Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Voices from Gaza

By Rick Sterling | Dissident Voice | March 22, 2024

The book Gaza Writes Back is a collection of short stories from twenty young Gazans. Although published in 2013, the book is highly relevant today.  The stories reveal how the last five months is the culmination of a process which has been going on for decades.

The title is curious: Gaza Writes Back.  Perhaps it is an alternative to “Gaza Fights Back”. Certainly in the context of Gaza, writing is an important form of resistance to Israeli repression, occupation and massacres. The oppressor recognizes this as well. At least ninety five journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza since October 7.

The editor of  Gaza Writes Back was an English literature and creative writing professor at Gaza’s Islamic University named Refaat Alareer. Many of the contributors to this collection of short stories were Alareer’s students.

There are many references in the book to Israel’s attacks on Gaza in 2008-9 named “Operation Cast Lead”. As the anthology was being printed and first distributed, Israel launched the massacre named “Operation Protective Edge”.  In six weeks, Israel killed 2,191 Palestinians and injured 11,231  while 71 Israelis were killed.  Thirty Palestinians for every single Israeli. As editor Alareer says, “This book shows the world that despite Israel’s continuous attempts to kill steadfastness in us, Palestinians keep going on , never surrendering to pain or death, and always seeing and seeking liberty and hope in the darkest of times.”

The editor Alareer says, writing is “an act of resistance and an obligation to humanity to raise awareness among people blinded by the  multi-million dollar Israeli campaign of ‘hasbara’ (‘persuasion’, or more accurately, disinformation.)”

Most of the stories recount difficult moments and experiences. That is natural because the oppression in Gaza has been relentless for decades. Here is a concise summary of the conditions in 2014 when this book came out: “If you lived in Gaza, how would YOU feel?”

It is impressive that Gazans continue to resist and maintain their humanity despite the efforts to dehumanize them.

The story “L is for Life” is about a young woman writing a letter to her father who died eleven years earlier. She speaks of her mother’s “bitter loneliness”. It reminds us that for every Palestinian killed there is pain and suffering caused to each of their friends and family. How many women and men share that “bitter loneliness” because their partners or children were killed? How many lives have been irreparably harmed by the injuries and amputations? The author travels to an orphanage that her late father spoke of  and sees hope in the midst of destruction.

The story “One War Day” describes a mother who opens all the windows at night to avoid windows exploding inwards if there is an Israeli bombing. When the roof collapses the author’s brother is buried under the rubble with his hands still on the book he was reading.

The story “Spared” describes a girl whose mother insists she stay inside for lunch rather than go out where kids are playing soccer in the street.  That saves her from death or injury when a bomb is dropped.  Kids died and there were amputated limbs and scarred faces. “Our neighborhood was blown to smithereens in a split second. No more games played. No more goals. No more cheering. And my friends grew up in a second.“

In the story “A Wish for Insomnia” the writer imagines she is an Israeli soldier with post traumatic stress disorder. As the young writer imagines, there must be Israeli soldiers who take home the nightmare of what they have done just as there are US soldiers with the same mental and emotional disorder. The Palestinian author writes, “The past few weeks were agonizing for the family. Their father (the Israeli soldier) did not leave the bedroom. All they saw and heard of him was his screaming in the middle of the night, the noise of things breaking, and his moaning during the day.”  He has nightmares and says, “We were sent in tanks to Gaza…. We were instructed to shoot to kill and we shot almost every moving thing. We shot the water tanks, a couple of stray dogs, a cow, a dozen people, and there was that woman with her kid…. I wish I could know what happened to the kid. The kid cried the whole night. I kept hearing the commander’s order in the background, but it was the little kid’s voice that haunted me everywhere…..”

The short story titled “Please Shoot to Kill” portrays family life and fear during nights and days of bombing and Israeli soldiers kicking down the door to their house with M16 rifles ready to fire. It describes what it’s like to see the soldiers ransacking the house then hitting the father. What it’s like to see one’s little sibling hit by shrapnel so badly the leg would be amputated. What it’s like to have Apache helicopters overhead and Meerkhava tanks on the street. The father needs a kidney operation in Egypt but is unable to go there. Instead, a baby that needs surgery is allowed to go. “Laila did not hate the little baby who was sent instead of her father. She only hated Israel for making it so that the doctor had to choose. She only wished this baby would survive, grow up, and become a freedom fighter.”

The story titled “From Beneath” describes the thoughts of a young woman under the rubble, unable to move and sensing what parts of her body have been crushed and how her life was coming to end.

The story “Lost at Once” is a love story giving insights into Gazan social class differences.

These are just a few of the twenty-three short stories in this fine book.

The editor, Professor Refaat Alareer, was also a moving poet and an influential voice with 83 thousand followers on Twitter/X. His twitter handle was @ThisIsGaZa.  In his last interview before being killed, Refaat said “I am an academic. Probably the toughest thing I have at home is an Expo marker. But if the Israelis invade, if they barge at us, charge at us, open the door to massacre us, I am going to use that marker to throw it at the Israeli soldiers, even if that that is the last thing I do. And this is the feeling of everybody. We are helpless. We have nothing to lose.”

Refaat Alareer and his brother, sister and four of their children were killed in a targeted airstrike on 6 December 2023.  His last poem is a testament to his courage and dedication. It has been widely remembered at demonstrations against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

If I Must Die

If I must die,
you must live
to tell my story
to sell my things
to buy a piece of cloth
and some strings,
(make it white with a long tail)
so that a child, somewhere in Gaza
while looking heaven in the eye
awaiting his dad who left in a blaze—
and bid no one farewell
not even to his flesh
not even to himself—
sees the kite, my kite you made, flying up above
and thinks for a moment an angel is there
bringing back love
If I must die
let it bring hope
let it be a tale

Some of Refaat Alareer’s outstanding academic lectures are available online. A tribute to him by his publisher Just World Books is online here. The heading of Refaat Alareer’s twitter account says, “I teach; therefore, I am.  Have you read Gaza Writes Back?”

This book exemplifies courage and dignity in the face of  hardship and repeated attacks. Each story is different but collectively they give a sense of  continued dignity and hope despite suffering and pain. Ultimately, the stories are uplifting.  It is a measure of Israel’s lawlessness that they had to murder the editor of  Gaza Writes Back.

Rick Sterling can be reached at rsterling1@protonmail.com.

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Book Review, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Nuclear Subsidies Galore …

By Kennedy Maize – Master Resource – March 19, 2024

The U.S. nuclear industry in recent days has hit three cherries on the federal money-and-policy slot machine. The open question is whether the largess (some might call it pork) will have the intended results: revitalizing a moribund industry by hitching its wagon to the feverish fear of climate change and long-run animosity toward nuclear rivals China and Russia.

First, the money–the most tangible of the goodies Congress and the White House have doled out. On March 5, the ranking members of the House and Senate appropriations committees rolled out a consensus on six money balls, including the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies bill funding all government nuclear programs for fiscal year 2024. Passage is almost certainly a done deal.

For nuclear, the bill includes the following radioactive goodies:

  • $1.685 billion for Department of Energy nuclear R&D, including a priority for microreactors and accident tolerant fuel. This is a $212 million increase over 2023 funding.
  • $2.72 billion in repurposed supplemental emergency funding for a high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) program for advanced reactor fuel development. This is aimed specifically at Russia (the only significant current supplier of HALEU).
  • $280 million for an assortment of nuclear programs, such as $16 million for hydrogen produced from nukes and $137 million for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

House Legislation Passed (H.R. 6544)

The above Treasury payments followed policy victories for the nukes, including legislation and a new regulatory program.

On February 28, the House by an overwhelming  365-36 bipartisan margin passed H.R. 6544, designed to streamline safety reviews by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and give the Department of Energy some authority to buy electricity through purchase power agreements from commercial nuclear power purveyors.

In some respects, the legislation is a return to the approach of the now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission in the early days of atomic energy. In 1974, Congress abolished the AEC, and the all-power congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, in large part because the AEC viewed reactor safety as a poor cousin to promotion the atom.

The language in the House bill, as described by the Hogan Lovells law firm, would require the NRC to revise it mission statement

to ensure that, while upholding the policies of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the licensing and regulation of nuclear activities are carried out efficiently without unduly restricting the potential of nuclear energy and to improve the general welfare and the benefits of nuclear technology to society.”

Some observers have suggested this hortatory language is unlikely to survive in the Senate. Senators are trying to combine House provisions with a separate bipartisan bill that passed last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act but was later axed.

The legislation would also create a cadre of up to 210 Supergrade nuclear ninjas, possibly paid more than NRC commissioners in some cases. According to the bill language, under some circumstances, the NRC chairman Chairman “may, during any period when such a certification is in effect, fix the compensation for such employees or other personnel serving in a covered position without regard to any provision of title 5, United States Code, governing General Schedule classification and pay rates.” These alleged experts appear to have the power to second-guess the Senate-confirmed commissioners.

The House bill would also extend the Price-Anderson federal accident insurance subsidy, first enacted in 1957 and renewed seven times since then. The program expires at the end of 2025. It isn’t clear why this federal subsidy for nuclear is still needed when the industry insists its new, advanced reactor designs are “inherently” walk-away safe. Congress apparently believes it can assess the risks of nuclear energy more accurately than private sector actuaries.

Regulatory Favor

Then there is the third cherry on the governmental slot machine: regulation.

On March 4, the NRC rejected a staff-written draft rule developed over three years for how to regulate the potential new license applications for a variety of advanced reactors. The commission told the staff to rewrite its proposal for a new “Part 53” section of the agency’s authority embodied in 10 Code of Federal Regulations, joining the current sections 50 and 52, which pertain to large light-water reactors.

According to Utility Dive, a key change ordered by the commission “rejected ‘a strict checklist of requirements’ for probabilistic risk assessments while favoring a more flexible framework suited to simplified reactor designs with passive safety features that utilize natural forces, such as gravity or pressure differentials, rather than operator action.”

In a news release, NRC Chairman Christopher Hanson said, “This proposed rule leverages significantly more risk insights than our existing regulatory framework in making safety determinations. Applicants can use our existing regulations today, but this proposed rule will provide future nuclear developers a clear, additional pathway for licensing.” The NRC said it expects to publish the new rule in the Federal Register in about six months.

Legacy of Failure

This latest effort to revive the largely stagnant U.S. nuclear program is the third time in the last nearly 20 years that the government has tried to pump new life into atomic power. The U.S. program started grinding to a halt in the mid-1970s and was barely treading water by the 1990s. The pipeline of new reactor licenses emptied in 1974, and as the final builders of plants under construction either completed or abandoned their projects, the workforce and supply chain infrastructure hollowed out.

In 2005, Congress passed a new “Energy Policies Act,” which offered a smorgasbord of financial goodies for new plants including loans (they called them “loan guarantees” to make them look more palatable to opponents of direct federal subsidies, but the Treasury wrote the checks and received the loan payments), cost overrun protections, and extension of Price-Anderson to 2025.

The 2005 act was largely a failure. The two preeminent U.S. nuclear power developers, Westinghouse and General Electric, ended up sorely financially injured and in Japanese hands. Former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford commented, “They placed a big bet on this hallucination of a nuclear renaissance.”

Then came the first push for “small modular reactors,” designed to downsize the financial risks and construction costs of nuclear power plants. The strategy was the reverse of the “economies of scale” that drove the first generation of nuclear power plants, where bigger was always assumed to be better, but wasn’t.

In 2009, reactor vendor Babcock & Wilcox, which had substantial experience building nuclear power plants for U.S. submarines, announced it would offer a 125-MW pressurized water reactor (later scaled up to 180 MW) and a year later unveiled an alliance with builder Bechtel Corp. They called the project mPower.

In 2012, the Obama administration announced a $500 million program for development of small modular reactors. In 2013, mPower won financial assistance from DOE, with an award up to around $126 million. The same year, B&W tried and failed to sell a majority share of mPower, then cut back funding by 75%. Bechtel soon soured on the project, and it officially ran out of steam in 2017 after failure to find a customer.

During the same time frame, Westinghouse launched a 225-MW small modular reactor program. It quickly cratered, as the Pittsburgh-based company was unable to find a customer for its machines.

Will the latest government attempt to revive nuclear, driven by global warming concerns, succeed? It’s not a given. There’s lots to like about smaller nukes. They produce no CO2, have a relatively small footprint, can be sited fairly close to load.

But the economics aren’t clear, as the NuScale saga demonstrates. Some of the non-LWR advanced reactor designs will present licensing challenges, as there is little history behind them. Sodium cooled fast reactors may be particularly problematic, given the well-known problems of sodium as a coolant and the experience with Superphenix in France and Monju in Japan, plus issues of nuclear weapons proliferation.

———————-

This revised post originally appeared at The Quad Report.

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Nuclear Power | | Leave a comment

Little Known about mRNA and Spike Protein Biodistribution Three Years into Mass Vaccination Campaign

Alarming Conclusions from Russian Analysis of Studies

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | March 24, 2024

I remember when the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines rolled out in December, 2020. I asked some of the doctors a few questions about the novel products. Where do they go in the body? How long do they last? No one knew the answers yet throngs came forward and took the jab.

Now a Russian analysis of the biodistribution data on lipid nanoparticles laced with mRNA has been published by Pateev et al. The conclusions are shocking especially considering we are three years into a global mass vaccination campaign with shots every six months.

Pateev, I.; Seregina, K.; Ivanov, R.; Reshetnikov, V. Biodistribution of RNA Vaccines and of Their Products: Evidence from Human and Animal Studies. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12010059

This image from the manuscript is not reassuring for a vaccine, which one would anticipate should remain in the deltoid muscle, incite local antigenic stimulation, and then have the lymphatic and immune system produce clearance of the foreign material and confer durable immunity. As you can see, mRNA vaccines do nothing of the sort. The widespread distribution, long duration of action, and dangerous unending production of the damaging and potentially lethal Spike protein continue to cause great alarm among doctors, scientists, and the public who are asking questions regarding the biological fate of these new products.

Pateev, I.; Seregina, K.; Ivanov, R.; Reshetnikov, V. Biodistribution of RNA Vaccines and of Their Products: Evidence from Human and Animal Studies. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12010059

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Fired Harvard Professor: ‘All the Basic Principles of Public Health Were Thrown Out the Window’

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 21, 2024

Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration said Harvard University’s decision to fire him for non-compliance with the university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate is just one example of the consequences faced by anyone who questioned the official COVID-19 narratives.

In an appearance on “The Defender In-Depth” podcast, Kulldorff, an epidemiologist, said his firing is part of a broader trend of censorship and intolerance toward people who express diverging views in the broader fields of science, medicine and academia.

Kulldorff is one of the five individual plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Biden administration alleging key administration officials and government agencies coerced social media platforms to remove content, in violation of the First Amendment.

Kulldorff discussed the latest developments in the suit — Murthy et al. v. Missouri et al. — whose plaintiffs also include the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on an injunction, previously granted by lower courts, barring the administration and certain federal agencies from communicating with social media platforms for the removal of content.

He also discussed the COVID-19 pandemic response of his native Sweden, which bucked the global trend by eschewing lockdowns, vaccine and mask mandates, making the country the target of global pressure and widespread media criticism. Yet, Sweden now demonstrates better public health outcomes than most other countries.

‘Never a consensus in the scientific community’ for lockdowns

Kulldorff said Harvard was “not happy” with him when he co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020. However, it was Kulldorff’s decision not to get a COVID-19 vaccine that ultimately led Harvard to fire him.

“We had a disagreement about infection-acquired immunity,” Kulldorff said. “I was fired because I didn’t want to take the vaccine because I didn’t need it. I had better immunity from having had [COVID-19] already, and so, there was no medical reason for me to do it. And there was certain risk, because with every vaccine and drug, there’s some risk.”

Yet, many of his colleagues at Harvard and other institutions “sort of kept quiet” and “went along with it,” Kulldorff said. He attributed their cooperation to the federal funding many scientists and researchers receive from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“They sit on the biggest pile of medical research money in the world,” Kulldorff said. “So, it’s pretty scary for a scientist to speak up against their wishes, because you risk losing the resource funds that you depend on to support your family, and also to support the other people that work in your laboratory.”

Still, in personal contacts with fellow epidemiologists, Kulldorff said “The majority were arguing for focused protections over better protecting the older people, by letting kids go to school and so on. So, there was never a consensus in the scientific community, at least not in the epidemiological community, for these lockdown measures.”

Kulldorff said that during the pandemic, “all the basic principles of public health were thrown out the window.” His former institution, Harvard, was no exception, “going to online teaching before there was any government incentive or push to do so.”

This, Kulldorff said, “set the stage, and a lot of other colleges and even high schools and elementary schools sort of followed Harvard’s lead” in locking down.

Similarly, Harvard later imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate — which it finally ended on March 5. “There was no public health reason to mandate vaccines for students” in particular, Kulldorff said, because most of them “had COVID, so they have superior immunity. But even those few that haven’t [caught COVID-19] face minuscule risk from COVID.”

Children ‘will never fully recover’ from school closures

Kulldorff cited his native Sweden as an example of a country that bucked the trend and kept schools — and society more broadly — open during the pandemic.

“If you look at the elementary and high school students, we know that the test results went down” in countries that closed their schools, Kulldorff said. “The kids were hurt by this, and they will never fully recover from the damage that we did to them.”

Sweden was the only major Western country that kept schools open for ages 1-15, according to Kulldorff who said test results in Sweden have shown “no comparable drop — it’s just as normal, slightly going up.”

Among 1.8 million children who went to school in Sweden throughout the virus wave during the spring of 2020, “there were exactly zero COVID deaths and only a few hospitalizations,” he said.

Public health outcomes in Sweden also were positive for other population groups. “Sweden has low COVID mortality, less than the average in Europe [and] the lowest excess mortality in the Western world.”

Kulldorff said Swedish authorities were able to resist global pressure to impose lockdowns and mandates because they “had very strong support from other epidemiologists in Sweden” and “very strong support by the public” for their approach.

He noted that Sweden’s then-prime minister, Stefan Löfven, had a working-class background, having begun his career as a welder. Noting that lockdowns favored “the upper class,” Kulldorff said Löfven’s background might have made a difference as he could “understand what the effect these lockdowns had on regular people.”

Science will ‘dwindle down’ without freedom of speech

Yet, in other countries, including the U.S., dissenting views were silenced, Kulldorff said.

“Those of us who tried to speak up were either silenced or, after they couldn’t silence us anymore, we were slandered,” he said, noting that after the Great Barrington Declaration was published, Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., then the director of the NIH, called for “a devastating published takedown” in response.

“With scientific or other logical arguments, they have two options: They can sort of silence it by ignoring it or censoring it, which was done, or they can attack it through slander and smears,” Kulldorff said. He said postings he made on Twitter and YouTube critical of mask mandates and school closures, were removed by those platforms.

“They didn’t want the science to be known, the true science, and the true principles of public health,” Kulldorff said.

That’s why Kulldorff joined the Missouri et al. v. Biden et al. (now known as Murthy et al. v. Missouri et al.) lawsuit. He said the central argument the plaintiffs are making in this case “is that the federal government should not be allowed to coerce social media to censor people like myself.”

“They actually censored accurate, correct scientific information from scientists at Harvard and other places. And to me that’s pretty astonishing,” Kulldorff said.

Kulldorff said that during Monday’s Supreme Court hearing, “There were clearly some justices who seemed to be very sympathetic” to the plaintiffs’ position, and “seemed very concerned about the First Amendment.”

But other justices argued that “the government should be allowed to coerce social media to censor” in some instances.

By June, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on whether or not to uphold the injunctions lower courts previously granted in this case. Kulldorff said the case will then return to the lower courts and is expected to “take years” to resolve, proceeding “in tandem” with Kennedy et al. v. Biden et al. — a similar lawsuit in which Children’s Health Defense is a plaintiff. The two lawsuits were consolidated in July 2023.

“I thought we were in agreement, as a country, as a society, that freedom of speech is important, that it is the foundation for us,” Kulldorff said. “It saddens me greatly that that’s not the case.”

“If we don’t have this freedom of speech, then gradually, science is going to dwindle down … Academia would go there also and society as a whole.”

Watch ‘The Defender In-Depth’ here.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

Tide Turns On “Gender-Affirming Care”

By  John Leake | Courageous Discourse | March 24, 2024

Last June, I accused Assistant Secretary for Health, Rachel Levine, of aiding and abetting the mass assault of minors, after the “Admiral” proclaimed that “gender affirming care [for our youth] is literally suicide prevention.”

This is a proclamation from hell—the blackest of emotional blackmail for prodding parents to consent to the butchering of their children. To be sure, one wonders what kind of parents would take advice in medical, psychiatric, or sexual matters from Admiral Levine.

At last, the tide is turning against this criminal enterprise of mentally ill adults advocating the butchering of children. Yesterday the Telegraph reported:

French Senators want to ban gender transition treatments for under-18s, after a report described sex reassignment in minors as potentially “one of the greatest ethical scandals in the history of medicine”.

This news comes on the heels of the UK NHS telling clinicians to stop routine prescribing of puberty blockers. As reported in the BMJ:

The decision was announced on 12 March as part of NHS England’s ongoing overhaul of children’s gender identity services in England. In new guidance NHS England said, “We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH [puberty suppressing hormones] to make the treatment routinely available at this time.”

I would characterize this as a Pyrrhic victory because it stops short of banning gender reassignments for minors altogether. Moreover, it’s long been evident to anyone with a shred of common sense that puberty suppressing hormones are terrible medicine.

Dr. McCullough’s colleague, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, has been raising the alarm about this for years. His Do No Harm organization has been trying to protect minors from predatory weirdo adults since it was founded in April 2022.

Though Dr. Goldfarb is up against the same Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex that imposed COVID-19 “vaccines” on mankind while enriching itself with public money, he seems to be making progress in pushing back against the child devouring monster of “gender affirming care.”

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Gaza: Israeli army uses Palestinian civilians as human shields in its operation in Shifa Medical Complex and vicinity

Euro-Med Monitor | March 23, 2024

Palestinian Territory – The Israeli military continues to use Palestinian civilians as human shields in its military operation inside the al-Shifa Medical Complex and its vicinity in Gaza City.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor has documented several consistent testimonies regarding the Israeli army’s deliberate use of Palestinian civilians as human shields against their will, and forcing them into dangerous situations to secure and protect its forces and military operations inside the Shifa Medical Complex in. This has been ongoing since early Monday morning.

Testimonies reveal that Israeli forces used civilians, including patients and displaced individuals inside the Shifa Medical Complex, as human shields, exploiting them to protect their military operations within the hospital, form barriers behind their forces and military vehicles, or send them under threat to residential homes and buildings surrounding the medical complex to evacuate them before the Israeli army raids, arrests some of the residents, and subsequently destroys many of these buildings.

One Palestinian, identified as K.F (requesting anonymity), who was sheltering in the Shifa Medical Complex, stated that Israeli forces ordered him and three other young men to enter several rooms inside the Shifa Medical Complex after cameras were attached to their heads. They were then forced to move by remote orders issued by the Israeli army towards specific locations for inspection.

He added that he was forced by the Israeli army to move through orders in the General Surgery building inside the Shifa Medical Complex for several continuous hours before being forcibly evacuated with his wife and daughter, while knowing nothing about the fate of the other young men used by the Israeli army as human shields in the same incident.

M.N, an elderly man in his sixties, stated that the Israeli army forced his eldest son to enter the basements of the Shifa Medical Complex and sewage areas, while he witnessed other detainees being placed inside armored vehicles during the fighting. Others were forced to stand behind the army forces and military vehicles stationed at the entrances of the complex to fortify and prevent any targeting of them.

In another testimony, the wife of a nurse forced by the Israeli army to evacuate the complex towards the city of Deir al-Balah in central Gaza Strip, witnessed the Israeli forces using her husband as a human shield to open doors to sections in the Shifa Medical Complex for several consecutive hours. She stated that her husband’s fate remains unknown, and she fears for his safety.

Furthermore, several families residing near the Shifa Medical Complex reported that Israeli forces used young men, who were arrested from inside the complex, to enter their homes and demand immediate evacuation to central and southern Gaza Strip.

A woman from the “Arafat” family informed the Euro-Med Monitor team that they were surprised by the entry of a man in his late thirties, stripped of his clothes except for his underwear. He informed them that the Israeli army sent him to evacuate their home within 30 minutes, threatening to bomb it over their heads. Upon their evacuation, as ordered, they witnessed several other Palestinian youths in similar conditions, as the army forced them to enter neighbouring homes to warn their residents.

Last Monday morning, the Israeli army raided the Shifa Medical Complex in the western city of Gaza amid heavy gunfire and the buzzing of drones, resulting in hundreds of deaths and injuries, and the arrest of hundreds more. Additionally, dozens of residential homes surrounding the complex were destroyed and set ablaze after being raided.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor expresses deep concern about the current situation in the Shifa Medical Complex and the risks facing civilians, including patients, healthcare workers, and displaced individuals inside it, who are protected under international humanitarian law. Medical facilities and civilians must be protected and attacks against them must be halted immediately.

Euro-Med Monitor calls on the international community to fulfill its international responsibilities in stopping the genocide being perpetrated against all residents of the Gaza Strip, and to take immediate and serious action to halt all Israeli army crimes committed against civilians and civilian objects protected under international law.

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Italy’s Salvini says ‘warmonger’ Macron ‘danger’ for Europe as Ukraine tension rises

Press TV – March 24, 2024

Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini says French President Emmanuel Macron is a “warmonger” and represents a “danger” for Europe by refusing to rule out sending Western ground troops to Ukraine.

Salvini’s remarks came on Saturday during a gathering in Rome of right-wing and nationalist European leaders to rally support ahead of EU parliamentary elections in June.

Salvini whose far-right League party is a member of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s coalition government, said that Macron’s suggestion last month that Western ground troops could be sent to Ukraine was “extremely dangerous, excessive and out of balance.”

“I think that President Macron, with his words, represents a danger for our country and our continent,” he said during his speech.

“The problem isn’t mums and dads but the warmongers like Macron who talk about war as if there were no problem now,” he added. “I don’t want to leave our children a continent ready to enter World War Three.”

In similar remarks, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani also said in mid-March that his country does not support deploying NATO troops in Ukraine, warning that the move could spark World War III.

The French president told a press conference he did not rule out sending troops last month, after a high-level meeting in Paris of mainly European partners to discuss what urgent steps could be taken to shore up Ukraine in the wake of Russia’s recent frontline advances.

Following his remarks he faced criticism from France’s Nato and EU partners and a warning of conflict from Russia.

Last week, Sergey Naryshkin, Russia’s foreign intelligence (SVR) top brass said any French military unit sent to Ukraine to help it fight Russia would be a “priority” target for the Russian army.

This warning came after Kremlin received information that Paris is preparing to dispatch a contingent of 2,000 troops to Ukraine to fight against Russia.

Naryshkin said that Macron is concealing the actual number of French soldiers who have lost their lives in Ukraine due to concerns over potential widespread demonstrations in France.

In response, the French army chief of staff, Pierre Schill has said France is ready to face whatever developments unfold internationally and is prepared for the “toughest engagements” to protect itself.

Ties between France and Russia have further deteriorated in recent weeks after Paris signed a bilateral security accord with Ukraine and vowed to send more long-range cruise missiles.

Earlier this month, Macron also said there are “no limits” to French support for Ukraine. He added that France “would be ready to make sure that Russia never wins that war.”

Russia launched what it calls “a special military operation” in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, over the perceived threat of the ex-Soviet republic joining NATO.

Since then, the United States and Ukraine’s other Western allies have sent Kiev tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including rocket systems, drones, armored vehicles, tanks, and communication systems.

Western countries have also imposed a slew of economic sanctions on Moscow. The Kremlin has said the sanctions and the Western military assistance will only prolong the war.

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , , | 1 Comment

What do Justin Trudeau and Kristi Noem have in common? Both want to put you in jail for having unpopular opinions

Chuck Baldwin Live | March 21, 2024

The left and right sides of an ellipse are descriptive of Left and Right politics. At the top of the ellipse is Liberty. At the bottom of the ellipse is Tyranny. Republicans and Democrats spend most of their time arguing over things that fall in the middle of the ellipse.

I define Tyranny as anything that promotes the power of the state to control people’s lives and liberties beyond the Natural Laws of our Creator. I define Liberty as anything that constrains the power of the state to control people’s lives and liberties beyond the Natural Laws of our Creator.

The problem with so many people from both the political Left and the political Right is that, regardless of their differences over middle elliptical issues, they meet in unison at the bottom of the ellipse. Both Trump and Biden, Republicans and Democrats, want to use the power of government to coerce, intimidate or force the American citizenry to do what THEY want us to do. Whether we agree or not with either side is irrelevant. The fact that we would allow them to exercise governmental power to enforce THEIR personal opinions upon us should be anathema to any true freedomist.

And there are no God-ordained liberties more precious to free men and women than the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion (conscience).

And there is currently a perfect depiction of what I said above being played out before our very eyes with the Leftist Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and South Dakota’s conservative governor, Kristi Noem.

The Liberal Justin Trudeau

The Canadian government is rapidly advancing plans to usher in full-blown tyranny and will soon begin sentencing citizens to life in prison if they are found guilty of committing the “crime” of so-called “hate.”

Many are likening the new laws to George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” as Canada will soon start handing out severe penalties for wrongthink.

The push for life sentences is part of “liberal” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “anti-hate” legislation.

The shocking new law, buried in bill C-6, states:

Everyone who commits an offense under this act or any other act of Parliament, if the commission of the offense is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for life.

The new law from Canada comes as Trudeau’s World Economic Forum-controlled administration seeks to rapidly advance the nation’s descent into globalist tyranny.

The government has been pushing several new laws that seek to strip the public of their freedoms.

As Slay News reported, among the draconian new laws are powers that allow authorities to begin jailing citizens who “might” commit a crime.

Trudeau’s government is pushing for the new “pre-crime” authority which officials claim will help to tackle so-called “hate crimes.” (Source)

Naturally, conservatives on the right side of the ellipse are aghast and angry at such a tyrannical proposal—and justifiably so. There is no question that Fidel Castro’s Canadian son wants to turn our northern neighbor into a cold-climate communist state like the balmy prison island of Cuba.

But now let’s visit the other side of the ellipse, the right side, the conservative side.

The Conservative Kristi Noem

In signing a draconian, tyrannical “hate” law of her own in South Dakota, USA, Governor Kristi Noem (on the short list to be Trump’s running mate) said the following (reported by Chris Menahan at InfoWars):

When I was growing up, my dad would always gather our family together and we would pray for Israel. It was instilled in me from a very young age that the Jews were Gods [sic] chosen people, that Israel was the Holy Land, and that we should always pray for them.

I brought those fundamental ideals with me when I was in the State Legislature, when I served in Congress, and now as Governor of South Dakota. Supporting the State of Israel and our Jewish community has always been extremely important to me. It’s important to support Israel for spiritual, historical, and national security reasons. I am continuing to stand with the Jewish people by signing historic legislation to protect them from antisemitism.

I was very proud to sign HB 1076, a very important bill to combat antisemitism. This bill defines antisemitism and makes it easier to prove when discriminatory conduct is motivated by antisemitism. It is an impactful piece of legislation that will ensure the safety of Jewish people and strengthen South Dakota’s anti-discrimination laws.

We held a beautiful, moving signing ceremony for this bill in the Rotunda of our State Capitol in Pierre. Many prominent Jewish leaders attended, including Elan Carr, the CEO of the Israeli-American Council for Action, nationally renowned Jewish leader and founder of the Jacobson Society Dan Rosen, Rabbi and Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Rabbi Mendel Alperowitz of the Chabad Jewish Center of South Dakota, Renie Schreiber on behalf of Yinam Cohen, Consul General of Israel to the Midwest, and Jordan Cope from Stand With Us. A few of our special guests said some words about the impact this legislation will have for the Jewish people.

This bill puts the gold standard International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance [IHRA] definition of antisemitism into state law.

I hope that more states across our great nation will follow this example that we are setting here in South Dakota. It is more important now than ever for our nation’s leaders to stand up and fight against antisemitism. We must always work to ensure the security of God’s chosen people.

Menahan writes:

The IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism is completely antithetical to the First Amendment.

The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as:

– Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

– Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

– Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

– Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

– Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

– Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

– Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

– Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

No other ethnic or religious group in America is afforded any such privileges.

Notice that virtually everything in this list defining “antisemitism” focuses on speech, attitudes or thoughts. “Allegations.” “Accusing.” “Denying.” “Accusing.” “Accusing.” “Denying.” “Applying.” “Using.” All of this refers to speech, attitudes or thoughts.

Kristi Noem is abusing the power of government in an attempt to deny people their First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

If Noem wants to believe that the Ashkenazi Jews in the Middle East are “God’s Chosen People,” it is her religious right to believe that. And if she wants to publicly say she believes that, the freedom of speech gives her the right to do so.

BUT . . .

1. That doesn’t mean she is right; in fact, she is NOT right. The Ashkenazi Jews in Palestine today are no more God’s Chosen People and the blood descendants of Abraham than you or me or the man in the moon.

2. That doesn’t give her the right or authority to force people to believe as she does, to share her religious persuasion or to use the power of government to punish them for taking a contrary position.

For your information, Kristi,

I DO believe that the popular scope ascribed to the German Holocaust IS “exaggerated.”

I DO believe that Jewish Zionism IS a radical racist ideology—and so do many Israelis, by the way.

I DO believe that Zionist Jews DO have an extraordinary influence over our media, Federal Reserve, government and societal institutions—and it appears that by signing this bill, Kristi, you are proving my assertion.

And, yes, I also believe that the Jews who coerced and manipulated Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus ARE blood libel for His death. As a matter of fact, Kristi, the Pharisees and Jews that murdered Jesus admitted their liability for Christ’s death when they shouted, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” (Matthew 27:25)

If I lived in South Dakota, I suppose I would be guilty of a “hate” crime and open to government reprisal.

So, how are Noem and Trudeau any different? Both of them want to use the power and force of government to punish people for exercising their God-ordained freedom of religion and freedom of speech in a manner that doesn’t comport with theirs.

Noem’s tyrannical “hate” bill is not motivated by greed and ambition, using this bill as a means of holding her hand out to the Israeli lobbyists for more campaign cash, is it?

Ditto Trudeau’s tyrannical “hate” bill?

Naw!

Left. Right. Liberal. Conservative. Secularist. Religious. It all spells tyranny if they are meeting at the bottom of the ellipse, as Justin Trudeau and Kristi Noem are doing right now.

© Chuck Baldwin

March 24, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | 3 Comments

Observation on the Moscow attack

By Kevork Almassian | March 23, 2024

I am originally from Syria and have watched hundreds of ISIS footage, closely monitoring their attacking patterns. After analyzing the available footage of the Moscow terrorist attack, I have drawn the following observation:

1 – The attackers were trained in shooting, but they were not professional killers. They (thankfully) failed to hit some easy targets in the mall.

2 – The assault was carefully orchestrated, complete with an exit strategy. It appears to be more than just a solo attack, possibly connected to foreign intelligence.

3 – Although the individuals responsible for the attack may be Muslims, it is important to note that they are not necessarily affiliated with ISIS. I have observed numerous attacks conducted by ISIS in Syria, and typically, the terrorists strive for “martyrdom” and often resort to wearing suicide vests when facing capture. This particular type of suicide mission is referred to as “إنغماسي” in Arabic.

4 – On March 7, 2024, the US embassy in Moscow released a security advisory, stating that it “is monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts, and U.S. citizens should be advised to avoid large gatherings over the next 48 hours.”

The security alert reveals that US intelligence was aware of the plot and anticipated the imminent terrorist attack. The US Embassy refrained from making speculations and instead referred to the plans as “imminent.”

Who is responsible for the attack?

Jake Sullivan, President Joe Biden’s top foreign policy adviser, travelled to Kiev on 20 March 2024 and reportedly urged Ukraine against targeting Russian oil refineries and energy infrastructure.

Did Jake Sullivan caution Ukraine about potential attacks similar to the recent one in Moscow?

Over the past few months, Ukrainian intelligence orchestrated two successful assassination attempts in Russia. One of these attempts targeted Alexander Dugin, but tragically, his daughter lost her life due to a bomb planted beneath their car.

Ukraine may not be responsible for the attack, but if Kiev authorities are indeed behind it, it would be a very foolish decision. The fact that major Western media outlets keep blaming ISIS without any concrete evidence from detained terrorists only adds to the suspicion.

In my personal experience, I have yet to encounter a captured ISIS terrorist who doesn’t openly admit their affiliation with the terror organization. This situation could potentially set a new standard. However, it’s also possible that it may not.

March 24, 2024 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment