Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Grooming our children, Part 1: Getting parents out of the picture

By Belinda Brown | TCW Defending Freedom | November 2, 2023

Are parents aware of what children from four years old are being taught about sex in our schools? Belinda Brown thinks not. In a series of articles she makes the case that, with the agreement of the Department for Education, our children are being exposed to what is tantamount to a national grooming programme. The first step of this successful sex educators’ coup, she explains today, was to get parents out of the picture, to take over their role, and then deny them any access to lessons. Miriam Cates is one MP who is fighting back.

IN JUNE Conservative MP Miriam Cates introduced the ‘sex education transparency’ Private Members’ Bill, putting Rishi Sunak under pressure to give schools a legal duty to publish materials used in sex education lessons. Backed by 70 Conservative MPs, the aim of the Bill is to secure parents’ rights to see their children’s Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) lesson plans: rights which parents thought they had, only to find them being denied.

Cates had already called for an urgent Government review into what was being taught in RSE since this programme was rolled out in September 2020, of such concern were the materials and lessons parents gleaned from their children. RSE, it emerged, was the brainchild of the ‘progressive’ independent Sex Education Forum, a busy organisation with a stipend of £200,000 a year and a clear ‘beyond biology’ agenda. The Prime Minister responded to Cates’s call and ordered the review last March. Unaccountably, his Secretary of State for Education, Gillian Keegan, refused to publish the findings and has no plans to do so.  Why, we do not know. MPs had claimed the Department for Education’s (DfE) most recent relationships and sex education guidance, produced in 2019 in consultation with the LGBT+ charity Stonewall, had allowed ‘activist groups’ to overly influence teaching materials. The guidance does not set age limits on what can be taught.

In the meanwhile, the position of parents has not changed. One story catalysed Cates’s most recent initiative. Two years ago, Clare Page found out that her daughter had been taught at school that ‘heteronormativity’ (preferring the opposite sex) was a bad thing and had been told that she should be ‘sex positive’. Like any decent mother, she wanted to know more. Her request to see the material used in her daughter’s classroom was turned down, first by the Information Commissioner’s Office and then by a first-tier tribunal. She was not even allowed to find out whether her daughter had been taught by the ‘master fetish trainer’ who worked for the School of Sexuality Education (SSE) employed by her daughter’s school.

Page’s case marks another step in the long march through the institutions whereby parents are being excluded from once personal and family-based aspects of their children’s upbringing, now inappropriately and dangerously taken over by schools.

Her experience is far from exceptional. In Wales, where children are being exposed to a mandatory diet of explicit and highly ideological sex education, parents are not allowed to remove their children from these classes.  Attempts to do so are repeatedly turned down.

Likewise, parents such as those trying to protect their children from sexual extremism in the London Borough of Redbridge are portrayed as religious fundamentalists and radical homophobic Islamists.

Some schools and local authorities even have a policy of not informing parents when a child expresses what the school categorises as ‘feelings of gender distress,’ a study found,  though this flies in the face of safeguarding rules. More recent research indicates that it could be that the school’s teaching that is the source of distress.

In theory, parents do have rights in law. Under the European Convention of Human Rights, ‘the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions’. The 2002 Education Act Guidance repeatedly emphasises the role of parents. ‘Teaching must be done with respect to the backgrounds and beliefs of pupils and parents . . . All schools should work closely with parents when planning and delivering these subjects. Schools should ensure that parents know what will be taught and when, and clearly communicate the fact.’

Yet this is not happening. Any criticism that teaching places insufficient emphasis on the value of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, for example, is ignored.

When the School of Sexuality Education complained that the Department of Education’s guidance gave ‘problematic credence’ to long-term relationships and marriage, they had the government’s ear (p10).   These sex education activists ‘provide in-school workshops on consent, sexual health, porn and positive relationships’. Their approach, they say, is rights-based – whose rights they do not say. They proclaim themselves as ‘sex-positive, non-binary and trauma informed’.

When they criticised the guidance section that suggested that primary schools should only teach pupils about LGBT when it was ‘age appropriate’ rather than from reception, these phrases were obligingly removed by the DfE.

Gillian Keegan should ask herself who these sex education providers are and why they want the material they are pushing at our children to be unrestricted by age.

This contempt for parents was expressed early on in an ‘Educate and Celebrate’ guidebook foisted on schools. Their proposal was that rather than get parents’ permission for children to attend LGBT events, they would organise LGBT events in the school (p24). When parents tried to protect their children from all this, they were told they were breaking the law.

The result of the government’s inadequate guidance, Cates says, is ‘a permission slip for teaching almost anything that is loosely associated with gender, sexuality or sexual practice – often with an assumption of the earlier, the better’ (p71).

Without providing any apparent curriculum, and without parents able to monitor what was being taught, these so-called specialist sex ‘educators’, heavily funded by the government, with clearly articulated curricula and political agendas, have zealously filled the gap.

Foremost of these is the ideology of queer theory that asserts that ‘heteronormativity’ – the natural biological sex preference for the opposite sex, should be ‘smashed’. It rejects all ‘binaries’ including distinctions between homosexuality and heterosexuality, male and female, and even more disturbingly, between adult and child.

This is the ideology that’s the foundation of the RSE curriculum that a Conservative government has sanctioned. It will be explored in greater depth in the rest of the series. Parents have a right to know, reject it and protest.

To be continued.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Islamophobia | , | Leave a comment

Critics of Biden’s ‘Censorship Regime’ Say Government Dragging Its Feet on Lawsuit

By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | November 3, 2023

M.J. Koch over at the New York Sun has published a very good article on Missouri v. Biden and the Supreme Court’s decision to place a temporary stay on the injunction until they can rule on the case:

Next year’s presidential election may have something to do with the slow pace of Missouri v. Biden.

The Biden administration is said to be dragging its feet on an explosive free speech case against its alleged “Orwellian” censorship of social media platforms. Those leading the lawsuit say it’s because the government wants to continue its censorship regime as long as possible before the presidential election.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, Missouri v. Biden. In certifying it, the high court last week also approved the government’s request for a stay on a preliminary injunction from the Fifth Circuit. The injunction would’ve enjoined the government from continuing what two lower courts called a “coordinated campaign” by top federal officials and agencies to suppress undesirable opinions on public issues such as Covid lockdowns and election integrity.

The suspension of that injunction “is a green light for future censorship,” the founder of the civil rights group representing four of the plaintiffs in the case, Philip Hamburger, of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, tells the Sun. The high court appears to be siding with the executive branch in its latest legal action…. “Undoubtedly,” Mr. Hamburger says, “there’s deference, in the sense of political deference, to the government.”

Next year’s presidential election might have something to do with this “deference.” Oral arguments in Murthy will be heard in January or February, but the court won’t complete its review until late in the spring. Even if the ruling requires the government to immediately desist its behavior, several more months of the status quo will have passed as the contest for the U.S. presidency intensifies.

You can read the rest of the article, which includes my comments on this issue, here.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Hungary calls for new European security architecture

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban addresses the 5th Demographic Summit in the Fine Arts Museum in Budapest on September 14, 2023. © Attila KISBENEDEK / AFP
RT | November 3, 2023

Hungary wants to see the creation of a new security architecture in Europe that would take into account both Russian and Ukrainian interests, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.

Speaking at the summit of the Organization of Turkic States in Astana, Kazakhstan, on Friday, the Hungarian leader stated that the West’s strategy of supporting Ukraine with money and arms had failed and, against this backdrop, Budapest was “advocating a plan B.”

The initiative, he continued, “is aimed at a ceasefire, peace negotiations and the construction of a new European security architecture that will be reassuring for Ukraine and acceptable to the Russians.” According to Orban, Türkiye, which has remained neutral in the stand-off between Moscow and Kiev while acting as a mediator between the two, will also play a prominent role in this potential arrangement.

Since the start of open fighting in the Ukraine conflict, Budapest has consistently urged Kiev and Moscow to engage in talks, while also resisting calls to support EU sanctions against Russia, particularly in the energy sector, arguing that the measures are detrimental to the bloc’s own economy. In May, Orban also predicted that “poor Ukrainians” would not be able to prevail over Russia given the circumstances, particularly NATO’s reluctance to send its troops directly to the battlefield.

Hungary, along with Slovakia, also opposed an aid package to Ukraine to the tune of €50 billion ($53.5 billion) approved by the European Parliament last month. The two nations pointed in particular to concerns about corruption in Kiev and argued that the aid was not working.

While Moscow has never closed the door on talks with Kiev, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky signed a decree last autumn barring all talks with Moscow, after four former Ukrainian regions overwhelmingly voted to join Russia.

In December 2021, shortly before the years-long Ukraine conflict moved to open fighting, Russia submitted proposals To NATO and the US on security guarantees, demanding that the West ban Ukraine’s accession to the military bloc and insisting that the alliance retreat to its borders of 1997, before it expanded. The overture in late 2021, however, was rebuffed by the West.

Orban is not the only EU leader to have raised the prospect of security guarantees as hostilities continued. Last December, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested that Western capitals should consider setting up a security architecture that would take into account Russian interests, once Moscow and Kiev engage in talks. These remarks, however, triggered outrage, both in Kiev and in several EU member states.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

UN Expert Body Raises Concerns Over US’ Ongoing Practice of Overseas Drone Ops

Sputnik – 03.11.2023

The UN Human Rights Committee on Friday voiced its concerns over the United States’ continuing practice of using armed drones in lethal counterterrorism operations overseas and the country’s opaque criteria for such strikes.

“The Committee remains seriously concerned at the continuing practice of the State party of killings in extraterritorial counter-terrorism operations using armed drones,” the expert body said in its periodic report.

Additional concerns included “the lack of full and continuous transparency regarding the legal and policy criteria for drone strikes, the alleged possibility of variations through classified plans, as well as the lack of accountability for the loss of life and for other serious harm caused, particularly to civilians.”

Committee Vice-Chair Jose Manuel Santos Pais told a briefing in Geneva that the strikes had killed 1,500 civilians since January 2021, and no perpetrators have been brought to justice yet.

The US considers those extraterritorial counterterrorism operations to be part of its armed conflict with al-Qaeda and forces associated with the terrorist group, thus in line “with its inherent right of national self-defence,” the report said.

“[The Сommittee] reiterates its concern about the State party’s broad approach to the definition of ‘armed conflict,’ including an overbroad geographical and temporal scope,” it added.

The body also expressed its concerns that the US had made too few payments to affected civilians and their families in recent years.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Amnesty International: A Template for Futility

Even in the worst period of the repression during the apartheid era in South Africa, the armed forces never bombed the townships
— Ronnie Kasrils, March 2009
BY PAUL DE ROOIJ • UNZ REVIEW • NOVEMBER 3, 2023

One would hope that human rights NGOs would be influential, be tools to mobilise the public against oppression and barbarity, and maybe be of use in making the perpetrators of crimes accountable… Or is it the case that human rights NGOs are instruments of propaganda, means to deflect action against state power, and even instrumental in justifying state violence and war? Maybe Amnesty International’s latest press releases and the inevitable “reports” will enable one to determine on which side of the ledger its actions fall.

Yet again the Palestinians face massive Israeli attacks against Gaza, and the retail bombing of the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, and even Egypt. Israelis engage in these attacks every four or five years; they call them “mowing the lawn operations”. Inevitably, the human rights NGOs utter clucking sounds, and issue press releases and reports; some of their insufferable researchers will appear on TV mouthing predictable trite statements. And if past experience is any guide, all that effort will be an exercise in futility. Who reads these materials, have they ever led to any action or change of state policy, or have they galvanised a public into action? The answer is self-evident.

Amnesty’s output also suggests that they are a lazy bunch incapable of improving their “product” to make it more effective. Invariably they utilise the same template; they just fill in the blanks whenever the level of violence has propelled a “conflict” onto the front pages or to the top of the hour news reporting. The template requires distressing clucking sounds about the violence, and a tally of those killed; it provides a few individual examples of violations. It then blames “both sides,” and asserts that the Palestinian violence was “horrific” and “indiscriminate”; both sides have perpetrated war crimes. It then urges both sides to cease and desist; return to the status quo ante. And finally, it calls on the “international community” to impose an arms embargo on “both sides”. And “independent” investigators should be allowed in to compile evidence of war crimes. That is it.

Basic Background

Gaza has been under military occupation and control for decades, and extreme Israeli violence has punctuated its history. Massacres, bombings, assassinations have been regular features; each military attack is increasingly more destructive and violent than the preceding ones. Furthermore, since 2006 Gaza was transformed into the largest open air prison with Israeli forces controlling who enters/exits the exclave; walls, razor wire fences, and watch towers armed with robotic machine guns surround the area; drones buzz overhead every day, especially at night. Dov Weissglas, a close confidant of Ariel Sharon, quipped that they’d put Gaza “on a diet”. Israelis calculated the basic caloric intake required to maintain the population just above starvation, and proceeded to limit food imports to that level; airplanes sprayed herbicides on crops, and even small allotments. The water supplied into Gaza was polluted with high levels of salt and over-fluoridation. Unemployment rate in Gaza has been staggeringly high. Gazans have lived in a terrible situation for many years. Non-violent resistance was brutally crushed. With no prospects political or negotiated solution what were Palestinians supposed to do?

It is this history that must serve as the foundation to guide solidarity with the Palestinians, and for any organisation to channel efforts to ameliorate the situation. It behooves us to understand why human rights NGOs are a failure by design; to understand why the human rights babble is equally a cruel fraud. Here is an explanation of this failure in Eight Acts:

They are so ahistorical…

Given the above snapshot history, the nature of the crimes requires recognising them as crimes against humanity, arguably one of the most serious crimes under international law. Second, Israeli crimes put the violence of the Palestinian resistance into perspective. Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. Third, the long history of violence perpetrated against the Palestinians, and the resulting power imbalance, suggest that one should be in solidarity with the victim.

Amnesty however refuses to acknowledge the serious nature of Israeli crimes, by using an intellectually bankrupt subterfuge; it insists that as a rights-based organisation it cannot refer to historical context; doing so would be considered “political” in its warped jargon. An examination of what AI considers “background” in its press releases/reports confirms that there is virtually no reference to relevant history, e.g., the prior attacks on Gaza, who initiated those attacks, the Goldstone report, etc. Presto! Now there is no need to mention serious crimes. Every time AI issues the same statements and even some reports; they are written from the same template. They may change a few details, but each of their statements and reports studiously ignores the previous attacks as if history didn’t matter. It also doesn’t recognise the nature of the Palestinian resistance, and their right to self-defence. Nowhere does AI acknowledge that Palestinians are entitled to defend themselves. And finally, AI cannot express solidarity with the victim; hey, “both sides” are victims!

Criminalising Palestinian Resistance

When Palestinians were engaged in non-violent demonstrations in front of the walls / fences surrounding Gaza, AI didn’t have much to say about the demonstrators who were shot by snipers. A demonstrator in a wheelchair shot and killed; dozens of demonstrators shot in the knee, kids flying kites shot, a journalist operating a drone killed… There are many Palestinian prisoners arbitrarily imprisoned, and when some of them engage in months-long hunger strikes, even resulting in death, AI barely utters a peep. So, non-violent resistance didn’t deliver much, and thus armed resistance seemed to be the only option.

When the Palestinians launch crude inaccurate missiles this is deemed “indiscriminate” in nature and ipso facto a war crime. AI also deems the taking of hostages to exchange for Palestinian prisoners to be a war crime. Attacking Israel and in the process killing civilians is also deemed beyond the pale. So Amnesty’s gang is not willing to state anything constructive about the Palestinian resistance other than to chastise them with accusations of serious crimes.

A blatant double standard is at play. Palestinian weapons are rudimentary and are not precise, and AI labels these as “indiscriminate” thus unlawful. On the other hand, Israeli weapons that are very accurate used to deliberately target civilians, hospitals, mosques, bakeries, ambulances, etc. These weapons are fine and dandy; AI will merely state that an independent body might have to “investigate war crimes” — knowing full well the fraudulent nature of these so-called independent investigations. What is worse: using inaccurate weapons that may result in civilian deaths, or use very accurate weapons to intentionally kill civilians? And what about the scale and proportionality of the weapons? Most Palestinian weapons are small, and not very lethal. Israelis use huge bombs to flatten buildings, hospitals, … with inevitable civilian deaths. For every Palestinian rocket, how many Israeli bombs have dropped? Amnesty usually reports the former, but not the latter.

When resistance fighters take hostages (both civilian and military) AI deems this to be a war crime. On the other hand, when Israeli forces routinely round up Palestinian civilians and arbitrarily imprisons them, this merits no comment. The use of an Israeli military kangaroo court to rubber stamp the imprisonment order is enough to keep Amnesty at bay. Recent video footage shows that Palestinian resistance fighters were captured alive, but a few minutes later they were executed. Does this merit any AI reproach? AI has a pompous sounding “Evidence Investigation Unit” — they may be taking a little nap now.

Addressing Apartheid

In its 26 October 2023 press release AI states: “The root causes of the conflict to be addressed, including through dismantling Israel’s system of apartheid against all Palestinians.” Maybe uttering this statement about 40 or 50 years ago would have been a bold statement. But as Ronnie Kasrils, the great anti-apartheid fighter, stressed: the Palestinians face a system of oppression far more serious, pernicious and violent than what was experienced in South Africa during the 1960-70s. The current Israeli policy is meant to drive the Palestinians off their land (ethnic cleansing) and it doesn’t shy away from implementing a genocidal plan. Amnesty lags behind these developments.

Appeals to the international community

In the 26 October press release, AI also states: “The international community to impose a comprehensive arms embargo on all parties to the conflict given that serious violations amounting to crimes under international law are being committed.” The day after the 7 October attack, the US and UK started flying in military materiel — by now amounting to about 60 military cargo plane deliveries. The US is itself militarily involved having assembled an armada in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf; it has sent senior military officers to advice on the attack on Gaza; and a US Seal team is on location. Thus AI’s statement is yet another example of its futility and impotence; maybe it was meant to add a bit of comic relief.

But this time it is different…

While in the past, Amnesty could engage in its ritual press releases and reports, and eventually revert to its regular routine, the current attack on Gaza may force Amnesty to adopt a different stance or risk exposure of its true spineless and duplicitous nature.

Top Israeli politicians and military officers have ordered cutting off Gaza’s access to food, water, and fuel; outright state that all inhabitants “are not innocent,” are “human animals,” that “there is no safe place in Gaza,” “There is no symmetry; the children in the Gaza Strip brought this on themselves,”or recite Deuteronomy 25:19 to smite the Amalek. Other religious figures have chimed in with other vengeful and chilling religious utterances. The same chapter in Deuteronomy urges Israelis to prise open the jaws of the Amalek and pour molten lead into their throats. (NB: this gave rise to the 2008 operation name “Cast Lead”.) Arnon Soffer, the infamous demographer, stated (2004): “we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.” And finally, a bevy of foreign prime minsters/presidents has flown in to repeat that: “Israel has a right to defend itself”. None of these dignitaries uttered a word urging restraint or a return to negotiations, let alone observance of international humanitarian law. Israel was given a green light to do whatever it wants with no impediments, and as a matter of fact, with the aid of recently flown-in military materiel. The UN will be rendered impotent given the US veto; and the lame ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel, thus any meaningful war crimes tribunal will never materialise.

So will Amnesty pursue its business as usual or opt for a stronger stance — preferably a pronouncement by a coalition of NGOs and solidarity activists. There will be an answer within a month.

The feces smellers

Agnes Callamard, AI’s Secretary General, is possibly one of the better and most outspoken general secretaries; there is no doubt that she is a well intentioned person. Many of her statements are clear and strong statements, but they are clearly limited by AI’s overall posture. But her stance is very much like that of a person who finds a fresh piece of feces in her path. After studying the sample, tasting it, and sniffing it, declares “that an independent investigation is necessary to determine if Israel committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.” So why does AI hesitate to make a strong statement about Israel? It has to do with its funding; a strong stand would upset the main donors.

The nature of human rights organisations

Many little NGOs have popped up that are merely meant to assuage the liberal conscience. Thus one may be worried that bananas were produced under harmful and exploitative conditions, and thus a little sticker on the banana may warm the liberal soul. The sticker they offer is merely meant to reduce consumer hesitancy when buying a product. The human rights NGOs perform very much the same function. When sordid and violent acts occur somewhere in the world, well intentioned concerned individuals may want to do something about it. And what could be easier than sending a donation to a human rights NGO! You will even get an Amnesty sticker to paste on your forehead to boast your liberal righteousness. Furthermore, the NGO will enlist well intentioned people to perform next to useless tasks like writing overly polite letters to dubious politicians seeking to improve the prison conditions of their adopted “prisoner of conscience”. Resources and effort are deflected away from pressuring domestic politicians to stop aiding and abetting mass crimes. There seems to be no downside to the back slapping politicians visiting Netanyahu encouraging greater mass crimes. Where are the activists clamouring to stop weapons deliveries to Israel from the US, UK and Germany?

And of course, Israel views the human rights NGOs as a necessary nuisance — easily ignored. While volunteers write overly polite letters, the paper shredders in Israel are whirring away. There is no effective action sought by the human rights NGOs which would cause Israel to take notice. In the very least, the human rights NGOs could heed Palestinian civil society’s call to implement a boycott of Israel. The boycott campaign was effective against apartheid South Africa, and given that the Palestinians face conditions that are orders of magnitude worse than apartheid, it would suggest a boycott campaign would be in order. Amnesty claims to have seven million followers, thus a call to implement a boycott would have more effect than the empty exhortations to governments to do nothing.

In the end, one cannot expect an organisation to change its spots after such a long and dubious history which includes trumpeting for war (AI was instrumental in pushing the throwing-babies-out-of-incubators hoax), pushing state propaganda (e.g., putting Croatian propagandists on tour in the US to push the “rape camp” slur), and many more. Amnesty International was created by a Zionist, it is difficult to countenance that a critique of Israel would be tolerated even today. Amnesty International Israel was run for many years by Israeli Foreign Ministry officers; this gang blocked critical reporting and played the gate keeper function. Amnesty never responded to the revelation of the penetration of its Israeli branch. Even today, as Amnesty’s website shows, the Israeli branch of the organisation is based in Tel Aviv. Maybe a clarification about its contribution and about its personnel may be in order. AI must be aware that several prominent Palestinians refuse to meet with them. And if the Israeli branch contributes to or edits its reportage, then AI must confront the ethics of producing Palestinian human rights coverage by Israeli personnel. During the war in Yugoslavia, Serbian researchers were not allowed to report on the condition of Croatians, Bosnians; the evident bias was not tolerated. But when it comes to Palestinian issues, a different standard applies.

During the 1970s Dr. Israel Shahak, the well known scientist and activist, headed a human rights organisation which translated Hebrew texts into English. He related how the state attempted to harass and interfere with his organisation. Break-ins, intimidation, destruction of archives, and planting their own operatives in the organisation leading to successful violent takeover of the organisation. So, does Amnesty-Israel have the same fraught relationship with the state? Or are they on chummy terms with Israeli officials? If the latter, there may be a reason for that.

And then there is snake oil

Pushing for the observance of human rights doesn’t necessarily imply that one will obtain justice. The human rights agenda merely softens the edges of the status quo. As Amnesty’s position on the Israeli attacks on Gaza illustrate, pushing human rights can actually be incompatible with obtaining justice. Human rights are a bastardised, neutered, and debased form of justice. The application and effectiveness of international law is bad enough, but a pick and choose legal framework with no enforcement is even worse. If one seeks justice, then it is best to avoid the human rights discourse; above all, it is best to avoid human rights organisations. If one wants justice it is best to avoid the discourse that only delivers bandages.

Palestinians should be wary of sanctimonious do-gooders peddling human rights snake oil. In exchange for giving up their resistance and complying with AI’s norms, it is not likely that Palestinians will obtain a pixel of justice. One should be wary of human rights groups that don’t push for justice, play the role of Israel’s lawyer, and are bereft of solidarity with the victims. During the Algerian war for independence, Frantz Fanon related that whenever a European would come to talk with him about “human rights,” his urge was to fetch a gun. Palestinians could learn something from this. When the likes of Amnesty come wagging their finger, it is best to keep the old blunderbuss near at hand.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Progressive Hypocrite, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Next few years will determine future world order – Biden

Joe Biden speaks about his Bidenomics agenda on November 1, 2023. © ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP
RT | November 3, 2023

The world is at a crossroads and the next few years will determine its fate for several generations to come, US President Joe Biden has claimed. His prediction comes amid Washington’s standoff with Russia over Ukraine and his country’s increasingly strained relations with China.

Speaking ahead of a meeting with Chilean President Gabriel Boric on Thursday, Biden stated that “there comes a time, maybe every six to eight generations, where the world changes in a very short time.”

The US leader further claimed that “what happens in the next two, three years are going to determine what the world looks like for the next five or six decades.”

According to a White House readout of Biden’s meeting with Boric, the pair discussed issues of shared concern, including efforts to combat climate change.

Biden also spoke last month about the need for a “new world order,” suggesting that while the post-World War II system has functioned for decades, it has “sort of run out of steam.”

However, if Americans “are bold enough and have enough confidence in ourselves, [they will have an opportunity] to unite the world in ways that it never has been,” he insisted.

Commenting on Biden’s remarks at the time, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov described it as a rare moment when Moscow was in complete agreement with Washington. “The world indeed needs a new order, based on absolutely new principles,” he noted.

However, Peskov suggested that Biden meant building “a world [order] revolving around the US,” insisting that “this will not be anymore.” Russia has consistently called for a multilateral world order, with President Vladimir Putin accusing the West of “a colonial approach” and bending international rules to its will.

Last month, the Russian leader also stressed that “nobody has the right to control the world at the expense of others or in their name.”

Relations between Washington and Moscow have sunk to unprecedented lows due to the Ukraine conflict, with the US sending billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Kiev and imposing tough sanctions on Russia.

Elsewhere, relations are tense between the US and China, most notably over Washington’s support for Taiwan. The two nations are also engaged in an intense economic rivalry. China has been promoting its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which seeks to develop international transport infrastructure and has been supported by more than 140 countries.

Biden has signaled that the US is working with G7 members to compete with China economically, claiming that the BRI has ended up being “a noose for most of the people who have signed on.”

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

ALL OUT FOR PALESTINE in Washington, DC, and everywhere around the world, November 4!

Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network

In the United States, Saturday Nov. 4 is a major national mobilization to Washington, DC, to confront imperialism in the belly of the beast. It is on track to be the largest demonstration for Palestine in U.S. history. Around the world, from Johannesburg to Caracas to Beirut, from Santiago to Vancouver to Tokyo, people will march for Palestinian liberation. Samidoun is one of hundreds upon hundreds of organizations endorsing and supporting this major mobilization.

If you are in the United States and can come to Washington, DC, we urge you to join the mass mobilization and demonstrate popular power and resistance to imperialism and Zionism! 

Samidoun is collecting demonstrations and actions around the world on the Global Calendar of Resistance for Palestine. TO ADD YOUR EVENT TO THE CALENDAR: Email us at samidoun@samidoun.net or tag us on social media! We know that these events are mainly international and that the Arab people are marching everywhere for Palestine — we will be honored to add Arab events.

Please attend all of these events and actions in your area. The genocide is continuing — and the resistance is still rising. ALL OUT FOR PALESTINE!

Saturday, November 4

Sunday, November 5

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | | Leave a comment

Russia, Israel, and the Law of War Regarding Civilians

By Scott Ritter – Sputnik – 03.11.2023

There has been much discussion in the aftermath of Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israeli military bases and settlements in the vicinity of Gaza related to issues of legitimate self-defense and the legality surrounding Israel’s use of force in response to that attack.

Inevitably, this discussion leads to an effort to compare Russia’s conduct in the Special Military Operation with Israel’s behavior to date regarding Gaza. The particular example of Mariupol is often raised as a point of comparison with the ongoing Israeli operation in Gaza. While it is far too soon to be able to make such a direct comparison of those two battles, one can examine the foundation of international law relied upon by both Russia and Israel in justifying their respective military operations. Sadly, Israel is found wanting.

Russia has cited the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter, as justification for the initiation of its military operation.

Article 51 reads as follows:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

In his address announcing the initiation of the special operation, Russian President Vladimir Putin laid out a case for pre-emption, detailing the threat that NATO’s eastward expansion posed to Russia, as well as Ukraine’s ongoing military operations against the Russian-speaking people of the Donbass.

NATO and Ukraine, Putin declared, “did not leave us [Russia] any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help. In this context, in accordance with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.”

Russia’s President set forth a cognizable claim under the doctrine of anticipatory collective self-defense as it applies to Article 51, citing the ongoing, imminent threat to the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass from a brutal eight-year-long bombardment that had killed thousands of people.

For its part, Israel has repeatedly cited its inherent right to self-defense when justifying its ongoing military operations in Gaza. But Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, has rejected that claim, declaring that, “as an occupying power, it [Israel] does not have that power.”

Nebenzia’s argument is founded in a 2004 advisory opinion written by the International Court of Justice. “Article 51 of the Charter,” the court wrote, “thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defense in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.”

The ICJ did not say that “Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population,” adding that Israel “has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens.” However, the ICJ found, any measures taken by Israel must be “in conformity with applicable international law” As such, in so far as Gaza and much of the land that currently constitutes the territory of Israel can be considered “occupied territory” under international law, and noting that the threat Israel is responding to originates from within, and not outside, this occupied territory, Israel cannot invoke the right of self-defense based upon any claim of a “state of necessity” in order to preclude the wrongfulness of its occupation of Palestinian territory, under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

According to Nebenzia, Israel’s right to security “can be fully guaranteed only in the case of a just solution to the Palestinian problem on the basis of the well-known UN Security Council resolutions. We don’t deny Israel’s right to fight terror,” the Ambassador noted, “but fight terrorists and not civilians.”

Having established that Russia, in its conflict with Ukraine, has acted in conformity with international law by adhering to the requirements set forth under Article 51 of the UN Charter regarding self-defense, and that Israel is, due to its status as an occupying power operating in direct contravention of international law, not able to cite legitimate self-defense under Article 51 as a justification for its actions, the question now moves on to the question of whether or not either Russia or Israel executes their respective military missions in a manner which conforms to the standard set under international humanitarian law.

The key considerations that distinguish a legitimate act of war from a war crime is the concept of “military necessity.” Military necessity, by definition, “permits measures which are actually necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not otherwise prohibited by international humanitarian law. In the case of an armed conflict the only legitimate military purpose is to weaken the military capacity of the other parties to the conflict.”

The issue of “distinction” becomes paramount when discussing any question of “military necessity.” The notion of “distinction” ensures that parties to an armed conflict must “at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives, and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” The distinction prohibits “indiscriminate attacks and the use of indiscriminate means and methods of warfare,” such as carpet bombing, or an artillery bombardment which lacked a specific military purpose.

“Military necessity” and “distinction” serve as the core principles around which the international community has codified specific acts that constitute war crimes in the form of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in particular Article 8 (War Crimes). These include:

  • Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
  • Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
  • Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units, or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; and
  • Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.

Regarding their respective battles for Mariupol and Gaza, both Russia and Israel have been accused of engaging in activity that violates all of the acts described above. The main point that distinguishes Russia from Israel in this regard is that Russian doctrine specifically prohibits the behavior described. Israeli doctrine, both written and spoken, embraces it.

During the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel Defense Force Northern Commander Gadi Eisenkot implemented a military strategy that sought to target and destroy entire civilian areas rather than engage in difficult and dangerous ground combat necessary to capture them. The goal of this strategy was more than simply trying to reduce Israeli casualties—the stated purpose of this new approach was to hold the entire civilian population accountable for the actions of Hezbollah fighters. Eisenkot did away with the requirement under international law to distinguish between military and civilian targets. This new doctrine was first used on the West Beirut Dahiya neighborhood, and the doctrine took its name from this location—the “Dahiya” Doctrine.

The “Dahiya Doctrine” specifically calls for the deliberate targeting of civilian populations and civilian infrastructure for the specific purpose of causing suffering and severe distress throughout the targeted population. The goal was to simultaneously destroy any enemy in the targeted area, to intimidate the targeted population into turning on the militants (in the case Hezbollah), and to deter other population centers from supporting Hezbollah. The “Dahiya Doctrine” was used extensively against Gaza since 2008, killing thousands of civilians. In its definition and through its execution, the “Dahiya Doctrine” amounts to nothing less than state terrorism, which means that the Israeli military, through its implementation of this policy, has become a state sponsor of terrorism.

As the facts emerge about the performance of the Russian military during the battle for Mariupol, it becomes crystal clear that the Russian soldiers behaved in an exemplary fashion, putting themselves at risk to ensure that the principles of distinction and military necessity were applied liberally and well within the spirit and letter of international law.

One cannot make a similar claim about the Israeli Defense Force and Gaza, where the “Dahiya Doctrine” is being executed with a vengeance.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Spanish MP calls for coercive measures against Israel

Palestine Information Center | November 3, 2023

MADRID – Spanish MP and member of the European Parliament Idoia Villanueva has condemned what is happening in the Gaza Strip as a “real genocide in 2023 with complete impunity and complicity from the international community, the US administration and the European Union as well.”

“The ongoing atrocities and war crimes committed by Israel, the colonial power, against the population under occupation are considered a war crime, and all this is done in the dark,” she said.

“The cutting off of supplies, electricity, water and fuel exacerbates the situation and further harms the civilian population, which is another crime against the international humanitarian law, causing hospitals to stop functioning and causing massive loss of life,” she said.

“The attempted forced displacement of populations is also a war crime and contrary to the international humanitarian law, and a few days ago, communications and the internet were cut off in an attempt to carry out this genocide,” Villanueva said.

The Spanish MP called on the international community to do much more, adding that “it is unfortunate that the European Union is lost in the maze of expressions and words calling for a ceasefire.”

She called for coercive measures, such as arms embargoes and sanctions, against Israeli officials, as well as the suspension of European funds to Israeli arms companies currently contributing to these systematic human rights violations.

Villanueva also called for “the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement due to these crimes and violations, accountability before the International Criminal Court, and moving forward with the recognition of the State of Palestine in order to somehow pressure Israel.”

“If the international community and Europe do not act and put an end to this genocide, they will carry a horrific stigma,” the lawmaker warned.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Palestine TV correspondent killed in Israel’s strikes on Gaza

Palestinian correspondent Mohammed Abu Hatab was killed in an Israeli strike on the besieged Gaza Strip on November 2, 2023
Press TV – November 3, 2023

A correspondent working for the Palestinian Authority’s television channel, Palestine TV, has been killed along with a number of his family members in an Israeli strike in the south of the Gaza Strip.

“Our colleague Mohammed Abu Hatab fell as a martyr along with members of his family in an Israeli bombardment against his home in Khan Yunis” on Thursday, broadcaster Palestine TV station said.

Palestinian media reports said the airstrike killed 11 of Abu Hatab’s family members, including his wife, son, and brother.

The Palestinian Official Media described the attack as “a deliberate assassination” of Abu Hatab, noting that his house was targeted shortly after he arrived home after covering Israel’s atrocities in Gaza.

“It’s a message in blood to terrorize Palestinian journalists to prevent them from reporting on our people’s suffering and exposing Israel’s crimes.” the Palestinian Official Media said in a statement.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) States Broadcasting Union also mourned the death of Abu Hatab and his family members.

Amr Al-Laithi, the OSBU President, also denounced the “heinous crime” committed against Abu Hatab.

The union also urged civil society organizations and human rights groups to immediately intervene to stop Israel’s “barbaric, criminal and systematic attacks” against media workers.

Israel launched the war on Gaza on October 7 after the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas waged the surprise Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the occupying entity in response to the Israeli regime’s decades-long campaign of bloodletting and devastation against Palestinians.

Tel Aviv has also blocked water, food, and electricity to Gaza, plunging the coastal strip into a humanitarian crisis.

The regime has further ordered 1.1 million people in the north of Gaza to evacuate and move south of the coastal sliver. However, it has continued to rain down bombs on the south.

Israel’s aggression on Gaza has so far killed more than 9,061 Palestinians, most of them women and children, and injured about 32,000 others.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

50 press unions demand end to Israel’s systematic targeting of journalists in Palestine

MEMO | November 2, 2023

Fifty Arab and foreign media institutions, associations and trade unions have demanded the UN Secretary-General and the President of the International Federation of Journalists to take a quick and strong stance to protect journalists in Palestine, condemn the killing of media professionals as well as harassing them by Israel, and to implement the provisions of the Geneva Conventions related to the protection of journalists in times of war.

This came in a joint letter, which the signatories said has been issued “based on the public’s right to the media … and the right of media professionals to practise their work freely … and in view of the systematic targeting that media professionals in Palestine are experiencing, which has reached the point of direct killing and the targeted, and harassment that makes their continued work pose a danger to them.

The signatories called on the international community to “immediately investigate the killings and ensure that criminals do not escape punishment”.

They also called on all countries of the world to “guarantee the freedom of media professionals and to take the necessary field measures to protect them and to guarantee freedom of media practice.”

The President of the Federation of African Journalists (FAJ) and one of the signatories to the petition, Sadiq Ibrahim, has “strongly denounced the continued aggressive escalation against journalists in Palestine” and the murders and attacks targeting them mercilessly, saying this violent escalation constitutes a serious threat to freedom of the press and the public’s right to access information.

The Secretary-General of the Palestine International Forum for Media and Communication and one of the signatories to the document, Ahmed Al-Sheikh, said, “We stand with the brave Palestinian journalists who risk their lives in order to present the truth, and we express our full solidarity with them. We call on all concerned parties to stop the violence against journalists and work to end this type of crime.”

According to independent human rights institutions, as many as 25 Palestinian journalists have been killed by Israel since the start of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on 7 October, in addition to 13 workers in the media sector.

Moreover, the homes of more than 35 journalists were destroyed, and more than 20 journalists were injured, in addition to the arrests of 18 male and female journalists in the West Bank.

Since 7 October, the Israeli army has been waging a ruthless war on Gaza, killing more than 8,525 Palestinians, including 3,542 children and 2,187 women, wounding about 21,543. In the Occupied West Bank, Israel has killed 126 Palestinians, and arrested about 2,000 others, according to official Palestinian sources.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Algerian parliament unanimously votes to support Palestine militarily

The Cradle | November 3, 2023

The Algerian parliament on 2 November unanimously voted to authorize President Abdelmadjid Tebboune to enter the Gaza-Israel war and throw his support behind Palestine.

The 100/100 vote came a day after the anniversary of Algeria’s war of liberation against French colonialism.

Algeria is the second Arab nation that looks to enter the war against Israel, following Yemen’s declaration of war just two days prior.

“We launched a large number of ballistic and cruise missiles and a large number of drones at various targets of the Zionist enemy in the Palestine Occupied Territories,” the spokesperson of the Yemeni armed forces, General Yahya Saree, said earlier this week. “We emphasize that this operation is the third operation in support of our oppressed brothers in Palestine.”

Saree then added that “the position of our Yemeni people towards the cause of Palestine is fixed and principled, and the Palestinian people have the full right to defend themselves and use their full rights.” “Our forces performed their duty in supporting Gaza and fired ballistic and cruise missiles at enemy targets in the Occupied Territories.”

Arab nations have recently been following suit in their support of the Palestinian piece; Kuwait has condemned the Israeli aggression, Bahrain has cut all diplomatic ties, and Jordan has recalled their ambassador to Israel.

Nations outside of West Asia who have voiced their support for Palestine include Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia – who’ve cut diplomatic ties with Israel completely – Nicaragua, and others.

November 3, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries