Germany: The AfD party should be banned before the next elections
Remix News | March 25, 2025
The leaders of the SPD and Green Party factions want a ban of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the second-largest party in the country and the top opposition party, before the next election. The Greens in particular are now urging parliament to submit a motion to ban the party as soon as possible.
The Green party wants the Bundestag to submit a new motion to the Constitutional Court, which would have a final say on banning the party. The original ban motion was initiated by CDU MP Marco Wanderwitz, who retired from politics and is no longer in the new Bundestag, but who is still actively urging the party to be banned.
The Green Party’s managing director, Till Steffen, is putting the pressure on to continue the ban motion “as soon as possible.” The Greens have long pursued a ban against the AfD, as Remix News has previously reported.
The last motion was signed by 100 parliamentarians from all parties, with the exception of the AfD and Free Democrats (FDP). In the new parliament, the FDP is no longer represented.
However, there is one current hiccup, which is the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV). The politicians interested in a ban want the BfV to upgrade the designation of the AfD to a “confirmed right-wing extremist” party. So far, the party has only been labeled a “suspect case” by the powerful domestic intelligence agency, however, in certain states, It is already a “confirmed” case.
The problem is that the BfV currently does not have a president, as the previous one, Thomas Haldenwang of the CDU, already left his position to run as an MP. Haldenwang was blatantly partisan and routinely attacked the AfD in an effort to sink the party.
Due to the absence of a president, the expected report from the BfV to confirm the party as “right-wing extremist” has been delayed. The BfV is unlikely to get a new president before the new chancellor is sworn in. There are worries though from the left that time is running out to ban the party.
The SPD wants to wait for the report to move forward with a ban, but the SPD group manager Katja Mast says the “AfD poses a serious threat to democracy.”
Why is there such a rush when elections are likely four years away? The reason is that the Constitutional Court can take years to decide a case, which means there are fears from the left that the AfD party may be able to run in the next elections.
The CDU and CSU are biding their time and say they will not decide on a ban until the BfV releases their report, but it is perhaps a foregone conclusion they will support such a ban, with a few dissenters.
The Greens are furious that the report is not being submitted fast enough.
The Federal Office for Consumer Protection cited the election campaign as the reason for postponing it. And the election is over,” said Steffen, who says the report not being released yet is “incomprehensible.”
Not everyone believes a ban is possible at this point. In an interview with Remix News, Junge Freiheit editor-in-chief Dieter Stein said he did not believe a ban of the AfD is possible at this point.
The party just hit a new polling high of 23.5 percent in the latest Insa poll, making it difficult to imagine the government banning a party that has nearly a quarter of all voters backing it. However, the EU mainstream may have been encouraged by the results in Romania, which saw the top contender, Călin Georgescu, arrested and banned from running in the presidential election.
Russia and US agree to key maritime initiative – Kremlin
RT | March 25, 2025
Russia and the US have committed to advancing the Black Sea Initiative as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict, according to a statement released by the Kremlin on Tuesday.
The agreement follows the 12-hour talks focused on the Ukraine conflict held on Monday in Saudi Arabia by expert groups from the two countries.
The sides discussed steps to ensure safe navigation in the Black Sea, including a pledge to avoid the use of force and prevent commercial vessels from being used for military purposes, while agreeing on control measures such as ship inspections.
The US has vowed to “help restore access for Russian agricultural and fertilizer exports to the world market, reduce the cost of insurance for maritime transportation, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions,” according to the Kremlin statement.
The agreement envisions lifting restrictions on Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in international trade of food and fertilizers, including reconnecting them to the SWIFT payment system. It also includes removing sanctions on Russian-flagged vessels, port services, and the supply of agricultural machinery and related goods to Russia.
According to the statement, Moscow and Washington have also agreed to develop measures to enforce the 30-day ban on strikes against energy infrastructure in Russia and Ukraine that was agreed last week. There would be an option to extend the arrangement or abandon it if either side fails to comply.
The two sides also welcomed the involvement of third countries in supporting agreements on energy and maritime matters.
The US and Russia “will continue efforts to achieve a lasting and sustainable peace,” the statement concludes.
Originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, the Black Sea Grain Initiative aimed to ensure the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural exports in return for the easing of Western restrictions on Russia’s grain and fertilizer trade. Moscow did not renew the deal in 2023, citing the West’s failure to uphold its commitments.
Why did Jeffrey Goldberg leave the ‘bomb Yemen’ Signal chat?
By Max Blumenthal | The Grayzone | March 25, 2025
Atlantic Magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg has won the admiration of his Beltway peers for the conduct he displayed after being accidentally invited into a smoke-filled “bomb Yemen” Signal chat with Trump’s national security honchos and top advisors. “Props to Jeffrey Goldberg for his high standards as a professional journalist,” declared Ian Bremmer, the trans-Atlanticist foreign policy pundit on his Bank of America-sponsored GZero podcast. “When he realized the conversation was authentic he immediately left, informed the relevant senior official, and made the public aware without disclosing intelligence that could damage the United States.”
But what exactly did Goldberg do to deserve such high praise?
With a once in a lifetime opportunity to view and report on high level discussions on the US launching an illegal war on Yemen, Goldberg chose to avert his gaze and leave the scene as soon as he could, apparently because maintaining such unparalleled access would have compelled him to report on discussions that might have complicated a war being waged on behalf of the Israeli apartheid state to which he emigrated as a young man. Instead of exploiting his front row seat to the Trump admin’s war planning – a vantage point that would have yielded countless scoops and a bestselling book for any adversarial journalist – Goldberg bolted and dutifully informed the White House about the unfortunate situation.
From there, the story became a palace intrigue over an embarrassing failure of “opsec,” or operational security, and not one about the policy itself, which entails a gargantuan empire bombarding a poor, besieged country because it is controlled by a popular movement that is currently the only force on the planet taking up arms to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
In the fourth paragraph of Goldberg’s Atlantic article about the principals’ Signal group, he strongly implied that he supports the war’s objectives, describing Ansar Allah, or the Houthis, as an “Iran-backed terrorist organization” which upholds a belief system that is (what else?) antisemitic. Given Goldberg’s admission that Waltz first reached out to him at least two days prior to mistakenly adding him to the Signal group, it appears the NSC director had been leaking to the Atlantic editor on behalf of the neocon faction in the Trump White House. And it seems clear why Waltz would have sought to cultivate Goldberg.
During the run-up to to the Iraq war, then-Vice President Dick Cheney cited Goldberg’s bunk reporting alleging deep ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda during multiple media appearances hyping up the coming invasion. Under Obama, Goldberg served as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s errand boy, churning out tall tales about Tel Aviv’s imminent plan to attack Iran’s nuclear sites – unless the US did it first. Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, the once-failing Atlantic has suddenly turned a profit, as Goldberg unleashed a firehose of propaganda against the keffiyeh-clad enemies of the magazine’s Upper East Side donor base. This month, with momentum for a strike on Iran building within the Trump White House, Goldberg was summoned once again to move the neocon message, and wound up with more access than he bargained for.
When asked in a March 24 interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins why he left the Trump principals’ Signal group voluntarily, Goldberg ducked the question. But as Ian Bremmer suggested, he did so out of deference to power and an abiding belief in a US empire hellbent on protecting Israel. And in the culture of Beltway access journalism, that’s considered a laudable trait.
Israeli forces strip and arbitrarily detain two Palestinian children in the occupied West Bank

Defense for Children Palestine | March 20, 2025
Israeli forces forcibly stripped, detained, humiliated, and terrorized two Palestinian children, after a military raid in the northern occupied West Bank last week.
Israeli forces raided the home of the grandparents of seven-year-old Ibrahim Abu Ghali and 13-year-old Omar Mohammed Dirar Zaben, located west of Jenin, where they had traveled for a short stay in the early morning of March 10, according to documentation collected by Defense for Children International – Palestine. Around 4:20 a.m., as Ibrahim’s grandmother stepped outside to listen for the call to prayer, Israeli soldiers opened fire, leaving the rest of the family trapped inside.
Soldiers proceeded to detain Ibrahim, Omar, and their grandfather, forcing them to strip down to their underwear at gunpoint. Israeli soldiers bound their hands with plastic ties and held them outdoors, exposed, in cold temperatures, for about an hour. They were then crammed onto the back floor of a military vehicle, still without clothes, before being taken to Jalameh interrogation center, located in northern Israel.
“Forcing young children to strip, detaining them in degrading conditions, and subjecting them to psychological terror is a clear violation of international law and amounts to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment,” said Ayed Abu Eqtaish, accountability program director at DCIP. “The Israeli military’s systematic mistreatment of Palestinian children is not an isolated incident but part of its entrenched system of control and oppression over Palestinians.”
“The soldiers aimed their weapons at us, heightening our fear and confusion,” recalled Omar. “[We] were shaking with terror and anxiety. We complied, stripping down to our underwear, raising our hands to our heads, and slowly moving toward the soldiers and their vehicles. Throughout this ordeal, my cousin and I continued to tremble with fear. I found it difficult to move forward, but I had to stay behind my grandfather to avoid drawing suspicion from the soldiers regarding my compliance. The grip of fear was overwhelming for both of us.”
Israeli soldiers loaded the boys into a cramped cell without a bathroom, where they witnessed other Palestinian detainees being severely beaten, berated and insulted, further traumatizing Omar and Ibrahim.
After nearly 12 hours of arbitrary detention, Omar and Ibrahim were roughly shoved onto the back floor of a military vehicle, where they were taken home, still in their underwear, with only a piece of foil for cover. Upon returning home, they learned that their grandmother had been killed by Israeli gunfire during the raid.
The age of criminal responsibility under Israeli military law is 12, meaning that children younger than 12, such as seven-year-old Ibrahim, cannot be prosecuted in Israeli military courts and, as such, their presence in such detention centers constitutes a violation of both the child’s right and Israeli military law. However, Israeli forces continue to detain and harass young Palestinian children, according to documentation collected by DCIP.
Israeli forces routinely arbitrarily detain and mistreat Palestinian children during military raids in the occupied West Bank, often using excessive force, degrading treatment, and unlawful detention. Under international law, children are entitled to special protections, and their detention must be an absolute last resort. However, Israeli forces continue to target Palestinian children with violence and intimidation, violating their fundamental rights with impunity.
Israeli forces have dramatically escalated military operations across the occupied West Bank, with a surge in mass arrests, home invasions, and extrajudicial killings. The targeting of Palestinian children through raids, forced displacement, and indiscriminate violence underscores the ongoing war crimes committed with impunity.
Putin’s Senior Aide Patrushev Shared Some Updates About The Arctic & Baltic Fronts
By Andrew Korybko | March 23, 2025
Putin’s senior aide Nikolai Patrushev, who ran the FSB for nearly a decade (1999-2008) before chairing the Security Council for over 15 years till recently (2008-2024), shared some updates about the Baltic and Arctic fronts of the New Cold War in a recent interview with Russia’s National Defense magazine. He began by blaming the Brits for orchestrating Baltic tensions in order to disrupt the incipient Russian-US normalization process and associated talks on Ukraine.
In connection with that, he also warned that some NATO members (presumably led by the British) are practicing cyberattacks against Russian ships’ navigation equipment and suggested that they might have been responsible for recent claims of sabotage in the Baltic, which prompted a larger naval presence. This same expanded presence poses a threat to Russia’s interests and could manifest itself through terrorist attacks against its underwater pipelines, tankers, and dry cargo ships.
Russia plans to defend against this through unmanned underwater systems and strengthening its Baltic Fleet. As for one of the worst-case conventional threats, that of Finland and Estonia teaming up to blockade Russia inside the Gulf of Finland, Patrushev expressed confidence that his country could overcome that plot and punish the aggressors. This segued the conversation into a discussion about Finland, which Patrushev said has a friendly population, unlike its government.
He mentioned how the authorities there distort history to avoid talking about the goal of “Greater Finland”, which took the form of occupying Northwestern Russia, placing its inhabitants into concentration camps, and exterminating the Slavs there. Just like Finland was used by the Nazis as a springboard for aggression against the USSR, so too did Patrushev warn that plans might be afoot for NATO to use it as a springboard potential aggression against Russia.
He then said a few words about how the Arctic is opening up as a new front of competition, mostly due to its resources, but reaffirmed that Russia wants peace and cooperation there instead of rivalry. The Northern Sea Route (NSR), which commemorates its 500th-year conceptualization this year, can help bring that about. Russia will continue developing regional infrastructure and building ice-class vessels for facilitating transit through these waters year-round. It was on that note that the interview ended.
Reviewing Patrushev’s briefing, the first part about blaming the Brits for tensions in the Baltic aligns with what Russia’s Foreign Spy Service (SVR) recently claimed about how the UK is trying to sabotage Trump’s envisaged “New Détente”. It might therefore very well be that they’re attempting to open up this front for that purpose, first through unconventional acts of aggression like “plausibly deniable” terrorist attacks and then possibly escalating to a joint Finnish-Estonian blockade of the Gulf of Finland.
Exposing these plots and expressing confidence in Russia’s ability to overcome them were meant to respectively ensure that the Trump Administration is aware of what the UK is doing and to deter the UK’s regional proxies from going along with this since the US and even the UK might hang them out to dry. Patrushev’s words about Finland were important too in the sense of reminding everyone that governments don’t always reflect the will of the people on the foreign policy front.
At the same time, however, everyone should also be aware of the Finnish government’s historical distortions and the threat that its reckless foreign policy poses to its own people. Wrapping everything up, Patrushev pointed to the Arctic’s importance in Russia’s future planning, and his reaffirmation of its peaceful intentions could be interpreted as a willingness to partner with the US there like their representatives discussed last month in Riyadh. The NSR can also become a vector for cooperation too.
Putting everything together, the Arctic front of the New Cold War is thawing a lot quicker than the Baltic one since the first is where the US could prospectively cooperate with Russia while the second is where the UK could try to provoke a crisis with Russia, but it remains to be seen whether any of this will unfold. Russian-US cooperation in the Arctic is likely conditional on a ceasefire in Ukraine whereas a Russian-NATO conflict in the Baltic orchestrated by the Brits is conditional on them misleading the US about this.
Putin’s interest in a lasting political solution to the Ukrainian Conflict bodes well for the Arctic scenario just like Trump’s criticism of NATO bodes ill for the Baltic one so both ultimately come down to their will. They’re the two most powerful people on the planet so their ties will greatly determine what comes next on those fronts and every other one too. It’s precisely for this reason why the British want to ruin their relations, but after Patrushev just exposed their Baltic plot, that’s a lot less likely to succeed than before.
Kaja Kallas: The EU’s Struggling Foreign Affairs Chief and the Deepening Divide Over Ukraine
By Ricardo Martins | New Eastern Outlook | March 25, 2025
Kaja Kallas’ hardline stance on Russia and failure to unify EU nations have weakened her position as the EU’s Foreign Affairs chief. With the EU out of the negotiation table over Ukraine, internal divisions, diplomatic missteps, and failed Ukraine aid negotiations, is she still fit to lead Europe’s foreign policy?
Why Has the European Foreign Affairs Chief’s Position Weakened?
The position of the European Union’s Foreign Affairs chief has weakened under Kaja Kallas due to multiple diplomatic missteps, internal EU divisions, and a lack of broad strategic support. The most dramatic setback for EU diplomacy is its exclusion from the negotiating table on ending the war in Ukraine.
Kallas’ tenure has been marked by an anti-Russian stance, an aggressive push for military aid to Ukraine, and a failure to build consensus among EU member states. This has led to her increasing isolation, both within the EU and on the global diplomatic stage. When in Washington, a few days ago, Kallas was left in the waiting room and not received by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The German prestigious newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has sounded the alarm on the EU top diplomat’s weak performance. One of the main reasons for this decline, according to ZAZ, is Kallas’ inability to secure the backing of key EU nations. Her proposal for a €40 billion aid package for Ukraine was met with resistance, not just from Hungary and Slovakia, but also from France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. These countries, which have contributed less to Ukraine than Denmark alone, opposed increasing their financial commitment, revealing a deep divide within the EU regarding the war. Kallas also alienated many diplomats by dismissing high-ranking officials from Italy and Spain from the European External Action Service (EEAS), further reducing her influence.
Who is Kaja Kallas, and Why Did Her Anti-Russian Stance Lead to the EU’s Sidelining?
Kaja Kallas, the former Prime Minister of Estonia and a known critic of Russia, became the EU’s Foreign Affairs chief in December. Her strong anti-Russian rhetoric aligns with the Baltic States’ hardline stance, but this position has made her a controversial figure. Instead of facilitating diplomatic engagement, she has pushed for maximum pressure on the continuation of the war, alienating key EU partners that at this stage favour negotiation.
Her insistence on an uncompromising stance against Russia has sidelined the EU in international peace talks. By strongly criticizing Washington’s approach—especially U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into a settlement—Kallas further isolated the EU. Her comments referring to a potential U.S.-brokered deal as a “dirty deal” led to a diplomatic snub in Washington, where meetings with key American officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, were abruptly cancelled.
Why Did Kallas Fail to Secure the €40 Billion Ukraine Aid Package?
Kallas failed to secure the €40 billion military aid package for Ukraine due to opposition from several EU countries. While she claimed there was “broad political support,” the reality was different. The resistance came not only from Hungary, which has consistently opposed military aid to Ukraine, but also from France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. These countries refused to make significantly larger contributions, likely due to domestic economic concerns and political calculations.
The aid package’s failure was also linked to Kallas’ poor strategic approach. She unexpectedly reintroduced the proposal after the Munich Security Conference, without adequately preparing the groundwork or securing commitments from key stakeholders. Her failure to engage Southern European countries, many of whom had closer ties with her predecessor Josep Borrell, weakened her position further.
How the North-South and East-West EU Divide Affects Ukraine Support
The EU remains divided on its Ukraine policy, with a noticeable split between Northern/Eastern European nations and Southern European countries. Countries like Estonia, Poland, and the Nordic states have strongly supported Ukraine, advocating for increased military aid and a hardline stance against Russia. Meanwhile, Southern European nations, led by France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, have been reluctant to escalate support further.
This divide makes a unified EU approach to Ukraine difficult. Kallas’ failure to bridge these differences has weakened her effectiveness as Foreign Affairs chief, as her confrontational approach has alienated key players in both the EU and broader international diplomacy.
Kallas’ Controversial Tweet and Calls for European Leadership
On February 28, 2025, Kallas tweeted:
“Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.”
This tweet generated controversy because it was widely interpreted as a criticism of U.S. leadership, particularly in the context of Trump’s renewed approach to Ukraine. Given the EU’s limited ability to act independently in military and geopolitical affairs, Kallas’ call for Europe to take the lead was seen as unrealistic. Some analysts viewed her remarks as undermining further transatlantic relations at a time when European unity and cooperation with the U.S. were crucial.
Is Kallas Following a Strategy of Financial Attrition in Ukraine?
Kallas appears to be following a strategy based on the idea that the Ukraine war will end when no side can afford to continue. This is consistent with the belief expressed by EU diplomats that the conflict will only cease when economic and military exhaustion forces a resolution.
However, this approach carries significant risks. If EU financial support dwindles or political will weakens, Ukraine could find itself forced into a settlement unfavourable to its long-term security. The lack of a clear long-term EU strategy beyond financial and military aid suggests that Kallas’ approach is reactive rather than proactive.
Is Kallas’ Anti-Russia Stance Compromising Her Diplomatic Role?
Kallas’ intense dislike of Russia has undoubtedly compromised her effectiveness as the EU’s top diplomat. Kaja Kallas frequently expresses her personal views and a strong dislike of Putin and Russia in public, even during official events. On several occasions, she has openly stated that she does not trust Putin, overlooking the fact that, in such settings, she is speaking not for herself but on behalf of 27 EU countries and representing a prestigious institution. Such behaviour is widely seen as diplomatically unprofessional.
Diplomacy requires flexibility, negotiation, and relationship-building—qualities that her hardline approach has undermined. By sidelining herself from peace talks, clashing with key EU nations, and alienating Washington, she has weakened her ability to influence the direction of EU foreign policy.
Is Kallas Still Fit to Lead EU Foreign Policy?
There is growing speculation that Kallas may not be able to continue leading EU foreign policy effectively. Her diplomatic missteps, failure in Washington, her failure to unify EU nations, and inability to secure key policy goals have led to increasing criticism. Some EU officials are reportedly considering the appointment of a special envoy for Ukraine, which would effectively bypass her role in one of the EU’s most pressing foreign policy challenges.
Ultimately, while Kallas’ strong stance against Russia aligns with the policies of EU nations, her inability to build consensus and engage in effective diplomacy has weakened her authority. If she cannot adjust her approach, her tenure as EU Foreign Affairs chief may be short-lived.
Ricardo Martins ‒ PhD in Sociology, specializing in policies, European and world politics and geopolitics
Palestinian teen martyred in notorious Israeli Megiddo Prison

Al Mayadeen | March 24, 2025
The Palestinian Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs Commission and the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society (PPS) have confirmed the martyrdom of 17-year-old Walid Khaled Abdullah Ahmad in “Israel’s” Megiddo Prison.
Since the start of “Israel’s” genocidal war, the number of martyred detainees known by name in Israeli prisons has risen to 300, including at least 63 from Gaza. Rights organizations describe this as the deadliest period for Palestinian detainees since 1967.
Ahmad, a resident of Silwad near Ramallah, was detained on September 30, 2024, and remained in Israeli custody without trial at the time of his death. No details have been provided regarding the circumstances of his passing.
The two institutions emphasized that his martyrdom adds to the record of systematic crimes committed within Israeli occupation prisons, which have intensified during the ongoing aggression, adding that these actions represent another facet of the genocide against Palestinians.
The Israeli Prison Service, however, issued only a terse statement confirming that “a 17-year-old security detainee from the West Bank died in Megiddo Prison” while withholding his name and any information about his health, citing “privacy concerns”.
Ahmad’s martyrdom comes as “Israel” continues to impose strict secrecy over the conditions of Palestinian detainees, particularly those from Gaza. Meanwhile, the bodies of 72 martyred detainees remain withheld, including 61 who have died since the start of the aggression on the Palestinian enclave.
Earlier this month, the Commission for Detainees announced the martyrdom of 62-year-old detainee Ali Ashour al-Batsh from Jabalia in al-Naqab Prison. As of early March, “Israel” was holding more than 9,500 Palestinian detainees, including 350 children, 21 women, and 3,405 administrative detainees imprisoned without charge or trial.
Ahmad’s martyrdom adds to growing concerns over the fate of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons, as rights groups warn of worsening conditions, medical neglect, and increasing reports of abuse behind bars.
‘Israel’ continues to withhold Palestinians’ bodies, kill detainees
Earlier this month, the National Campaign for the Retrieval of Palestinian War Victims’ Bodies reported that the Israeli occupation is withholding the bodies of hundreds of Palestinians it killed in cemeteries and refrigerators.
The campaign reported that “Israel” is still withholding the bodies of three Palestinians it killed in Jenin, bringing the number of Palestinian bodies held in “cemeteries of numbers” and refrigerators to 676, including the remains of 71 detainees, 60 children, and nine women.
The so-called “Cemeteries of Numbers” consist of unmarked graves outlined with stones, each marked by a metal plate displaying a number rather than the deceased’s name, with these numbers linked to individual files maintained by Israeli security authorities.
The National Campaign unveiled that some of the bodies held by the Israeli regime date back to the 60s and 70s, and while its data do not include bodies stolen from Gaza due to lack of accurate information, it documented the return of 325 bodies from Gaza.
In September 2019, the Israeli Supreme Court determined that military commanders had the authority to temporarily withhold the bodies of Palestinians killed by Israeli occupation forces, allowing for their potential use as “bargaining chips” in future negotiations.
Israeli cruelty evident on Palestinian detainees
The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Alice Jill Edwards, called for a swift and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli prisons.
The special rapporteur emphasized that the mistreatment of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons, especially following October 7, 2023, remained a serious concern that required urgent attention and condemnation, describing the condition of the detainees and emphasizing the need for independent, impartial investigations.
The Commission of Palestinian Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs shed light on the alarming conditions detainees face in Israeli prisons in November 2024, noting that most detainees are brought to visits in handcuffs.
The statement highlighted that these crimes form part of a long-standing policy of the occupation targeting Palestinian detainees, encompassing acts of torture, deliberate medical neglect, and the systematic abandonment of prisoners to endure suffering and succumb to illness, emphasizing the growing number of violations committed against detainees, particularly in the context of the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza.
Many ill prisoners and detainees face deteriorating health conditions while the occupation continues to deny them necessary medical treatment, further contributing to the rising death toll within the prisons.
Moreover, the commission revealed in September 2024 that 1,200 Palestinians were facing systematic abuse, torture, and assault in Israeli prisons, with testimonies from Palestinian detainees exposing severe violence, rape, electrocution, extreme hunger, humiliation, and other forms of maltreatment.
Megiddo Prison holds a notorious reputation for severe torture and abuse, described by the Palestinian Prisoners Society as one of the central prisons where the Israeli occupation detains Palestinians.
Dozens of testimonies emerged from detainees describing the brutal acts carried out by the Israeli suppression units, involving torture and severe abuse, with systematic mistreatment mentioned in their accounts, including violent raid operations and extremely harsh detention conditions.
Ian Proud: Britain Will Slowly Adjust to the US Position on Ukraine to Remain Relevant
Glenn Diesen | March 24, 2025
Ian Proud was a member of His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. Ian was a senior officer at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019, at a time when UK-Russia relations were particularly tense. He performed a number of roles in Moscow, including as Head of Chancery, Economic Counsellor – in charge of advising UK Ministers on economic sanctions – Chair of the Crisis Committee, Director of the Diplomatic Academy for Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Vice Chair of the Board at the Anglo-American School.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
Support the channel: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…
Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles…
