescentes têm sido frequentemente enviados para a linha da frente. Isto é catastrófico para o futuro do país, uma vez que a Ucrânia começa a ter graves problemas demográficos devido às vítimas no campo de batalha e à emigração em massa.
A situação ucraniana no conflito já é considerada uma derrota pela maioria dos especialistas militares. Desde a tentativa fracassada de contra-ofensiva, Kiev não demonstrou qualquer capacidade de continuar a lutar a longo prazo. Tendo sofrido cerca de 500.000 de mortos, além da evasão de milhões de refugiados, a Ucrânia não consegue continuar os seus esforços de guerra. Entretanto, os russos continuam a utilizar apenas uma pequena percentagem da sua capacidade militar, com tropas e equipamento suficientes para continuar a lutar durante anos, se necessário.
Racionalmente, Kiev deveria parar as políticas militares e negociar com a Federação Russa, aceitando os termos de paz e reconhecendo os territórios libertados. No entanto, o regime neonazista não tem qualquer soberania, sendo obediente aos seus patrocinadores ocidentais, que claramente querem que o conflito continue. Como não é possível derrotar a Rússia numa guerra direta, o Ocidente aposta em conflitos por procuração como mecanismo para “desgastar” a Rússia, razão pela qual Kiev é forçada a lutar “até ao último ucraniano”.
No entanto, em algum momento a guerra terminará. Kiev já não terá tropas suficientes para enviar para as linhas da frente e, portanto, não haverá outra alternativa senão a rendição incondicional. Quando isso acontecer, os tomadores de decisões ucranianos compreenderão quão erradas foram as suas atitudes de recrutamento forçado. O futuro da Ucrânia parece terrível, já que todos os jovens do país estão a morrer na guerra ou a fugir para o estrangeiro. O país está a ficar sem estudantes universitários, profissionais, técnicos ou qualquer pessoal qualificado para reconstruir a sociedade ucraniana no pós-guerra.
Ao aprofundar as suas políticas de recrutamento, e até mesmo ao treinar crianças para a guerra, Kiev está a destruir ainda mais as gerações futuras. A única esperança do povo ucraniano é que o regime neonazista entre em breve colapso, levando à restauração da paz e às boas relações com a Rússia.
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 dirty work concept is embedded in U.S foreign policy.
Let your allies do the Dirty Work for You.
It is worth noting that at the outset of Bush’s Second Term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell, hinting, that Israel would, so to speak: be doing the dirty work for us without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”.
In relation to Ukraine, Washington is inciting its EU-NATO allies to act so to speak on their behalf.
M. C. GR. April 25, 2024
Washington is Pragmatic
Washington is pragmatic and will abandon Europe with the Ukrainian conflict they caused, said Éric Denécé, director of the French Centre for Intelligence Studies. Likewise, he stressed that Russia had no choice but to launch its special military operation against Ukraine.
The expert noted that it is impossible not to notice the US’ role in unleashing the conflict in Eastern Europe but stressed that policymakers in Washington are very pragmatic and will not get directly involved in a battlefield that is not favourable to them.
“When they notice things are not going well, they do not hesitate to turn back and do a 180-degree turn. They are preparing for this – it is not yet seen, but I think it will soon become clear – they were preparing to give him a damn warm-up to Europe and say: this is your conflict now,” Denécé told the French network TVL on April 20.
Furthermore, the analyst emphasised that the US greatly contributed to the Russia-Ukraine war, among other things, with its NATO enlargement policy and the start of fighting in Donbass in 2014. He stressed that Russia’s intervention “did not come out of nowhere.”
Regarding the current phase of the conflict, the director lamented that the Europeans are facing a problem they do not want.
“And from now on, we Europeans will find that we have to deal with a situation that we did not cause and that we did not want,” he stressed.
After months of discussion, the US House of Representatives approved a bill on April 20 to provide almost $61 billion to Ukraine—$23.3 billion to replace defence articles and services, $13.8 billion to purchase advanced weapons systems, and $11.3 billion to US military operations in the region.
For his part, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared that the new US aid package to Ukraine will not change the situation on the battlefield but will instead increase the number of Ukrainian deaths.
This aid package was approved amid statements by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Ukraine would lose without Western help. Also, in mid-April, European allies could not agree on supplying Kiev with air defence systems.
According to the president of the State Duma (Lower House of the Russian Parliament), Viacheslav Volodin,
“The US no longer believes in the victory of the Kiev regime. Therefore, they are ready to give only money on credit, which Ukraine will have to return, or not even their own money when it comes to the transfer of Russian assets to Kiev.”
Washington is desperately attempting to freeze the conflict to fix the current situation. Western media has been pushing the false narrative of a stalemate since Ukraine’s failed counteroffensive in the summer of 2023. In fact, Ukraine’s situation is so precarious that the US does not necessarily want its victory but instead for the country to serve as a constant source of problems for Russia and even the EU.
The US aid package was paralysed for months due to conflicts between Democrats and Republicans, and after receiving approval from the House of Representatives, the bill has now been moved to the Senate for a vote. Subsequently, it will be presented to US President Joe Biden for his signature. Once the bill is signed, the law will come into force.
It is recalled that in the first weeks after the start of the special military operation, Zelensky seemingly appeared more willing to negotiate, but under pressure from Western allies, including the US, he decided to give up on a peace agreement. Now, these very same allies that encouraged the Kiev regime to continue fighting a futile war are not providing, or are incapable of providing, the means for Ukraine to fight Russia.
As Denécé highlighted, the US is slowly abandoning Ukraine so that it will become exclusively a European problem. With Donald Trump leading the polls ahead of the US Presidential elections in November, Washington’s abandonment of Kiev will only be sped up if the former president is to return to the White House.
This would be especially disastrous for the European Union, which has destroyed its economy due to the boomerang effect of the US-led sanctions on Russia, has exhausted its weapon stocks for no advantage to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and is dealing with millions of Ukrainian refugees. Yet, Europe will only have itself to blame for blindly following Washington’s reckless Russophobic policies, which were obviously only going to hurt the bloc and not Russia or the US, who, as Denécé highlighted, “do not hesitate to turn back and do a 180-degree turn” when things are not going well.
*
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.
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.
Coffee is among the most researched food or drink on earth. The net analysis is that regular coffee intake has health benefits in terms of improved cognitive function, lesser risk of diabetes, lower rates of heart disease, and possibly prevention of some neurodegenerative disorders and cancer. The main caveats are to limit intake during pregnancy and be sure drinking ceases before noon so the caffeine can clear out of the body for a good nights sleep. Over-indulgence can lead to heart rhythm problems and anxiety.
Dr. Loudon asked Dr. McCullough about the cause of long-COVID syndrome. Here it is important to understand that the Spike protein gets into the body with the infection and to a much greater degree is produced by mRNA within the body in the vaccinated. Sadly most vaccinated persons has both forms of Spike protein. As of today, antibodies to the Spike protein can be measured as a proxy for how much is in the body. Soon the Spike protein itself should be measurable on a blood test. Because our bodies cannot readily clear Spike, we use McCullough Protocol Base Spike Detoxification to aid the body in catabolism and clearance of this foreign invader.
Hulscher N, Procter BC, Wynn C, McCullough PA. Clinical Approach to Post-acute Sequelae After COVID-19 Infection and Vaccination. Cureus. 2023 Nov 21;15(11):e49204. doi: 10.7759/cureus.49204. PMID: 38024037; PMCID: PMC10663976.
Dr. McCullough gave an update on the avian influenza H5N1 scare presented to the world by WHO, WEF, CEPI, and CDC just a few months ahead of the World Health Organization meeting on the International Health Regulations and Pandemic Treaty Agreement. WHO is widely anticipated to cite H5N1 as an example of why the world needs global pandemic governance.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is a screenshot from the video above
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.
“Five years have passed since the day when Poland, having listened to the encouragement of the British government and received its guarantees, stood alone in the fight against the German power…” – that is how general Kazimierz Sosnkowski, Polish Commander-in-chief during the late period of the WW2, started his last order to the Polish soldiers, dated 1st September 1944.After that harsh but true reminder, that Poland was pushed to fight by Britain, Churchill successfully demanded general Sosnkowski’s dismissal and the Polish ruling class has memorised never to expose true British intentions.
Not Our War
When the UK previously offered its guarantees to Poland in March 1939, that brought Hitler’s aggression against our country.This is neither a conspiracy theory nor an invention of Anglophobes, but a recognised scholar view, confirmed by the research of renowned authors as professors A.J.P. Taylor, Anita J. Prażmowska and Simon Newman.It was England that dragged Poland into the war by directing a German attack on it, not Polish diplomacy succeeded in securing us the support of Western powers in the conflict with the Nazis.These are the facts, and the current situation of Poland is exactly the same.It is not Warsaw that has achieved the support of NATO capitals, these are the decision-making centres of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that are pushing Poland into a war against Russia the rest of the member states will not be obliged to participate in.The visit of UK Prime MinisterRishi Sunak to Poland, half a year before the UK general elections (after which he is supposed to lose his job) is just an element of the same tactic of forcing Poland into a struggle in which we have already lost a lot and may lose even more.
No British Offer for the Poles Themselves
Sunak is weakening, but his mission to Warsaw cannot be underestimated, especially since the Prime Minister is bravely seconded by the leader of the opposition, SirKeir Starmer with his pro-war rhetoric.Nonetheless, despite such pathetic leaders, London is invariably the capital of the sixth country in the world in terms of GDP, one of the centres of global finance and, despite Brexit, COVID, energy transformation and growing internal problems, still one of the leading European and global players.So when the UK Prime Minister promises someone cooperation, rapprochement and alliance, it can only mean troubles.
All the more so because Rishi Sunak came to Poland with nothing to offer the Poles, except perhaps the costs of maintaining an additional RAF Typhoon fighters squadron on our territory, intended for air cover of the Baltic countries and useless in the face of a real threat, such as Ukrainian missiles violating Polish airspace.Prime Minister Sunak’s entire message, although delivered in Warsaw, concerned the British military-industrial complex, meeting Washington’s demands for NATO countries to increase military spending.Just to compare, the UK is expected to reach 2.5% GDP in 2030 spent on an arms race, while Poland is to spend as much as 4% GDP on armaments from its own, much poorer budget already in 2024.It is therefore difficult to resist the impression that the British incentive also means reaching deeper into the pockets of Polish taxpayers.
Anti-Peace Mission
Therefore, the British Prime Minister spoke in Warsaw not to the Poles themselves, but rather to the British warmongers, to the Americans and to the Kiev junta, which Sunak (following Boris Johnson’s example) apparently tries to discourage even the thought of ceasefire neither peace talks.Neither the additional £0.5 billion, nor new vehicles, strike and air missiles and even tons of ammunition will decide this war in Kiev’s favour, but their supply only prolongs this unfortunate conflict by further months of unnecessary resistance.By declaring increase of arm industry’s profits (all together £3 billion of the UK military funding for Kyiv in 2024/25 only and £7.6 billion since February 2022), Sunak also announced a death sentence for thousand more victims of struggle, which could have been easily avoided if Ukrainians had faced reality and laid down their weapons —weapons that ordinary citizens pay dearly for, and which will be stolen and sold by their Kiev rulers anyway.
Messengers of Death
United Kingdom is a rich state with rising costs of living and expanding zones of institutional poverty, where the only hope for the hungry are food banks, and yet it spends billions on an arms race, including nuclear weapons.For the equivalent of Poland’s defence budget, the entire Polish health service’s debts could be paid off and the queues for cancer patients and those waiting for surgery could be eliminated.Only the end of the war and the neutralisation of Ukraine can create at least a chance for its reconstruction, denazification and deoligarchisation.
However, as long as people like Sunak, NATO Secretary GeneralJens Stoltenberg (who visited Warsaw at the same time with the similar message of death) or Prime MinisterDonald Tusk will be the bearers of good news for the military-industrial complex and death sentences for ordinary people, then there will be war, hunger, corruption, homelessness and hopelessness —in Ukraine, but also in Poland and even in the UK.
*
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.
Konrad Rękas 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.
That is what they all say: Let us go to war to bring about Peace. It is like killing to make life worth living.
War for Peace has never worked in the history of mankind. Those who say War is Peace, know it is a lie. Those who say it, also never go to war. They plan wars – they force young people to the front and fight their wars for naught. Sorry.
Not for naught, for profit and power for
Those who are planning these wars for Peace.
These young men and women propagandized and brainwashed to believe that war makes Peace, help the war industry making profit from killing.
They bathe death in a sea of gold. Death is sacrifice, death is shiny, death is good for Peace.
Bush Junior has also been brainwashed. And he is not the only one.
One may legitimately ask, why are people at large still going along?
Propaganda is certainly one reason. Massive propaganda. Propaganda never talks about killing, about the thousands, millions of deaths wars bring about – no. Wars bring Peace and tranquility.
Globe and Mail
Business Insider
Washington Post
People at large – the YOUs and the MEs – we want a quiet, peaceful life in harmony, where our children can grow up without fear. And if the media tell them, this WAR is for Peace – after this war there are no more wars, this is the war of all wars, leading to PEACE, their wish for peace is so immense, so deep. They believe it.
So, once more they tolerate the misery, the indiscriminate killing, bombing of humans. Our brothers and sisters are being slaughtered in the name of Peace.
*
Take the Zionists for example. They are convinced to be the Chosen People. They have captured Israel, way before Israel was created on stolen Palestinian land – the story has been recorded ad nauseambut not by the mainstream media – to become the Greater Israel in control of most of the Middle Eastern natural resources, predominantly oil and gas.
Alternatively, will Peace look the other way? See this.
*
Peace will call for War to protect its integrity. The God of Zion, Yahweh, the God of Israel, will overcome us all – in the Name of Peace. He is part of the “Chosenness” of the People of Zion.
Therefore, Iran must go too. They are the stumbling block to Peace. Muslims and gentiles, who do not bend to Zion, are enemies of Peace.
Once they, the omni-present Zionists, have reached that goal, PEACE for all, they and the (Western) world will live in Peace. Because Zionist-Israel will peacefully reign over good and evil – and distribute life-economy sustaining energy to the world as they see fit.
Before reaching this noble goal – Peace for All, massive killing and slaughtering is necessary in the name of Peace, supported by the warrior leaders for Peace, called the United States and Europe.
Peace be with us. Peace is the objective of War.
Peace costs money. The United States has within the last two years allocated about $200 billion for Peace, supplying Ukraine with weaponry and cash so they can fight and kill for Peace. This is money from the taxpayers, from the very people who only want Peace, for living in Peace.
They are not saying NO to the allocation of their money for killing to eventually live in Peace. Killing and atrocities are intermediary stages for Peace.
The US Congress has just allocated another $95 billion to Ukraine and Israel – to continue killing themselves and each other into the final stages of Peace. Still, people in the name of Peace do not say NO, as in NO, do not give our money for slaughtering more people, they may hope Peace will come and engulf them all.
Otherwise, it is not fathomable that they let their money being transferred into guns and tanks and bombs – so they may kill – working towards Peace.
The final eternal Peace.
We all want Peace.
But we know Peace does not come without war, so we are told and so we believe – for generations after generations, after generations. For societies after societies, after ever more societies; and ultimately, for civilizations, after civilizations, after endless civilizations – war will bring Peace. It has always been that way. And it will stay that way, as long as humanity exists.
Unless humanity breaks some rules, seeing Peace not as the result of wars, but as an end in itself. Forget it. That would be a dream. Warriors for Peace do not dream.
Rules must be followed. So we are told. And we MUST believe. We, the People, MUST always believe the higher echelons, our leaders, because we elected them, we gave them our trust, we delegated them our authority, and now we must give them our money, so they will lead us to Peace via wars.
*
The US government has made its choice in favor of war, siding with evil and supporting fascism, the Russian Ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, recently said. He commented on the latest massive American military aid package for Ukraine.
US President Joe Biden just signed a $95 billion foreign aid package, including $61 billion for Ukraine and some $26 billion for Israel and $8 billion for Taiwan. The US Congress voted overwhelmingly for the $61 billion for Ukraine as Peace in this part of the world is of high priority.
And not to be shamed, Congress also voted an additional $9 billion for humanitarian aid for civilians in Gaza and other war zones. Of course, humanitarian aid is the grease that lubricates first war and then Peace.
Biden added that within hours the US will send weapons and military equipment to Ukraine. Most likely they will do the same for Israel. Maybe for Taiwan too. Because war with Taiwan over China can turn the world around – into a huge camp of Peace.
What the Russian Ambassador got wrong is that these are not weapons of evil, but weapons for Peace.
For heaven’s sake, they are not weapons of mass destruction, they are weapons for building true Peace.
Both Ukraine and Zionist Israel are shooting, bombing, ravaging, and killing their way to Peace.
If this puts the world on the brink of a direct clash between nuclear powers, it means that a final mushroom cloud, or several of them, may bring final Peace to the world. Just in case, if there is no other way to Peace, nuclear may be the way.
We must never forget, no matter how much killing, slaughtering, burning, destruction war MUST bring to finally reach Peace – it is all worth it. Because this rotting, warrying world must be destroyed to be rebuilt in PEACE. No worries, BlackRock is there to help.
And rebuilt it will be, by all those who generously plan war for Peace – but for the safety of future Peace, they stay clear of war. Of course, who else would rebuild the world into Peace, if not the thinkers and shakers of this world?
Those who finance wars, the military-industrial-complex, the BlackRock’s, et al, they know it. That is why they finance wars. They will never stand in the way of wars, nor in the front line of wars, but they are ready to rebuild the devastated world into a glowing new world of Peace.
The world needs these people, generous thinkers of Peace for humanity.
They know what they are doing. We must believe them and support their efforts, equally generously with our tax money. Nothing is more important than war and killing for Peace.
And yes, before it’s forgotten or overseen, let us remember that the Biden Administration sacrifices the lives of ordinary people for the insatiable but generous war industry which helps us find the way towards Peace.
All great Peace-loving nations must bring sacrifice, lest Peace may not prosper, nor prevail and last. We are talking about sustainable Peace.
People of this world, let us continue vouching for war as Peace is our ultimate goal. Our minds are strong. If we can make war – we must be able to see through the haze that war will make Peace.
Amen.
*
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.
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 forensic analysis by award-winning British journalist Richard Sanders and Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit provides a detailed examination of the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
The months’ long investigation found that many claims repeated by politicians and Western media, including mass rape and killings of babies, were false.
Richard Sanders is an award winning TV producer specialising in history and news and current affairs. He has made more than 50 films, mostly for Britain’s Channel 4 public broadcast television station. He has written for a number of publications including The Daily Telegraph and the Boston Globe and is also the author of two history books.
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.
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.
***
Almost fifteen years ago in December 2008, Israel invaded Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009)”.
The following article was first published by Global Research in January 2009 at the height of the Israeli bombing and invasion under Operation Cast Lead.
Author’s Note and Update
Early Saturday October 7, 2023, Hamas launched “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” which wasled by its Military Chief Mohammed Deif. On that same day, Netanyahu confirmed a so-called “State of Readiness For War.”
It is now amply confirmed that “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” was not a “surprise attack”? It was a false flag intelligence operation.
According to Dr. Philip Giraldi,
“As a former intelligence officer, I find it impossible to believe that Israel did not have multiple informants inside Gaza as well as electronic listening devices all along the border wall which would have picked up movements of groups and vehicles.”
[Did Netanyahu have foreknowledge] about developments in Gaza and chose to let it happen so they can wipe Gaza off the map… in retaliation” (Philip Giraldi, October 8, 2023)
Netanyahu is on Record for Supporting and Financing “Factions within Hamas”
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”
(Benjamin Netanyahu, statement at a March 2019 meeting of his Likud Party’s Knesset members, Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.”
It should be understood that Netanyahu’s October 7, 2023 illegal declaration of war against Gaza is a continuation of its 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead.”
The underlying objective is the outright military occupation of Gaza by Israel’s IDF forces and the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
I should however mention that there are powerful financial interests which are supportive of Israel’s Genocide directed against Gaza.
The ultimate objective is to exclude Palestinians from their homeland as well confiscate the multi-billion dollar Gaza offshore natural Gas reserves.
.
Video: “Wiping Gaza Off The Map”: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves.
.
Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media
The Promised Land of Greater Israel which coincides with America’s “Greater Middle East Project” is Oil and Natural Gas, specifically the offshore gas reserves extending from the border with Egypt up to Lebanon which are slated to be confiscated by Israel.
Flash Back: Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009)
Gaza belongs to Palestine. In December 2008, Israeli forces invaded the Gaza Strip under Operation Cast Lead. The justification for this invasionwas “persistent terrorist activities and a constant missile threat from the Gaza Strip directed at Israeli civilians.”
What was the hidden agenda?
In the wake of the invasion, Palestinian gas fields were de facto confiscated by Israel in derogation of international law.
A year following “Operation Cast Lead,” Tel Aviv announced the discovery of the Leviathan natural gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean “off the coast of Israel.”
At the time the gas field was: “ … the most prominent field ever found in the sub-explored area of the Levantine Basin, which covers about 83,000 square kilometres of the eastern Mediterranean region.” (i)
Coupled with Tamar field, in the same location, discovered in 2009, the prospects are for an energy bonanza for Israel, for Houston, Texas based Noble Energy and partners Delek Drilling, Avner Oil Exploration and Ratio Oil Exploration. (See Felicity Arbuthnot, Israel: Gas, Oil and Trouble in the Levant, Global Research, December 30, 2013
The Gazan gas fields are part of the broader Levant assessment area.
What has been unfolding is the integration of these adjoining gas fields including those belonging to Palestine into the orbit of Israel.
It should be noted that the entire Eastern Mediterranean coastline extending from Egypt’s Sinai to Syria constitutes an area encompassing large gas as well as oil reserves.
Below is my article entitled
“War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields” (January 8, 2009),
which was subsequently published in my book entitled:
The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity, Montreal, 2015
It was launched in Kuala Lumpur in 2015 by the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Mahathir Mohamad
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 8, 2023, April 25, 2024
.
War and Natural Gas:
The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields
by Michel Chossudovsky
January 8, 2009
The December 2008 military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves.
This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline.
British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.
The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007).
The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).
The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.
The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.
Map 1
Map 2
Who Owns the Gas Fields
The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.
The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.
British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.
The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that “Israel would never buy gas from Palestine” intimating that Gaza’s offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.
In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza’s offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)
The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.
In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.” (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.
The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority.” The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.
Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:
“Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government.” (Ibid, emphasis added)
The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.
Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza’s offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.
The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:
“Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror”. (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on “The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas,” March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza’s Coastal Waters Threaten Israel’s National Security? Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)
Israel’s intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel.(BG website).
Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board
The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead” was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:
“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)
That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas:
“Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel’s wish to renew the talks.
The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel’s request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials.” (Globes online- Israel’s Business Arena, June 23, 2008)
The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.
Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new “post war” political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.
In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.
In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG’s offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)
“Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government’s decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.
The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender.” (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)
Gaza and Energy Geopolitics
The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.
What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?
What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine’s Natural Gas reserves?
A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or “peacekeeping” troops?
The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?
The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas?
If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above)
These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel’s energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport – pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.
Map 3
Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline.
“What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
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 administration of United States President Joe Biden seeks to avoid any substantive discussion on the genocide taking place in the Gaza Strip, mass demonstrations and other forms of dissent over the White House’s foreign policy is expanding exponentially.
It is not surprising that youth, workers, artists, religious figures, among others, are focused on ending the slaughter of the people in Gaza.
Thousands of tons of weapons including warplanes and bombs are being transferred from Washington and its NATO allies to the State of Israel for the sole purpose of intensifying the repression against the Palestinian people. These are the realities that Biden and his advisors cannot hide from the people of the U.S. and the world.
A recently exposed massacre, one of hundreds of such incidents, involving the siege and destruction of Nassar Hospital, makes an even stronger case for an embargo to be placed on the transfer of arms to Tel Aviv. The official figures for deaths given by the health authorities at this facility in Gaza so far is 283.
The targeting of hospitals and healthcare workers has been a mainstay of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) war against the Palestinians. Undoubtedly, the brutal and repeated attacks on those institutions needed during a war has contributed immensely to the deaths and injuries since October 7.
“Gaza’s Civil Defense announced today that 283 bodies of martyrs were recovered from the Israeli-made mass grave in Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis since the withdrawal of the Israeli occupation forces from the area. There is clear evidence of field executions carried out by the IOF [Israeli Occupation Forces] at Nasser Medical Complex, it emphasized in its statement…. The spokesperson of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS), Nebal Farsakh, condemned the international community’s state of silence on the Israeli war on Gaza. In a press conference, Farsakh said that since the start of the war in Gaza, the international community has not taken any serious action towards the continuous Israeli crimes and violations against the health system, hospitals, humanitarian workers, and civilians in Gaza…. Addressing the Israeli-made recently discovered mass graves in Al-Shifa Hospital, Nasser Medical Complex, and Kamal Adwan Hospital, Farsakh said that so far, there are no accurate or specific numbers on the bodies of Palestinians discovered there or of those missing. All reports on the burying of Palestinian patients and refugees in the vicinity of Kamal Adwan Hospital following the Israeli siege of the latter are horrific, Farsakh stressed further confirming that 23 PRCS ambulances are currently out of service.”
By the last full week of April, the Gaza Health Ministry had said that over 34,000 people have been killed in the Strip since October 7. Since the retaliation by the Islamic Republic of Iran against occupation forces in Palestine, the Biden administration has reiterated what it called “ironclad” support for the settler-colonial state. The White House noted that the Pentagon had assisted in protecting military sites targeted by Tehran.
Biden immediately denounced Iran for the attacks which the administration said did minimal damage. Nonetheless, the White House never condemned the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria on April 1 which killed two high-ranking military officials and other personnel. U.S. military forces are still occupying areas in northeast Syria against the will of the government in Damascus. There has been nothing positive to come out of the Pentagon and NATO continuing presence in West Asia. Moreover, the way in which the Biden administration and his cohorts in Western Europe are approaching the crisis will inevitably lead to a wider imperialist war.
Living Conditions in Rafah
Many people living in the northern regions of Gaza have been forced to take shelter in Rafah in the south on the border with Egypt. In fact, the announcement from the IDF since the beginning of the siege in October directed people living in other areas such as Gaza City and Khan Younis to relocate to the south.
However, the increase in the number of people living in Rafah has not ensured its security from the IDF’s incessant bombing and shelling campaigns. Absent adequate housing and healthcare accommodations for the people in Rafah, the conditions will only worsen.
“Our new camp in Rafah, after our third displacement, is located in a graveyard near the Egyptian border. Each day the tents of new arrivals – of those forcibly displaced by Israeli attacks – creep closer to the graves. After every Israeli massacre, both graveyard and camp expand, crawling toward the outer edges of the desert. We’ve been here since December 2023. Nine of us share a tent that is 16 square meters. We are in the desert, but sometimes it does not feel that way because of the density and the near-constant sounds of Israeli explosions and drones. There are so many people in the camp, all of us in tents that do not protect from heat or cold. Winds sometimes uproot tents. There are stray dogs everywhere. Every day we line up for drinking water. Sometimes the water runs out and we return to our tents empty-handed.”
This story provides a glimpse into the everyday lives of Palestinians in Gaza. The destruction by the IDF, which is facilitated by the U.S. and its NATO allies, has done more to destabilize the entire region from Palestine and Lebanon to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Iran.
In addition to the direct military assaults on the Palestinians and their institutions in Gaza, the Israeli regime of Benjamin Netanyahu is implementing a program of starvation. The next logical outcome of the war is the forced removal of 2.3 Palestinians from Gaza.
Several weeks ago, the Biden White House talked about the airdropping of food to the people impacted by the war. Later they announced the building of a temporary pier to deliver food and other essential supplies to Gaza.
Neither of these talked about initiatives have made a difference in the lives of the people. Through these proclamations by the Biden administration, they attempt to divert attention away from the central questions involving the plight of the Palestinians.
By continuing to fuel war, more people realize the actual aims of the overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The recent spending package for imperialist war garnered bipartisan support.
The U.S. policy has already failed in the attempt to conceal its strategic aims in Palestine. The Israeli regime serves as a major pillar within the hegemonic designs for total western domination of the world. A triumph for the Palestinians and the people of the West Asia region would clearly mean a resounding defeat for Washington and Wall Street.
Historically, successive U.S. administrations have carried out imperialist wars resulting in mass casualties and population displacement. For more than three decades this has been the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. Today the world is watching in horror the situation in Gaza and demand an end to the genocide.
Mass Pressure Challenges White House Indifference
As the Biden administration seeks reelection for another term of office, the Palestinian question remains a major issue which it cannot readily dispose of. Biden campaign ads champion his purported accomplishments in the economic field and his commitment to restore federal law guaranteeing reproductive rights.
Gaza solidarity encampment in Columbia
However, the problems of inflation and declining real wages are embedded in the structures of the capitalist system during this historical period. The urban areas of the U.S. face rising homelessness among residents and recent migrants.
An ever-increasing defense budget takes away from the infrastructural and social needs of the workers, oppressed and impoverished. A foreign policy based on permanent warfare has created even more enemies for the U.S. ruling class.
Students have taken the lead at some of the most prestigious universities in the U.S. by denouncing the official complicity with Zionist aggression and demanding a withdrawal of all investments and other forms of collaboration with genocide in Palestine. Consequently, the duplicity and indifference of the ruling interests in the U.S. are a main driving force in the solidarity movement with 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 attitudes down under towards social media have turned barmy. While there is much to take Elon Musk to task for his wrecking ball antics at the platform formerly known as Twitter, not to mention his highly developed sense of sociopathy, the hysteria regarding the refusal to remove images of a man in holy orders being attacked by his assailant in Sydney suggests a lengthy couch session is in order. But more than that, it suggests that the censoring types are trying, more than ever, to tell users what to see and under what conditions for fear that we will all reach for a weapon and go on the rampage.
It all stems from the April 15 incident that took place at an Assyrian Orthodox service conducted by Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and the Rev. Isaac Royel at Christ the Good Shepherd Church in Wakeley, Sydney. A 16-year-old youth, captured on the livestream of the surface, is shown heading to the bishop before feverishly stabbing him, speaking Arabic about insults to the Prophet Muhammed as he does so. Rev. Royel also received injuries.
Up to 600 people subsequently gathered around the church. A number demanded that police surrender the boy. In the hours of rioting that followed, 51 police officers were injured. Various Sydney mosques received death threats.
The matter – dramatic, violent, raging – rattled the authorities. For the sake of appearance, the heavies, including counter-terrorism personnel, New South Wales police and members of the Australian domestic spy agency, ASIO, were brought in. The pudding was ready for a severe overegging. On April 16, the NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb deemed the stabbing a “terrorist incident”. NSW Premier Chris Minns stated that the incident was being investigated as a “terrorist incident” given the “religiously motivated” language used during the alleged attack.
After conducting interviews with the boy while still in his hospital bed on April 18, the decision was made to charge him with the commission of an alleged act of terrorism. This, despite a behavioural history consistent with, as The Guardian reports, “mental illness or intellectual disability.” For their part, the boy’s family noted “anger management and behavioural issues” along with his “short fuse”, none of which lent themselves to a conclusion that he had been radicalised. He did, however, have a past with knife crime.
Assuming the general public to be a hive of incipient terrorism easily stimulated by images of violence, networks and media outlets across the country chose to crop the video stream. The youth is merely shown approaching the bishop, at which point he raises his hand and is editorially frozen in suspended time.
Taking this approach implied a certain mystification that arises from tampering and redacting material in the name of decency and inoffensiveness; to refuse to reveal such details and edit others, the authorities and information guardians were making their moralistic mark. They were also, ironically enough, lending themselves to accusations of the very problems they seek to combat: misinformation and its more sinister sibling, disinformation.
Another telling point was the broader omission in most press reporting to detail the general background of the bishop in question. Emmanuel is an almost comically conservative churchman, a figure excommunicated for his theological differences with orthodoxy. He has also adopted fire and brimstone views against homosexuality, seeing it as a “crime in the eyes of God”, attacked other religions of the book, including Judaism and Islam, and sees global conspiracies behind the transmission of COVID-19. Hardly, it would seem, the paragon of mild tolerance and calm acceptance in a cosmopolitan society.
On April 16, Australia’s eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, got busy, announcing that X Corp and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, had been issued with legal notices to remove material within 24 hours depicting “gratuitous or offensive violence with a high degree of impact and detail”. The material in question featured the attack at the Good Shepherd Church.
Under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), the commissioner is granted various powers to make sure the sheep do not stray. Internet service providers can be requested or required to block access to material that promotes abhorrent violent conduct, incites such conduct, instructs in abhorrent violent conduct or depicts abhorrent violent conduct. Removal of material promoting, instructing, or depicting such “abhorrent violent conduct”, including “terrorist acts” can be ordered for removal if it risks going “viral” and causing “significant harm to the Australian community”.
X took a different route, preferring to “geoblock” the content. Those in Australia, in other words, would not be able to access the content except via such alternative means as a virtual private network (VPN). The measure was regarded as insufficient by the commissioner. In response, a shirty Musk dubbed Grant Australia’s “censorship commissar” who was “demanding *global* content bans”. On April 21, a spokesperson for X stated that the commissioner lacked “the authority to dictate what content X’s users can see globally. We will robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court.”
The Australian censorship commissar is demanding *global* content bans! https://t.co/CRLglUYYIG
In court, the commissioner argued that X’s interim measure not to delete the material but “geoblock” it failed to comply with the Online Safety Act. Siding with her at first instance, the court’s interim injunction requires X to hide the posts in question from all users globally. A warning notice is to cover them. The two-day injunction gives X the opportunity to respond.
There is something risible in all of this. From the side of the authorities, Grant berates and intrudes, treating the common citizenry as malleable, immature and easily led. Spare them the graphic images – she and members of her office decide what is “abhorrent” and “offensive” to general sensibilities.
Platforms such as Meta and X engage in their own forms of censorship and information curation, their agenda algorithmically driven towards noise, shock and indignation. All the time, they continue to indulge in surveillance capitalism, a corporate phenomenon the Australian government shows little interest in battling. On both sides of this coin, from the bratty, petulant Musk, to the teacherly manners of the eSafety Commissioner, the great public is being mocked and infantilised.
*
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.
On April 19, Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) announced that a Tu-22M3 swing wing long-range bomber/missile carrier crashed in the Stavropol krai (roughly translated as “region”) in southern Russia. The Ministry of Defense (MoD) reported that the venerable “Backfire” (Tu-22M3’s NATO reporting name) crashed due to a technical malfunction after it successfully conducted a strike mission in Ukraine. And yet, as soon as the Neo-Nazi junta found out about the crash, it immediately concocted a ludicrous story about how its air defenses supposedly “shot down” the Russian aircraft.
According to the infamous GUR (the Kiev regime’s military intelligence), the mythical “shootdown” allegedly happened at “a distance of 300 km”, despite the fact that the area is around 400 km away from Donetsk and over 450 km away from any territory firmly under the Neo-Nazi junta’s control. However, the GUR had a “convenient” explanation for such a discrepancy.
“The enemy aircraft was shot down at a distance of about 300 km from Ukraine. The damaged bomber was able to fly to the Stavropol region of Russia, where it fell and crashed,” the GUR posted on Telegram.
The Tu-22M3 is famous for carrying the near-hypersonic Kh-22 air-launched anti-ship/land-attack missiles and the more modern Kh-32 variant. It can also carry up to four of the now legendary 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” hypersonic missiles.
The range of the aforementioned weapons suggests that the “Backfire” doesn’t really need to fly over the territory of former Ukraine to conduct its missions.
In fact, it doesn’t even need to leave the airspace over undisputed Russian territories, meaning that the Kiev regime forces simply don’t have the means to reliably detect and track the Russian bomber, let alone engage it with either SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems or fighter jets. And yet, the GUR keeps insisting precisely that happened on April 19. Its supposed “evidence”? A laughable video that even a child with a single smartphone could’ve made. Of course, this didn’t stop the mainstream propaganda machine from parroting the same claims for days.
For instance, Politico reported that the GUR “used the same means to down the bomber as were previously used to shoot down an A-50 surveillance plane over the Sea of Azov in January”, which is another completely unsubstantiated claim, as there’s no evidence for this.
Still, the ridiculous claims keep piling up, with Politico citing the Kiev regime sources that the Tu-22M3 they allegedly “shot down” was part of a “larger Russian air attack which killed eight and injured 25 in the Dnipro region, in the east of Ukraine, in the early hours of Friday”. At the same time, Politico reports that the Neo-Nazi junta forces “shot down” all drones and most missiles fired by the Russian air attack group. And yet, these “downed” missiles somehow managed to supposedly “destroy five high-rise buildings, two private houses, three educational institutions, seven administrative and office buildings, a market, shops, trade pavilions and a hotel”.
As the interview was given to the BBC’s Ukrainian service, Newsweek went through the trouble of translating the laughable claims. As if everything that’s been said so far wasn’t ridiculous enough, Budanov insists that the Kiev regime forces “waited for a week to conduct an ambush”. The fact that the Tu-22M3 was well outside the range of any operational air defense system in service with the Neo-Nazi junta is ignored altogether, while the mainstream propaganda machine and its favorite puppet regime now claim that the SAM system their forces used was the S-200. They didn’t even specify which version of the air defense system was used, but even if we were to consider the most modern iterations, such a feat would still be impossible to accomplish. Firstly, the system would have to be very close to the frontline, which is very risky, even for mobile air defenses that the Kiev regime has been losing in the dozens lately. And second, the S-200 is a stationary system.
This would make it a sitting duck, not just for Russian aircraft and long-range missiles, but even the regular artillery. In addition, the video of the Tu-22M3 falling clearly shows one of its engines burning, suggesting that the Russian MoD’s claims hold without any chance of seeming illogical. On the other hand, the S-200 is (in)famous for its enormous missiles. These are equipped with a massive warhead weighing well over 200 kg and containing 21,000 3.5 g fragmentation pellets triggered by a radar proximity fuse or command signal. If such a monstrosity hit any aircraft or just close enough to it, there would be very little left (if anything at all). In the best-case scenario, there would be massive, clearly visible damage to the Tu-22M3. And yet, the video evidently shows that was not the case, as there was only a burning engine. It should be noted that absurd myths and blatant lies like this are nothing out of the ordinary for the Neo-Nazi junta forces.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
American businessman David Sacks predicted the collapse of Ukraine despite a new $61 billion aid package approved by the US House of Representatives since Kiev will need an even larger annual cash injection “to stave off total defeat.” Responding to a follow-up tweet about Ukraine by Sacks, Elon Musk said that a new aid package for Ukraine approved by the US House of Representatives was contributing to “a forever war” with “no exit strategy.”
“These scenes of celebration are going to look particularly foolish when Ukraine collapses anyway. The federal government can print more money; it can’t just print more artillery shells and air defense missiles,” David Sacks posted on his X account on April 20. “And I should have added, they can’t print more soldiers.”
It’s not “just” $61 billion. Ukraine will need massive annual cash infusions to stave off total defeat. So it’s $61 billion as the baseline for an annual appropriation in a new forever war.
For Sacks, the issue will not be limited to $61 billion because “Ukraine will need massive annual cash infusions to stave off total defeat.”
“The Iraq War and the Afghanistan War also began with annual appropriations in the $60B range. Those wars ended up costing trillions,” the businessman warned, adding that the reconstruction cost will amount to $500-600 billion “if somehow Ukraine survives the war.”
The United States House of Representatives approved, by 311 votes in favour and 112 against, an aid package that allocates $23.3 billion to replenish Ukraine’s defence articles and services, $13.8 billion for the purchase of advanced weapons systems, and $11.3 billion to US military operations in the region. In addition, the package provides for the supply of ATACMS long-range missile systems to Ukraine.
After receiving approval from the House of Representatives, the bill moves to the Senate for a vote. Subsequently, it will be presented to US President Joe Biden for his signature. Once signed, the law will come into force.
In a follow-up tweet, Sacks said,
“Based on some simple math, the new funding bill that’s being widely hailed as saving Ukraine will buy precisely half of a Summer Counteroffensive.”
Responding to the tweet, Musk highlighted,
“My biggest concern is that there is no exit strategy, just a forever war where kids die in trenches from artillery or charging machine guns and snipers through minefields.”
The billionaire also drew attention to Sacks’ post in which he expressed surprise at the fact that American Democrats waved Ukrainian flags during the vote in Congress, yet
“If you vote to send our money abroad while waving a foreign flag, you’ll be called an American patriot,” whilst “if you vote to keep our money at home to fund domestic priorities like the border, you’ll be called a foreign agent. Bizarro world.”
Musk has consistently criticised Western policy on the Ukraine War. Last month, the owner of X slammed forced conscription in Ukraine, saying many people died without any progress in 2023. In February, the Tesla CEO supported David Sacks’ view that the Ukrainian conflict is “based on lies.” He stressed that none of the questions currently being raised about the crisis in Ukraine correspond to reality.
In early October 2022, a Twitter survey about a hypothetical peace agreement between Moscow and Kiev that would include, among other conditions, Ukraine’s neutrality and referendums on accession to Russia, supervised by the UN, in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. He also cast doubt on Ukraine’s victory, recalling that its population is three times smaller than Russia’s and urged for peace initiatives between the two states.
After Musk’s statements about the conflict in Ukraine, the Ukrainian “Kill List” website Myrotvorets added the tycoon to its list, noting that the businessman has allegedly “contributed to Russian propaganda on more than one occasion.” However, his profile was on the website for only 15 minutes, after which it was deleted.
The new US aid package will not change the situation on the battlefield. Instead, Ukraine will find itself in an inescapable debt bondage intended to enrich the “insatiable” defence industry, as Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev said.
“Of course, we will win, despite the 61 billion blood dollars that will mainly feed its own insatiable sector of the defence industry,” Medvedev wrote on his Telegram channel, adding that the US House of Representatives voted in favour of “maximising the number of victims of this war.”
The money that will likely be approved for Ukraine will mostly probably go to defence contractors to make newer equipment for the US military, while Washington will offload older material to Ukraine. Although this may prolong the conflict, it is certainly nowhere near enough to ensure Ukrainian victory, and this is a reality that Sacks and Musk continue to highlight, yet they are ignored or ridiculed by the US establishment.
*
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 (Desk Top version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on April 23, 2024
Author’s Introduction
My long-standing commitment is to “the value of human life”, “the criminalization of war” , “peaceful co-existence” between nation states and “the future of humanity” which is currently threatened by nuclear war.
The World is at a Dangerous Crossroads. We are no longer dealing with a hypothetical scenario. The threat of World War III is real.
While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day conventional wars, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using nuclear weapons until it occurs and becomes a reality.
The US administration has endorsed preemptive nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
It should be understood that the use of nuclear weapons in relation to the confrontation between US-NATO and Russia would inevitably lead to escalation and the end of humanity as we know it.
I have been researching nuclear war for more than 20 years focussing on its historical, strategic and geopolitical dimensions as well as its criminal features as a means to implementing what is best described as “genocide on a massive scale”.
What is outlined in this video presentation is a brief history of nuclear war: a succession of U.S. nuclear war plans going back to the Manhattan Project (1939-1945) which was conducive to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
Unknown to the broader public, the U.S. War Department –in liaison with Oppenheimer’s Manhattan Project team at Los Alamos– formulated the first U.S. Doomsday Blueprint of a attack against 66 urban areas of the Soviet Union with an estimated 200 atomic bombs.
This was confirmed by “Top Secret” documents released by the War Department on September 15, 1945 when the US and the Soviet Union were allies.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki served as a “Dress Rehearsal”, as a means to formulate a “Doomsday Blueprint” which consisted in “Wiping the Soviet Union off the Map”
There is an element of political delusion and paranoia in the formulation of US foreign policy. The Doomsday Scenario against the Soviet Union has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for almost 80 years.
Had it not been for the September 1945 plan to “wipe the Soviet Union off the map” (66 urban areas and more than 200 atomic bombs), neither Russia nor China would have developed nuclear weapons. There wouldn’t have been a Nuclear Arms Race.
Barely two weeks after the official end of World War II (September 2, 1945), the US War Department issued a blueprint (September 15, 1945) to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and the USSR were allies.
This infamous project is confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)
Numerous US nuclear war plans have been formulated from the outset, leading up to The 1956 Strategic Air Command SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study (Declassified in December 2015) which consisted in targeting 1200 urban areas in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China.
The preparatory documents (see below) confirm that the data pertaining to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were being used to evaluate the viability as well as the cost of a much larger attack against the Soviet Union. These documents were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945).
“To Ensure our National Security”
Note the correspondence between Major General Norstad and the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, who was in permanent liaison with Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Los Alamos team of nuclear scientists.
On September 15, 1945 Norstad sent a memorandum to Lieutenant Leslie Groves requesting an estimate of the “number of bombs required to ensure our national security” ( The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements )
Lieutenant General Groves no doubt in consultation with Dr. Oppenheimer responded to Major General Norstad in a Memorandum dated September 29, 1945 in which he refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
See section 2, subsections a, b and c.
“It is not essential to get total destruction of a city in order to destroy its effectiveness. Hiroshima no longer exists as a city even though the area of total destruction is considerably less than total.”
The Hiroshima Nagasaki bombings were a “Dress Rehearsal”
Read carefully. The text below confirms that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “A Dress Rehearsal”.
Bear in mind the name of the country which is threatening America’s “national security” is not mentioned.
Answering your memorandum of 15 September 1945, [see response below]
We are at a Dangerous Crossroads.
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable.
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped.
Throughout History, “Mistakes” have Played a Key Role. Upholding WMDs as Instruments of Peace is a Dangerous Gimmick
Relentless War Propaganda and Media Disinformation Is the Driving Force. It Must be Confronted.
Is “Peaceful Coexistence” and Diplomacy between Russia and the U.S. an Option?
“War is Good for Business”: Corrupt Governments which Uphold the Interests of Big Money Must be Challenged
For details including documentation and history see:
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3 Year: 2012 Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
The recently passed US transfer of its $5 billion share of Russia’s $300 billion will accelerate the negative consequences especially for Europe should the latter follow the US lead and distribute its $260 billion share to Ukraine, which it eventually will.
Today, we celebrate the 460th anniversary of the birth of William Shakespeare who taught us never to despair in our resolve to seek the truth and confront the lie.
Today’s radical wing of Critical Race Theory (CRT) wants to reimagine our society in the image of its own paradoxical disdain towards racism. Simultaneously it is embracing misanthropic hatred towards its critics thereby erasing all of the historical accomplishments to cultivate racial harmony.
We have become guinea pigs in a ruthlessly calculated, carefully orchestrated, chillingly cold-blooded experiment in how to control a population and advance a political agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.
Where is the logic? Cuba, a country that does no harm to anyone and sends more doctors worldwide than the World Health Organization, has been harshly sanctioned for more than 60 years. The apartheid state of Israel, on the other hand, is carrying out a genocide before our eyes, yet no economic sanctions are imposed against the country. On the contrary, it continues to receive billions of dollars in aid and loads of heavy weapons to carry out its massacres.
The Arctic region is warming at twice the global rate, leading to rapid melting of ice–some have even predicted ice-free summers by year 2034. This has brought unprecedented threats to various species of the region including the polar bear.
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.
Today’s radical wing of Critical Race Theory (CRT) wants to reimagine our society in the image of its own paradoxical disdain towards racism. Simultaneously it is embracing misanthropic hatred towards its critics thereby erasing all of the historical accomplishments to cultivate racial harmony.
How is it therefore that apologizing for one’s Caucasian ancestors or the White race in its entirety will purge society from crimes committed against Blacks in the past?
Is that not similar to standing up and taking full credit for achievements that were never earned? Although we can fully acknowledge the abundance of racial crimes against people of color, beginning with native indigenous cultures, how can any single person accept 100 percent of the collective guilt? It is foolish to claim that racism is the status quo of all Caucasian cultures. Yet this is in fact the conclusion of the radical wing of racial justice warriors such as Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kendi, and Ta-Nehisi Coates and institutions such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, Equal Justice Initiative and NAACP.
Indeed there is a moral obligation to repudiate those who commit acts of violence, physical and psychological, against any minority group. There is deep irrationality behind the barely coherent ideological antiracist manifestos such as White Fragility and How to Be an Antiracist. Take for example a recent image of four elderly women showing their forearms engraved with numbers from the Nazi concentration camps. The callousness of RCT race hustlers would categorically indict these lucky survivors of the Holocaust simply for their privilege of being born White. Of course, the majority of Caucasians are not born with any particularly unique privileges. Ask any disenfranchised Appalachian resident in West Virginia and Kentucky how privileged they feel or the later generations of indentured Irish slaves from the 17th century.When RCT’s leaders conflate the privilege of power gained by moguls like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg with the tens of millions of American Whites who are unable to write a check for $500 or who are homeless with no guarantee of a meal or shelter, are these faux intellectuals saying they all warrant equal contempt for keeping racism alive because of skin color?
The authoritative powers of government and institutional bureaucracy are delighted with the efforts of RCT’s race warriors to infiltrate and influence our leading institutions. The fools who elevate racism to the apex of the nation’s troubles serve as functional decoys to distract the public’s attention away from the far more insidious actions targeted against them. America has become a nation of a new breed of peasants who are increasingly condemned for a variety of reasons regarding power they do not possess. They are the dispossessed as millions face astronomical debt, no promising future and are burdened by fears of the lurking potential of being replaced eventually by artificial intelligence and new technologies that outperform human productivity.
The notion that all white people are individually responsible for today’s racism due to the actions of their ancestors falls flat on social, political, psychological, and scientific grounds. Simply on social and cultural issues, not everyone’s White ancestors participated in slavery or racism. Caucasians encompass a diverse array of cultures, ethnicities and backgrounds. Millions of European immigrants arrived in the United States after the abolition of slavery and have no direct connection with America’s past historical injustices whatsoever. Blanket statements about the culpability of all Caucasians ignore this diversity and oversimplify historical complexities. Equally it ignores the long history of individuals and White communities that actively opposed racism and worked towards social justice throughout American history.
Holding all Caucasians responsible for the action of their ancestors also undermines individual agency and personal responsibility. This view is deeply adolescent because it suggests that people bear collective guilt. Taking this skewed view of human nature to its full conclusion, this would be like having a legal system that charges individuals with a crime committed by a distant relative living in another part of the planet. It contradicts the essential principles of equality under the law and due process.
The very idea of collective guilt overlooks other factors such as socioeconomic status, education, and geographic location, which can significantly influence individual attitudes and actions regarding racism. Those who charge the Caucasian race with inherent systemic racism are fond to point out the intersectionality of multiple forms of oppression, privilege and discrimination based upon race with other aspects of identity such as gender, class, disability, religion, etc. This doctrine of intersectionality tries to emphasize the interconnectedness of various systems of power and oppression and highlights the need to consider multiple dimensions of identity and social inequality when analyzing and addressing issues of racial justice and equity. It underscores the importance of recognizing and addressing the complexity of every individual’s lived experiences and the intersecting forms of privilege and marginalization they may face. Despite the elements of truth in the power of interlocking structures, imposing collective guilt has detrimental psychological effects. It fosters false feelings of shame, resentment and defensiveness among Whites and various ethnic groups who do not personally identify with or condone racism. Collective guilt, furthermore, promotes a narrative that disempowers individuals by reinforcing a sense of victimhood and perpetuates and endless cycle of blame.
Critics of the social constructionist perspective argue that racism exists across diverse cultures and historical contexts, suggesting that it may be a universal aspect of human behavior rather than a socially constructed phenomenon. However, while manifestations of prejudice and discrimination vary, the underlying mechanisms and social dynamics of racism are shaped by specific historical, cultural, and structural factors.
Image: Robin DiAngelo (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
Although some of the leading thinkers of today’s reverse-racism, such as Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi, reduce race-based discrimination to all Whites, there is no genetic basis for inheriting guilt or responsibility. A case can be made that RCT’s view of racism leans towards a belief that racism is rooted in scientific materialism and genetic determinism. However, assigning this predetermined blame to individuals based on their race ignores the fundamental principles of genetics and biology. While historical injustices can have lasting effects on societal attitudes and structures, attributing present-day racism solely to genetic inheritance ignores the multifaceted nature of human behavior. Of course there are individual psychological factors, such as personality traits or cognitive biases, that may preclude a person’s propensity towards racist views. Yet even for those who are hardened fanatics advocating for a psychological reductionism, it cannot be denied that the human brain has a remarkable capacity for change and adaptation.
The brain is neoplastic. While individuals may inherit certain predispositions, environmental influences and personal choices also play significant roles in shaping attitudes and behaviors towards race. Neuroplasticity means that the brain is constantly shaped by our interactions with the world, including exposure to different races, cultures, perspectives, and experiences. This suggests that racist attitudes and beliefs can be unlearned or modified through exposure to diverse viewpoints, educational interventions and by engaging in personal introspective inquiry into the nature of one’s own thoughts and beliefs. There is a large body of clinical evidence that by actively engaging in activities such as empathy-building exercises, compassion meditation and mindful reflection, people can reshape their neural pathways and reduce implicit biases. This would be far more productive than reading endless sociological jargon about Critical Race Theory or the sophomoric logic portrayed in books such as White Fragility and then believing any fundamental constructive changes, individually or across society, will ever be made.
The downplaying of individual agency, which lends itself to a constructive view of advocating for color blindness, alternatively patronizes a systemic regime of racism. Individual agency posits that every individual has the capacity to make conscious choices and take actions that either perpetuate or challenge racial discrimination and prejudice. Indeed, a growing number of proponents in the cult of scientific materialism, especially in the neurosciences and evolutionary biology, refute that humans possess free will. This belief—which is simply conjecture and has no more sound scientific evidence than a belief in the tooth fairy and leprechauns—denies that humans have the ability to exert influence over their own thoughts, behaviors and interactions within the context of racial dynamics. By the way, this radical reductionism was shared by many of the early eugenicists and Nazi scientists who felt a moral duty to exterminate those who were biologically or mentally “inferior” to their mythical fantasy of the heroic Aryan Ubermensch.
Color blindness’ challenge is to encourage people to be accountable for their own individual agency because it requires being fully involved in attentive awareness of one’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors related to race and then actively challenge those beliefs. By de-emphasizing racial categories and identities, color blindness can help mitigate the divisive effects of identity politics and tribalism. It rather encourages individuals to form connections on shared values rather than rigid racial affiliations and group identities. Unlike RCT’s theoretical intellectual exercise, agency includes being critically reflective of one’s own biases and prejudices, and to consciously choose to reject racial stereotypes and discriminatory practices. Sadly, if the introspective psychological movement led by William James in the United States and Wilhelm Wundt in Germany hadn’t been buried by John Watson’s atheistic outlook favoring behaviorism in 1910, modern psychology may have taken a very different turn, making Americans more self-reflective and tolerable of people’s different persuasions. James was deeply concerned about defending an individual’s causal agency and opposed the ideology of determinism that now defines scientific materialism and CRT’s believers.Individual agency begins with recognizing one’s own worth and dignity as a human being, regardless of race, and asserting one’s right to be treated with respect, fairness, and equality in all aspects of life and abiding by the spiritual value of recognizing the intersection of sameness in another.
It should also not be too difficult to recognize that the emergence of CRT as a popular movement is taking place at a time when Americans, especially the younger generations, have never been less happy and less content with the quality of their lives. The psychological despair and hostility between various factions is unprecedented. Of course, there are multiple reasons. For example, experimental psychologists at Oxford University have shown a relation between the increase in personal stress and anxiety with a rising belief in the cult of scientism over religion and spirituality. Despite the large body of scientific evidence showing that faith and spiritual values help people cope with stress and anxiety far better than belief solely in cold, hard scientific principles, this trend is accelerating as young adults aimlessly forage through the chaos of the American social landscape for a deeper sense of meaning and purpose to cure the existential angst that dominates postmodernity. Following GenX, there has been a steady deterioration of mental and physical health in each succeeding generation. According to a Blue Cross Blue Shield study, the leading cause of mortality is now “death of despair”—again an indication of the increasing meaninglessness of life that CRT is further inciting.
The question is where are CRT’s leaders and proponents investing their energy? Is there any evidence whatsoever that the architects of this new faux social constructivism, building divisions between races based solely upon theoretical conceptions lacking a pragmatic psychological foundation, are contributing to people’s well-being? Or are these walls and barriers nothing more than expressive manifestations of their creators’ low self-esteem and personal guilt being forcefully imposed upon others?
Although the critical race theory movement and its dogma of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE) is largely a twisted agnostic socialism, it shares many characteristics among millenarian movements in the Middle Ages. As Norman Cohn’s brilliant 1957 classical study In Search of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages meticulously points out, radical movements with disjointed utopian ideals most often arise during periods of social unrest, economic hardship and political oppression.Likewise, utopia’s contrast found in apocalyptic movements of doom and gloom equally tend to arise under very similar overarching social circumstances of instability. Therefore it is no surprise that the CRT movement’s strangely utopian zeal would spontaneously appear as an unconscious counter force, every bit as delusional, as the current rise in millenarian exuberance and fundamentalist religious fervor in nationalist right wing Christianity and radical religious Zionism. A deep comparative investigation would find strong similarities in each.
CRT, as well as the more extremist woke factions, will ultimately fail under inherent inconsistencies in their weight, as will the apocalyptic ambitions of fundamentalist religious passion. The lofty ideals and visions of a policed DIE regime across public and private institutions as a pathway to a more perfect anti-racist society are contrary to the reality within the larger society. Eventually, the gap between its utopian vision and practical realities will lead to disillusionment and internal conflicts. But much mental suffering and disenchantment will be left in its wake.
Image: Ibram X. Kendi (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)
We are already witnessing these cracks. Black Lives Matter (BLM) leader Shalomyah Bowers faces a lawsuit alleging the misappropriation of $10 million in donor funds.[1]
Other BLM activists have been accused of donation theft.[2] CRT’s DIE guru Ibram X. Kendi’s ambitious The antiracism center developing DIE programs at Boston University is now plagued with scandals due to mismanagement of millions of dollars in funding.[3] Robin DiAngelo has exposed herself as an advocate for the return to racial segregation.
During an interview, DiAngelo said, “People of color need to get away from White people and have some community with each other.”[4]
She also champions censorship by banning people from employment if they don’t espouse her particular ideological brand of antiracism. In DiAngelo’s own confession, “What I want to do is create a culture that actually spits out those who are resistant.”[5]Moreover, CRT’s utopian ideation and the DIE dogma are increasingly becoming isolated from the broader society, due to both voluntary internal and external pressures. It is facing strong opposition from other institutions and strong elements within mainstream society. If anything, Blacks would serve themselves best by setting race aside and segregating themselves from both White and Black intellectuals’ efforts to enforce their off-kilter screeds and self-deceptive ideology.
The truth is that no one is born a racist. Racism is an acquired conceptual belief, a mental affliction, with the capacity to stir reactive emotions similar to fanatic allegiances to other acquired dogmas including CRT and scientific reductionism. People are indoctrinated in acquired beliefs via their communities, upbringing, educational institutions, the media and other venues of social discourse. Therefore, if racism is learned, it can be unlearned. There is certainly a place for moral indignation against the idolatry of irrational doctrines that advance a perverted kind of racial absolutism that inflicts undue suffering. If you witness injustice, if you witness evil, it is correct to feel moral indignation. The criteria to make such a determination are simple. Does a belief or doctrine, despite whatever its good intentions, perpetuate destructive emotions and actions or not? In our estimation, the ideology of an imaginary inherited White privilege, coercive DIE indoctrination, and the policing of collective White guilt are aberrations of imbalanced psyches.
Finally, we have to ask why gratitude and forgiveness have become foregone values in American society.
On the one hand, gratitude for all the collective accomplishments made in the past to advance improvement in the livelihoods and opportunities for minorities; and, on the other hand, the postmodern understanding of forgiveness has become hackneyed. Witnessing medieval acts of penitential self-flagellation performed by groups of White men and women is frankly pathetic. This pathology implicit in Robin DiAngelo’s book Nice Racism, proselytizes the need for Whites to seek “absolution” and to accept their “need to be racially forgiven.”[6] Philosophically, the Western idea of forgiveness largely lacks the more reconciliatory nuances in the Eastern traditions regarding seeking forgiveness, which properly requires a reciprocal call-and-response between the perpetrator and the victim to restore harmony in relations. For example, the Chinese for forgiveness kuānshù (literally, “wide forgiving”) implicitly conveys the idea of broad-mindedness or magnanimity in forgiving others along with seeking forgiveness that together restore harmony. Similarly, the Indian Sanskrit word kṣamā encompasses both the act of forgiveness but with additional layers of being virtuous that contributes to spiritual growth and the cultivation of inner peace. But these higher ideals are completely absent in the lamentable adolescent spectacles performed on behalf of the White Fragility and CRT cults.
The other dimension for advocating color blindness over racial divisiveness on sociological grounds is spiritual.
It seeks to discover that interconnectedness of all human beings thereby transcending the conditional and often superficial differences of race and ethnicity.
All of the great spiritual traditions emphasize a fundamental unity that connects life. Approaching race with a color blind perspective is an acknowledgement of this oneness beneath the external physical differences. There is an element of color blindness that asks us to challenge our ego-based perceptions and attachments to racial identity and issues of superiority. By transcending ego-driven tendencies towards prejudice and discrimination, people of all races can cultivate a deeper awareness and humility that opens up to recognizing the inherent dignity of every person. These are crucial ideals that are utterly lacking in the CRT manifestos and therefore this popular fad will have no success in healing racial divisions.
This is not a band aid approach to cover over wounds but rather an effort to foster healing, harmony, cooperation and mutual understanding among diverse communities, ultimately leading to a more peaceful and compassionate society, which is sorely lacking at this moment in history. In a spiritual context, practicing color blindness may be seen as a practice to cultivate a greater altruistic unconditional love and compassion, rooted in the recognition of the divine spark within each person. If there is to be possibility to transform the wounds from the past, and that are being further perpetuated in the present, the path of becoming more color blind is a journey in self-discovery, leading to great harmony and wholeness that has the great potential to uplift others. But this will never be found in the citadels of education that have become stale toxic pools of critical race theory.
*
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.
Richard Galeis the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.
Dr. Gary Nullis host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
First published on July 26, 2023
The ground-breaking movie Oppenheimer, despite its unsympathetic protagonist, packs a powerful anti-nuclear punch that makes it hard, if not impossible, to sleep after watching the film.
For this reason alone, the movie should be shown on the floor of Congress and in the White House as required viewing by all in DC bent on spending $1.7 trillion over the next decades to build new nuclear weapons to kill us all.
Only those with a global death wish or on the payroll of Northrop Grumman, the military contractor with the nuclear “modernization” contract, could watch this film and still root for US nuclear rearmament, a horror show now underway with the blessings of DC politicians. Unless people rise up in fury, unless this Hollywood movie sparks a second nuclear-freeze movement, a repeat on steroids of the 80’s nuclear weapons freeze, Congress and the White House will raid the treasury to expand our nuclear arsenal.
On the agenda is a new sea-launched nuclear cruise missile, a gravity bomb with two-stage radiation implosion, a long range strike bomber and the replacement of 400 underground nuclear missiles in the midwest with 600 new Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. These new ICBMS–The Sentinel–could each carry up to three warheads 20 times more powerful than the atomic bombs the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to incinerate 200,000 people in a span of three days.
Irish actor Cillian Murphy plays the role of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a hand-wringing scientist, an unfaithful lackluster womanizer, a man with few convictions but lots of demons, who traverses an emotional landscape of ambition, doubt, remorse and surrender.
Oppenheimer oversees the Manhattan Project, the team of scientists hunkering down in the beautiful desert of Los Alamos, New Mexico, to build the hideous atomic bomb before the Germans or Russians crack the code.
In a scene reminiscent of the absurd 1950s, when pig-tailed school children scrambled under desks in mock nuclear drills, scientists don sunscreen and goggles to protect themselves during the blinding Trinity Test.
This was the first atomic test conducted with no warning to the downwinders–the nearby indigenous people of the Southwest who developed cancer as a result of radioactive fall out.
This was the test before President Truman ordered a 9,000 pound uranium bomb named “Little Boy’ loaded onto a B-29 bomber. This was the trial performance before the same President, depicted in the movie as unctuous and arrogant, orders Fat Boy, a second plutonium bomb– prototype for today’s nuclear weapon–dropped on Nagasaki.
Though the movie can be slow, a three hour endurance test, its historical insights and gut-churning imagery compensate for its lack of likable characters, save for Lt. General Leslie Groves, played by a fun-to-watch Matt Damon as Oppenheimer’s Pentagon handler.
One of the most haunting moments juxtaposes in living color celebrations of the bombings, applause and accolades for Oppenheimer standing at the podium with the guilt-consumed scientist’s black and white visions of irradiated souls, skeletal remains, flesh turned to ash–all amid a cacophony of explosions and pounding feet, the death march.
Even more disturbing are the questions that tug at the moviegoer, who wonders,
“Where are the Japanese victims in this film?
Why are they missing from this picture?
Why are they never shown writhing in pain, their lives and cities destroyed?” Instead, the human targets are seen only through the lens of Oppenheimer who imagines faceless x-rayed ghosts torn asunder in the burning wreckage, their skin, their flesh falling off their bones, their bodies disappearing into nothingness.
The omission of the real victims in the interest of maintaining a consistent point of view may make sense from a filmmaker’s perspective, but not from the standpoint of historians and truth tellers. Writer-director Christopher Nolan could have shown us photos, authentic aerial footage of the Japanese, blinded and burned, before the final credits roll to remind us the horror is real, not just a Hollywood movie bound for several Oscar nominations.
In the name of truth the movie does, however, smash the persistent myth that the US had no other choice but to drop the atomic bombs to end WWII.
Through dialogue, we learn Japan was about to surrender, the Emperor simply needed to save face; the point of irradiating Hiroshima and Nagasaki, targeting civilians in far off cities, was not to save the world but to show the Soviets the US possessed the technology to destroy the world, so better not cross the aspiring empire.
In closed door sessions, all filmed in black and white, we watch as crusading anti-communist politicians–determined to stop Oppenheimer from advocating for arms control talks with the Soviets–crucify their atomic hero for his association with members of the Communist Party, leftist trade unions and a long ago anti-capitalist lover who threw his bourgeois flowers in the trash.
When the McCarthyites strip Oppenheimer of his security clearance, it’s a big “who cares” shrug for a movie audience weary of Oppenheimer’s internal conflicts over whether science can be divorced from politics, from the consequences of a scientist’s research. How can anyone with a heart want to continue this line of work? To hell with the security clearance.
The movie Oppenheimer is compelling and powerful in its timeliness, though one can’t help but think it would have been exponentially more powerful had it been told from a different point of view, from the point of view of a scientist who opposed the death-march mission.
We see glimpses of a pond-staring fate-warning Albert Einstein, who in real life lobbied to fund the atomic bomb research only to later oppose the project.
It could have been his story–or the story of one of the 70 scientists who signed a “Truman, don’t drop the bomb” petition that Oppenheimer squelched, persuading Edward Teller, the “father of the hydrogen bomb” not to present Truman with the petition drafted by Leo Szilard, the chief physicist at the Manhattan Project’s Chicago laboratory. The movie’s reference to the petition was so fast, so quiet, so mumbled, the audience could have missed it.
If we are not careful, more mindful, more awake, we might miss our moment, our moment to avert another nuclear holocaust, this one a far worse nightmare in which five billion of the Earth’s 8 billion people perish, either immediately from radiation burns and fire or in the months that follow during a famine in which soot blocks the sun.
The White House and a majority of Congress want to rush us, a sleepwalking populace into WWIII with Russia, a nation of 143 million people, 195 different ethnicities and 6,000 nuclear weapons. For those, like the shameful editors of the Washington Post, who insist we continue to forever fund the proxy war, for those in high places who refuse calls for a ceasefire, this movie reminds us of the existential danger we confront in a sea of denial, complicity and exceptionalism.
Despite campaigning on a platform of no first use of nuclear weapons, President Biden’s Nuclear Posture Review echoes his predecessor Trump’s approval of first use should our allies’ interests be threatened.
CODEPINK activists are distributing flyers outside showings of Oppenheimer to invite stunned movie goers leaving the theater in a daze to take action, to join our organization and amplify our peace-building campaigns, to ground the nuclear-capable F-35, to declare China is Not our Enemy and to partner with the Peace in Ukraine Coalition.
This is the movie, this is the moment, this is the time to challenge the euphemistic nuclear modernization program, to expose the madness of militarism that abandons urgent needs at home to line the pockets of military contractors gorging at the Pentagon trough.
This is the time to demand a ceasefire and peace talks to end the war in Ukraine, to stop preparations for war with China, to finally pass legislation to ban first use, to take our ICBM’s off hair trigger alert, to abide by our disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to campaign for the US to become signatories to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Opposed by NATO–a huckster for nuclear proliferation–the TPNW has been signed by 95 state parties wishing to outlaw the development, deployment and use of nuclear weapons.
Unlike Oppenheimer, we can make the right choice; the choice that saves the human race from immediate extinction.
*
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.
Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 DNC Delegate for Bernie Sanders and co-founded the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party. Coordinator of CODEPINKCONGRESS, Marcy spearheads Capitol Hill calling parties to mobilize co-sponsors and votes for peace and foreign policy legislation.
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 growing disaffection of Israeli society towards Netanyahu due to his nefarious management of the crisis with Hamas and his zero interest in rescuing the Jewish hostages alive would have caused his popularity to fall to a minimum and according to the latest poll average electoral, the Likud of Netanyahu would be sorry of the Power in case of new Elections.
Netanyahu would be aware of his precarious political and judicial situation, so using the invisible dictatorship of fear of the Third Holocaust, come from Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran, took advantage of the bloody offensive of Hamas to declare a state of war (defending Israel’s security) and unleashing a devastating offensive in the Gaza Strip that would allow him to postpone the judicial process in which he is accused for crimes against humanity following the genocide in Gaza.
Thus, the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus which, according to the Syrian agency SANA, caused the death of three high commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard including Brigadier General Mohamed Reda al-Zahedi, and the latest attacks on Hamas leaders in Lebanon, were the Israeli bait to provoke Iran’s entry into the war, and after Iran’s limited response to the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, we witnessed the Israeli response.
According to the Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, the target of such an attack would have been “Iran’s S-300 air defense system”, the most advanced anti-aircraft system of the Iranian forces and a radar system that according to said newspaper “would have been destroyed by ballistic missiles launched from outside Iranian airspace”. According to The New York Times, Israel’s initial retaliatory plan against Iran included a larger-scale attack targeting major military objects in Iran, even near the capital, but Netanyahu made the decision to reduce the attack due to pressure from President Joe Biden seeking to prevent further regional escalation.
Finally, according to the Axios portal, Netanyahu reportedly negotiated with the United States “the military entry into Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, in exchange for containment in the Israeli military response to the attack on Iran” which would have been confirmed by US military sources.
Culmination of Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza?
After the asymmetrical punishment inflicted by Israel, all basic infrastructure, schools, mosques, hospitals and 90 per cent of Gaza’s buildings were reportedly razed by systematic aerial bombardments resulting in more than 34,000 Palestinian civilian casualties and several thousand more buried in the rubble.
The real objective of the Gaza military campaign would be to provoke a second nakba in which 1.5 million Palestinians were forced to leave a Gaza turned into a mass of rubble and human remains that would make it impossible for the displaced Gazan population to return and confined to the open-air concentration camp in Rafah, described by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk as “apocalyptic”, while warning “of the growing risk of genocide”.
Such forcible confinement of the Gazan population would be a measure of pressure on Egypt to open its border and settle the Palestinians in the Sinai Peninsula, after which Israel would proceed to the unilateral declaration of sovereignty over Gaza and its maritime areas. To complete the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Netanyahu reportedly ordered the final assault on Rafah after evicting the thousands of Gazans held there, military operation that the US would have accepted as a lesser evil even knowing that such an operation could end with a new massacre of civilians. Thus, as reported by Hebrew Public Radio, “Israel is preparing to expand a humanitarian area in the Gaza Strip in preparation for a possible attack on the border town of Rafah”.
According to the radio station, the new humanitarian zone would extend from the southern city of Al-Mawasi along the coastal strip to the outskirts of Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip and could accommodate about one million Gazans.
Agreement with Egypt to Accept the Gazans?
Egypt would be a de jure poor country and would depend entirely on international loans from the IMF and the Persian Gulf States. Thus, Egypt’s debt to the World Bank would exceed $164 billion in June 2023 but would be increasing as its traditional sources of income such as tourism and taxes to cross the Suez Canal would have suffered a notable cut given the geopolitical instability of the area.
In this context, a document written by Gila Gamaliel, Israeli Minister of Intelligence, and revealed by the Israeli newspaper Calcalist, suggested relocating residents of Gaza to Sinai (Egypt) as a solution “which would result in positive long-term strategic results”. Netanyahu reportedly held talks with Egyptian President al-Sisi to welcome the inhabitants of Gaza and settle them in the Sinai in exchange for the cancellation of all their debt.
According to the Agreement, Israel, with economic support from the US, the UK and Germany, would assume Egypt’s debts to the IMF and the World Bank, while attempting to persuade the allied Western countries to write off Egyptian debts acquired with their financial institutions and given Egypt’s economic stranglehold, it would not be ruled out that the financial pressure of the international organizations ends up bearing fruit, so we will see nakba 2.0 and the end of the Palestinian dream of creating its own state.
*
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.
This past weekend, April 20, 2024 the US House of Representatives passed a bill to provide Ukraine with another $61 billion in aid. The measure will quickly pass the Senate and be signed into law by Biden within days.
The funds, however, will make little difference to the outcome of the war on the ground as it appears most of the military hardware funded by the $61 billion has already been produced and much of it already shipped. Perhaps no more than $10 billion in additional new weapons and equipment will result from the latest $61 billion passed by Congress.
Subject to revision, initial reports of the composition of the $61 billion indicate $23.2 billion of it will go to pay US arms producers for weapons that have already been produced and delivered to Ukraine. Another $13.8 billion is earmarked to replace weapons from US military stocks that have been produced and are in the process of being shipped—but haven’t as yet—or are additional weapons still to be produced. The breakdown of this latter $13.8 amount is not yet clear in the initial reports. One might generously guess perhaps $10 billion at most represents weapons not yet produced, while $25-$30 billion represents weapons already shipped to Ukraine or in the current shipment pipeline.
In total, therefore, weapons already delivered to Ukraine, awaiting shipment, or yet to be produced amount to approximately $37 billion.
The remainder of the $61 billion includes $7.8 billion for financial assistance to Ukraine to pay for salaries of government employees through 2024. An additional $11.3 billion to finance current Pentagon operations in Ukraine—which sounds suspiciously like pay for US advisors, mercenaries, special ops, and US forces operating equipment like radars, advanced Patriot missile systems, etc. on the ground. Another $4.7 billion is for miscellaneous expenses, whatever that is.
In other words, only $13.8 billion of the $61 billion is for weapons Ukraine doesn’t already have!
And that $13.8 billion is all Ukraine will likely get in new weapons funding for the rest of 2024! Like the $23 billion already in theater, that will likely be burned up in a couple of weeks this summer once Russia’s coming major offensive—its largest of the war—is launched in late May or early June. So what does the US do in order to continue to fund Ukraine’s economy, government and military efforts this fall and thereafter?
In other words, what’s the Biden/NATO strategy for aiding Ukraine, militarily and economically, after the $37 billion is expended by late this summer? Where’s the money to come from?
To understand how the US/NATO plan to fund subsequent weapons production for Ukraine in late 2024 and early 2025, one must consider not only the $61 billion bill but a second bill also passed by Congress this past weekend that hasn’t been given much attention in the mainstream media.
That second bill may potentially provide up to $300 billion for Ukraine from USA and its G7 allies, especially NATO allies in Europe where reportedly $260 of the $300 billion resides in Eurozone banks.
Biden/US Short Term Strategy 2024
The $61 billion is clearly only a stopgap measure to try to get the Ukraine army and government funded through the summer. Beyond that, the broader Biden strategy is to keep Ukraine afloat until after the US November elections. In addition to the $61 billion—which the US hopes will get Ukraine through the US November election (but likely won’t)—US strategy includes getting the Russians to agree to begin some kind of negotiations. The US will then use the discussions to raise a demand to freeze military operations on both sides while negotiations are underway. But Biden’s ‘freeze and negotiate’ strategy is dead on arrival, since it is abundantly clear to the Russians it is basically about US and NATO ‘buying time’ and Russia has already been played by that one. As the popular US saying goes: “fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me”.
The Russians already fell for that ‘let’s suspend fighting and negotiation ploy’ with the Minsk II treaty back in 2015-16. It agreed to halt military operations in the Donbass back then but NATO and the Ukraine government used the Minsk agreement as cover to re-build Ukraine’s military force which it thereafter used to attack the Donbass provinces. European leaders Angela Merkel of Germany and Francois Hollande of France thereafter publicly admitted in 2022 that Minsk II was just to ‘buy time’.
The Russian’s were again similarly snookered at the Istanbul peace discussions held in April 2022. They were asked by NATO to show good faith in negotiations by withdrawing their forces from around Kiev, which they did. Negotiations were then broken off by Zelensky, on NATO’s strong recommendation, and Ukraine launched an offensive chasing the withdrawing Russians all the way back to the Donbass borders.
Russia is therefore extremely unlikely to fall a third time for a Biden/NATO request to ‘freeze’ military operations and negotiate again.
Biden may want to ‘buy time’ once more, but that hand’s been played twice already and the West will be (is being) told by Russia they aren’t interested in buying anything from the West and its ‘money’ no longer has any value.
Speaker Johnson’s Volte Face
The passage of the stop-gap $61 billion for Ukraine by the US House of Representatives was the result of House Speaker, Johnson, doing an about face and allowing the vote on the House floor after saying he wouldn’t for weeks. There’s been much speculation in the US mainstream media as to why Johnson reversed his position and allowed the Ukraine aid bill to the House floor for a vote. However, it’s not difficult to understand why he did reverse his view.
Image: Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Mike Johnson delivers remarks following his election to the position, October 25, 2023. (From the Public Domain)
In recent weeks there was intense lobbying behind the scenes by US weapons companies with key Republican committee chairmen in the House. After all, at least $37 billion in payments for weapons—both already delivered and to be delivered—was involved. Not a minor sum even for super-profitable companies like Lockheed, Raytheon and the like. Rumors are that corporate lobbying had its desired effect on Republican committee chairs in the House, who then in turn pressured Johnson to allow the vote on the floor. The final vote in the House was 310 to 111 with 210 Democrats joining 100 Republicans to pass the measure—revealing that the core support for the US Military Industrial Complex in the House of Representatives is at least three-fourths (the US Senate likely even higher).
So the vote was the result of a ‘parliamentary maneuver’ in which all the Democrats crossed over to support the Republican Speaker of the House (who de facto switched parties for the moment). A minority of Republicans joined him. A slim majority of Republicans opposed the measure. Their opposition remains. Thus it is highly unlikely Congress will appropriate more funding for Ukraine for the rest of this year—even when the $61 billion for weapons and Ukraine’s government run out by this late summer.
So what happens if and when the $61 billion is exhausted well before the November elections?
A possible answer to that question lies in the passage of a second Ukraine funding measure this past weekend.
The $61 billion was not the most important legislative action in the US House. While most of the media commentary has been on that Ukraine aid bill, hardly anything has been said in the mainstream media about another bill that the US House also passed over the weekend. This second measure has greater strategic implications for US global interests than the $37 billion in actual weapons shipments for Ukraine.This second measure is HR 8038, a 184 page bill misnamed the ‘21st Century Peace Through Strength Act’ which amounted to yet another package (the 16th?) of US sanctions.
Transferring Russia’s $300 Billion Assets to Ukraine
The first section of the bill arranges a procedure for the US to force the sale of the China company, Tik Tok, to a consortium of US financial investors, reportedly led by former US Treasury Secretary under Trump, Steve Mnuchin.This is part of the expanding list of sanctions on China.Also sanctioned are China purchases of Iranian oil, as well as a host of additional sanctions on Iran itself. However the most significant measure related to sanctions on Russia.
The 21st Century Peace Through Strength Act calls for the US to transfer its $5 billion share of Russia’s $300 billion of seized assets in Western banks that were frozen in 2022 at the outset of the Ukraine war. It provides a procedure to hand over the $5 billion to Ukraine to further finance its war efforts! This move has been rumored and debated in the USA and Europe since the assets were seized two years ago. But now the process of actually transferring the seized funds to Ukraine has begun with the passage of this second bill by the US House.
The USA’s $5 billion share in US banks is just a drop in the bucket of the $300 billion. Russia could probably care less about it, i.e. a mere ‘rounding error’ in its total revenue from sale of oil, gas and other commodities. But Europe holds $260 of the $300 billion, according to European Central Bank chair, Christine Lagarde.A tidy sum which Russia has threatened to retaliate against Europe should the EU follow the US/Biden lead and also begin to transfer its $260 billion to Ukraine.
The US bill is very clear that the transfer of the US’s $5 billion is imminent. The bill requires the Biden administration to establish a ‘Ukraine Defense Fund’ into which the US’s $5 billion will be deposited. If parts of the $5 billion are not in liquid asset form, the US president is further authorized by the bill to liquidate those assets and deposit the proceeds in the fund as well. So the seizure and transfer of the $5 billion to Ukraine is a done deal. And when it happens a legal precedent will be made that Europe may use to follow and transfer its $260 billion.
One can expect the US to pressure Europe strongly to do so. Biden is further authorized by the bill to ‘negotiate’ with Europe and other G7 partners to convince them to do the same—i.e. seize their share of the $300 billion, liquidate and then transfer the cash assets into the US ‘Ukraine Defense Fund’. And to date the US has been able to ‘convince’ Europe—via its control of NATO and influence over Europe’s economy and its umbrella political elites in the European Commission and European Parliament—to follow US policy without too much resistance.
Europe is fast becoming an economic satrapy and political dependency of the USA in recent decades, more than willing to bend in whatever policy direction the USA wants.
It is clear the seizure & redistribution to Ukraine of the $300 billion via the Ukraine Defense Fund is the means by which the US/NATO plan longer term to continue to finance the Ukraine war after the $61 billion runs out sometime in 2024; and certainly in 2025 and beyond. For the US has no intention of ending its NATO led proxy war in Ukraine anytime soon. It is just seeking to ‘buy time’ in the interim before its November elections.
For a majority of both parties in the US—Democrat and Republican—are united on continuing the war. It will matter little who wins the presidency or which party has majorities in Congress after November. Political elites on both sides of the aisle in Congress are united in pursuing the war in Ukraine—just as they are united in continuing to fund Israel as well as to continue the US’s steadily expanding economic war with China. In just the past week it is obvious more US sanctions on China are also coming soon, including possibly an announcements of financial sanctions on China for the first time after US Secretary of State, Blinken’s, most recent visit.
Failed Russian Sanctions: Past and Future
The geopolitical objectives of the US and its commitment to continuing its three wars are resulting in unintended, negative effects on the economies of the US and its G7 allies, especially Germany. But those same sanctions have had little to no negative impact on Russia’s economy.
The recently passed US transfer of its $5 billion share of Russia’s $300 billion will accelerate the negative consequences especially for Europe should the latter follow the US lead and distribute its $260 billion share to Ukraine, which it eventually will.
As EBC chairperson, Lagarde, put it referring to the US plan and legislation: “It needs to be carefully considered”. UK political leaders are already on record advocating the confiscation and transferring of Europe’s $260 billion holdings of Russian assets to Ukraine. Europe in recent years has a strong history of capitulating to US economic policies and demands. It will be no different this time.
Should Europe join the USA in transferring its $260 billion share of Russian assets in European banks (most of which is in Belgium), it’s almost certain that Russia will reply similarly and seize at least an equal amount of European assets still in Russia. The Russian Parliament has officially recently said as much.
Part of the G7/NATO sanctions to date included forcing Western businesses in Russia to liquidate and leave Russia. Some have done so. But many have not. Russia’s response has been to arrange the transfer of those EU companies’ assets that have left to Russian companies. This has actually stimulated the Russian economy. It resulted in Russian government subsidies—and thus government spending—to Russian companies assuming the assets, as well as additional investment by those companies after their acquisition of the departed EU companies’ assets.
In short, Western sanctions measure pressuring Western companies to leave Russia has backfired in its predicted result of reducing Russian government spending and business investment.
In contrast, the US/NATO’s 15 or so sanctions packages to date have had little, if any, impact on Russia’s economy since the commencing of the war in February 2022. To cite just a few of the performance of Russia’s key economic indicators under the sanctions regime: see this (note: all following data is from the US global research source).
Russia’s GDP in the latest six months has risen between 4.9% (3rd quarter 2023) and 5.5% (4th quarter). Russia’s PMI statistics show robust expansion for both manufacturing and services during the same period while in most of the major European economies both PMI indicators are contracting. Wage growth in Russia over the six months has averaged 8.5% for both quarters (whereas in the US is it less than half that and in Germany less than 1%).
Russian government revenues rose from roughly 5 trillion rubles in the third quarter to 8.7 trillion in the 4th. Military expenditures are up from $69.5 billion (dollars) to $86.3 billion. Consumer spending is at record levels in the latest quarter. Russian household debt as a percent of GDP remains steady at around 22% (whereas in the USA it is 62.5%). Crude oil production and general exports continue to steadily rise. Gasoline remains at 60 cents a liter (whereas in US five-six times that and in Europe more than ten times). And the unemployment rate in Russia remains steady at 2.9% (whereas in the US and Europe it’s a quarter to a half higher). Interest rates and inflation are higher in Russia but that represents an economy firing on all economic cylinders and is not necessarily a negative.
In short, it’s hard to find a single statistic that shows the Russian economy has been negatively impacted by the US/NATO sanctions regime over the past two years. Indeed, an argument can even be made the sanctions have stimulated the Russian economy not undermined it.
The latest sanction in the form of the US and G7 transfer of the $300 billion in seized Russian assets in western banks will almost for certain have a similar effect on Russia’s economy. Namely, distributing the $300 billion will result in Russian government seizure of at least an equivalent of European companies’ assets still in Russia. And that will provide funding for still further government subsidy spending benefiting Russian companies followed by more private investment.
Is the US Empire Shooting Itself in the Foot?
But there is an even greater consequence to follow the US and Europe’s desperate act of transferring Russia’s $300 billion in assets in Western banks to Ukraine.
Western bankers, economic policymakers, and many economists alike have warned against the seizure and transfer of the $300 billion. Heads of US and other central banks, CEOs of large commercial banks, and even mainstream economists like Shiller at Yale have continually warned publicly that transferring the assets will seriously undermine faith in the US dollar system which is the lynchpin of the US global economic empire.
What countries in the global South will now want to put (or leave) their assets in Western banks, especially in Europe, if they think the assets could be seized should they disagree on policies promoted by the empire? It’s clear the US has now begun to impose ‘secondary’ sanctions on countries that don’t abide by its primary sanctions on Russia. Will the US also seize the assets of these ‘secondary’ countries now in Western banks if they don’t go along with refusing to trade with Russia? And what about China, as the US has now begun to expand its sanctions—primary and secondary—on that country as well? Watch for unprecedented financial sanctions on China that may be forthcoming following Blinken’s visit to China this week.
The US does not realize this is not the 1980s. The global south has developed massively in recent decades. They are insisting on more independence and more say in the rules of the empire—without which they will simply leave now that an alternative is beginning to appear in the expansion of the BRICS countries.
Recently expanded to 10 members (all of which in the middle east and heavily oil producers), no fewer than 34 more countries have now petitioned to join the BRICS. Furthermore, it is reported that at the BRICS next conference in late 2024 an ‘alternative global financial framework’ will be announced! That will likely include some alternative currency arrangement as well as an alternative international payments system to replace the US SWIFT system (by which the USA via its banks can see who is violating its sanctions). Likely forthcoming will be something to replace the US-run IMF in order to ensure currency stability and an expansion of China’s Belt & Road as an alternative to the US run World Bank. (Perhaps that is the real topic of Blinken’s forthcoming China visit?)
In short, the US global economic empire is entering its most unstable period. And yet US policy is to accelerate alternatives to it by seizing and transferring funds to Ukraine to continue the war! The blowback from the seizure and transfer will prove significant, both to US and European interests. It will render past resistance to US sanctions pale in comparison.
How to Crash an Empire!
History will show that US geopolitical objectives and strategies in the 21st century were the single greatest cause of the decline of US global economic hegemony over the last quarter century. Much of those objectives and strategies have been the work of the most economically ignorant foreign policy team in US history, who are generally referred to as the Neocons.
The seizure and transfer of the $300 billion may provide a way to continue funding Ukraine in the US/NATO proxy war against Russia through 2024 and beyond. But the timing could not be worse for US/Europe imperial interests, coming on the eve of the historic BRICS conference later this year. The desperate act of seizure and transfer will only convince more countries of the global South to seek another more independent alternative by joining the BRICS, or increasingly trade with that bloc.
History shows empires rest ultimately on economic foundations. And they collapse when those underlying economic foundations fracture and then crumble.
The longer run consequence of the $300 billion transfer and the exiting of the global South from the US empire can only be the decline in the use of the US dollar in global transactions and as a reserve currency. That sets in motion a series of events that in turn undermine the US domestic economy in turn: Less demand for the dollar results in a fall in the dollar’s value. That means less recycling of dollars back to the US, resulting in less purchases of US Treasuries from the Federal Reserve, which in turn will require the Fed to raise long term interest rates for years to come in order to cover rising US budget deficits. All this will happen to an intensifying fiscal crisis of the US state rapidly deteriorating already.
In other words, blowback on the US economy from declining US global hegemony—exacerbated by sanctions in general and seizure of countries like Russia’s assets in particular—is almost certain in the longer run, just as it will be for Europe’s economy in the even more immediate term.
But such is the economic myopia of the US neocons and the incompetent political elite leadership in both parties in the USA in recent years. As that other American saying goes: ‘We have found the enemy and they are us!’
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s website, Jack Rasmus.
Dr. Rasmus is author of the books, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, 2017 and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, 2020. Follow his commentary on the emerging banking crisis on his blog, https://jackrasmus.com; on twitter daily @drjackrasmus; and his weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern and at https://alternativevisions.podbean.com.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“It is the function of mass agitation to exploit all the grievances, hopes, aspirations, prejudices, fears, and ideals of all the special groups that make up our society, social, religious, economic, racial, political. Stir them up. Set one against the other. Divide and conquer. That’s the way to soften up a democracy.”― J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit
“Nothing is real,” observed John Lennon, and that’s especially true of politics.
Much like the fabricated universe in Peter Weir’s 1998 film The Truman Show, in which a man’s life is the basis for an elaborately staged television show aimed at selling products and procuring ratings, the political scene in the United States has devolved over the years into a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.
This is the magic of the reality TV programming that passes for politics today.
Everything becomes entertainment fodder.
As long as we are distracted, entertained, occasionally outraged, always polarized but largely uninvolved and content to remain in the viewer’s seat, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny (or government corruption and ineptitude) in any form.
Studies suggest that the more reality TV people watch—and I would posit that it’s all reality TV, entertainment news included—the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between what is real and what is carefully crafted farce.
This doesn’t bode well for a citizenry able to sift through masterfully-produced propaganda in order to think critically about the issues of the day.
Yet look behind the spectacles, the reality TV theatrics, the sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions, and the stomach-churning, nail-biting drama that is politics today, and you will find there is a method to the madness.
We have become guinea pigs in a ruthlessly calculated, carefully orchestrated, chillingly cold-blooded experiment in how to control a population and advance a political agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.
This is how you persuade a populace to voluntarily march in lockstep with a police state and police themselves (and each other): by ratcheting up the fear-factor, meted out one carefully calibrated crisis at a time, and teaching them to distrust any who diverge from the norm through elaborate propaganda campaigns.
Add the government’s inclination to monitor online activity and police so-called “disinformation,” and you have the makings of a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.
This “policing of the mind” is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that “information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of what will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.”
However, when you have social media giants colluding with the government in order to censor so-called disinformation, all the while the mainstream news media, which is supposed to act as a bulwark against government propaganda, has instead become the mouthpiece of the world’s largest corporation (the U.S. government), the Deep State has grown dangerously out-of-control.
This has been in the works for a long time.
Veteran journalist Carl Bernstein, in his expansive 1977 Rolling Stone piece “The CIA and the Media,” reported on Operation Mockingbird, a CIA campaign started in the 1950s to plant intelligence reports among reporters at more than 25 major newspapers and wire agencies, who would then regurgitate them for a public oblivious to the fact that they were being fed government propaganda.
In some instances, as Bernstein showed, members of the media also served as extensions of the surveillance state, with reporters actually carrying out assignments for the CIA. Executives with CBS, the New York Times and Time magazine also worked closely with the CIA to vet the news.
In its article, “How the American government is trying to control what you think,” the Washington Postpoints out “Government agencies historically have made a habit of crossing the blurry line between informing the public and propagandizing.”
This is mind-control in its most sinister form.
The end goal of these mind-control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.
The government’s fear-mongering is a key element in its mind-control programming.
It’s a simple enough formula. National crises, global pandemics, reported terrorist attacks, and sporadic shootings leave us in a constant state of fear. The emotional panic that accompanies fear actually shuts down the prefrontal cortex or the rational thinking part of our brains. In other words, when we are consumed by fear, we stop thinking.
A populace that stops thinking for themselves is a populace that is easily led, easily manipulated and easily controlled whether through propaganda, brainwashing, mind control, or just plain fear-mongering.
Fear not only increases the power of government, but it also divides the people into factions, persuades them to see each other as the enemy and keeps them screaming at each other so that they drown out all other sounds. In this way, they will never reach consensus about anything and will be too distracted to notice the police state closing in on them until the final crushing curtain falls.
This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being brainwashed—manipulated—into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward.
It was almost 100 years ago when Bernays wrote his seminal work Propaganda:
“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
To this invisible government of rulers who operate behind the scenes—the architects of the Deep State—we are mere puppets on a string, to be brainwashed, manipulated and controlled.
All of the distracting, disheartening, disorienting news you are bombarded with daily is being driven by propaganda churned out by one corporate machine (the corporate-controlled government) and fed to the American people by way of yet another corporate machine (the corporate-controlled media).
“For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it,” writes investigative journalist Nick Davies.
So where does that leave us?
Americans should beware of letting others—whether they be television news hosts, political commentators or media corporations—do their thinking for them.
A populace that cannot think for themselves is a populace with its backs to the walls: mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all.
If not, if we continue to sit back and lose ourselves in political programming, we will remain a captive audience to a farce that grows more absurd by the minute.
*
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.
.
First published on January 29, 2024, revised February 1 and 4, 2024
Update. A New Wave of Criminal Initiatives
The ICJ Judgment of January 26, 2024 assigns the Netanyahu government representing the State of Israel –accused by the Republic of South Africa of genocide against the People of Palestine– with a mandate to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent and punish” those responsible for having committed “Genocidal Acts”. (under Article IV of the Genocide Convention)
Sounds contradictory? What the ICJ judgment intimates –from a twisted legal standpoint– is that Netanyahu’s Cabinet “appointed” to implement the “prevent and punish” mandate cannot be accused ofhaving committed“Genocidal Acts”.
In substance, this contradictory mandate –which was intended to protect the people of Gaza–, provides the Netanyahu government with a pretext to “prevent and punish” Palestinians for allegedly having committed genocidal acts against Israelis. i.e. Netanyahu can not “Prevent and Punish himself”. (See our detailed analysis below in the section on “Fake Justice”). (See The Republic of South Africa’s 84 page document submitted to the ICJ)
Video. Palestine. Fake Justice at the International Court of Justice
The ICJ not only refused to propose a “Cease Fire”, its January 26, 2024 Judgment failed to question the role of the Likud coalition government, which was largely responsible for the planning prior to October 7 of a comprehensive genocide agenda, with the support of Washington.
We had predicted that this vote would contribute to a new wave of criminal initiatives on the part of the Netanyahu government. On January 26, Netanyahu confirmed that the genocide was ongoing and would continue despite the ICJ Judgment.
“We will not compromise on anything less than total victory. That means eliminating Hamas, …”
Israel’s Plan: Mass Starvation
While rhetorical condemnations against Israel prevail, what the peace movement fails to acknowledge is that no legal obstruction or hindrance was formulated by the World Court with a view to curbing the tide of atrocities against Palestinians including an Israeli project to engineer starvation throughout the Gaza Strip.
“Gaza is experiencing mass starvation like no other in recent history. Before the outbreak of fighting in October, food security in Gaza was precarious, but very few children – less than 1% – suffered severe acute malnutrition, the most dangerous kind. Today, almost all Gazans, of any age, anywhere in the territory, are at risk.
There is no instance since the second world war in which an entire population has been reduced to extreme hunger and destitution with such speed. And there’s no case in which the international obligation to stop it has been so clear.”
These facts underpinned South Africa’s recent case against Israel at the international court of justice. The international genocide convention, article 2c, prohibits “deliberately inflicting [on a group] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. (Guardian)
Washington Supports the Genocide. The Issue of “Conflict of Interest” and “Recusal”
What is at stake is the criminalization of the international judicial process. The ICJ has granted Israel with the full endorsement of the U.S. a de facto “green light” to continue and “escalate the genocide”.
Criminal acts are now being committed in the occupied West Bank, coupled with an increase in the deployment of IDF forces.
In Gaza, IDF commanders have ordered soldiers to “Setting fire to homes belonging to non-combatant civilians, for the mere purpose of punishment”,
Barely a few days after the ICJ Judgment, plans were announced to establish a cohesive network of Jewish settlements in Gaza.
The Biden administration responding to Netanyahu has ordered to cut funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is slated to trigger famine and the collapse of social services:
UNRWA provides food, shelter, health care, education … for the 5.7 million UNRWA-registered Palestinian refugees in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 1-4, 2024, April 25, 2024
.
.
Part I
.
The Criminalization of International Law
.
“Fake Justice” at The Hague
.
The ICJ “Appoints” Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish”
.
Those Responsible for “Genocidal Acts”
by
Michel Chossudovsky
Introduction
While the ICJ has rejected Israel’s attempt to dismiss South Africa’s assertions, the Judgment –which is full of contradictions– is ultimately supportive of the Likud government.
Moreover, no ceasefire was declared by the ICJ with a view to saving lives. Since October 7, amply documented, the atrocities committed against the People of Palestine are beyond description. At least 10,000 children have been killed: “That is one Palestinian child killed every 15 minutes… Thousands more are missing under the rubble, most of them are presumed dead.”
Of significance: The Judgment intimates that the Israeli military rather than the Netanyahu government should be held responsible for committing criminal acts in violation of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. What this “statement” suggests is that “Netanyahu’s hands are clean”. Nonsense!
There is ample evidence that the genocide was carefully planned well in advance of October 7, 2023 by Netanyahu’s Cabinet.
There is a command structure within the Israeli military. Israeli soldiers and pilots obey the “illegal orders” emanating from the Netanyahu government.
The ICJ is under Washington’s Spotlight.Let us be under no illusions, the U.S has firmly endorsed Israel’s criminal undertaking:
“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 unfoundedand 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. Al Jazeera, January 26, 2024, emphasis added)
The President of the ICJ Joan E. Donoghue was a legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the Obama administration. Joan Donoghue takes her instructions from Washington.
Moreover, the conduct of the genocide is a joint Israel-US endeavor with US forces involved in Israel’s combat units.
Nobody in the media nor in the peace movement has underscored the fact that the President of the ICJ is de facto in “conflict of interest”.
“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.” (Karsten Riise, Global Research emphasis added)
Video: Palestine. “Fake Justice” and Genocide
Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media
The Crimes Committed by Israel are “Genocidal In Character”
According to The Republic of South Africa —referring to Article II of the Genocide Convention–, the crimes committed by the State of Israel “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group. …”:
“The acts in question include killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.
… That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard inter alia to Israel’s failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine.
The acts are all attributable to [The state of] Israel, which has failed to prevent genocide and is committing genocide in manifest violation of the Genocide Convention. … “ (emphasis added)
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers [politicians], public officials or private individuals
The main actors behind the genocide against Palestine are the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers”,namely “civilian politicians”.
In the Judgment –referring to Article IV— (see below) the ICJ calls upon the Netanyahu government acting on behalf of the State of Israel, to prevent and punish those individuals who allegedly committed crimes of genocide:
“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. (ICJ, emphasis added)
The exact text of the motion is:
“The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;…”
What the ICJ judgment intimates is that the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” acting on behalf of the State of Israel (identified in Article IV), namely the members of Netanyahu’s Cabinet are “Innocent”. They cannot “prevent and punish” themselves.
And that is where “Fake Justice” comes in
“Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” Netanyahu, Galant, Ben-Gvir, Katz, Smotrich, et al are the architects of the Genocide. Yet they have been assigned by the ICJ with a mandate “To Prevent and Punish the Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide…” (See text of Motion above).
The CRRs within Netanyahu’s Cabinet acting on behalf of the State of Israel-– who carefully planned prior to October 7, 2023 a genocidal attack against the People of Palestine have been “appointed” by the ICJ to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish”“public officials”, “private individuals”, members of the Military who are carrying out acts of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”.
Prevention and Punishment is not contemplated against Israel’s Netanyahu Clique of CRRs “who have blood on their hands.”
What does this imply?
De facto the main architects of the genocide are the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” —referred to in Article IV of the Genocide Convention.— (It’s as if the Category “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers” had been removed from Article IV of the Genocide Convention).
Under present circumstances, this “take all measures within its power” concept is tantamount to the criminalization of International Law: The CRRs “Criminals in High Office” (Netanayahu et al) are invited to take law enforcement in their own hands.
The option to entrust Netanyahu’s Cabinet with the “Prevent and Punish” assignment was a decision of the World Court. The 17 Judges could have demanded that the Israeli government cease all genocidal actions. They could also have recommended that the “prevent and punish” mandate be assigned to a United Nations body, including the UN Security Council.
The Netanyahu government has ordered the most hideous crimes against the People of Palestine.
And now the World Court has instructed a criminal government led by Netanyahu (who has a criminal record) to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish” “public officials, “private individuals” (Article IV) as well as combatants within the Israeli military.
Visibly, the prevent and punish requirement is not meant to apply to the so-called “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)”, namely “civilian politicians” (i.e. “the good guys”) namely the “REAL CRIMINALS” in blatant contradiction of Article IV.
It’s an absurd proposition. It unfortunately disallows Netanyahu to “prevent and punish himself”.
And this is really what is required under international law.
Ceasefire Denied
While the Court acknowledges that criminal acts may have been committed by the State of Israel, it categorically refuses South Africa’s provisional demands including a “Ceasefire”, which would have served to interrupt at least temporarily the ongoing atrocities against the People of Palestine.
Does this not constitute a “criminal act” by the ICJ, which indelibly will result in countless deaths of Palestinian civilians? Or is a “mistake” in the formulation of the Motion?
What this signifies is that Netanyahu’s Genocide (from a strategic angle) is virtually unscathed, while sustaining rhetorical and meaningless condemnations against the State of Israel.
Throughout history, wars and war crimes have invariably been instigated by “civilian politicians”.
The Israeli military has been “Obeying Illegalorders” emanating from a government which is firmly committed to the conduct of genocide against the People of Palestine.
And now the IJC Judgment enables Israel’s “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers”, namelycivilian politicians to place the blame on the Israeli Military.
In a bitter irony, the ICJ’s “prevent and punish mandate” will allow the Netanyahu clique to reinforce their stranglehold on the Israeli protest movement as well as target Israelis who have taken a firm stance against the genocide.
The Road Ahead: Resistance within the Armed Forces. “Disobey Illegal Orders. Abandon the Battlefield”
There is resistance within the Armed Forces. Voices within Israel’s military have spoken out against the Netanyahu government. There is a Protest Movement in Israel.
In response to the ICJ slanted decision, what is required is to initiate a Worldwide campaign entitled:
The objective is to undermine the conduct of the genocide as well reverse the course of history.
It is a proposal which sofar has not been the object of debate by anti-war activists in solidarity with Palestine.
Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter defines the responsibility of combatants “to refuse the orders of Government or a superior … “provided a moral choice [is] possible“.
Based on the Nuremberg Charter, what is required is a campaign encouraging:
Israeli, American and NATO Combatants to “Disobey Unlawful Orders” and “Abandon the Battlefield”.
The Campaign would focus on making that“moral choice” possible, namely to enable enlisted Israeli, American, and NATO service men and women to “Abandon the Battlefield”.
The Abandon the Battlefield campaign will in large part be waged in Israel. In regards to Israel, already there are unfolding divisions in the IDF command structures, political divisions, coupled with a mass protest movement against Netanyahu. The use of a False Flag justification to wage the Genocide is amply documented.
IDF soldiers and commanders must be informed and briefed on the significance of Nuremberg Principle IV.
Inasmuch as the U.S. and its allies are waging a hegemonic war in major regions of the World, Abandon the Battlefield should be a call for action by the anti-war movement Worldwide.
Now let me turn my attention to Nuremberg Principle VI, which defines the crimes punishable under The Nuremberg Charter.
Nuremberg Charter. Principle VI
Both Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu as well as President Joe Biden are responsible for “war crimes”, “crimes against peace” and “crimes against humanity” as defined under Principle VI of the Nuremberg Charter:
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).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill- treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds.
“The fact that a person [e.g. Israeli, U.S.soldiers, pilots] acted pursuant to order of his [her] Government or of a superior does not relieve him [her] from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him [her].”
Let us make that “moral choice” possible, to enlisted Israeli, American, and NATO service men and women.
Let us call upon Israeli and American soldiers and pilots “to abandon the battlefield”, as an act of refusal to participate in a criminal undertaking against the People of Gaza.
While it is predicated on international law, its conduct does not require the political rubber stamp of the ICJ. It is part of a grassroots campaign in Israel and the Middle East as well as Worldwide.
Solidarity With Palestine
Let us have tears to our eyes in solidarity with the People of Palestine, in building a mass movement Worldwide, which confronts the ongoing slaughter before our very eyes.
Let us recall The Christmas Truce of 1914, more than 109 years ago:
“Something happened in the early months of the “War to End All Wars” that put a tiny little blip of hope in the historical timeline of the organized mass slaughter that is war. The event was regarded by the professional military officer class to be so profound and so important (and so disturbing) that strategies were immediately put in place that would ensure that such an event could never happen again.” (Dr. Gary G. Kohls)
The men learned in many ways that the official enemy was in fact not the real enemy, that the soldiers on the other side were human beings just like themselves.” (Dr. Jacques Pauwels)
Let It Happen Again
Today, we are “fraternizing” and acting in solidarity Worldwide with the People of Palestine against the hegemonic agenda of the U.S. and it allies which are waging an all-out war against humanity.
Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter defines the rights of soldiers and pilots who have the responsibility to Disobey Illegal Orders and Abandon the Battlefield
Nuremberg Principle IV is not only a “Legal Text”, It is A Guiding Light in a Worldwide campaign against Acts of Genocide.
O Grupo dos Sete (Estados Unidos, Canadá, Grã-Bretanha, Alemanha, França, Itália e Japão), convocado por Giorgia Meloni e atualmente presidido pela Itália, “condenou inequivocamente e nos termos mais fortes o ataque direto e sem precedentes do Irão contra Israel”. Em seguida, expressou “total solidariedade e apoio a Israel” e reafirmou “o nosso empenhamento na sua segurança”. O G7 não menciona o facto de os ataques com drones e mísseis terem sido uma resposta ao ataque israelita ao consulado iraniano em Damasco, na Síria, no qual mais de dez diplomatas e funcionários foram mortos. Ignora o facto de o governo iraniano ter avisado muito antes a Casa Branca da ação de demonstração que iria levar a cabo.
Assim, os EUA e a Grã-Bretanha – que há muito tempo têm forças aéreas, navais e terrestres no Médio Oriente – poderiam facilmente abater muitos dos drones e mísseis iranianos, enquanto Israel utilizou sistemas de mísseis fornecidos pelos EUA para os abater. Os EUA e a Alemanha fornecem 99% das importações de armas de Israel. Sessenta e nove por cento das importações de armas israelitas provêm de fabricantes americanos, enquanto 30% são fornecidas por fabricantes alemães. Estes enormes fornecimentos de armas permitem a Israel conduzir uma guerra de alta intensidade em Gaza e, ao mesmo tempo, levar a cabo uma escalada de ataques no Líbano e na Síria. Tudo isto faz parte do plano através do qual os EUA e os seus aliados procuram manter o seu domínio sobre esta região, que estão a perder, através da guerra.
O Irão está na mira destes países, sobretudo porque se tornou membro dos BRICS, juntamente com a Rússia e a China, e desempenha um papel fundamental como eixo do Corredor Norte-Sul da Rússia e da Nova Rota da Seda da China. A Alemanha forneceu a Israel cinco submarinos da classe Dolphin e está prestes a entregar um sexto. Outros três submarinos da classe Dakar, destinados a Israel, serão também construídos pela empresa alemã Thyssenkrupp ao abrigo de um contrato de 3 mil milhões de euros.
Todos os submarinos Dolphin foram modificados pela Thyssenkrupp para poderem lançar mísseis de ponta nuclear, como o americano Popeye Turbo. Os novos submarinos Dakar, que a Alemanha fornecerá a Israel, proporcionarão uma maior capacidade de ataque nuclear. Isto permite a Israel manter submarinos de ataque nuclear permanentemente ao longo da costa do Irão, enquanto outros mísseis nucleares estão prontos para serem lançados em plataformas aéreas e terrestres, visando o Irão e outros países da região.
Manlio Dinuccié geógrafo e jornalista, antigo diretor executivo italiano da organização International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, galardoada com o Prémio Nobel da Paz em 1985. Porta-voz do Comitato no Guerra no Nato (Itália) e investigador associado do CRM (Canadá). Vencedor do Prémio Internacional de Jornalismo de Análise Geoestratégica 2019 do Club de Periodistas de México.
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.
Investment in this kind of equipment is huge. In 2016, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defence Studies wrote:
Overall, it has been estimated that public and private sector neuro S/T investment is around$150 billion annually. Let us see that amongst this equipment are weapons that are actually being used against unwitting citizens.
On October 19th and November 30th,1991, the Russian daily Komsomolskaya Pravda published two articlesabout the case of a former colonel of the Russian secret service KGB, who complained that he was exposed to the effects of “psychotronic generators,“ and his case was presented to Moscow prosecutor’s office, which started investigation.
As a reaction to those articles the Komsomolskaya Pravda received 400 letters from people, who were convinced, that they were exposed to this kind of radiation as well.
Russian prosecutors started an investigation of those complaints and the experts registered (with the use of measuring equipment) intensive directed electromagnetic radiation in ten Moscow apartments of which the inhabitants complained about it.
At that point the investigation was stopped. The information on this investigation was republished in 1999 in the book by Russian politician Vladimir Lopatin and Russian scientist Vladimir Tsyganko, “Psychotronic weapon and security of Russia”.
In the middle of March 2016, the Polish minister of defence Antoni Macierewicz visited the University of Father Tadeusz Rydzyk to participate in the discussion on the subject “Problems of actual politics, military conflicts and terrorism”.
One of the listeners asked him if Poland has a strategy addressing the illegal experiments with electromagnetic weapons on Polish citizens.
The minister replied that his ministry is performing an analysis aimed at finding outin what regions of Poland the people, who are complaining about such attacks, are living and that, according to preliminary information, most of the complaints originatefrom Lower Silesia and north-western Poland.
He also stated that in about half a year he will know more and promised to establish a commission to investigate those complaints. His words ranthrough practically all of the Polish media, but no major media in any other European or Western state have mentioned it. The Polish defense minister was the first top politician in the European Union and in the whole world who confirmed publicly the existence of electromagnetic weapons, and the fact that those weapons affect humans (in January 2017 was removed from office).
Since the major European media did not report on this issue (and on Polish news), we may then conclude that the European Union Member states, which are also NATO Member states, are bound to keep those weapons in secret and are even bound not to legislate against their use.
This conclusion was confirmed by the Polish weekly NIE half a year later. Its journalists asked the Polish Defense Ministry why it did not fulfill its promise and did not establish a commission to investigate the complaints of Polish citizens, who claimed that they were exposed to electromagnetic attacks. The defense ministry replied that this topic is subjected to national security information connected with the defense of the nation. In its article the weekly admitted that the electromagnetic weapon could be used to manipulate brain activity of individual humans or masses of people. The Polish organization STOPZET,made up of people claiming to be victims of experimentation with mind control weapons, has 160 members.
It is evident that governments are experimenting with those technologies on their or foreign citizens to get ready to use them against dissidents or masses of people in case of uprising or against enemies in the case of war.
What do people, who are exposed to those attacks, experience? Nathalie from France wrote in her testimony:
“I was fired from my job based solely upon a medical officer’s simple notice, who had declared that I was unfit for any work whatsoever…
Meanwhile, mind control did everything for me to be discredited in the others’ eyes and be considered a mental patient by my family, my friends, my colleagues. They even made me write an article in the media!…
I no longer have thoughts for myself, I have no more memory, nor the capacity to concentrate.
Two hours’ sleep per night, sometimes three hours and a half! Other people speak in my place. Sometimes, I have a feeling that thoughts are being sent to me, sometimes I feel nothing. I cannot speak on my own any longer, This is done by other people. The only thing which I can do is to choose to say or not to say what they send… They ‘send’ me pains, so that I have to give up relaxing and allowing myself a little rest… They have removed my emotions, little by little. Although I cry all the time, they keep creating states in which I can no longer cry nor feel whatsoever. There’s perhaps a borderline in their lack of empathy and their coldness… They tortured me for five years, they’ve prevented me from living for five years. They take pleasure in humiliating me sexually and belittling me, they take pleasure in humiliating me intellectually, in my feminine position and estranging me from my family.”
Very often those people end up in mental hospitals. In the article published by Space & Defense Journal of the United States Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, we can read:
“Neuroweapons are intended to influence, direct, weaken, suppress, or neutralize human thought, brainwave functions, perception, interpretation, and behaviors to the extent that the target of such weaponry is either temporarily or permanently disabled, mentally compromised, or unable to function normally“.
On June 21, 2021, The symposium on Cognitive Warfare was organized by the NATO-ACT Innovation Hub and the Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Cognitique (ENSC) in Bordeaux, France, with the support of the French Armed Forces Joint Staff, the STO and Région Nouvelle Aquitaine Cognitive-Warfare-Symposium-ENSC-March-2022-Publication.pdf (innovationhub-act.org). There is hardly any doubt that the experimentation with those weapons is carried out in France as well.
Chinese whistleblowing New Tang Dynasty Televisionaired a program on Chinese “Targeted individuals” (TIs) attacked by electromagnetic weapons. There it stated that the Chinese research on electromagnetic weapons started in the 1970s and admitted that the Chinese goverment is experimenting with those weapons on Chinese citizens. One of them, Lee Chun Ze, had been complaining for 15 years to the National Security Bureau in Heng Yang through phone, mail and handcarried mails. During the 15-year long experience, Lee has basically been stripped clean of any personal wealth. According to him, there were over 1,000 people in China, who gave their names to the Chinese organization of targeted individuals (TIs). The television gave another estimate by Chinese TIs according to which there were 20,000 TIs in China. Last year, the Washington Times published an article on Chinese mind control weapons, proving the point of the New Tang Dynasty television. Let us note that in Western democracy, only Polish internet NTV television published materials disclosing the existence of mind-control experimentation and complaints of “targeted individuals” in Poland.Even on the internet in the “democratic” West no other such television exists.
The number of people complaining of such attacks is constantly growing around the world.“In 2014, Japan launched the Brain/ MINDS Initiative”. In 2016 the leader of Japanese organization of people, claiming to be attacked in this way, said that ten years ago the organization had about 200 membersat the conference of the organization. In 2016, it had 400 members and the organisation was contacted by 1522 people.
Some 20 years ago the directrice of the American organization “Mind Justice” Cheryl Welsh claimed that she was contacted by about two and half thousand Americans. According to Derrick Robinson, the former head of the U.S. organization “Citizens Against Harmful Technology”, there are 4,000-5,000 e-mail participants in the activities of the organization.
On June 10, 2016, The New York Times published an article titled “United States of Paranoia” about Americans claiming to be victims of neurotechnological attacks. It wrote abouta “group organized around the conviction that its members are victims of a sprawling conspiracy to harass thousands of everyday Americans with mind-control weapons and armies of so-called gang stalkers. The goal, as one gang-stalking website put it, is ‘to destroy every aspect of a targeted individual’s life’. The New York Times stated:
“The community, conservatively estimated to exceed 10,000 members, has proliferated since 9/11”.
The author of this article has experienced the high rise of Americans, who were contacting him, looking for help, after 9/11 attacks. In the U.S. army project focusing on the use of neurotechnology for global control of minds of people around the world from the year 1994 we can read:
“In the pre-RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) days, psychological operations and psychological warfare were primitive. As they advanced into the electronic and bioelectronic era, it was necessary to rethink our ethical prohibitions on manipulating the minds of enemies (and potential enemies) both international and domestic… Through persistent efforts and very sophisticated domestic ‘consciousness raising’, old-fashioned notions of personal privacy and national sovereignty changed“.
Attacks of 9/11 was evidently the kind of event that could be part of this consciousness-raising campaign.
From what was said above, it is obvious that governments are using their citizens as experimental animals to perfect their weapons against people in case that they would need to use it against them. The European Union made brave attempt to take the first step in the international ban of enslaving people by modern neurotechnologies, but was discouraged by the USA cutting their future supplies of liquefied gas .There is still a chance to help the European Union break through the classification of the existence of those means and achieve their international ban: You can sign a petition.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Mojmir Babacek was born in 1947 in Prague, Czech Republic. Graduated in 1972 at Charles University in Prague in philosophy and political economy. In 1978 signed the document defending human rights in communist Czechoslovakia „Charter 77“. Since 1981 until 1988 lived in emigration in the USA. Since 1996 he has published articles on different subjects mostly in the Czech and international alternative media.
In 2010, he published a book on the 9/11 attacks in the Czech language. Since the 1990‘s he has been striving to help to achieve the international ban of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system and human minds with the use of neurotechnology.
Featured image: The coilgun China unveiled on state media to break up riots.Source: CCTV
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.
(2021, Rauf et al) – Berberine as a Potential Anticancer Agent: A Comprehensive Review
(2020, Wang et al) – The Anti-Cancer Mechanisms of Berberine: A Review
(2020, Samadi et al) – Berberine: A novel therapeutic strategy for cancer
(2021, Rauf et al) – Berberine as a Potential Anticancer Agent: A Comprehensive Review
Plants produce numerous distinct natural products—secondary metabolites—such as terpenoids, phenolics, and alkaloids
alkaloids have remarkable biological and pharmacological properties such as antifungal, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, anticancer, antihypercholesterolemic, antidiabetic, and antimicrobial
berberine is an alkaloid derived from roots of various plants such as Berberis vulgaris, B. aristotle, B. aquifolium, Hydrastus canadensis, Pellodendron chenins, and Coptis rhizomes
berberine is abundantly present in several species of barberry and goldenseal that are native to America and Asia
berberine is a crystal yellow-colored isoquinoline alkaloid traditionally used in Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine.
Recently, scientists have reported that Berberine possesses broad-spectrum therapeutic potential due to its action against various ailments such as diabetes, hypertension, depression, obesity, inflammation, and cancer
Breast Cancer
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype. Berberine was cytotoxic against all treated TNBC cell lines
berberine induced cell cycle arrest and significant apoptosis, does not affect viability of normal breast cells.
berberin also reverses resistance to chemo (doxorubicin).
Colon Cancer
berberin increases apoptosis of colorectal cancer cells
berberin inhibits invasion and metastasis of CRC cells
Pancreatic Cancer
inhibits DNA synthesis and proliferation of pancreatic adenoca cells
In vivo – reduces growth of tumors by 70% in mice
berberine damages mitochondria of pancreatic cancer cells and dysregulates their energy metabolism processes
berberine also blocks fatty acid biosynthesis, inhibits proliferation of pancratic cancer cells by regulating citrate metabolism.
Gastric Cancer
Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) can cleave all extracellular matrix components and contribute to malignant cell invasion and metastasis. Gastric cancer has been linked to four matrix metalloproteinases
berberine suppresses gastric cancer growth and migration by generating ROS (reactive oxygen species), decreases NF-κB and inhibits matrix metalloproteinases gene expression.
berberine reduced cisplatin resistance of gastric cancer cells
Liver Cancer
Berberine can cause cell cycle arrest in hepatocellular carcinoma cells
Oral Cancer
berberine greatly improved expression of proapoptotic factors while downregulating anti-apoptotic factors.
In vivo – berberine inhibited tumorigenicity and development of EBV positive nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Bone Cancer
In vitro and in vivo administration of BBR to osteosarcoma cells reduces the expression of caspase-1 and Interleukin-1 (IL-1) in tumor cells and inhibits tumor cell development.
Glioblastoma (Brain Cancer)
In vivo – berberine decreases tumor growth in glioblastoma cells in vivo
berberine reduces inflammation, induces apoptosis
Skin Cancer
berberine decreased number of viable melanoma cells, suppressed migration and invasion of melanoma cells.
In vivo – combined effect of berberine with doxorubicin treatment on murine melanoma caused a reduction in tumor weight (78%) and volume (85%)
Endometrial Cancer
Berberine has been reported to be an effective natural alkaloid having antiendometrial cancer properties.
According to in vitro and in vivo studies, berberine inhibited proliferation, migration, and invasion as well as metastasis in endometrial cancers
Prostate Cancer
berberine suppresses capacity of prostate cancer cells to spread and infiltrate in castration-resistant prostate cancer
Conclusion
“Berberin’s direct cytotoxic impact is not considered very powerful…slow absorption, efflux from intestial cells and comprehensive metabolism by intestinal and hepatic cells render difficult its use in vivo.”
(2020, Wang et al) – The Anti-Cancer Mechanisms of Berberine: A Review
Berberine regulates cell cycle and inhibits proliferation in multiple cancers (lung, colorectal, hepatoma, breast)
in chondrosarcoma cells, berberine upregulated expression of p53 and p21 which resulted in cell cycle arrest
Berberine regulates cancer cell apoptosis – shown in leukemia (ALL), hepatoma, colon cancer
Berberine regulates cell autophagy – Autophagy is a form of programmed cell death
effect shown in glioblastoma, breast cancer, hepatoma
berberine also reverses drug resistance by regulating autophagy
effects of berberine on autophagy are complicated as it can either inhibit or induce autophagy to exert anti-tumor effects
Berberine Inhibits Cell Invasion and Metastasis – does this through multiple pathways, shown in breast cancer triple negative, melanoma,
Berberine inhibits angiogenesis – by inhibiting the expression of VEGF
Berberine Regulates Tumor Microenvironment (shown in osteosarcoma)
Berberine has an effect on microRNAs
More than 2500 microRNAs have been identified, and over-expression of many microRNAs has been shown to be closely related to onset and development of tumors
berberine inhibits cancer invasion and metastasis by regulating the expression of microRNAs or interacting with them
shown in colon cancer, endometrial cancer, multiple myeloma and hepatoma
Berberine regulates telomerase activity – reverses tumor cell immortalization by inhibiting telomerase activity (normal cells have inhibited telomerase activity, abnormal activation of telomerase results in immortalization in tumor cells)
Conclusion:
“Although Berberine exerts beneficial effects that may aid in the treatment of tumors, the efficacy of Berberine is limited by poor solubility in water, rapid metabolism, and low absorption rate in intestines. Therefore, development of formulations that improve absorption of Berberine in the intestines may have great potential for treatment of cancer”
“Berberine has been shown to inhibit cell proliferation and angiogenesis through modulating cell cycle, cell apoptosis, cell autophagy, and the tumor microenvironment. This review emphasized that Berberine as a potential anti-inflammation and antioxidant agent, also as an effective immunomodulator, is expected to achieve clinical application for cancer therapy.”
(2020, Samadi et al) – Berberine: A novel therapeutic strategy for cancer
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), herbal remedies have been continued to be the most common and primary health sources for more than half of the global population
Current Chemotherapy derived from herbs:
“There are four main structural categories of anticancer compounds being derived from herbs, namely vinca alkaloids (vincristine, vinblastine, vindesine, vinorelbine), epipodophyllotoxin lignans, taxane diterpenoids (paclitaxel, docetaxel), and camptothecin quinoline alkaloid derivatives.”
Chinese medicine physicians began using CR to treat eye inflammation, diarrhea, and abdominal disorders in women
In the 1800s, Berberine established as an herbal drug in North American traditional medicine and used to treat chronic inflammation such as gastric infections, respiratory disorders, and cancer, but eventually lost its value in Western folk medicine
new studies have shown that BBR has antitumor effects such as antiproliferation, apoptosis, cell-cycle arrest, anti-invasion, inhibition of metastasis, and cytotoxicity
significant proportion of the antitumor agents presently used in the clinical setting can naturally occur such as vincristine, vinblastine and paclitaxel
There are several specific herbal products including alkaloids, flavonoids, lignans, saponins, terpenes, taxanes, which play major role in inhibiting proteins, enzymes, and cancer cell signaling pathways.
Berberine
main sources of Berberine are rhizome, roots, and stem bark of Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis), Barberry (Berberis vulgaris), Coptis (Coptis chinensis), tree turmeric (Berberis aristata), and Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium)
Berberine has limited oral bioavailability in both humans and animals less than 5%, due to strong liver extraction, self-aggregation in the stomach and small intestine acidic environment, and first pass intestinal removal.
Despite its low bioavailability, berberine has show great therapeutic efficacy in treatment of a number of diseases including cancer.
berberine has anti-inflammatory effects and has been used as an effective therapeutic agent for Inflammatory bowel disease for years.
Berberine – Anti-cancer effects
Berberine induces apoptosis through two main pathways, stimulating both intrinsic and extrinsic apoptosis pathways.
Berberine can induce cell cycle arrest
Berberine can both stimulate and inhibit autophagy
Berberine inhibits autophagy and protects the kidney from destructive effects of cisplatin chemotherapy (nephroprotective)
Berberine inhibits metastasis and invasion
Conclusion:
“Berberine (BBR), a natural isoquinoline alkaloid, is known as an outstanding biologically active natural product. It has efficient properties against different types of cancer. Reports have emphasized the great potential of BBR in inducing cancer cell death by stimulating both apoptosis and autophagy. Different studies reported that BBR could prevent the proliferation of cancer cells by inhibiting the molecules involved in cell cycle regulation and therefore, trigger cell cycle arrest in cancerous cells. In addition, many studies have examined the effect of BBR on the inhibition of metastasis and invasion of malignant cancer cells and reported this natural product to be efficient in the treatment of malignant and invasive cancers by inhibiting the expression of proteins involved in metastasis.”
My Take…
In building an alternative treatment approach to Cancer, it is important to look at a number of categories of potential treatments:
BERBERINE falls into the category of “Bioactive Compounds” – available as supplements.
How to use Berberine? I would look at specific cancers that it has been shown to be effective for and the results of any in vivo (mice) studies.
Animal studies are promising in glioblastoma, pancreatic cancer, melanoma, endometrial, nasopharyngeal, osteosarcoma. Most of these have poor prognosis, so adding Berberine makes a lot of sense.
Berberine also reverses chemo resistance in breast cancer and gastric cancer.
Finally, Berberine inhibits the invasiveness and migration of a number of cancers including breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, melanoma, and others.
*
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.
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.
Where is the logic? Cuba, a country that does no harm to anyone and sends more doctors worldwide than the World Health Organization, has been harshly sanctioned for more than 60 years.
The apartheid state of Israel, on the other hand, is carrying out a genocide before our eyes, yet no economic sanctions are imposed against the country. On the contrary, it continues to receive billions of dollars in aid and loads of heavy weapons to carry out its massacres.
What are the reasons for this double scandal?
Punish the Example
Despite its illegal nature, the economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba has been the centrepiece of US policy towards the island since the victory of the revolution in 1959. This policy is described by Chomsky as “Washington’s hysterical dedication to crush Cuba”.
There are several reasons for this obsession. At the end of the 19th century, Cuba was incorporated as a neocolony. Since then, the United States had controlled important parts of the Cuban economy and did not want to lose that.
But above all, it was unacceptable for a country barely 180 km from the US to take a progressive course. Moreover, that might encourage other countries to follow suit. Therefore, this revolution had to be nipped in the bud.
According to a 1960 memo from the State Department,
“every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba.” The aim was to “to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the government”.
Soon after, the Eisenhower administration imposed an embargo that would later turn into an economic blockade (also pressuring third countries to end their economic relations with Cuba). The first goal of the economic sanctions was to overthrow the revolution and, if that failed, to hurt the country as much as possible so that Cuban socialism would not be an example for other countries.
And the role model had to be destroyed not only in Latin America but also in the US itself. A quarter of US citizens say they themselves or a family member postpone treatment for a serious medical condition because of the cost. Studying is reserved only for the more affluent or for students willing to get heavily into debt.
Cuba is 90 miles (145 kilometers) south of Florida. (From the Public Domain)
Such situations are unthinkable in Cuba, where being sick or studying is not a luxury. Purchasing power is much lower than in the US, but healthcare and education are free. A black resident in the US dies on average six years earlier than a Cuban, and infant mortality in Cuba is lower than it is in the land of the free.
Through trial and error, Cuba has succeeded in building a different society in which the social, intellectual and cultural development of the population is central. Despite severe economic sanctions, Cuba achieves scores around the average got by members of the OECD, the club of rich countries, in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, educational level, etc.
Cuba achieves this high social score with an income per capita that is eight times lower than that of the US. If Cuba can do that with so few resources and despite the blockade, what achievements would the US not be capable of?
Currently, 30,000 Cuban health workers operate in 66 countries, including Italy. Over the past 60 years, Cuban doctors have treated two billion people around the world. If the US and Europe made the same effort as Cuba, together they would send more than two million doctors to the world and the shortage of health workers in the South would be solved overnight.
The Longest and Most Extensive Economic Blockade in History
Is that also why Cuba is so targeted? Anyway, the US government itself declares that the blockade against Cuba is “the most comprehensive set of U.S. economic sanctions on any country”. The aim is to isolate the island economically as much as possible from the rest of the world, thus hurting it as much as possible.
Under Trump, that isolation was increased to an unprecedented level, with 243 tough new sanctions and the inclusion of Cuba on the US list of State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT). The latter means that Cuba is excluded from international banking transactions and it is becoming increasingly difficult to purchase basic necessities such as fuel, food, medicine and hygiene products.
Biden has retained these tightened sanctions almost in their entirety, with disastrous consequences. This has caused a shortage of food, medicine and energy. During the pandemic, the US even prevented the delivery of ventilators to Cuba when the country was in dire need of them, a measure resulting in many deaths. According to a UN Convention (Article II, b and c), it is therefore correct to describe the blockade as a genocide.
The extraterritorial nature of the blockade makes establishing economic relations with Cuba impossible or risky for European companies or financial institutions. This is a blatant violation of international law and an assault on European sovereignty. But the EU undergoes this submission, effectively making itself complicit in the US sanctions regime.
Last November, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned the US blockade against Cuba for the 30th year on end. 185 countries voted in favour, the only country that refused to join the US in condemning the blockade was … Israel.
It is therefore interesting to examine that country and its relationship with the US.
One of the Most Destructive Military Campaigns in History
While Cuba has been in the crosshairs of the US for more than sixty years and has been hit by the longest economic blockade in history, the Jewish state is allowed just about anything.
Experts say the military campaign in Gaza is “among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history.” On an industrial scale, civilians are being killed and entire neighbourhoods flattened. This is done with the help of state-of-the-art technology, including artificial intelligence.
In addition to carrying out devastating ‘carpet bombings’, Israel is deliberately starving Palestinian civilians, according to a top UN expert. Officially, the aim is the elimination of Hamas. But the ferocity and ruthlessness of the operation betrays that it is pretext for making the area uninhabitable and deporting the population completely.
In January, the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled that there is sufficient evidence to investigate Israel on charges of genocide. For Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories, the ” the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide against Palestinians as a group in Gaza has been met“.
Racism and Militarism
This mass slaughter is not an excess, but the offshoot and perhaps completion of the old Zionist dream of ruling the region from “the sea to the Jordan”, as stated in the charter of Netanyahu’s party.
Making this Zionist dream come true can only be done on the basis of racism and militarism.
Israel is rightly called “the most racist state in the world”. The establishment of the Jewish state in 1948 was accompanied by the massacre and ethnic cleansing of about half of the Palestinian population. From then on, the Israeli state aimed for reducing the Palestinian population to the smallest possible number and the annexing of the largest possible area.
The Six-Day War of 1967 saw Israel quadruple its territory and from then on it began the active colonization of the West Bank, where Palestinians are humiliated, harassed and robbed. Thousands of them, including children, have been kidnapped and held without trial for years in prisons in Israel.
What Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip however is even more horrendous. There, residents have been subjected to a complete blockade since 2007. This reduced the strip to a concentration camp.
It is not without reason that Amnesty International designated Israel as an apartheid state.
Israel may also be the most militaristic state in the world. After Qatar, Israel spends the most resources per capita on war production. Civil society is completely permeated by soldiers and military installations. With full military conscription for all men and women and reserve duty for all Jews until age 40, Jewish Israelis constantly alternate between the roles of citizen and soldier, blurring the lines between the two.
The military industry is among the most advanced in the world. Its success is based on two things. First, on compulsory military service, where the smartest scientific and technological minds are selected for defence research and development units.
Second, on the colonization policy and the regular military wars against Gaza. The Palestinians are an excellent training ground for the security industry. The latest security gadgets or newest attack techniques are tested on them. In other words, the weapons are combat proven. The wars in Gaza are perfect ‘practice’for the latest weapons and drones of the Israeli military industrial complex.
Today, Israel has about 600 companies exporting security technologies and services. Annually, they export more than $12 billion worth of weapons (that is 2.6 per cent of GDP). The record of those arms deliveries is blood-curdling.
Israel sold weapons to South Africa’s apartheid government in 1975 and even agreed to supply nuclear warheads. El Salvador was supplied with napalm and other weapons during the anti-insurgency wars between 1980-1992, which killed more than 75,000 civilians (out of a population of 5 million).
During the Rwandan genocide, in which at least 800,000 people were killed, Israeli bullets, guns and grenades were used. And in September 2023, Israel supplied drones, rockets and mortars to Azerbaijan for its campaign to retake Nagorno-Karabakh, displacing 100,000 Armenians.
It is not just a matter of arms exports. From its inception, Israel has supported a range of right-wing regimes and military dictatorships. The Israeli army made its experience and expertise available to what were the most brutal regimes at the time: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela.
The bloodiest involvement was in Guatemala. Behind the scenes, Israel engaged in one of the most violent counterrevolutionary campaigns the Western Hemisphere has seen since the Conquista. More than 200,000 people, mostly Indians, were killed.
During the civil war in Syria, Israel cooperated with jihadi fighters from both al-Qaeda and IS. They could count on medical treatment in Israel, among other things.
Why Close Friends?
Based on all that slander, you might expect that the US and the West would treat such a country as a pariah state. The opposite is true. Since its founding, Israel has been the largest recipient of American foreign aid. It received a total of about $300 billion in economic and military aid.
In 1989, Israel was granted ‘major non-NATO ally‘ status by the US, giving it access to extensive weapons systems. Israel was the first country to receive US-made F-35 fighter jets, the most advanced in the world. The US also helped fund and produce the Iron Dome, Israel’s anti-missile defence system.
In any case, Washington’s extremely generous support has made Israel by far the strongest military power in the region. Even a genocide and countless war crimes do not stop the flow of money. On the contrary, in response to the war on Gaza, the White House approved a gigantic aid package worth $14.5 billion.
If the US puts any political pressure on Israel at all, for instance to allow more humanitarian aid, it is only in the interest of Biden’s re-election and to save face as much as possible vis-à-vis world public opinion.
Israel’s ties with Europe are also strong. Economically, Israel has an association agreement with the European Union, which is also its largest trading partner. Scientific cooperation is intense. Horizon Europe is the EU’s main funding program for research and innovation in Israel with a budget of €95.5 billion over seven years.
After all, Europe is also important for arms supplies to Israel. Almost a quarter of all weapons imported by the Jewish state come from Germany and Italy. After the 1956 Suez War, France provided nuclear assistance to Israel, allowing it to grow into an atomic power.
After the killing of 224 humanitarian workers, at least 93 journalists, more than 13,000 children and 8,400 women, and the starvation of more than two million civilians, there is still no sign of sanctions from Europe. What more horrific things need to happen before Europe takes action?
From Europe, there ‘great cry and little wool’. From European ports, weapons continue to leave for Israel and the Zionist state is allowed to participate in the Euro song festival without the slightest problem.
The question then arises why do the US and the West continue to unconditionally support such a terrorist regime?
You don’t have to look far for the main reason for this: the very strategic location of the Jewish state. Israel is located in the Middle East, a region where 48 percent of the oil reserves and 40 percent of the gas reserves are found.
This region also connects Europe with Asia and is crucial for international trade. About 30 per cent of the world’s sea containers pass through the nearby Suez Canal. The region is also crucial for the New Silk Road and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) a global infrastructure project through which China is moving the centre of world trade back to Asia. The same counts for its counterpart, the so-called India-Middle East Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).
Israel can be regarded as a forward US military base manned by a very reliable partner, who helps control this very strategic region. This was recently put sharply by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nephew of President John F. Kennedy:
“Israel… is almost like having an aircraft carrier in the Middle East.”
Israel plays the gendarme of the region. Since its inception, Israel has successfully fought several wars against its Arab neighbours. The Israeli army regularly carries out raids or attacks against countries or groups that do not follow the West’s lead: Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Iran.
In the past, Washington could rely on three other allies for its geopolitical agenda in this region: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Since 1979 it has lost support from Iran and in recent years Saudi Arabia and Turkey have decided on an increasingly independent course.
This leaves Israel as the sole and irreplaceable ally in this crucial region. Remember that Israel is also the only country with nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
That explains why the Jewish state can afford just about anything and that it can act with almost total impunity.
Farce
If Western leaders are to be believed, their policies are based on values and good intentions. In his own words, Biden bases his foreign relations on “upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity”. The EU Treaty states that the Union is founded on values such as “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights”.
In the light of how the US and Europe treat Israel and Cuba, that is a farce. The so-called ‘rules-based international order’ is a smokescreen to obscure what it is actually about: vulgar economic and geostrategic interests.
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim makes no bones about it:
“The gut-wrenching tragedy that continues to unfold in the Gaza Strip has laid bare the self-serving nature of the much valued, and vaunted rules-based order”.
The very contrasting treatment of Cuba and Israel illustrates the moral bankruptcy of the Western order, an order that is increasingly being taken less seriously in the global South. North-South relations are shifting, not only economically but also ideologically. A new era is dawning.
*
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.
Marc Vandepitte is a Belgian economist and philosopher. He writes on North-South relations, Latin America, Cuba, and China. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
The US administration has endorsed preemptive nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
The man who is most responsible for the $95 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel, is the same guy who pretends to oppose America’s “wasteful” foreign wars. Donald Trump. It was Trump who consulted with Speaker Mike Johnson about the contents of the Ukraine aid package, just as it was Trump who concocted the idea of issuing loans instead of dispersing the standard welfare handout.
The non-violence training to join the Freedom Flotilla Coalition’s ships to Gaza has been intense. As hundreds of us from 32 countries gathered in Istanbul, we were briefed about what we might encounter on this voyage. “We have to be ready for every possibility,” our trainers insisted.
From the military origins of brain-chip interfaces and neuroscience to the geopolitical ramifications of neuroweapons to the suspicious characters forwarding the controlled opposition “neurorights” movement, Pabst dives deep into the history and future of the age of neurowarfare.
This “final” assault on Rafah was announced for weeks by Netanyahu – but he needed to wait for approval of the Zionists commanding Washington. What will happen to the survivors?
While the world’s most despotic criminals move freely around in their ivory towers, petty criminals and the righteous are firmly incarcerated behind bars. This is the way ‘the law’ functions in a world where injustice has taken the role of justice.
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 Arctic region is warming at twice the global rate, leading to rapid melting of ice–some have even predicted ice-free summers by year 2034. This has brought unprecedented threats to various species of the region including the polar bear. Some species are threatened by the shrinking, even vanishing habitats where they have always lived safely and happily, some are threatened by the fast reducing access to their staple food, while some are threatened by weather extremes.
Despite this there is still relentless march to exploit the vast natural resources of the region, including oil, natural gas, rare earth and other minerals. Partly due to the huge natural resources and partly due to strategic and geo-political reasons, big power confrontation in this remote region can also increase.
In fact melting of ice increases the possibility of higher exploitation of natural resources as well as carving out of new maritime routes with all its strategic and commercial implications. Another complication is the increasing confrontational situation of NATO and Russia which may get extended, tragically, even to the Arctic region with very heavy costs to ecology and to native people.
The Arctic region is spread over 8 countries, 7 of which are NATO members. These are USA, Canada, Iceland, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Sweden and Finland. The eighth country is Russia.
While Russia has a well-established military presence here, this is largely defensive as Russia has important strategic interests to protect here spread over a vast area. With Finland and Sweden recently becoming NATO members and with the situation in Ukraine not working out to be favorable to NATO plans, the USA may just be tempted to try to create difficulties for Russia in this region. Russia may respond by giving more opportunities to China to acquire a presence here. One move by one side may lead to another move by the other side and very soon the situation may become much more tense and risky.
This should be avoided in the interests of world peace as well as the considerations of protecting Arctic ecology. Not just actual conflict but even large-scale military exercises may prove to be quite harmful for Arctic ecology. Under the Nordic Response 2024 exercise in Norway in March, as many as about 20,000 soldiers from 13 NATO member countries were gathered in the Arctic region with frigates, submarines and other vessels, and over 100 aircrafts. This is likely to ultimately increase to about 90,000 soldiers.
A high-risk situation already exists here in which climate change and global warming first create conditions in which exploitation of natural resources and militarization are likely to increase more, and this trend in turn greatly increases the possibilities of global warming further, apart from destruction of local environment and life-species in more direct ways as well. All this should be avoided. With due caution and by ensuring there is no undue suspicion of each other’s intentions, conflict in this region can be avoided as both sides also recognize hopefully how costly in economic as well as in ecological terms, above all of course in terms of loss of human lives, conflict in such a region is likely to prove. Special mechanisms should be in place to minimize militarization and the possibility of any conflict breaking out here.
Further we look here at the various high risks that have already occurred in recent times in this region in more details in the context of a part of this region—Greenland. Very high rate of ice melting has been reported here—even melting of as much as 18 billion tons of ice sheets in just 3 days of mid-July in Greenland. Very frightening estimates have been presented of the extent of rise in sea level if melting on such a scale continues.
It was reported that Donald Trump made an offer of a payment to Denmark to acquire control over Greenland. This was considered an atrocious offer by most people and for good reason was not even considered seriously by the Denmark government. This even led to the cancellation of a planned visit of President Trump to Denmark. Although Denmark controls the foreign policy and security of this vast island, Greenland has been moving towards autonomy and self-government.
However it is not difficult to understand why the USA has been keen to acquire Greenland. In fact even President Truman made an offer in 1946 to purchase Greenland for 100 million dollars. This offer was refused, but Denmark later succumbed to USA pressure to set up military bases in Greenland, including a nuclear powered station Camp Century.
Camp Century Trench Construction (From the Public Domain)
With its strategic location close to Russia as well as the USA, Greenland remains of great military interest to the USA. This is a factor which has acquired more significance recently with the accentuation of big power rivalries.
In addition, Greenland is a source of precious mineral resources, including gold and rare earths. The opening up of these rare earth deposits to China is something which the Western powers will like to stop, given the fact that China already has high levels of control over rare earths.
Greenland has a population of just 57,000 people in its vast territory of 836,330 sq. miles and has the lowest population density in the entire world. This Arctic region is highly sensitive from the ecological point of view, a sensitivity which has increased further in times of climate change. As the ice sheets which cover vast areas melt under the influence of global warming, buried carbon deposits will be released and sea levels will rise. The region’s unique biodiversity includes polar bears and seals will be badly threatened.
Hence there is a strong case for the entire Greenland to be administered by the United Nations as a zone of neutrality, peace and environment protection. Under such an arrangement, ecologically protective livelihoods and basic facilities will be ensured by a UN-administered program, which will treat the entire island as an area of ecological protection where any exploitation of natural resources will be strictly controlled and no military installation will be allowed. In addition there will be a very careful well-planned effort for undoing the damage already done.
As the snow melts with global warming, the remains of what was once a nuclear-powered military station (Camp Century) of the USA will open up, requiring a very careful clean-up effort. An even bigger danger exists in the form a nuclear weapon which was lost here in a bomber airplane accident in 1968. This was the peak of the cold war period when some USA bomber planes carrying nuclear weapons used to be in the air all the time and the Thule military base in Greenland was a special place for these operations due to the relative proximity of Russian targets from here. The airplane accident took place when the USA bomber containing nuclear weapons was approaching this military base in Greenland. The USA had obtained the permission of the Denmark government to set up this military base but it is not at all certain whether the Denmark government, let alone the local communities, had been informed about the transactions here involving the transport of nuclear weapons.
An aerial view of Thule Air Base in 1989 (From the Public Domain)
Actually the plane contained four nuclear weapons but three could be recovered. In the salvage operation in 1968 thousands of pieces of debris as well as millions of tons of ice, suspected to contain radioactive debris, were collected. Still one weapon could not be found despite the huge research effort. Workers employed in the clean-up work suffered from cancer later and have been claiming compensations till recently.
It is by now widely accepted that in this accident as many as four nuclear weapons were endangered, three were recovered more or less intact but one hydrogen bomb was never recovered. One aspect of a UN-administrated protective future should be to remain on constant alert for any tell-tale signs of damage from this so that a potential catastrophic event can still be prevented.
The existing military installations particularly the Thule Military Base should also be dismantled as part of the efforts to establish Greenland as a zone of peace and neutrality. While the wider paradigm of future development should be based on ecological protection, protective livelihoods, peace and neutrality, within this paradigm local people should have all the autonomy for highly decentralized governance. There should be a special program of mental health and well-being to bring down the high rate of suicides and substance abuse in the region.
Clearly there are several serious issues in Greenland which have to be sorted out. A big effort with continuity has to be made to ensure a more protective future for Greenland which is in fact crucial for the entire world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, A Day in 2071, Planet in Peril and Man over Machine. He is Coordinator, Campaign for Save the Earth Now and its SED Demand. 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.
Sharmine Narwani is a brilliant journalist and analyst, has taught at Oxford and Columbia and has been published in The New York Times, USA Today, The Guardian, Huffington Post, Salon.com and other publications.
Of course, the ones listed above don’t publish her anymore, because she’s too much of a journalist, like Chris Hedges, Seymour Hersh, Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal and others no longer welcome in today’s mainstream media.
Please see what Sharmine has to say in the short video below.
According to her,
“Iran has a full map of Israel’s missile defense system banks. It gained incredible intelligence. It also got to see which countries would jump in to defend Israel. And the list was short: the US, the UK and France — all nuclear states — and then Jordan, because they need an Arab or Muslim fig leaf.”
*
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.
“America last. America last. That’s all this is. America last, every single day.” – Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene
The man who is most responsible for the $95 billion giveaway to Ukraine and Israel, is the same guy who pretends to oppose America’s “wasteful” foreign wars. Donald Trump. It was Trump who consulted with Speaker Mike Johnson about the contents of the Ukraine aid package, just as it was Trump who concocted the idea of issuing loans instead of dispersing the standard welfare handout. It was also Trump who said:
“I stand with the Speaker, (Mike Johnson)” after which he added that Johnson is doing “a very good job.”
A “good job”?
So, secretly collaborating with the Democrat leadership to push through a bill that “reauthorizes FISA to spy on the American people without a warrant, (bans Tik Tok)fully funds Joe Biden’s DOJ that has indicted President Trump 91 times, and giving Biden’s political gestapo a brand new FBI building bigger than the Pentagon,” while not providing a dime to protect the southern border from the swarms of people entering the country illegally, is doing a “good job”?
The question we should all be asking ourselves is why has Trump decided to participate in this scam?He keeps saying that if he was president, he’d end the war in Ukraine in a day. If he’s sincere about that, then why did he collaborate on a bill that will drag the war out for another year or two? This is from a Twitter post by political analyst Michael Tracey:
Mission Accomplished. It is done: Donald Trump and the House GOP just completed one of the most epic swindles in political history, with Trump personally effectuating the largest-ever dispersement of Ukraine funding through his emissary, “MAGA Mike Johnson” (as Trump lovingly calls him) The $61 billion passed this afternoon is likely enough to underwrite the brutal, pointless trench warfare for at least another year or two. This after the same old endless media screeching that Trump and MAGA Republicans were being brainwashed by Putin and would never fund Ukraine. That fundamental hoax continues — only this time Trump was in on it…. Michael Tracey, Twitter
And the response from Luca Cabrilo:
Michael you’re 100% spot on. Trump could have at any point killed this monstrous bill if he wanted to, but he didn’t. He even let MAGA Mike go on TV and say that he and Trump are “100% agreed” on the Ukraine funding Trump screwed his base on this one, no other way about it.
Michael Tracey again: He didn’t just “not kill it,” he personally facilitated its passage
Here’s more background from Tracey:
The bill, designed after consultations between Mike Johnson and Trump, mysteriously gives the President the ability to forgive the purported “loan” to Ukraine — immediately after the November election…
And if that’s not brazen enough for you, here’s the catch: The funds eligible for “loan forgiveness” are the direct budgetary infusions to Ukraine — meaning the money that pays for the salaries of Ukrainian government workers and so forth — NOT the military “aid,” which comprises the vast majority of the package. So, only $8 billion of the $61 billion allocated to Ukraine is even *eligible* for “loan forgiveness” under the terms of this gargantuan bill. And even that was a fake “loan” to begin with — it never had to be paid back at all! So there’s your final Trump/Johnson bamboozle, as the House GOP prepares to usher through the *largest ever* infusion of US tax dollars to Ukraine, by far, since the beginning of the war. All with Trump’s blessing, as Johnson has made abundantly clear. To underscore his close collaboration with Trump, Johnson has spent the past several days making the rounds on various conservative media, touting the inclusion of Trump’s “loan concept” in the bill. Michael Tracey
It’s all a big shell game and Trump is playing along with it to improve his political prospects. How else would you explain his performance in this dismal charade?
Trump obviously knows that his return to the White House will require significant compromise with the national security hawks and Zionists who run the government. So, we shouldn’t be too surprised that he’s trying to curry favor with them now. But for the people who thought Trump was a straightshooter; this has got to be a real eye-opener. They thought he could be trusted, but now it’s obvious that he’s just another Beltway phony trying to ingratiate himself with the Washington power-elite in order to shoehorn his sorry a** back into the Oval Office. Here’s more from Tracey:
Sorry to be a “Broken Record,” but the “Elephant in the Room” here is genuinely Donald J. Trump. ….Trump even warned Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene directly not to oust Johnson, during their joint press conference at Mar-a-Lago last Friday, April 12 — just before Johnson unveiled his war funding strategy, for which he proudly declares having secured Trump’s endorsement. The bill even contains Trump’s repeated demand to structure the Ukraine funding as a so-called “loan”! Johnson proclaims that he and Trump are “One hundred percent united” on all of this (direct quote) …
Trump has used his vast political capital as three-time Republican Presidential Nominee to play his part assuring that the American political system mobilizes in perfect harmony to unleash $100 billion in endless-war funding. Michael Tracey
If Trump is willing to play such a duplicitous role in securing the funding for the MIC’s perpetual wars, then why in-heavens-name would any red-blooded conservative vote for him?
One of the few people who has acted honorably in this fiasco, is Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is clearly one of the few members of Congress that genuinely gives-a-damn about the American people. Greene delivered an epic rant on the floor of the House yesterday following the vote on the Ukrainian aid package. Naturally, her heartfelt presentation appeared nowhere in the sellout media, so I transcribed most of what she said below. It’s worth the time:
…. The United States taxpayer has already sent $113 billion to Ukraine, and much of that money is unaccounted for. This is an example of a sick business model the US government wants to continue….. The Congress votes for money for foreign wars that the American people do not support….. The American people do not support a business model based on blood and murder and war in foreign countries while the government does nothing to secure our border.
The American people are over $34 trillion in debt and the debt is rising by $40 billion every night while we all sleep. But nothing is done to secure our border or reduce our debt. Inflation continues to rise every day and Americans can hardly afford to pay their grocery bills, they can hardly afford to put gas in their cars, and they can hardly afford the rent. And, now, average mortgage payments are over $3000 when they were just $1700 three years ago. Young Americans don’t think they will ever be able to buy a home and yet today, this congress thinks the most important thing they should do is to send another $61 billion to the war in Ukraine that the American people –by 70%– do not support!
… But, today, the most important thing this body thinks we should do, is not reduce spending, or drive down inflation, or secure our own border that is invaded every single day by people from over 160 different countries… We have over 1.8 million ‘got-aways’ and we don’t know who these people are… and yet we have people in this very congress ‘talking tough’ saying, “We have to defeat Russia. Oh, we have to protect Ukraine” and yet, all of you are unwilling to protect the American citizens that pay your salary, pay to keep the lights on, and pay to keep the federal government running. And for what?
For nothing! Ukraine isn’t even a member of NATO. But all you hear in Washington DC is “Oh, we have to keep spending America’s hard-earned tax dollars to continue to murder Ukrainians to wipe out a whole generation of young men so there are (thousands of) widows, and fatherless orphans, and not enough men to work in their industries. Oh, but you really support Ukraine. (sarcasm) What kind of support is that? It’s repulsive!
Shame on the American government! Shame on the American government! If we want to support our military, then support our military. We should be building up our weapons and ammunition, not sending it over to foreign countries to kill foreign people.
And if this body was what it pretends to be, every single one of us would be demanding peace in Ukraine; peace for these people, so that no more of them have to die. But you never hear anybody demanding peace. No, no, no. Peace is the last thing Washington wantsbecause it doesn’t fit the business model. This is a business model they say builds the American economy and protects American jobs. What a disgusting business model. We should have a business model that builds-up our American companies and American jobs to serve American interests, and our military and our government should care about protecting the national security of the United States of America and the Americans who pay their hard-earned tax dollars to fund all this.
Bravo, Marjorie Taylor Greene. You speak for a lot of us.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
A massive study of 99 million Covid-vaccinated people has just wrapped and the results are startling.
Dr. Peter McCullough joins us to break it down.
“Most of the risks described are in the two- to three-fold increase risk range. These are astronomical, thinking that the data were truncated just at 42 days, there is under-reporting, and they weren’t age-stratified.
Myocarditis is the big ticket issue, and peaks in men ages 18-24;
so if the overall risk for myocarditis was in the two to three or over three range, it must be astronomical for young men ages 18-24 taking the vaccine. I don’t consider this small.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is a screenshot from the video
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.
Liam was alert, happy & full of life on the day his mother Bri took him in for his six-month visit to the doctor. In fact, momma took a video of him playing peek-a-boo in the office, minutes before receiving the vaccines that would kill him. In the video, he is beautiful, perfectly healthy & his face is alight with huge baby grins as he laughs with his mother. He is the very picture of health. There is absolutely no hint of the tragedy that was about to unfold.
Records of that doctor visit show that Liam had a perfectly clean bill of health that day, both physically & developmentally. Then, he was vaccinated.
Liam received five vaccines—HepB, TDaP, Polio, Rotavirus, & Pneumococcal. Momma left the doctor’s office, reassured that her baby was healthy & developmentally on track. She had some errands to run & Liam fell asleep in the car on the way… [common] for a six-month-old who has just been through the trauma of the pediatrician’s office.
At home, Liam was fussier than usual. Bri nursed him then placed him in his bouncy chair while she loaded the dishwasher. Ten minutes later, when she checked on her baby boy—he was gone.
Lifting him from his seat, the panicked mother found him limp & completely unresponsive. Efforts to revive him were unsuccessful, as were efforts by the paramedics. He was pronounced dead at the hospital, just hours after his clean bill of health & vaccinations.
Liam’s death was reported to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), both by his mother and by others—but she has not received a response. No one wants to admit that vaccines killed the otherwise healthy little boy, not even the medical office that administered the fatal injections. No one seems to want to know what made a perfectly healthy baby boy die suddenly, just hours after receiving injections that the public has been brain-washed into thinking are healthy & safe.
*
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
Video: “Wiping Gaza Off The Map”: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves
The Occult Tesla: Why Tesla Flattened Space and Attacked Einstein
German Government Admits There Was No Pandemic
A Collective “Common Enemy” Now Stalks Mankind
Let’s Talk About the Moon: Was Apollo 11 a Hoax?
Bombshell Video: Massive Study of 99 Million Covid Vaccinated People. “Exposes the Lies they Told Us.” Dr. Peter McCullough
Epidemic of 15-19 Year Olds Dropping Dead in Schools and Dorms Across USA and Canada in April 2023
The Dark Origins of the Davos’ Great Reset
The Second Round of Retaliation Between Israel and Iran Has Just Begun
Trump Sold-Out His Base to Shovel $95 Billion to Ukraine and Israel
Divide and Conquer: The Government’s Propaganda of Fear and Fake News
Israel’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons
Adolph Hitler is “The Torchbearer of Democracy” in Ukraine
Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag”? They Let It Happen? Their Objective Is “to Wipe Gaza Off the Map”?
Ukraine War Funding and Failed Russian Sanctions. Is the US Empire Shooting Itself in the Foot?
Israel Just Launched a Brutal Attack on Rafah. “Beyond Shame, Beyond Crime…”
Is It Game, Set, Match to Moscow? The Imminent Collapse of the Ukrainian State. Douglas Macgregor
Agenda to Depopulate the Planet Through COVID Vaccination. Revealed by Government Reports and Pfizer Documents
Ukraine: US Launches a Fascist Government, and World War Three?
Do Vaccines Make Us Healthier?
In The Sunday Times coverage, no reference was made to the possibility of a nuclear strike from Israeli submarines that have been equipped with cruise missiles that could be armed with nuclear warheads. Military experts have been reporting the presence of Israel’s Dolphin class submarines in the Persian Gulf for the past two years ostensibly to support US naval operations in case Iran attempts to close the Straits of Hormuz.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Edward-Bernays-3000-3x2gty-b4d4dd5ba5da41c7924a5f87b309244e.jpg)
The President of the ICJ Joan E. Donoghue was a legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the Obama administration. Joan Donoghue takes her instructions from Washington. 
And now the World Court has instructed a criminal government led by Netanyahu (who has a criminal record) to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish” “public officials, “private individuals” 
