Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Germany, UK to deliver long-range weapons to Ukraine under new pact

Al Mayadeen | July 17, 2025

Ukraine is set to receive new long-range weapons systems developed through joint efforts by British and German defense industries, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced Thursday. The deliveries are expected to begin within the next few weeks and continue over the coming months.

The statement followed the signing of a new bilateral agreement between Germany and the United Kingdom. Chancellor Merz and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer formalized what they described as a “historic” treaty focused on friendship and enhanced defense cooperation during a joint appearance in Berlin.

Speaking at a press conference alongside Starmer, Merz stressed the expanded scope of military assistance to Ukraine. “We had a detailed discussion about military support for Ukraine, and this is not only about air defense, but also about Ukraine’s ability to better defend itself with long-range systems. We call this long range fire,” he said during the event, which was broadcast by Germany’s Phoenix TV.

He added that “Ukraine will soon receive significant additional support in this area, including through the industrial cooperation that we have established with Ukraine.”

Arming Ukraine 

The delivery of these advanced systems comes in light of a deepening of European defense collaboration in support of Ukraine, amid ongoing hostilities with Russia. The weapons transfer is part of a broader framework outlined in the Kensington Treaty, signed on July 17, 2025, in London, the first post-WWII bilateral defense treaty between the UK and Germany. The pact not only strengthens joint military production but also facilitates financing and technological cooperation with Ukraine’s domestic arms industry.

Germany has already committed approximately €5 billion to support Ukraine’s production of long-range strike capabilities and has lifted previous range restrictions on German-supplied weapons, enabling Kiev to strike targets within Russian territory. British-German collaboration is also laying the foundation for future deep-precision systems with ranges exceeding 2,000 km, designed to ensure sustained deterrence capabilities in Eastern Europe.

These moves reflect a decisive shift in European defense policy amid increasing urgency to counter growing Russian military pressure.

Provocative Escalation

Moscow has responded with sharp warnings. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov condemned Germany’s posture, suggesting it reveals the true intentions behind Western support for Kiev.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov criticized the deepening UK-Germany military alignment as a destabilizing factor for European security. Former President Dmitry Medvedev went further, cautioning that continued Western arms deliveries to Ukraine may provoke preemptive Russian strikes.

In a statement reported by TASS, he described the expanding range and sophistication of Western weapons as justification for escalating Russia’s own military posture.

Russian officials argue that this latest escalation marks a direct provocation, framing the treaty and weapons transfer as an existential threat that could draw Europe into broader conflict.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Fragmenting a nation: Israel’s enduring pursuit of Palestinian disunity

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | July 16, 2025

Israel is aggressively implementing plans to shape Palestine’s future and the broader region, sculpting its vision for the ‘day after’ its genocide in Gaza.

The latest, bizarre iteration of this strategy proposes fragmenting the occupied West Bank into so-called ’emirates,’ starting with the ’emirate of Hebron.’

This unexpected twist in Israel’s protracted search for alternative Palestinian leadership first surfaced in the staunchly pro-Israeli US newspaper, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). It then quickly dominated all Israeli media.

The report details a letter from a person identified by The WSJ as “the leader of Hebron’s most influential clan.” Addressed to Nir Barakat, Jerusalem’s former Israeli mayor, the letter from Sheikh Wadee’ al-Jaabari appeals for “cooperation with Israel” in the name of “co-existence.”

This “co-existence,” according to the “clan leader”, would materialise in the “Emirate of Hebron.” This “emirate” would “recognize the State of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people,” in exchange for reciprocal recognition of the “Emirate of Hebron as the Representative of the Arab residents in the Hebron District.”

The story may seem perplexing. This is because Palestinian discourse, regardless of geography or political affiliation, has never entertained such an absurd concept as united West Bank “emirates.”

Another element of absurdity is that Palestinian national identity and pride in their people’s unwavering resilience, especially in Gaza, are at an unprecedented apex. To float such clan-based alternatives to legitimate Palestinian leadership seems ill-conceived and is destined to fail.

Israel’s desperation is palpable. In Gaza, it cannot defeat Hamas and other Palestinian factions who have resisted the Israeli takeover of the Strip for 21 months. All attempts to engineer an alternative Palestinian leadership there have utterly collapsed.

This failure has compelled Israel to arm and fund a criminal gang that operated before 7 October 2023, in Gaza. This gang functions under the command of Yasser Abu Shabab.

The gang has been implicated in a litany of violent activities. These include hijacking humanitarian aid to perpetuate famine in Gaza and orchestrating violence associated with aid distribution, among other egregious crimes.

Like the clan leader of Hebron, the Abu Shabab criminal gang possesses no legitimacy and no public support among Palestinians. But why would Israel resort to such disreputable figures when the Palestinian Authority (PA), already engaged in “security coordination” with Israel in the West Bank, is ostensibly willing to comply?

The answer lies in the current Israeli extremist government’s adamant refusal to acknowledge Palestinians as a nation. Thus, even a collaborating Palestinian nationalist entity would be deemed problematic from an Israeli perspective.

While Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is not the first Israeli leadership to explore clan-based alternatives among Palestinians, the Israeli prime minister and his extremist allies are exceptionally determined to dismantle any Palestinian claim to nationhood. This was explicitly stated by extremist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. He famously declared in Paris, in March 2023, that a Palestinian nation is an “invention.”

Thus, despite the PA’s willingness to cooperate with Israel in controlling Gaza, Israel remains apprehensive. Empowering the PA as a nationalist model fundamentally contravenes Israel’s overarching objectives of denying the Palestinian people their very claim to nationhood and, consequently, statehood and sovereignty.

Though Israel has consistently failed to establish and sustain its own alternative Palestinian leadership, its repeated efforts have invariably proven disruptive and violent.

Prior to the Nakba of 1948, the Zionist movement, alongside British authorities colonizing Palestine, heavily invested in undermining the Arab Higher Committee, a nationalist body comprising several political parties. They achieved this by empowering collaborating clans, hoping to dilute the Palestinian nationalist movement.

When Israel occupied the remainder of historic Palestine in 1967, it reverted to the same divide-and-conquer tactics. For instance, it established a Palestinian police force directly commanded by Israeli military administrations, in addition to creating an underground network of collaborators.

Following the overwhelming victory of nationalist candidates in the 1976 elections in occupied Palestine, Israel responded by cracking down on PLO-affiliated politicians, arresting, deporting and assassinating some.

Two years later, in 1978, it launched its ‘Village Leagues’ project. It hand-picked compliant traditional figures, designating them as the legitimate representatives of Palestinians.

These individuals, armed, protected and financed by the Israeli occupation army, were positioned to represent their respective clans in Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Gaza and elsewhere.

Palestinians immediately denounced them as collaborators. They were widely boycotted and socially ostracised.

Eventually, it became evident that Israel had no alternative but to engage directly with the PLO. This culminated in the Oslo Accords in 1993 and the subsequent formation of the PA.

The fundamental problem, however, persisted: the PA’s insistence on a Palestinian state remains anathema to an Israel that has shifted dramatically to the right.

This explains the Netanyahu regime’s unwavering insistence that the PA has no role in Gaza in any ‘day after’ scenario. While the PA could serve Israel’s interest in containing the rebellious Strip, such a triumph would inevitably recenter the discussion of a Palestinian state—a concept repugnant to most Israelis.

There is no doubt that neither the Abu Shabab gang nor the Hebron emirate will govern Palestinians, either in Gaza or the West Bank. Israel’s insistence on fabricating these alternatives, however, underscores its historic determination to deny Palestinians any sense of nationhood.

Israel’s persistent fantasies of control invariably fail. Despite their profound wounds, Palestinians are more unified than ever, their collective identity and nationhood hardened by relentless resistance and countless sacrifices.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Israel’s Druze policy in Palestine and Syria

By Ahmet Vefa Rende | MEMO | July 17, 2025

Israel, with its small population, has a socially and politically fragile structure due to its different minority groups. The fact that Arabs are the largest minority group has led Israel to establish more careful relations with other groups and to try to strengthen the ties between these minorities and Jewish elements. In this context, Israel’s relations with the Druze, its efforts to integrate them into society, and how this group is used as a political lever should be examined.

There are approximately 150,000 Druze in Israel; they live mainly in the Carmel, Galilee, and Golan regions. Druze, which emerged in Egypt in the 11th century, is seen as a common interpretation of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The Druze, who do not intermarry with other religious groups, have a very closed social structure. The exact number of Druze is unknown, but today they live as a small minority group in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

The Druze are being integrated into Israeli society

After the Ottoman Empire withdrew from Palestine, Zionist leaders sought to establish close relations with the Druze in order to benefit from their support in the process of establishing a state. These leaders positioned the Druze as a group distinct from the Arabs and attempted to gain the support of this minority by claiming that there was a religious connection between them.

Although a paramilitary alliance between Jews and Druze began in the late 1930s, it cannot be said that this alliance encompassed the entire Druze minority. This is because part of this minority participated in the Arab uprising that began in 1936 and then fought against the Jews in 1948.

Israel, given its demographic structure, sought to strengthen its ties with small minority groups other than Arabs. The state’s policies and privileges toward the Druze were intended to separate this community from the Arab community and bring it closer to the Jewish community. In this context, the Druze were defined as a separate nationality in 1962 and separated from their Arab identity. This situation has created a perception that the Druze are favoured both in state institutions and in Jewish society. In addition, in 1976, a separate Druze education sector was established to protect the Druze culture, and this community was made subject to compulsory military service.

Israel applied this policy against the Palestinian Druze and, after occupying the Golan Heights, also applied it to the Syrian Druze. After occupying the Golan, Israel forced a large part of the 130,000-strong population to migrate, while allowing 6,396 Druze to remain in the region, adopting a moderate approach similar to that toward the Palestinian Druze in order to separate them from the Arabs. However, the Syrian Druze did not respond in kind to Israel’s policy. Although they did not like the Syrian regime, they continued to see themselves as part of Syria and dreamed of becoming part of Syria again.

Role of the army in establishing special relations with the Druze

In Israel, the army is seen as an institution that unites different segments of society. The army serves to strengthen the ties between the state and both Jews who have immigrated to Israel and minority groups who are drafted into military service. In particular, members of minority groups who serve in the military are viewed with a certain degree of respect by the Jewish community. Therefore, the conscription of the Druze minority has been part of Israel’s policy to integrate them into Jewish society. After October 2023, many Druze soldiers served in the Israeli army that entered Gaza, and more than 430 Druze lost their lives as a result of Hamas attacks.

In response to Israel’s policy of separating the Druze from the Arabs and integrating them into Jewish society, Druze leaders have also been receptive to serving in the army in order to gain certain advantages. Through this approach, Druze leaders hoped to overcome structural issues such as insufficient investment in Arab and Druze villages and employment problems resulting from the state’s institutional discrimination.

Israel lifts the veil of institutionalised discrimination against Druze

Despite the Israeli government’s policy toward the Druze, they continue to face discrimination from the Jewish community. Although the Druze sought to escape discrimination by serving in the army, they reported that they were subjected to discrimination by the Jewish community after leaving military service. Indeed, Druze Member of Parliament Said Nafaa said, “We hoped that serving in the army would give us equal rights with other Israelis. However, we soon discovered that this was an illusion.” For this reason, some Druze men today refuse to enter military service. For example, although Druze do not face problems in terms of education, most encounter difficulties in finding employment. Additionally, Druze who wish to live in Jewish areas are required to pay above-average rent. These and similar problems faced by the Druze do not currently pose a security threat in Israel. However, if Israel does not improve its policy toward the Druze, there is a possibility that the Druze could become a security threat by separating themselves from Jewish society. Israel’s latest move to address this issue has been the approval of a five-year plan worth $1.1 billion to solve the housing problem of the Druze minority living in the north of the country.

Israel’s intention to use the Druze as leverage in Syria

Just as it did during its occupation of the Golan Heights, Israel is currently attempting to intervene in areas of Syria with a high Druze population. On the one hand, Israel is inciting the Druze population in the region against the new Syrian government, while on the other hand, it is attempting to gain their support by offering them certain opportunities. In this context, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz recently announced that Syrian Druze would soon be allowed to enter the country for work purposes. In addition, during the recent tensions in the Druze neighbourhood of Cermana in Damascus, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered to send military forces to Cermana to protect the Druze. However, the Druze rejected this offer. In the recent events in Suwayda, Israel launched attacks on the Syrian army to support the Druze in their conflict with the Syrian army. Israel wants to use the Druze in Syria for its own strategic purposes, just as it has done with the Druze in Palestine, by offering them various opportunities. Thus, Israel, which sees stability in Syria as a threat to its interests, is stirring up the Druze issue that has arisen in the new Syria and supporting the Druze in order to destabilise the region and prepare it for its own occupation.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Bogota Summit launches Global South’s legal intifada against Israel and US impunity

By José Niño | The Cradle | July 17, 2025

From 15–16 July, Bogota became the unlikely capital of a global insurrection against western legal impunity. Over 30 countries – including key powers from the Global South and even some European states – gathered in the Colombian capital for the Hague Group Emergency Summit.

This was the most ambitious multilateral initiative yet to directly confront what participants unflinchingly termed Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the broader culture of impunity that has shielded the occupation state since 1948.

From steadfast client to anti-imperial spearhead

That the summit was held in Colombia – a long-standing US vassal in Latin America – was not incidental. Once regarded as Washington’s most loyal client in the hemisphere, Colombia’s dramatic pivot under President Gustavo Petro represents the boldest regional defiance of US authority in decades.

Petro, who severed diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv in 2024, has placed Bogota on a collision course with the US over his unwavering opposition to the occupation state’s onslaught in Gaza.

Washington reacted predictably by issuing warnings to allies against the “weaponization of international law,” and sanctioning UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her “illegitimate and shameful efforts” to advance the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutions of Israeli and US officials. Bogota responded with direct defiance. In the run-up to the summit, Petro publicly backed Albanese, declaring that “the multilateral system of states cannot be destroyed,” in a thinly veiled rejection of US diktats.

Over 30 nations participated, including the eight founding members of the Hague Group – Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal, and South Africa, co-chaired by Colombia and South Africa. They were joined by more than 20 additional states spanning Latin America, Africa, Asia, and even Europe.

The participation of European countries such as Portugal and Spain was noteworthy. Both states only established full diplomatic relations with Israel in the latter part of the 20th century: Portugal in 1977 and Spain in 1986, emblematic of their historic caution over Israel’s contested legitimacy.

But since Tel Aviv’s genocidal war on Gaza began in late 2023, Madrid has adopted a string of punitive diplomatic moves.

Spain canceled a €6.6 million (around $7.2 million) ammunition purchase from an Israeli firm, scrapped a €285 million (around $310.7 million) anti-tank missile deal with the Spanish subsidiary of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, banned Israeli weapons from port entry, formally recognized Palestinian statehood, and pushed to suspend the EU–Israel Association Agreement.

Though neither European state fully endorsed all of Bogota’s proposals, their participation and scathing denunciations of Israeli policy reflect a deeper fracture within Europe over Tel Aviv’s legitimacy and the cost of complicity.

Laying the legal gauntlet

Central to the summit was a blistering legal and moral condemnation of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The Hague Group issued a detailed catalog of war crimes: the mass killing of over 57,000 civilians, the targeting of hospitals and schools, the weaponization of starvation and siege, and the deliberate use of forced displacement.

The apartheid state in the occupied West Bank, enforced through racial segregation, parallel legal systems, and land confiscations for settlements, was cited as a textbook violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and, per the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2024 advisory opinion, a breach of international prohibitions against forced territorial acquisition and apartheid.

Francesca Albanese delivered the summit’s keynote, setting the tone with an uncompromising indictment:

“For too long, international law has been treated as optional – applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful … That era must end.”

The ICC arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – citing crimes such as starvation as a weapon, indiscriminate civilian targeting, and the murder of Palestinian non-combatants – were repeatedly invoked as a historic turning point.

The Resistance Axis of lawfare

The summit’s ethos was clearly to rupture the impunity enabled by the UN Security Council’s paralysis. The Hague Group, founded in January 2025, framed itself as the Global South’s corrective to a postwar order that protects violators so long as they are shielded by US power.

That paralysis, most attendees argued, was not accidental but structural: The P5 veto system ensures impunity for those, such as Israel and its allies.

Meeting in the San Carlos Palace, delegates from 12 states – Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa – announced six binding measures. These included a full arms embargo on the occupation state, port bans for Israeli military vessels, contract reviews to terminate commercial complicity with the occupation, and firm support for domestic and international prosecution of Israeli officials.

These policies were anchored in the ICJ’s 2024 opinion declaring Israel’s occupation illegal and the UN General Assembly’s September 2024 resolution urging decisive global action within 12 months.

A global rift – but still an uphill battle

Despite the breakthrough, significant limitations remain. Only 12 states adopted the measures outright. Others were given until the UN General Assembly in September to sign on. Key powers, including China, withheld endorsement – despite supporting the initiative’s aims – likely due to economic entanglements with Israel, including port infrastructure investments.

Organizers acknowledged the uphill road ahead: absent broader UN uptake and stronger alignment from economic powers, Washington’s veto and European hesitation could neuter the Hague Group’s legal insurgency. But the coalition remains adamant that justice is no longer negotiable.

Colombian Vice Minister Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir captured the summit’s urgency:

“The Palestinian genocide threatens the entire international system … The participating states will not only reaffirm their commitment to opposing genocide, but also formulate concrete steps to move from words to collective action.”

A warning – and a promise

The Bogota summit was not just another international conference. It openly challenged the post-1945 legal fiction of a “rules-based order” – a system long exposed as a euphemism for western prerogative.

As South Africa’s International Relations Minister, Roland Lamola, asserted

“No country is above the law, and no crime will go unanswered.”

Yet the struggle remains unfinished. The Hague Group’s bold confrontation with Israeli impunity marks a decisive break, but the future of this legal uprising hinges on whether its momentum can breach the fortified walls of New York and The Hague, and whether powers like China, India, and Brazil shift from quiet endorsement to active alignment.

On 16 July, as thousands gathered in Plaza Bolivar in support, the message was unambiguous: either the era of impunity ends, or the legitimacy of the global order collapses with it.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Between China & USA: Australia chooses trade over geopolitics

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – July 17, 2025

While the Trump administration doubles down on its ‘America First’ approach to reshaping global power dynamics, key allies like Australia are quietly charting their own course—rebalancing relations with China in ways that may diverge from Washington’s long-term strategy in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albances was supposed to meet Donald Trump on the sidelines of G7 summit in Canada. The meeting did not take place, as Trump left the summit in the middle of Iran-Israel war. While such diplomatic snubs would normally raise eyebrows, Canberra seemed unperturbed. Instead, Albanese’s subsequent high-profile visit to Beijing sent a clear message: for Australia, economic pragmatism continues to trump imperatives of ideological or geopolitical alignment. With trade relations with China showing signs of recovery after years of friction, the visit underscored Australia’s effort to navigate a delicate path between its largest trading partner and its key strategic ally.

This calibrated diplomacy comes at a time of renewed uncertainty surrounding the AUKUS pact—a trilateral security agreement between Australia, the US, and the UK aimed at equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines to bolster its naval presence in the Indo-Pacific to check Chinese advances. The deal, worth tens of billions of dollars, is currently under review by the Trump administration in Washington. This review includes calls for Australia by the Trump administration to increase its defense spending and overall contributions to the pact, further highlighting Canberra’s growing dependence on the whims of US domestic politics.

This visit comes against the backdrop of the fact that AUKUS, while it offers an unprecedented opportunity to Australia to acquire modern systems, also exposes a deeper vulnerability: Australia’s limited ability to shape the strategic direction of its own neighborhood, caught as it is between economic ties with China and defense commitments to an America that may no longer see alliances as sacrosanct. In this shifting landscape, Australia’s challenge is not just about balancing Beijing and Washington. It’s about asserting agency in an Indo-Pacific increasingly shaped by volatility, mistrust, and great-power rivalry. This assertion has once led it to redefine its ties with China.

Australia’s recalibration is not taking place in a vacuum. There is considerable domestic political support for this policy. Despite how Washington portrays China as a ‘threat’, within Australia, only a minority considers China to be a threat. A majority of the Australians see ties with China as a complex configuration that nonetheless should—and can be—managed because it is ultimately beneficial. Even within China, this publicly backed support for better ties with China and Canberra’s efforts to mutually balance ties between the US and China is clearly well received and understood. China’s state newspaper Global Times says Albanese’s visit “carries special significance” and shows “Australia’s desire to seek more reliable partners in an uncertain world order… with China being the obvious choice”. There is little denying this. China is Australia’s largest trading partner, and Albanese’ visit is about furthering these ties. As reports indicate, Albanese is accompanied by a business delegation to the cities of Shanghai, Beijing and Chengdu for his six-day trip. His official itinerary included meetings with groups involved in business, tourism and sports.

From AUKUS to new forms of bilateral and multilateral trade

In this context, therefore, many observers view the Australian Prime Minister’s recent visit to China as a strategic step toward reinvigorating economic ties and potentially paving the way for China’s entry into the 11-member Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Australia, which currently chairs the CPTPP, plays a central role in shaping the pact’s direction. The CPTPP evolved from the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after the United States withdrew in 2017 under President Trump. China formally applied for CPTPP membership in 2021 and continues to lobby for inclusion.

Beijing is increasingly framing its engagement with Canberra within the broader context of a new multilateralism represented by the CPTPP—one that spans beyond the Indo-Pacific to include countries like Canada and the United Kingdom. Underscoring its commitment to deepening trade ties in all possible ways, the Chinese ambassador to Australia has published op-eds in major Australian newspapers emphasizing Beijing’s willingness to deepen bilateral economic partnership, even highlighting emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence as potential areas of collaboration.

The core message from Chinese officials has been consistent: China does not view Australia as an adversary, and there is ample room for peaceful coexistence and mutual benefit. With no direct territorial disputes or major political conflicts between the two nations, this message has found a receptive audience in parts of the Australian political landscape. Labor senator Raff Ciccone, who chairs the Australian Parliament’s security committee in Australia, recently stated that economic engagement with China can play a stabilizing role. “When there’s trade, when there’s dialogue, when there’s economic interests at play,” he said, “countries are less likely to engage in the worst-case scenario, which is war.” In other words, Australia, too, does not necessarily view China as a foe. Albanese’ visit may thus not only reset diplomatic relations but also signal Australia’s openness to a broader regional vision where economic pragmatism and strategic dialogue can go hand-in-hand.

This will not go unnoticed in the White House as well. However, what matters is how the Trump administration responds or can possibly respond. Either it could threaten to withdraw from AUKUS and focus more on developing its own resources or it could double down on its commitment to shoring up Australian naval capability. However, as long as Washington continues to lack a viable programme to reverse China’s economic dominance in Australia specifically and the Indo-Pacific generally, countries like Australia will continue to maneuver in ways that best serve their interests. It is increasingly clear in Australia that their trade interests are best served by having stable ties with China. There is a growing appreciation of the fact that Australia’s ties with China and the US must not be mutually exclusive. This, for China, is a major victory.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

China Ready to Work With SCO Countries to Restore Peace in Middle East

Sputnik – 17.07.2025

China is ready to cooperate with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member countries and the international community to promote a political settlement and the speedy restoration of peace in the Middle East, the Chinese Foreign Ministry told Sputnik on Thursday.

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asked the SCO to promptly consider the situation with Israel’s aggression against the Islamic Republic, as well as to provide Tehran with political support in light of the June conflict with the Jewish state.

“The peoples of China and Iran are bound by traditional friendship. China is committed to maintaining friendly cooperation with Iran in order to benefit the peoples of both countries and bring positive factors to maintaining peace and stability in the Middle East,” the ministry said when asked to comment on Iran’s request to the SCO.

The ministry noted that “the situation in the region currently remains complex and sensitive.”

“China is ready to cooperate with members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the international community to uphold peace, promote a political settlement and quickly restore peace and stability in the Middle East, which meets the common interests of the countries in the region and the international community,” the ministry added.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran: World bodies giving up legitimacy, ‘sense of mission’ to bullying, unilateralism

Press TV – July 17, 2025

Iran says the imposition of US sanctions targeting a UN-appointed human rights expert and the mass resignation of members of the UN Palestine inquiry show that the world bodies are no longer allowed to even record the truth.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks in a post on his X account on Thursday after the US on July 9 announced punitive measures against Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, while all three members of the UN commission investigating crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories submitted their resignations on Monday.

In his post, Baghaei said the sanctions and the resignations should not be taken lightly as they are an “alarming sign of the erosion of the global legal and normative order.”

“International institutions are giving up their legitimacy, effectiveness, authority and ‘sense of mission’ to militant bullying & radical unilateralism,” the Iranian spokesperson wrote.

He said future generations would affirm that silence, indifference, and double standards in the face of grave injustices and wars led to the collapse of the world normative order.

Albanese, independent from the UN bureaucracy, operates under a UN Human Rights Council mandate. She has faced repeated smears and threats from Israeli officials and lobby groups for her accurate, evidence-based reporting on the situation in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Despite growing political backlash, human rights defenders continue to raise the alarm over the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza.

Since October 2023, the Israeli regime has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians—most of them civilians, women, and children—amid widespread destruction and blockade-induced starvation.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No Due Process at Gitmo

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | July 17, 2025

Last week, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., invalidated a plea agreement for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has been incarcerated at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for 20 years. Mohammed has been charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder in the United States on 9/11. Originally, the federal government blamed Osama bin Laden as the 9/11 mastermind. Then, after bin Laden was murdered in his home in Pakistan by the feds, they decided that Mohammed was the real mastermind. Bin Laden had never been charged with any crimes in the U.S.

After 20 years of litigation, the feds and Mohammed and his lawyers entered into a written plea agreement. The agreement, which was sought and drafted by the prosecutors, relieved them of the intractable burden of defending torture in a public courtroom and removed the death penalty from the menu of penalties available for imposition upon the defendant.

Both sides presented the plea agreement to the military judge, who held hearings on its voluntariness, after which he accepted the plea agreement and all parties reasonably believed they had a guilty plea on their hands — a valid, freely negotiated, publicly accepted, lawful guilty plea.

Then, Lloyd Austin, who was the Secretary of Defense at the time, decided that the Biden administration did not want to answer for allowing the 9/11 mastermind to escape the federal death penalty. So, he ordered the same legal team that sought and negotiated and actually drafted the guilty plea to ask the trial judge to vacate it. Following standard criminal procedure, the court upheld the agreement as a binding, judicially approved contract between the United States government and Mohammed.

Then the feds appealed this denial to a military court of appeals, which also upheld the plea agreement. Thereupon the feds appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, last week, on a 2 to 1 vote, rejected the plea, holding that the decision was Austin’s to make; and it didn’t matter if he said no well after the agreement had been entered.

Here is the backstory.

Due process has numerous definitions and aspects, but for constitutional purposes it basically means that all charged persons are presumed innocent and entitled to a written notice of the charges, a speedy and fair hearing before a neutral fact finder, a right to appeal; and the entire process imbued with fairness and a profound recognition of personal innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process also explicitly prohibits the use of torture.

In order to ensure that due process and habeas corpus — the right to compel the jailer to justify one’s confinement — would trump the whims of government officials, stated differently, to ensure that the British system of torture and confession and conviction did not occur here, James Madison and the Framers crafted protections in the Constitution to which all in government needed to swear allegiance and support.

Fast forward to Gitmo, and you can see the constitutional system turned on its head.

This George W. Bush-crafted American Devil’s Island, which costs $500 million a year to operate, once held 780 prisoners, allegedly there due to their personal involvement in the war on terror against the United States. Not a single one of them has been convicted of 9/11-related crimes, and only one former detainee is currently serving time in an American federal prison.

Nearly all the prisoners were tortured, and most were captured by roving militias and sold to American forces for bounties. Last year, the Biden administration laudably released 11 detainees, all of whom had been at Gitmo for 20-plus years and none of whom had even been charged with a crime.

The best known of the remaining 15 prisoners is Mohammed, who was scheduled for trial when the military judge in his case retired. The new judge — the fifth on the case — was confronted with the daunting task of reading 40,000 pages of transcripts and documents concerning the torture of Mohammed by U.S. personnel.

At the same time, a new team of military and civilian prosecutors was assigned to the case and the new prosecutors told their bosses in the Pentagon, chief among whom was Austin, and the new military judge that unlike their predecessors — who sought to mitigate the 183 torture sessions U.S. personnel administered to Mohammed — they were prepared to acknowledge it and decline to use any evidence obtained from it in the courtroom.

This remarkable turnaround — one that rejected the premises upon which Gitmo came into being — resulted in the prosecutors commencing plea negotiations.

The Bush-inspired premises of Gitmo were that since it is located in Cuba, federal laws don’t apply, the Constitution doesn’t apply and federal judges can’t interfere. In five landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected all these premises, and the new team of prosecutors and the new judge recognized as much.

The prosecutors basically said that they cannot ethically defend torture, they will not offer evidence derived from it in the case and the case is difficult to prove without evidence derived from torture.

This is a remarkable lesson to be learned. Instead of cutting holes in the Constitution, follow it. Instead of using torture, use acceptable investigative techniques. Instead of crafting a Devil’s Island, use the systems in place that have basically worked for hundreds of years.

None of this jurisprudential mess would have occurred if Bush had allowed the criminal justice structure to proceed unimpeded. The use of torture, rotating judges and prosecutors, and incarceration for a generation without charges or trial are all hallmarks of an authoritarian government.

If justice consists in convicting the guilty using established norms and fair procedures, Gitmo has been an unjust unhumanitarian disaster. But if justice consists in the government getting whatever he wants, then the Constitution is useless as a protector of freedom.

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025

A change in perception

The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.

In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).

These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.

Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.

Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.

Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.

The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.

This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.

European elections lose political weight

Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.

The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.

A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”

In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.

Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.

The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.

Controlling public discourse

In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.

The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.

A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.

Among the main points of the EUDS are:

  • Forced removal of so-called fake news;
  • Greater transparency in political propaganda;
  • Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”

In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.

Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy

Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.

During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.

Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.

Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.

Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”

Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.

Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.

If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.

The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

500+ Chemical Attacks: Russia Details Ukraine’s Use of Toxic and Poisonous Agents

Sputnik – 17.07.2025

Major General Alexey Rtishchev, head of the Russian Armed Forces’ Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops, stated that more than 500 instances of Ukraine using chemical and toxic substances have been documented during the special military operation.

“Throughout the special military operation, over 500 cases have been recorded where the Ukrainian side employed riot control agents (chloroacetophenone, CS gas), as well as toxic substances with psychotropic (BZ) and general poisonous effects (cyanogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide),” Rtishchev said during a briefing on Ukraine’s and Western countries’ violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“Since the beginning of 2025, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been systematically using copter-type drones to drop containers filled with CS gas and improvised munitions containing chloropicrin on Russian military positions,” he added.

Kiev is planning a provocation involving the release of ammonia at a facility near Novotroitsk in the DPR, says Major General Alexey Rtishchev, head of the Russian Armed Forces’ Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops. The goal is to accuse Russia of intentionally causing a man-made disaster.

“With the support of Western handlers, the Kiev regime has not abandoned its long-developed barbaric tactic of warfare—the ‘chemical belt’ method, which involves placing and detonating containers with toxic chemicals in areas where Russian troops operate. Available evidence indicates preparations for another such provocation,” Rtishchev said during a briefing on Ukraine’s and Western countries’ violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“On July 3, 2025, operational measures confirmed that Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel had installed antenna-mast equipment at a major ammonia distribution facility near the settlement of Novotroitsk. The plant is a first-class hazard facility, and if struck, it could release over 550 tons of liquid ammonia into the environment. The plan is to subsequently accuse our country of deliberately causing a man-made disaster and inflicting reputational damage,” Rtishchev added.

He presented the original letter from the deputy director of the Kiev-controlled “Ukrkhimtrans-ammiak” enterprise to the head of the regional military administration, confirming the placement of military equipment at the site.

“I remind you that using a high-risk facility for military purposes violates international humanitarian law,” the head of the Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Troops emphasized.

According to the documents disclosed by Rtishchev, the incident concerns the village of Novotroitsk in the Kramatorsk district of the DPR.

Western countries will continue to use the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) as an instrument of political pressure on Russia, without taking into account objective facts, head of the Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Protection Troops of the Russian armed forces Major General Aleksei Rtishchev said on Thursday.

Last week, Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans informed the country’s parliament that Russia, according to Dutch intelligence services, allegedly intensified the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, which is a violation of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC).

“It is obvious that the West will continue to use the OPCW as an instrument of political pressure on Russia, without taking into account objective facts. The Russian side will continue to work to counter this policy and to inform the world community about the violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the Kiev regime and its curators,” Rtishchev told a briefing.

The activities of the OPCW have become highly politicized due to pressure from Western states, which, at their whim, impose unilateral sanctions, make unfounded accusations against undesirable countries, and abuse the provisions of the Convention, the military said.

Additionally, the military said that Russia had recently asked the OPCW head to send a team of experts from the organization’s technical secretariat to Russia to assist in the investigation of Kiev’s crimes, as well as a draft agreement between Russia and the OPCW on organizing and conducting visits for the purpose of such assistance.

“This step is due to the fact that all previously presented documentary evidence and expert opinions have not received the proper response from the organization. About 40 verbal notes from the Permanent Mission of Russia to the OPCW still remain without a meaningful response. At the same time, unsubstantiated requests from the Ukrainian side receive immediate support from the bureaucratic structures of the OPCW with the involvement of accredited laboratories,” Rtishchev said.

Taking advantage of its preferences, Ukraine has repeatedly involved the OPCW technical secretariat in legitimizing incidents falsified by Ukrainian and Western intelligence services regarding the alleged use of chemical means of riot control by Russian military personnel on the line of combat contact, he added.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Colombia must sever ties with NATO – president

RT | July 17, 2025

Colombia must cut ties with NATO as the leaders of the military bloc support “genocide” of Palestinians, President Gustavo Petro has declared.

Colombia, a traditional US ally in South America, became the first country in the region to obtain the status of NATO global partner in 2017. Petro, who took office in 2022 as Colombia’s first leftist president, severed diplomatic relations with Israel last year over what he describes as a genocide being carried out by the Israeli government against Palestinians.

”What do we do in NATO? If NATO’s top brass are for genocide, what are we doing there?” Petro said at a pro-Palestinian international conference in Bogota on Wednesday.

”Hasn’t the time come for another military alliance? Because how can we be with armies that drop bombs on children?” he added. “Those armies aren’t armies of freedom, they’re armies of darkness. We must have armies of light.”

Petro argued that NATO is a Cold War relic and asserted that nations like Colombia are treated as “half-members” within the US-led military bloc, granted symbolic partnerships but not full accession.

The two-day conference in Bogota hosted representatives from a dozen countries in the Global South. Attendees signed a joint declaration calling for economic sanctions and legal actions against Israel, including an arms embargo, restrictions on dual-use goods, port denials for vessels carrying cargo for Israeli forces, and support for international accountability for crimes allegedly committed in occupied territories.

Petro’s criticism reflects a break from Colombia’s historically warm relationship with Israel. The late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez once dubbed Colombia the “Israel of Latin America,” arguing it served a similar geopolitical role in the region.

Israel launched its military campaign in Gaza following a deadly raid led by the militant group Hamas in October 2023. The first independent study of casualties in Gaza, published last month, estimated the number of fatalities in the enclave at almost 84,000 by January 2025. Israel is currently pushing Palestinians to move to a “humanitarian city” that would purportedly be free of Hamas influence – which critics say is just a euphemism for a concentration camp.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment