Scott Ritter: FBI Raids Part & Parcel of US Government’ Intimidation
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – August 12, 2024
Former USMC intelligence officer and Sputnik contributor Sсott Ritter’s New York home was raided earlier this month over allegations he had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires anyone who acts on behalf of a foreign nation to register as such to the US government.
The US government is “not happy” with the truthful message that he is conveying as a Sputnik contributor, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter believes.
This explains the recent FBI raid on his home over claims he had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
It was “disconcerting and chilling” when around 40 FBI agents raided his house, revealed Ritter.
“I asked repeatedly, ‘Why are you doing this?’’ What are you concerned about? Tell me what specific actions you’re concerned about and I can help resolve this.’ Now, we had a lengthy conversation, the special agents and I, but never once were they able to say this is why we believe you’re in violation,” he said.
However, what the agents did talk a lot about was the pundit’s relationship with Sputnik.
“They were very concerned about the work that I do as a contributor to Sputnik […] The US government is clearly unhappy with my message, unhappy with the impact that I’m having, and nervous that they can’t control me. And so I think that this raid, this search warrant, this ongoing investigation is part and parcel of a larger project of intimidation that unfortunately will continue, I believe, for the near future,” Ritter said.
The FBI and US Department of Justice are bothered by the impact people like him are having “on informing an audience not only inside the United States, but around the world about the malfeasance of American foreign policy,” Scott Ritter said. However, the author and commentator refused to be intimidated, saying he looked forward to continuing to operate as a contributor to Sputnik.
“I’m very proud of this relationship and I think highly of the editors and producers that I work with, and I look forward to continuing to do this for the foreseeable future,” Ritter stated.
EU Threatens Musk Over “Harmful” Speech Ahead Of Trump Interview
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 12, 2024
On the day of Elon Musk’s interview with President Donald Trump on X, the EU’s top digital official, Thierry Breton, issued a reminder to Musk of his responsibilities under EU law to curb the spread of “harmful content.”
Breton, the pro-censorship internal market commissioner, emphasized the significance of platform moderation in a letter and a post on X, stating, “With great audience comes greater responsibility.”
The European Union, under its censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), mandates that digital platforms stringently monitor online content to shield users from potential “harm.”
This legislation is part of a broader scrutiny of X, which has consistently been targeted by the EU. Breton’s correspondence highlighted that the DSA’s mandates apply uniformly, including to Musk.
The reminder was prompted by concerns over the “risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in the EU,” particularly with Musk’s upcoming interview with Trump and Musk’s own recent remarks concerning the attack on free speech currently being experienced in the UK.
Breton further warned, “My services and I will be extremely vigilant to any evidence that points to breaches of the DSA and will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting interim measures, should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from serious harm.”
As the European Union persists in the stringent enforcement of its censorship law, the imposition of its regulatory well beyond its borders, notably into the United Kingdom—a nation no longer tethered by EU membership—raises profound concerns about the overreach of censorship under the guise of protection.
The EU’s call for rigorous content moderation, even in territories outside its jurisdiction, smacks of an unsettling desire to extend its influence, stifling discourse and dissent not only within its member states but also in nations that have consciously chosen a different path.
The insistence on such broad and pervasive controls over digital content by an entity like the EU, which should ostensibly champion democratic values, is alarming.
This form of interventionism in the UK, under the pretense of safeguarding EU citizens from “harm,” undermines the very essence of free speech—a cornerstone of democratic societies. By dictating terms and conditions that stretch its authority into non-EU territories, the European Union not only compromises the sovereignty of other nations but also sets a dangerous precedent for global digital governance, where freedom of expression becomes a casualty in the battle against vaguely defined “harmful content.”
I reported a piece for the New York Times on antisemitism. I found a major error, but the Times didn’t care.
An elected official alleged an antisemitic break-in. Police say it didn’t happen.
Pro-Palestinian protest in Teaneck, New Jersey outside Congregation Keter Torah on March 10, 2024. Photo: Fatih Aktas/Anadolu via Getty.
By Arvind Dilawar | Drop Site News | August 8, 2024
As a freelance journalist, I contributed to a New York Times article earlier this year about an anti-Zionist demonstration in Teaneck, New Jersey, a township just outside of New York City. Hundreds of demonstrators had gathered to protest an event organized by Israeli realtors marketing properties in the occupied Palestinian territory of the West Bank—Israeli settlements widely regarded as illegal under international law. Amid Israel’s ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip, the Times article described the protest as contributing to escalating fear and tension in otherwise peaceable Teaneck. As a pivotal example of alleged antisemitic activity in the area, my co-author John Leland, a Times staff reporter, quoted township councilmember Hillary Goldberg, who claimed that her home had been “broken into” as part of a string of abuse in response to her vocal support of Israel and her Jewish background.
“I have been threatened; I had a box truck with my picture on it and the words ‘liar liar’ driven around town; my house has been broken into; I have received antisemitic messages,” Goldberg told Leland, adding: “I have never felt so afraid to be Jewish as now.”
It was an explosive allegation—a racially motivated break-in at the home of an elected official—and also a brand new one. Prior to the Times coverage, Goldberg was featured in an article from The Intercept about anti-Zionist organizing at Teaneck High School being suppressed by local politicians, including the councilmember. According to The Intercept, Goldberg appears to have collaborated with U.S. Representative Josh Gottheimer to have the entire Teaneck school district investigated by the U.S. Department of Education for alleged antisemitism in retaliation for students organizing for a ceasefire in Gaza last November.
There is no mention of a break-in at Goldberg’s home in The Intercept article—nor coverage of it elsewhere, either in the news or social media. Goldberg’s comments to the Times were the first, and thus far only, mention of the incident anywhere.
The way the reporting and editing process unfolded next was a window into how politically convenient claims make their way into the paper of record without corroboration—and stay in despite contradictory evidence.
When I shared my concerns regarding Goldberg’s apparent political motivations as laid out in the Intercept article, as well as the lack of coverage of this otherwise extremely newsworthy allegation, Leland assured me that the councilmember had filed a police report, meaning her story checked out. But when I requested the report, he told me he hadn’t actually seen it, only been assured by Goldberg that she had filed it. The story went to press without further verification of her claim.
I was eventually able to obtain the police reports myself via an Open Public Records Act request, and they revealed that the police had determined no break-in, nor any other crime, had been committed. According to the first police report, dated February 10, six officers responded to a call at Goldberg’s publicly listed address because, according to the complainant, “Lights basement were on // were not on when left // back door was locked when got home unlocked.” The half-dozen officers checked the property but found no sign of forced entry nor anything else amiss. Two subsequent checks of the area found nothing further, and a follow-up investigation by a sergeant two days later ended the same.
“The sergeant did respond to the residence a couple days after the initial incident was reported and spoke with the complainant,” Seth Kriegel, deputy chief of the Teaneck Police Department, reiterated to me. “And based on speaking with her and his investigation, he determined that there was no burglary that had occurred—or attempted burglary.”
Teaneck police determined that no crime had been committed at Goldberg’s property, according to Kriegel. He also noted that subsequent checks were requested by the complainant, a dozen of which were conducted before the publication of the Times article, and none found anything to report.
Believing a correction to the Times story was in order—or at least an update, to give readers a fuller picture—I shared the police reports with Leland—who told me that he had already gotten them and, despite the explicit contradictions, no correction would be issued. When presented with the police reports, management at the Times also declined to reconcile them with its coverage. Instead, managing director of external communications, Charlie Stadtlander, said in a statement that the article was “thoroughly reported, fact-checked and edited, and we stand behind its publication.” Goldberg did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The Times has come under fire in recent months for refusing to issue corrections to several other articles about Israel and Palestine.
Perhaps most significantly, the Times continues to defend an article accusing Palestinian militants of committing “systematic” sexual violence against Israelis on October 7, despite criticism from professors of journalism, cited by The Washington Post, and others regarding significant issues with the story and its reporting. The Times was forced to issue an “update” (rather than a correction, as would be stipulated by standard journalistic practice) to address contradictory evidence that later emerged.
Anti-Zionist groups such as Writers Against the War on Gaza and publications such as Mondoweiss have also criticized the Times for minimizing Israel’s role in the ongoing famine in the Gaza Strip, casting the Israeli genocide as a feminist endeavor and largely ignoring the killings of more than a hundred fellow journalists in Gaza.
Such apparent contradictions in the Times’ coverage of Israel and Palestine led to significant internal dissent at the publication. A planned podcast episode on the aforementioned story about sexual violence had to be scrapped after producers raised questions about its reliability. At least four other contributors have also resigned or severed relationships with the Times for similar reasons, according to the outlet Them.
Unfortunately the Times is not alone in breaking with standard journalistic ethics when it comes to covering Israel and Palestine. In a decade of being a full-time freelance journalist, I have personally never come up against the kind of opposition I’ve experienced trying to cover the reverberations of the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.
In December, an editor at The Smart Set, an arts and culture magazine that I contributed to for five years without issue, accepted a pitch of mine on decolonization—only to have a higher-up summarily reject the draft, without edits, notes, or payment.
In April, Times Union, the regional affiliate of Hearst Newspapers in Upstate New York, published an article that I had written about local businesses being harassed for supporting a ceasefire in Gaza. It was online for less than 24 hours before the editor-in-chief interrupted his own travel plans to force the newsroom to take it down. There were no factual errors in the article nor procedural errors in its reporting. Rather, it was Times Union that ran afoul of standard practice by refusing to issue a retraction acknowledging, much less justifying, their decision.
These experiences, as well as mine at The Times, could individually be written off as little more than professional setbacks, especially when compared to the unimaginable suffering in Gaza, where Israeli forces have killed more than 39,000 Palestinians, including at least 15,000 children, according to Al Jazeera at the time of this writing. These otherwise minor journalistic malpractices, however, should be understood as coming together to form a web, like the Kevlar-tough strands of spider’s silk, with the fates of those Palestinians caught in the middle.
Hamas demands return to agreed-upon ceasefire deal, calls new talks ‘cover for Israeli massacres’
The Cradle | August 12, 2024
Hamas has called on mediators in the ceasefire and prisoner exchange talks to present a plan to implement the proposal agreed to by the resistance movement in early July and to oblige Israel to do so as well.
“We demand that the mediators submit a plan to implement what they presented to the movement and that we agreed to on 2 July 2024, based on Biden’s vision and the Security Council resolution, and oblige the occupation to do so, instead of going to more rounds of negotiations or new proposals that provide cover for the occupation’s aggression and give it more time to perpetuate the war of genocide against our people,” Hamas said on 11 August.
The Hamas statement also said Israel’s assassination of political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh and the continuation of its massacres against civilians in Gaza prove its intentions of preventing a ceasefire deal.
Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan told Al-Araby on Sunday that if there is no real pressure by the US president on Israel, “he does not have anything to bet on to make the [upcoming] negotiations successful].”
He added that Washington falsely guaranteed Israel’s acceptance of the proposal presented by Joe Biden, adding that “it is time” to oblige Israel to do so.
Biden unveiled a permanent ceasefire plan in late May, claiming Israel had also agreed to the proposal. Yet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained insistent on having the right to continue the war and pursue Hamas after the captives’ exchange, a position which he has stuck to until now.
US and Qatari mediators eventually updated the Biden plan and presented it to Hamas in early July. The resistance movement proposed amendments to the revised plan on 3 July, which Israeli sources said were positive and could enable a deal to pass.
Yet Netanyahu’s position on pursuing the war’s goals, despite talks for a permanent ceasefire, obstructed the negotiations and prevented an agreement from being reached.
Israel had also rejected a proposal agreed to by Hamas on 6 May.
“The plan I put together, endorsed by the G7, endorsed by the UN Security Council, et cetera, is still viable. And I’m working literally every single day – and my whole team – to see to it that it doesn’t escalate into a regional war. But it easily can,” Biden said on 11 August.
Washington has been beefing up its presence across the region to defend Israel from the Resistance Axis, which has vowed to respond to the recent Israeli attacks on Tehran and Beirut.
Hamas’ statement came two days after Netanyahu’s office said Israel would send mediators to upcoming ceasefire talks, scheduled for 15 August, “to finalize the details of the implementation of the agreement framework.”
In a statement on Monday, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) said, “It is unreasonable to hold any negotiations while the occupation’s crimes continue in shelters, schools, displacement tents, and hospitals.”
New negotiations are “meaningless as long as the aggression government and war criminals have not provided clear and declared approval of the formulation that was originally presented by them and adopted by US President Joe Biden,” the PFLP added.
Israel is a state built on lies and will continue promoting lies
By Motasem A Dalloul | MEMO | August 12, 2024
Additionally, [the named targeted included] “three elderly civilians who had no connection to the military action were also among the victims, including a school principal … an Arabic language teacher, … and six civilians, some of whom were even Hamas opponents.”
Syria’s Arab tribes revolt: US bases and allies become prime targets
The current uprising in Syria’s Deir Ezzor represents the growing armed resistance of local Arab tribes against US-backed Kurdish forces who control their land and resources – potentially opening up a new front for West Asia’s Axis of Resistance
By Haidar Mustafa | The Cradle | August 12, 2024
On 7 August, a coalition of Syrian Arab tribes recaptured several key towns from US-backed Kurdish forces in the eastern countryside of Syria’s Deir Ezzor governorate. These tribesmen, led by Sheikh Ibrahim al-Hafl, launched the largest assault on Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) sites since the onset of the Arab tribal rebellion against the US-backed militia last year.
The renewed offensive has also reignited popular resistance against the US presence in the region, tracing its origins to the SDF leadership coup against the Deir Ezzor Military Council, which led to the arrest and removal of Arab leader Ahmed al-Khabil, also known as Abu Khawla.
The spark of resistance
In August 2023, the SDF’s arrest of the Deir Ezzor Military Council leader triggered a tribal uprising across several villages under SDF control – from Al-Baghouz to Al-Shuhail. This uprising quickly evolved into a more organized resistance when Sheikh Hafl announced in an audio statement the formation of a military command for the “Army of Tribes and Clans in the countryside of Deir Ezzor” last September.
Clashes along the Euphrates River in Deir Ezzor governorate
Since then, Hafl has become a constant menace to the SDF, with accusations flying that the Syrian government and Iran supported him. It is an obvious attempt to discredit the Arab tribal movement, which is genuinely focused on liberating land and reclaiming resources.
The SDF prematurely announced the “failure” of the attack, which it claims was carried out “upon the orders” of Hossam Louka, head of Syria’s General Intelligence Directorate. In a statement posted on Facebook, the SDF said:
Our sweep campaign continues against the remnants of the Syrian regime-backed mercenaries who attacked the villages of Al-Dhiban, Al-Latwa, and Abu Hamam.
US occupation forces have established prominent bases at the Al-Omar and Conoco oil fields, in a region largely inhabited by Arab communities who have long been persecuted by the SDF. When the US failed to control and co-opt these tribes into a loyal organization, it sought to instead characterize them as a threat aligned with Syrian and Iranian interests.
This narrative is consistent with the approach of the US project and its allies in the SDF, who seek to suppress any resistance movements that challenge their agenda and practices, including the theft of Syrian oil and wheat.
‘Iranian-backed’ tribal resistance
Sheikh Hafl called upon the tribes and clans, especially those beyond Syria’s borders, to support the resistance, leading to increased and sustained attacks against the SDF. The tribal resistance, primarily rooted in Dhiban, spread throughout the towns and cities east of the Euphrates, turning them into a continuous conflict zone.
This resistance posed a significant threat to US interests, with the so-called “Operation Inherent Resolve” reporting in its October–December 2023 quarterly update to the US Congress that tribal fighters have evolved into a “full-fledged resistance movement.”
These fighters, the report said, receive “explicit support from the Syrian regime and its Iranian allies on the western side of the Euphrates River, where resistance fighters resupply, rearm, and launch attacks across the river in SDF-controlled villages on the eastern side.”
Recognizing this threat, the US aircraft recently launched several raids targeting the Arab tribal forces to prevent them from advancing towards their bases or achieving their goal of expelling the SDF from “Arab land.”
Gaining ground as SDF lays siege to Hasakah
After a year of limited confrontations and small operations, Hafl re-issued the call to confront what he called the “Qandil” gangs. This announcement coincided with the launch of a violent attack by Arab tribal forces on SDF positions in the cities and towns of Deir Ezzor.
During this assault, tribal forces managed to cross into and expand control over areas including Dhiban, Al-Busaira, Ibriha, Al-Hariji, Al-Tayyaneh, Abu Hamam, Gharanij, Al-Kishkiya, and the entire riverbed. The SDF, in turn, responded by imposing a siege on the residents of Hasakah and Qamishli within Syrian government-controlled areas, cutting off supplies of flour, food, and water – a tactic the SDF frequently uses to pressure Damascus.
Insiders believe that the SDF is leading Hasakah into the unknown, as the imposition of a siege policy could trigger local confrontations within the city. This will not, however, deter the tribal “resistance” from continuing its project aimed at pressuring the US occupation and its Kurdish militias.
Notably, a Syrian-based Russian delegation arrived at Qamishli airport before Friday afternoon and held several meetings to mediate the crisis. According to Syrian daily Al-Watan, these discussions did not yield positive results after the SDF leaders rejected mediation and insisted on continuing the siege of Hasakah’s population.
Serving geopolitical goals
The US occupation of the Jazira region and the establishment of more than 20 American bases was not primarily to combat terrorism, as claimed by the international coalition, but rather because “ISIS” served as the pretext for strengthening the US obstruction of the strategic land links between the eastern Mediterranean, via Central Asia, to China, and to Iran on the Persian Gulf. The US further seeks to prevent the development of close ties between the Syrian and Iraqi arenas.
Political affairs writer and researcher Dr Ahmed al-Druze explains to The Cradle why the US continues to provide unlimited support for the SDF in opposition to the region’s inhabitants.
The American occupation will remain as long as it has the ability to do so, and it deals with the Arab tribes from this perspective.
Druze believes that the events unfolding today in Syria’s eastern region are a result of the repercussions of the Palestinian resistance’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and the broader spillover of conflicts across West Asia.
He highlights that, while some may view the recent developments as a local conflict – either between Arab clans or between Arab clans and Kurds – the reality suggests otherwise, as the clans find common cause and common targets with the Axis of Resistance.
Even if the situation temporarily stabilizes, with tribal forces retreating and the SDF lifting the siege on Hasakah and Qamishli, Druze believes the underlying international conflict will likely resurface, potentially tied to events in occupied Palestine and Gaza.
Though it may be premature to speak of a US existential predicament in the Jazira region, given that its losses currently remain limited, writer and political analyst Khaled al-Miftah argues that the US faces growing popular rejection and resistance.
The region is increasingly aware of Washington’s goals – to establish a separatist Kurdish entity and exploit Syria’s resources. Al-Miftah tells The Cradle that the US is beginning to feel the effects of the Turkish–Syrian rapprochement, which, if achieved under Russian auspices, could spell the end of the SDF’s separatist ambitions. Consequently, the US has begun to create obstacles to prevent this outcome.
Part of the region’s resistance
Despite the end of large-scale military conflict in most of Syria years ago, the eastern region remains embroiled in tension and ongoing strife. Armed confrontations between the SDF and pro-Turkish factions in the north continue, while the war with Arab tribal forces east of the Euphrates enters a new chapter, driven by different calculations than in past battles.
The tribes are now determined to expand their operations and have increased their readiness. US bases have become permanent targets for resistance forces on both the Syrian and Iraqi sides, with drones and rockets frequently striking occupation bases in the Omar and Conoco oil fields. Meanwhile, the tribes have expanded their control over villages that serve as the first line of defense for the SDF around US bases.
Meanwhile, with the SDF’s release of hundreds of ISIS fighters from prisons in July, ISIS continues its terrorist attacks in the region, despite the international coalition’s previous claims of having eliminated the group’s presence. ISIS cells periodically launch assaults on Syrian army positions and their allies in the Resistance Axis.
The Jazira region has essentially become a battleground where the US now reaps consequences from its forced occupation of Syrian territory, disregarding the impact on Syrian territorial unity and the strife it sows among the population.
The eastern region remains trapped in a cycle of escalation, with local and international actors involved, while the Syrian people bear the brunt, suffering both from ongoing violence and the theft of their resources.
Iran finesses its deterrence strategy
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 12, 2024
The latest Israeli spin has it that Iran cannot make up its mind whether to retaliate or not for the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on July 28 while on a visit to Tehran for the inaugural of President Masoud Pezeshkian.
The hypothesis here is that there must be a standoff between Pezeshkian and hardliners of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with the new president pushing back against any aggressive strategy against Israel.
Prima facie, it is a ridiculous spin. But Iran rebutted it, nonetheless, with the Acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani stating as recently as on Saturday night that Tehran “will make the aggressor Israeli regime pay the price for its aggression in a legitimate and decisive action.” Those were carefully chosen words.
But how come Iran didn’t act for a fortnight already? Several factors are in play here. First, Pezeshkian has not yet formed his government. He submitted his list of proposed ministers to the Parliament for approval only yesterday. The executive branch of the government is carrying on with day-to-day functioning.
Nonetheless, according to Russian media, Pezeshkian did speak about Iran’s retaliatory strike against Israel at a meeting with the visiting Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu on July 5 in Tehran.
That said, do not rule out that there could be some calibration in the timing. After all, Israel is in panic and reports say people stay awake at night fearing Iranian attack. According to IRNA, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for all his bravado, evacuated four of Israel’s important intelligence and security bases in Tel Aviv.
Second, Iran will not act as “spoiler” when regional states and the US are pulling all stops to pick up the threads of the Gaza ceasefire talks between Hamas and Israel. The fact that Israel agreed to the talks on Thursday suggests that Netanyahu also sees advantages in returning to the negotiating table.
Of course, Iran will also be carefully weighing the scale of its attack on Israel. After all, Haniyeh was killed in a covert operation in which there was no Iranian casualty.
However, the clincher is going to be the progress in the upcoming talks. Iran may altogether postpone the operation if the Israeli side gives guarantees at the talks not to invade Lebanon and withdraws troops from the Gaza Strip.
Tehran could potentially reconsider its position if a radical change occurs in the situation in the region following the conclusion of a truce between Hamas and Israel. Expectations are running high. And, make no mistake, Tehran has a much closer equation with Yahya Sinwar than it had with Haniyeh.
Therefore, the high-stakes diplomacy this week leading to the talks scheduled for Thursday to secure a hostage and ceasefire deal in Gaza becomes an inflection point.
Iran’s UN mission in New York said in a statement on Friday, “Our priority is to establish a lasting ceasefire in Gaza. Any agreement accepted by Hamas will also be recognised by us.” The statement reiterated Iran’s right to self-defence against Israel but also added, “However, we hope that our response will be timed and conducted in a manner not to the detriment of the potential ceasefire.”
Tehran is intensely conscious that the outcome of the Hamas-Israel talks (with the participation of CIA Director William Burns) in terms of the release of American hostages is the stuff of Joe Biden’s presidential legacy as much as it holds the potential to burnish the prospects of the Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris in the November election.
Jordan is acting as go-between to enable Washington and Tehran to sensitise each other their respective problematic borderlines. Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi visited Tehran on August 4 for talks with Ali Bagheri. They met again on the sideline of the OIC extraordinary meeting in Jeddah on August 7 (which was by the way, a diplomatic coup for Tehran.) In between, Biden spoke with King Abdullah of Jordan.
The White House readout said Biden and Abdullah “discussed their efforts to de-escalate regional tensions, including through an immediate ceasefire and hostage release deal. The President thanked His Majesty for his friendship, and affirmed unwavering US support for Jordan as a partner and ally in promoting regional peace and security.”
Meanwhile, Biden is using all channels available to moderate Iran’s attack on Israel. The Americans have also openly dissociated themselves from the killing of Haniyeh. They have reportedly conveyed to Tehran that an escalation is fraught with the risk of a US-Iran conflict, which is avoidable.
Finally, in the range of discourses over Iran’s retaliation, what is overlooked generally is that Iranians invariably have a strategy, unlike Israelis who resort to knee-jerk reactions. Therefore, the ‘big picture’ becomes important here.
Iran is not looking for war, especially when it has done exceedingly well so far to cut losses and turn the table on Israel in a cost-effective manner. Israel’s international image is in the mud and not all the freshwater in the Sea of Galilee can wash off the filth.
Iran’s number one priority will be to have the western sanctions removed. Supreme Leader Khamenei’s deal with Pezeshkian quintessentially narrows down to improving the economy by getting rid of sanctions and making it possible for Iran to gain its rightful place in the international order by using its vast resources optimally.
All major pronouncements by Pezeshkian have signalled his prioritisation of Iran’s relations with the West. Quite obviously, Pezeshkian is walking a tight rope, as Javad Zarif’s announcement of his resignation as the president’s deputy for strategic affairs shows. Zarif is reportedly peeved that the steering committee responsible for candidate selection picked only three out of the 19 names he had proposed for the cabinet posts!
Be that as it may, Abbas Araghchi, introduced as the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, had served for 8 years as the deputy to Zarif during Hassan Rouhani’s presidency, playing a key role in the nuclear negotiations (JCPOA) with the Obama administration. The European powers see Araghchi as a ‘moderate.’ Indeed, he makes an effective interlocutor for Tehran in western capitals — and it is the clearest signal so far that Iran’s foreign policy trajectory is leaning toward constructive engagement of the West.
Smart thinking involves the brain getting precedence over brawn. That is where Iran scores over the die-hard Zionists in Tel Aviv who are still wallowing in the culture of the Nakba.
Iran shrewdly assessed at a very early stage that contradictions were inevitable in Biden-Netanyahu equations post-October 7 and the Greater Israel agenda and the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy are pulling in opposite directions.
Equally, Iran has drawn the correct conclusions out of the standoff in April where it displayed its formidable military capability to inflict pain on Israel while also prompting the US to prevail upon the latter not to react! In the entire chronicle of US-Iran tango since 1979, such a thing never happened before.
Why should Tehran give up that pathway leading to the rose garden? For sure, Tehran will inflict even greater pain on Israel than in April. But, fundamentally, the 900-pound gorilla in Tel Aviv has to be tamed with a smart admixture of hard and soft power — and, it also involves the West. And to that end, Iran will restrain itself and remain a nuclear threshold state.
Subliminal Message from Beijing to Washington amidst the War Drums
By Lama El Horr – New Eastern Outlook – 12.08.2024
Anger is a pyromaniac. Under its influence, we tend to provoke a reaction from our adversary, which serves as fuel to fan the flames, thus increasing the legitimacy of the angry inferno. The method is convenient for practicing accusatory inversion and making the one reacting to aggression the instigator of hell.
Today, Washington is angry. The object of this anger is China’s spectacular rise to power, which is increasingly shaking the foundations and legitimacy of US domination of the world. This American anger desperately needs pretexts to both justify and intensify hostilities against Beijing. The United States is therefore seeking to provoke a violent reaction from its main geopolitical rival: China.
So far, this American strategy of one-upmanship has had the opposite effect to that intended. Whether in Beijing’s immediate vicinity, in the Middle East, Africa or Europe, American pressure against China and its partners has reinforced Beijing’s pacifist vocation, to the point of making it a key diplomatic player in the resolution of the world’s most acute crises. Much to the chagrin of Washington’s thirst for fire.
An escalation of tensions meticulously organized by Washington and its allies
Washington’s strategy of escalating tensions aims to target the fulcrums that make the multipolarity advocated by Beijing and Russia a geopolitical reality. Fomenting conflicts involving Beijing’s strategic partners is the path the United States seems to have chosen to curb China’s rise to power and harm its strategic investments.
When Washington allowed Israel to assassinate the Hamas political leader in charge of negotiations, on Iranian soil and in the wake of the Beijing Declaration, the efforts of Chinese diplomacy to unify the Palestinian factions were also targeted. When Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus in defiance of the Vienna Convention, China, which has a strategic partnership with Iran and Syria, was also targeted. When Washington and its allies bomb Yemen to remove any obstacle to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territories, China, which worked for the rapprochement between Riyadh and Teheran, then between Riyadh and Sanaa, is also targeted. When the members of the UN Security Council adopt a resolution on the need for a ceasefire in Gaza, and the United States declares that this resolution is non-binding, China, which urges respect for international law and whose strategic interests are threatened by regional insecurity, is also targeted.
The latest developments concerning the Western Sahara bear striking similarities to those in West Asia. As with the Palestinian question, the Western bloc is flouting international law, which enshrines the Saharawi people’s right to self-determination – except that here, it’s the China-Algeria economic partnership, and the Russia-Algeria security partnership, that seem to be in Washington’s sights. And let’s not forget that Algerian gas is supposed to relieve Europeans of anti-Russian sanctions, and that Algeria continues to speak out on behalf of the Palestinian people.
Likely to inflame tensions on North Africa’s western flank, the Western Sahara is a godsend for Washington at a time when Algeria and its southern neighbors (Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso) have embarked on a process of decolonizing their development and security model – a process that is about to extend to other countries that have also lived under Western tutelage since independence, such as Chad and Nigeria.
Like Israel against Iran, Ukraine against Moscow or Seoul against Pyongyang, France has been assigned the role of executor of the US strategy to contain China, through the demonization of Algeria. Paris is aided in its mission by the Abraham Accords, concluded between Morocco and Israel under the aegis of the Trump administration, which contribute to reinforcing NATO’s presence in North Africa – in a less brutal manner, for the time being, than in the former Yugoslavia.
This strategy of Atlanticist escalation borders on the grotesque when it comes to Venezuela, a BRICS candidate country and one of the world’s leading oil and gas reserves. After decades of outrages suffered by Caracas – attempted coups d’état, media killing of legitimate leaders, suffocation of the economy by apartheid-style sanctions – the United States has still not achieved its goal: to take control of the country’s strategic resources and install its military bases there. As in the case of Iran, the assistance of Beijing and Moscow was crucial in preventing Venezuela’s collapse.
The Western bloc’s decision to resume the affront of not recognizing the elected president has just been severely thwarted by Beijing and Moscow. Invited to the BRICS Summit to be held in Russia in October, Nicolas Maduro announced that he could entrust the exploitation of his country’s strategic resources to members of this structure. Caracas seems to be warning Washington: if you don’t curb your greed, you run the risk of losing everything.
On China’s doorstep, the outbreak of violence that forced the resignation of Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh – another BRICS candidate country – raises questions about Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy. The former head of government’s statements concerning the intentions of “a certain country” to build a military base on the island of Saint Martin in the Bay of Bengal, and also to create a Christian state that would include parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar and even India, offer a reading of events quite distinct from what is being said by the Western media and Muhammad Yunus, the Bangladeshi Nobel Prize winner who has just been entrusted with the head of the interim government.
One power struggle, two world views
Through its leaders, its satellite countries and its megaphone, the mainstream media, the United States strives to portray East-West tensions as a conflict of hierarchy between two models of governance: liberal democracies, synonymous with the West, and autocracies, synonymous with emerging powers. China, on the other hand, offers a different interpretation: the reason for global geopolitical tensions is the questioning of the hierarchy of power in a world where the overwhelming majority of people are challenging American hegemony.
Despite the risk of confrontation it raises, the exacerbation of tensions between Beijing and Washington certainly has one merit: it shows that the two powers have two diametrically opposed conceptions of the world, of their place in it, and of the rules that are supposed to govern relations between states.
Just as it cannot conceive of its own sovereignty without respecting the sovereignty of other states – which implies the primacy of the principle of non-interference and the rejection of any hegemonic power – China also considers that there is an interdependence between its development and that of other nations. This is the founding idea of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, complemented by the vision of a Community of Destiny for Mankind.
This is the bedrock of Chinese political philosophy, in which the notions of development, security and peace are inextricably linked. The BRI and China’s Security, Development and Civilization initiatives are the best illustrations of this concept of civilizational interdependence. In Beijing’s view, we’re all piloting the same ship: it’s up to each and every one of us to be a good pilot, a good teammate and a good visionary, because we’ll have to work collectively to achieve prosperity, and collectively to avoid the pitfalls. The success of such a project depends on keeping the peace on board.
On the contrary, the United States believes that its sovereignty depends on the subordination of other states to its power, and that its continued development depends on obstructing the economic, technological and military independence of other global players. This denial of peoples’ right to self-determination betrays a supremacist conception of power – not inconsistent with imperialist ideology – and logically raises objections throughout the world.
Despite these objections, judging by its militaristic headlong rush, the American administration continues to endorse the statement attributed to Caligula: ‘Let them hate me, so long as they fear me!’ Yet today, with the exception of EU members and a handful of other satellite states, the United States no longer commands the fearful respect it once did in the golden age of its omnipotence – despite the increasingly exorbitant budget allocated to its arms industry.
Behind Beijing’s placid posture, a message to Washington
In this explosive geopolitical context, Washington is seeking to drive Beijing up against the wall, by limiting the Asian giant’s choice to two options. Either China persists in avoiding confrontation – in which case Washington will inevitably gain ground – or China sinks into the spiral of American pyromania – in which case Beijing will turn away from its own geopolitical priorities, in favor of those of its rival. In other words, Washington is offering Beijing the choice between capitulation and surrender.
China doesn’t see it that way, and has its sights set on a third way: pacifism without capitulation. Whether it’s Taiwan, the Korean peninsula, tensions in the South China Sea, conflicts between NATO and Russia, or between the US and Iran, China persists in advocating the peaceful resolution of disputes. In support of this position, Beijing has woven a network of inclusive partnerships, as opposed to exclusive military alliances.
Clearly, this pacifist plea reflects the Chinese authorities’ strategic decision to refrain from knee-jerk reactions to Washington’s military provocations. China’s challenge is to break the United States’ militaristic logic, without indulging its strategy of conflagration.
For the time being, Beijing has decided to meet this challenge with silence. A good illustration of this is the conflict in the Middle East and Gaza. China’s silence has prompted the Western bloc to reveal its cards and discredit itself. ‘Freedom’, ‘Human Rights’, ‘Democracy’ and ‘International Law’ are suffering the same carnage as the Palestinian people.
Beijing’s silence also keeps Washington in the dark about the military capabilities of Beijing’s and Moscow’s partners. The extra-judicial assassinations of Palestinian, Lebanese and Iranian leaders, marked by the seal of international illegality, are the very demonstration of the United States’ frustration at the military calm of its geopolitical adversaries.
Added to this are the uninterrupted requests for membership of the BRICS and the SCO, the hallmarks of the multipolar world. This simple fact means that the tornado of hostilities towards Beijing has not succeeded in diverting the world majority from its aspiration to emancipate itself from the American hegemonic order. Now, if living under the American yoke is intolerable for Iran, Algeria or Venezuela, it’s easy to imagine the degree of irritation the world’s second-largest economy must feel.
But ultimately, as the NATO-Russia conflict has shown, the United States cannot conceive that the deterrent power of its rivals can be applied to itself. It was only by confronting NATO militarily, through Ukraine, that Russia’s deterrent power could be restored. The provocations against Moscow revealed that Washington did not possess all the details of Russia’s military architecture. Today’s outcome of this conflict, revealing the overwhelming superiority of the Russian army, suggests that Moscow, like Beijing and Teheran, had shown unlimited strategic patience before resorting to the military option. Unfortunately, the USA and its NATO allies discovered this at the same time as they discovered Moscow’s firepower.
Today, when Washington seems to be saying: We run the world, and China is part of the world, China seems to be replying, in the manner of Aimé Césaire: Strength is not within us, but above us.
Anyone not supporting Ukraine gets shot – Serbian deputy PM
RT | August 12, 2024
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic is risking his life by refusing to back Western nations on the Ukraine conflict, a senior member of his government has claimed.
Serbia, a traditional Russian ally, has declined to impose sanctions on Russia or support the policies of the US and Kiev’s other backers. Brussels in-turn has insisted that Belgrade’s aspiration to join the EU will not be realized unless it changes course.
In an interview with Russia’s RIA Novosti published on Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin said that Serbian authorities are concerned about the president’s safety, following attempts on the lives of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and former US President Donald Trump.
“After the attempt on Mr. Fico, and later Trump, I told Vucic to be on guard,” Vulin said, “that’s because something happens to everyone calling for a peaceful resolution on Ukraine, they get shot at.”
In May, Fico, a vocal critic of the Western Ukraine policy, survived a shooting by a 71-year-old man. His government blamed incendiary rhetoric by opposition politicians for motivating the shooter.
Trump, who claims he could end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours if reelected, was grazed by a bullet during a presidential campaign rally in July. The shooter was killed by a counter-sniper. US investigators have not disclosed any suspected motive for the attempted assassination.
Vulin also criticized organizers of a mass protest which took place in Belgrade last Saturday, claiming that its ultimate goal may be to topple the Serbian government.
“As we know, [sometimes] ouster [of the national leader] means not only the change of power, but also physical elimination of the person imbued with the power,” the minister said.
The demonstration, which attracted some 27,000 protesters, according to government estimates, was staged in opposition to a project to develop lithium mining, which critics claim will cause massive environmental damage.
Belgrade granted a license to extract the valuable metal to the British-Australian company Rio Tinto in 2022, but later revoked it following public pressure. The project resumed last month, however, after a Serbian court overruled the government’s decision. President Vucic intends to put the issue to a referendum.
Vucic also said last week that the Russian government had warned Serbian authorities that the rally may be a cover for a ‘color revolution’ – a hostile foreign operation that uses anti-government demonstrations and spiraling public disorder to force regime change.
“An Intricate Fabric of Bad Actors Working Hand-in-Hand” – So is war Inevitable?
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 12, 2024
Walter Kirn, an American novelist and cultural critic, in his 2009 memoir, Lost in the Meritocracy, described how, after a sojourn at Oxford, he came to be a member of ‘the class that runs things’ – the one that “writes the headlines, and the stories under them”. It was the account of a middle-class kid from Minnesota trying desperately to fit into the élite world, and then to his surprise, realising that he didn’t want to fit in at all.
Now 61, Kirn has a newsletter on Substack and co-hosts a lively podcast devoted in large part to critiquing ‘establishment liberalism’. His contrarian drift has made him more vocal about his distrust of élite institutions – as he wrote in 2022:
“For years now, the answer, in every situation—‘Russiagate,’ COVID, Ukraine—has been more censorship, more silencing, more division, more scapegoating. It’s almost as if these are goals in themselves – and the cascade of emergencies mere excuses for them. Hate is always the way,”
Kirn’s politics, a friend of his suggested, was “old-school liberal,” underscoring that it was the other ‘so-called liberals’ who had changed: “I’ve been told repeatedly in the last year that free speech is a right-wing issue; I wouldn’t call [Kirn] Conservative. I would just say he’s a free-thinker, nonconformist, iconoclastic”, the friend said.
To understand Kirn’s contrarian turn – and to make sense of today’s form of American politics – it is necessary to understand one key term. It is not found in standard textbooks, but is central to the new playbook of power: the “whole of society”.
“The term was popularised roughly a decade ago by the Obama administration, which liked that its bland, technocratic appearance could be used as cover to erect a mechanism for a governance ‘whole-of-society’ approach” – one that asserts that as actors – media, NGOs,corporations and philanthropist institutions – interact with public officials to play a critical role not just in setting the public agenda, but in enforcing public decisions.
Jacob Siegel has explained the historical development of the ‘whole of society’ approach during the Obama administration’s attempt to pivot in the ‘war on terror’ to what it called ‘CVE’ – countering violent extremism. The idea was to surveil the American people’s online behaviour in order to identify those who may, at some unspecified time in the future, ‘commit a crime’.
Inherent to the concept of the potential ‘violent extremist’ who has, as yet, committed no crime, is a weaponised vagueness: “A cloud of suspicion that hangs over anyone who challenges the prevailing ideological narratives”.
“What the various iterations of this whole-of-society approach have in common is their disregard for democratic process and the right to free association – their embrace of social media surveillance, and their repeated failure to deliver results …”.
Aaron Kheriaty writes:
“More recently, the whole of society political machinery facilitated the overnight flip from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris, with news media and party supporters turning on a dime when instructed to do so—democratic primary voters ‘be damned’. This happened not because of the personalities of the candidates involved, but on the orders of party leadership. The actual nominees are fungible, and entirely replaceable, functionaries, serving the interests of the ruling party … The party was delivered to her because she was selected by its leaders to act as its figurehead. That real achievement belongs not to Harris, but to the party-state”.
What has this to do with Geo-politics – and whether there will be war between Iran and Israel?
Well, quite a lot. It is not just western domestic politics that has been shaped by the Obama CVE totalising mechanics. The “party-state” machinery (Kheriaty’s term) for geo-politics has also been co-opted:
“To avoid the appearance of totalitarian overreach in such efforts”, Kheriaty argues,“the party requires an endless supply of causes … that party officers use as pretexts to demand ideological alignment across public and private sector institutions. These causes come in roughly two forms: the urgent existential crisis (examples include COVID and the much-hyped threat of Russian disinformation) – and victim groups supposedly in need of the party’s protection”.
“It’s almost as if these are goals in themselves – and the cascade of emergencies mere excuses for them. Hate is always the way”, Kirn underlines.
Just to be clear, the implication is that all geo-strategic critics of the party-state’s ideological alignment must be jointly and collectively treated as potentially dangerous extremists. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea therefore are bound together as presenting a single obnoxious extremism that stands in opposition to ‘Our Democracy’; versus ‘Our Free Speech’ and versus ‘Our Expert Consensus’.
So, if the move to war against one extremist (i.e. versus Iran) is ‘acclaimed’ by 58 standing ovations in the joint session of Congress last month, then further debate is unnecessary – any more than Kamala Harris’ nomination as Presidential candidate needs to be endorsed through primary voting:
Candidate Harris told hecklers on Wednesday, chanting about genocide in Gaza, ‘to pipe down’ – unless they “want Trump to win”. Tribal norms must not be challenged (even for genocide).
Sandra Parker, Chairwoman of the political advocacy arm for the three thousand members of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) was advising on correct talking points, the Times of Israel reports:
“The rise of Republican far right-wingers who spurn decades of (bi-partisan) pro-Israel orthodoxies, favouring isolationism and resurrecting anti-Jewish tropes is alarming pro-Israel evangelicals and their Jewish allies… The break with decades of assertive foreign policy was evident last year when Sen. Josh Hawley derided the “liberal empire” that he dismissively characterised as bipartisan “Neoconservatives on the right, and liberal globalists on the left: Together they make up what you might call the uniparty, the DC establishment that transcends all changing administrations””.
At the CUFI talking points conference, the fear of increased isolation on the Right was the issue:
“You’re going to see that adversaries will see the U.S. as in retreat” – should isolationists get the upper hand: Activists were advised to push back: Should lawmakers claim that NATO expansion is what triggered Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “Should anybody begin to make the argument that the reason the Russians have moved in on Ukraine – is because of NATO enlargement – can I just say that this is the age-old ‘blame America trope,’” the Chair advised the assembled delegates.
“They have the strain of isolationism that’s – ‘Let’s just do China and forget about Iran, forget about Russia, let’s just do one thing’ – but it doesn’t work that way,” said Boris Zilberman, director of policy and strategy for the CUFI Action Fund. Instead, he described “an intricate fabric of bad actors working hand in hand”.
So, to get to the bottom of this western mind-management in which appearance and reality are cut from the same cloth of hostile extremism: Iran, Russia and China are ‘cut from it’ likewise.
Plainly put, the import of this “behavioural-engineering enterprise (it no longer having much to do with the truth, no longer having much to do with your right to desire what you wish – or not desire what you don’t wish)” – is, as Kirn says: “everyone is in on the game”. “The corporate and state interests don’t believe you are wanting the right things—you might want Donald Trump— or, that you aren’t wanting the things you should want more” (such as seeing Putin removed).
If this ‘whole of society’ machinery is understood correctly in the wider world, then the likes of Iran or Hizbullah are forced to take note that war in the Middle East inevitably may bleed across into wider war against Russia – and have adverse ramifications for China, too.
That is not because it makes sense. It doesn’t. But it is because the ideological needs of ‘whole of society’ foreign-policy hinge on simplistic ‘moral’ narratives: Ones that express emotional attitudes, rather than argued propositions.
Netanyahu went to Washington to lay out the case for all-out war on Iran – a moral war of civilisation versus the Barbarians, he said. He was applauded for his stance. He returned to Israel and immediately provoked Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas in a way that dishonoured and humiliated both – knowing well that it would draw a riposte that would most likely lead to wider war.
Clearly Netanyahu, backed by a plurality of Israelis, wants an Armageddon (with full U.S. support, of course). He has the U.S., he thinks, exactly where he wants it. Netanyahu has only to escalate in one way or another – and Washington, he calculates (rightly or wrongly), will be compelled to follow.
Is this why Iran is taking its time? The calculus on an initial riposte to Israel is ‘one thing’, but how then might Netanyahu retaliate in Iran and Lebanon? That can be altogether an ‘other thing’. There have been hints of nuclear weapons being deployed (in both instances). There is however nothing solid, to this latter rumour.
Further, how might Israel respond towards Russia in Syria, or might the U.S. react through escalation in Ukraine? After all, Moscow has assisted Iran with its air defences (just as the West is assisting Ukraine against Russia).
Many imponderables. Yet, one thing is clear (as former Russian President Medvedev noted recently): “the knot is tightening” in the Middle East. Escalation is across all the fronts. War, Medvedev suggested, may be ‘the only way this knot will be cut’.
Iran must think that appeasing western pleas in the wake of the Israeli assassination of Iranian officials at their Damascus Consulate was a mistake. Netanyahu did not appreciate Iran’s moderation. He doubled-down on war, making it inevitable, sooner or later.
Ukraine accused of ‘new level of nuclear aggression’
RT | August 12, 2024
A Ukrainian drone strike on Russia’s Zaporozhye nuclear power plant (NPP) started a fire at the facility and caused serious damage to one of its cooling towers, nuclear power agency Rosatom has said. Its CEO Aleksey Likhachyov also noted that the attack represented “a completely new level of targeted aggression aimed at the infrastructure of nuclear facilities.”
In a statement on Monday shared by Russian media, Rosatom said one of the cooling towers at the Zaporozhye NPP had been hit by two Ukrainian attack drones on Sunday evening. The strikes resulted in a fire that burned internal structures, it added.
While the fire was mostly extinguished by first responders within a couple of hours, “the internal structures of the cooling tower suffered serious damage. The risk of the structure collapsing will be assessed by specialists as soon as possible, Rosatom stated.
The agency accused Ukraine of “nuclear terrorism,” arguing that the strike had targeted crucial cooling equipment, adding that Zaporozhye NPP, the largest facility of its kind in Europe, as well as the city of Energodar have frequently been attacked by Kiev in the past.
Commenting on the incident, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky claimed that “Russian occupiers started a fire” at the facility, without mentioning any drone strikes. He also shared footage showing a large blaze in the lower levels of the tower, with plumes of smoke rising hundreds of meters into the sky.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has a mission at Zaporozhye NPP, said that its experts heard “multiple explosions” at the facility, without attributing responsibility to either Russia or Ukraine. The watchdog stated that “no impact has been reported for nuclear safety.”
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi also condemned what he called “reckless attacks” that “endanger nuclear safety at the plant and increase the risk of a nuclear accident.”
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blasted the IAEA for its apparent inaction. “Where is Rafael Grossi and the rest of the IAEA? Is there at least an imitation of the work of this UN body in this critical area?” she asked, adding that the “terrorists in Kiev, under the leadership of the collective West, destroyed their country… and now they have begun the nuclear terror of the continent.”
Zaporozhye NPP was seized by Russian forces in 2022, several days after the start of the conflict. While Zaporozhye Region joined Russia in a public referendum in the autumn of 2022, the facility itself is located not far from the front line. Against this backdrop, Ukraine and Russia have often traded accusations over who was behind attacks on the facility.
Featured Video
No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth
By Alan Hart | June 4, 2012
In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations). Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.
So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals… John Edward Kendrick on Colonel Jacques Baud & Nat… eddieb on Villains of Judea: Ronald Laud… rezjiekc on Substack Imposes Digital ID Ch… loongtip on US strikes three vessels in Ea… eddieb on An Avoidable Disaster Steve Jones on For Israel, The Terrorist Atta… cleversensationally3… on Over Half of Germans Feel Unab… loongtip on Investigation Into U.S. Milita… loongtip on Zelensky’s Impossible De…
Aletho News- How Policies From The Bi-Parisian Foreign Policy Establishment Led To Trump’s Venezuela War
- No More Ukraine Proxy War? You’re a Traitor!
- Sexual Blackmail Makes the World Go ‘Round
- Powerful Israeli Strikes on South Lebanon and Bekaa
- UAE-backed militia in Yemen reaches out to Israel for alliance against ‘common foes’: Report
- The UAE’s reverse trajectory: From riches to rags
- Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate Speech” Laws Linking Censorship to Terror Prevention
- Majority of Belgians oppose theft of Russian assets – poll
- Czech–Slovak alignment signals growing dissatisfaction with Brussels’ authoritarianism
- Colonel Jacques Baud & Nathalie Yamb Sanctioned: EU Goes Soviet
- If Americans Knew
- Amnesty: ‘Utterly preventable’ Gaza flood tragedy must mobilize global action to end Israel’s genocide
- Israel Propagandists Are Uniformly Spouting The Exact Same Line About The Bondi Beach Shooting
- Ha’aretz: Free the Palestinian Activist Who Dared to Document Israel’s Crimes in the West Bank
- Garbage Is Poisoning Gaza
- Palestinian journalist recounts rape and torture in Israeli prison
- Gaza is crumbling, but its people persevere – Not a Ceasefire Day 69
- Pro-Israel billionaire Miriam Adelson green-lights a Trump 3rd term
- Australians Being Massacred Shouldn’t Bother Us More Than Palestinians Being Massacred
- Garbage, stench, sewage, and rats plague Gaza – Not a Ceasefire Day 68
- The Zionist Billionaire Circle Hiding in Plain Sight
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
- Regional Cooling Since The 1980s Has Driven Glacier Advance In The Karakoram Mountains
- Greenland Petermann Glacier Has Grown 30 Kilometers Since 2012!
- New Study: Temperature-Driven CO2 Outgassing Explains 83 Percent Of CO2 Rise Since 1959
- Climate Extremists Ordered By Hamburg Court To Pay €400,000 In Damages
- More Evidence NE China Is Not Cooperating With The Alarmist Global Warming Narrative
Aletho News 