EU ‘preparing for war’ – Hungarian FM
RT | March 29, 2025
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has accused Brussels bureaucrats of clinging to a “failed pro-war policy” in a desperate attempt to delay the moment when European taxpayers begin asking where the money spent on bankrolling Kiev has gone.
The European Union recently advised its 450 million inhabitants to stockpile essential supplies for at least 72 hours, with EU Commissioner for Crisis Management Hadja Lahbib warning on Wednesday that the Ukraine conflict threatens the bloc’s overall security.
Szijjarto said he initially thought the warning was some kind of joke or “trolling,” after Lahbib posted a bizarre video showing Europeans what to pack in a 72-hour survival kit.
“But why, in the 21st century, should EU citizens prepare a survival kit? There’s only one explanation: Brussels is preparing for war,“ Szijjarto wrote in a post on X on Friday. “At a time when there’s finally a real chance for a ceasefire and meaningful peace talks with [President Donald Trump’s] return to office, Brussels is going in the opposite direction, clinging to a failed pro-war policy.”
“Why? Because as long as the war continues, pro-war European politicians can avoid taking responsibility for three years of failure, and avoid answering an extremely uncomfortable question: where is the money that was sent to Ukraine?”
EU institutions in Brussels and individual member states have spent over €132 billion over the past three years supporting Kiev, and have pledged an additional €115 billion that has yet to be allocated, according to data from Germany’s Kiel Institute.
Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has pushed for a diplomatic resolution and sought to recoup what he estimates to be over $300 billion in US taxpayer money that his predecessor “gifted” to Kiev. Washington recently brokered a limited ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, placing a moratorium on attacks on energy infrastructure. Kiev, however, has repeatedly breached the ceasefire terms, according to Moscow.
Despite the ongoing peace process, the EU has continued to push a hawkish agenda. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently unveiled an €800 billion plan to ramp up military spending through loans.
Meanwhile, France and the UK continue to advocate for the deployment of a military contingent to Ukraine. Speaking after a summit in Paris on Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that a so-called “coalition of the willing” will seek to deploy a “reassurance force” to Ukraine after a peace deal with Russia is reached.
The proposal to send troops has already been rejected by several EU members. The “coalition of the willing” – a phrase originally coined by the US in 2003 to describe countries backing the invasion of Iraq – now mostly refers to states that have pledged to continue supporting Kiev militarily, without necessarily committing to troop deployments.
A Third Way to end the war in Ukraine
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 29, 2025
In an unguarded moment, perhaps, ex-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson blurted out recently in an interview that the ultranationalist elements who rule the roost in Kiev are a formidable obstacle to ending the war in Ukraine. For Johnson, this might be a blame game to absolve himself of responsibility, given his own dubious role as then PM (in cahoots with President Joe Biden) in undermining the Istanbul agreement in April 2022 to rev up the simmering conflict and turn it to a full-fledged US-led proxy war against Russia.
What Johnson will not admit, though, is that the ascendance of the MI6, Britain’s intelligence agency, in the power structure in Kiev goes back by several years. MI6 was responsible for the personal security of President Zelensky. MI6 took advantage by positioning itself to choreograph the future trajectory of the war and subsequently in the planning and execution of major covert operations directed against the Russian forces — and ultimately to carry the war into Russian soil itself.
According to reports, the UK intends to establish a base in the Odessa region on the Black Sea coastline. See my article The Hundred Years War Donald Trump should know about, Deccan Herald, January 29, 2025.
So, indeed, the MI6’s unholy alliance with the notorious Azov militia units comprising Ukrainian ultra-nationalists fired up by neo-Nazi ideology who wield control of the power apparatus in Kiev even today, is a key factor in the war, which complicates the prospects for President Trump’s efforts to end the war. Suffice to say, Britain’s strategic defiance of Trump with PM Keir Starmer string up of an insurgency among Europeans to pre-empt any US-Russia rapprochement is a calculated strategy.
Hopefully, President Trump’s decision Tuesday to order the FBI to forthwith declassify files concerning Crossfire Hurricane investigation may throw some light on the so-called Steele dossier (named after an ex-MI6 officer) containing doctored ‘evidence’ that had formed the basis of Hillary Clinton’s fake allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 US election cycle.
Reports had appeared, incidentally, that incumbent president Barack Obama and then vice-president Biden were very much in the loop on the Russia hoax.
The point is, the entrenched neo-Nazi groups in Kiev, with Zelensky as their frontman, are not in the least interested in budging from their maximalist demands on a total Russian withdrawal and so on for ending the war, which are backed by the Europeans unconditionally who would know fully well that such hopelessly unrealistic demands are deal breakers. The Kiev regime and European leaders are joined at the hips as interest groups in the war continuing.
Put differently, so long as the regime in Kiev remains in power (although Zelensky’s presidential term has expired), any forward movement in the peace process will remain a pipe dream.
The best course of action would be that Zelensky steps down on his own volition and a fresh election is allowed to be held under the supervision of the parliament speaker but all that is too much to expect. Given the massive scale of war profiteering, Zelensky holds a dream job.
The alternative will be Zelensky’s ouster through coercive means as the US once did to an equally corrupt proxy, Ngo Dinh Diem, in 1963 during the Vietnam War. But Trump is unlikely to do that. And in any case, the deep state is hostile towards Trump and Zelensky gets political support from Democrats.
Besides, Zelensky’s violent exit may only bring in another figure with neo-Nazi backing to power. In fact, the ex-army chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who also has MI6 support, is waiting in the wings in London serving as Ukraine’s envoy.
In such a dismal scenario, the only way out seems to be a Third Way. Russian President Vladimir Putin may have proposed just that in a speech in Mumansk on Thursday possibly to draw Trump’s attention, as the Riyadh talks are not getting anywhere and Zelensky shows no signs of interest in a ceasefire.
Putin said at the outset, “I would like to state – first and foremost – that, in my view, the newly elected President of the United States sincerely wishes to end this conflict for a number of reasons – I will not list them now, as they are numerous. But in my opinion, this aspiration is genuine.”
He then worked his way to the issue of the neo-Nazi formations who receive western weaponry and financial aid and have the resources to recruit new personnel, holding de facto power in Kiev and are effectively running the country. Putin stated: “This raises the question: how is it possible to conduct negotiations with them?”
Clearly, the Russians are sceptical of the outcome of the expert level talks in Riyadh last Monday. The European summit in Paris 3 days later had vowed not to relax the sanctions against Russia or to give Russian banks access to the SWIFT clearing system. In short, the exports of Russian agricultural products and fertilisers to the world market is not going to be feasible. Kiev has already raised objection to the US-Russian understanding in this regard.
Simply put, an important element in the so-called Black Sea initiative is not workable. How to cut the Gordian knot?
Taking stock of Kiev’s all-round resistance to ending the war, Putin said:
“In such situations, international practice follows a well-established path. Within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, there have been several cases of what is termed external governance or temporary administration. This occurred in East Timor, I believe in 1999, in parts of the former Yugoslavia, and in New Guinea. In short, such precedents exist.
“In principle, it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine. To what end? To conduct democratic elections, to bring to power a competent government that enjoys public trust, and only then to begin negotiations on a peace treaty and sign legitimate agreements that would be recognised worldwide as consistent and reliable.
“This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. At present, there is no opportunity – and perhaps no possibility – to lay out every detail, as the situation is evolving rapidly. But this remains a viable option, and such precedents exist within UN practice…”
What Putin didn’t mention but is equally relevant is that the war in Ukraine will meet with sudden death the moment UN governance in Ukraine gets established. Indeed, let the UN decide the composition of any peacekeeping forces to be deployed in Ukraine for conducting elections. There won’t be any need for a ‘coalition of the willing’ of Europeans for deployment in Ukraine, either.
Of course, the big losers will be MI6 and the politicians in power in the EU countries who lined up behind Biden as his retinue to wage a doomed proxy war against Russia and eventually ended up bringing the roof down on Europe’s economy. These decrepit politicians need the war as a distraction since they will be held horribly accountable by their public for creating conditions under which the welfare state is no longer affordable.
The Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi is expected to visit Moscow next week on Tuesday. It is entirely conceivable that the topic of UN governance in Ukraine will figure in Wang Yi’s talks.
US-Sponsored White Helmets: Al-Qaeda Offshoot Loses USAID Funding
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – March 28, 2025
The Trump administration has halted the flow of millions of US tax dollars to the White Helmets, a controversial Syrian group. What did they do and who benefitted?
The group staged false flag chemical attacks to provoke the West’s retaliation against then Syrian government. At least 40 White Helmets members admitted to staging attacks in the country, according to Russia’s Foundation for the Study of Democracy.
In 2016, the White Helmets used five-year-old Omran as a propaganda tool during the Syrian Army’s siege of Aleppo. A viral photo of him covered in dust and blood aimed to smear Damascus and its Russian allies. In 2017, his father revealed it was staged.
CNN anchor Kate Bolduan chokes up after Omran Daqneesh, 5, was injured in an alleged airstrike. The boy’s father came out in support of Assad and criticized rebel groups for using his son’s image as propaganda in June 2017. © CNN / Screenshot
White Helmets filmed a false flag attack in rebel-controlled Douma in April 2018. Russian media verified testimony from multiple eyewitnesses saying the attack was staged. However, the Western coalition used it as a pretext for strikes on Syria.
Witness testimonies claim White Helmet members were not humanitarian volunteers but armed militants who recruited others and threatened them with death if they disobeyed.
As the Syrian Army advanced in July 2018, around 429 White Helmets were hastily evacuated through Israel to Western countries, according to Syria’s then-Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar al-Jaafari.
Who Founded the White Helmets, and How Was It Linked to Al-Qaeda?
The White Helmets (Syrian Civil Defense) were founded in 2013 amid the Syrian civil war. James Le Mesurier, a former British Army officer and intelligence operative with ties to terrorist organizations, established the group and funded it through Mayday Rescue.
Posing as a rescue organization in jihadist-controlled areas, the White Helmets were soon exposed as a front for al-Qaeda by independent researchers Vanessa Beeley (UK) and Eva Bartlett (Canada), as well as eyewitnesses and verified photo and video evidence.
Speaking to the Russian press in 2019, then-President Bashar al-Assad stressed there is enough evidence to identify former and current al-Qaeda members in the White Helmets ranks.
How Much Funding Did They Receive and From Whom?
In 2019, Le Mesurier died under suspicious circumstances in Istanbul after being exposed for fraud. By then, around $129 million in taxpayer money from Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and other nations had been funneled to the White Helmets via Mayday Rescue alone.
As of 2018, the US had contributed about one-third of the group’s total funding, according to the Atlantic Council, providing around $33 million between 2013 and 2018.
The UK reportedly funneled $50 million to the White Helmets during the same period, while the Netherlands contributed $13.4 million. Funding dropped to $12 million in 2018 amid Mayday fraud allegations.
Despite this, CNN calls USAID the White Helmets’ largest donor for nearly a decade. The Trump administration recently terminated a $30 million USAID contract for the group.
White House cuts off funding for White Helmets – CNN
Members of the Syrian Civil Defence (White Helmets) in Idlib, Syria. © Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
RT | March 28, 2025
The administration of US President Donald Trump has cut off most of the funding Washington had been providing to the controversial ‘White Helmets’ volunteer organization in Syria, CNN reported on Thursday, citing internal documents and the organization.
The Syrian Civil Defense, popularly known as the White Helmets, was created in 2014 at the height of the country’s civil war, and billed itself as a volunteer rescue force dedicated to helping civilians injured by the government of former President Bashar Assad. It received funding from Western governments.
During the protracted struggle, the White Helmets were praised in the Western media as heroes. Extensive evidence, however, suggests that at least some of its media content was staged. On several occasions, members of the group were filmed participating in apparent executions by jihadists.
Its US Agency for International Development (USAID) funding has been terminated as part of the Trump administration’s broader curtailing of foreign aid contracts. The spending cuts affect programs related to firefighting, search and rescue, and so-called “community resilience” work, according to the outlet. Despite ongoing scrutiny of the group’s activities and affiliations, a smaller contract from the US State Department to fund what is described as “accountability work” reportedly remains in place.
In a letter to Congress, a USAID official said 5,341 awards had been terminated as of March 21, including a nearly $30 million White Helmets contract that began in February 2023, CNN said. Some of the funds have already been spent. A separate $1.4 million State Department contract reportedly remains active.
Upon taking office, Trump suspended most US foreign aid for a three-month review to assess its alignment with his “America First” agenda, freezing tens of billions in USAID-approved grants.
Farouq Habib, the deputy general manager of the organization, told CNN that the White Helmets have had a “great partnership” with USAID – the NGO’s major backer for nearly a decade. According to him, US support during Syria’s transition following Assad’s ouster is very important “in the absence of a functional, strong government.”
The White Helmets, co-founded by the late British mercenary and presumed former intelligence officer James Le Mesurier, rose to international notoriety amid the years-long conflict in Syria.
During the war, the group operated exclusively in areas controlled by assorted jihadist groups opposing Assad’s government. The White Helmets have allegedly been involved in multiple false flag ‘chemical incidents’, which it blamed on government troops. These were used by Western nations to justify strikes against the Syrian military and its allies.
UK, France involved in Kiev’s latest attack on Russian energy infrastructure – Moscow
RT | March 28, 2025
France and the UK actively aided Kiev in a strike on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has told journalists. Earlier the Russian Defense Ministry said that a metering facility was “de facto destroyed” in a Ukrainian HIMARS attack.
“[We] have reasons to believe that targeting and navigation were facilitated through French satellites and British specialists input [target] coordinates and launched [the missiles],” Zakharova said, commenting on the strike.
“The command came from London,” she said, branding the attack part of a Ukrainian “terror” campaign targeting Russian energy infrastructure. The spokeswoman added that such actions demonstrate that Kiev is “impossible to negotiate with.”
Although Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky “publicly supported” a temporary suspension of strikes on energy infrastructure agreed by Moscow and Washington, he “did nothing to observe it,” according to Zakharova.
Moscow ordered that attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure cease on March 18, following a phone call between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Russia and the US also agreed on a list of energy facilities that should not be targeted as part of a truce earlier this week. The list included gas facilities.
Kiev also agreed to a US-proposed 30-day partial ceasefire following talks between Ukrainian and American delegations in Saudi Arabia on March 15. Zelensky hailed the development and even described it as a diplomatic “victory” for Ukraine, but did not publicly mention any relevant orders to the Ukrainian military.
The Russian Defense Ministry has regularly reported on Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure over the past few weeks. Earlier on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists that the strike suggested that the Ukrainian military no longer follows Kiev’s orders due to a “total lack of supervision.”
Paris and London have emerged as the staunchest supporters of Ukraine in the face of a gradual shift in Washington’s position under the new Trump administration. In early March, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron said that their nations were ready to lead a “coalition of the willing”—a group of pro-Ukrainian countries prepared to support Kiev with troops and aircraft.
Russia has vehemently rejected any possibility of NATO-aligned European troops deploying to the conflict zone. It has accused France and Britain of hatching plans for “military intervention in Ukraine,” which could lead to a direct armed clash between Russia and NATO.
Macron and Starmer’s coalition of the killing amid Europe’s insane war footing
Strategic Culture Foundation | March 28, 2025
If there were a prize for Orwellian-named conferences, then the one held this week in Paris would surely be a top contender.
Over the past month, there has been a slew of such gatherings in London, Brussels, and Paris. They have been conducted in a frenzy to thwart peace and prolong war – under the guise of “seeking security” against Russia.
Some 30 nations attended the latest Paris summit, convened by France’s Emmanuel Macron, and entitled “Building a Robust Peace for Ukraine and Europe”.
Europe is being gaslighted to view war as peace and accept that all economic resources must be dedicated to militarism. It is an insane war footing that is beyond any democratic or moral rationale.
European Union member states participated as well as NATO and non-EU nations Britain, Norway, and Canada. We should clarify that it was the elitist leaders of these countries who were present. Their lack of democratic mandate and authority is all too obvious to the people of Europe.
Some EU nations, such as Hungary and Slovakia, have protested commendably about the unwavering belligerence and obscene waste of public resources for fueling a proxy war in Ukraine.
Notably, too, the United States was not represented at the Paris summit. Coincidentally, this week, a leaked private group conversation between senior members of the Trump administration revealed their contempt for “loathsome” European leaders. One can understand why.
In the grandeur of Élysée Palace, Macron hailed the non-entity gathering as the “Coalition of the Willing”. With this self-appointed virtue, the French leader was referring to countries that are willing to deploy military forces to Ukraine or maintain the supply of weapons.
Macron has been assiduously supported in this military venture by Britain’s Prime Minister Kier Starmer.
The French and British leaders have intensified their efforts to directly insinuate Europe and NATO militarily in the three-year conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Their efforts are a result of American President Donald Trump engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO alliance and Russia.
Trump’s diplomatic overtures with Moscow have sidelined the European states and have left them with an acute political problem of how to justify continuing military support for a failing Ukraine Project.
The French, British and other European Russophobes do not want the war to end. That’s because they are wedded to the false narrative about defending Ukraine from “Russian aggression”. They are also committed to strategically defeating Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.
In Orwellian fashion, the European and NATO warmongers cannot openly state their nefarious objective. That would be politically fatal. Hence, they are cynically dressing up their motives with virtuous-sounding schemes, such as deploying “peacekeeping troops” in the event of any ceasefire deal that the Americans and Russians might negotiate.
The relentless demonizing of Russia as a threat to Europe is amplified by a near-constant drumbeat of war. European citizens – 500 million of them – are being subjected to non-stop messaging about the “need” to militarize their societies to “defend” against “Russian expansionism”.
This week, the EU began urging citizens to stockpile emergency rations in their homes. Russia was not explicitly invoked as a threat, but it was palpably obvious that fear of war was being inculcated. While European states are slashing billions in social welfare, their elitist, Russophobic leaders are ramping up billions for militarism. Europe is on a war footing based on paranoia and the pathological fears of a ruling clique.
Macron and Starmer are also pushing the idea of integrating Ukraine into a first line of defense against alleged future Russian aggression toward Europe. In reality, this is about reconfiguring offense.
Their pretensions of “building a robust peace for Ukraine and Europe” are a reckless gambit to prolong the war. At its worst, the conflict could explode into an all-out world war.
It is cringe-making that failed European politicians who are mired in internal political and economic messes are seeking to aggrandize their images through high-stakes posturing against Russia.
Macron has said that his coalition of willing wants to have American backing for security. He added this week that if European troops in Ukraine come under fire from Russian forces, they will retaliate.
Moscow has already stated categorically that no European or NATO troops deployed to Ukraine are acceptable. They will be targeted as combatants.
That means that if Paris and London go ahead with their military venture in Ukraine, a wider war is almost inevitable.
It is alarming that Macron has lately said that European troops may be dispatched to Ukraine “with or without American support.”
Laughably, though, neither the French nor the British have the military power for a serious intervention. French forces have been serially kicked out of several African countries that were former colonies. Meanwhile, British military chiefs have warned Starmer that his deployment plans are ill-conceived and amount to “political theater”.
Even the much-vaunted summit in Paris this week showed open cracks between allies. Several European states have stated they are not willing to join any military intervention in Ukraine. Italy, Poland, and Greece have expressed deep concern about where Macron and Starmer’s logic is leading.
It seems that the extreme delusions of grandeur harbored by former imperialist powers are beginning to unnerve even supposed partners.
Hopefully, it is becoming transparent that Britain and France are gambling with world security to satisfy their own egos.
Two world wars in the last century stemmed from European intrigue and duplicity.
Has-been European powers are at it again with their Orwellian doublespeak about ensuring “lasting peace”.
The reality is Russia has won the proxy war that NATO instigated. Even the normally gung-ho Americans realize that.
NATO has been caught with blood on its hands as the culprit of an epic war crime against Russia, using Ukraine as a pawn. Trump seems to want to extricate the Americans from the debacle. He can try to offload the blame onto the previous Biden administration.
However, the European elitist leaders can’t do that. They are the same lackeys who promulgated the criminal proxy war. Their only perceived option is to keep it going… until the European public wakes up and takes retribution on their criminal leaders.
From JFK to Donald Trump: How the USA Became Wedded to Zionist Israel
By Rick Sterling | Global Research | March 28, 2025
There are many contrasts between the 35th president, John F. Kennedy, and the 45th and 47th president, Donald J. Trump. One extreme example is regarding U.S. policy toward Israel.
JFK and Israel/Palestine
Unknown to many people today, JFK supported Palestinian rights and sought a sustainable peace in the region.
In 1960, when JFK was campaigning to be president, he spoke at the convention of the Zionists of America. In his speech, Kennedy was complimentary about Israel but frankly said,
“I cannot believe that Israel has any real desire to remain indefinitely a garrison state surrounded by fear and hate.”
That warning, issued when Israel had only existed for 12 years, was ignored. Israel continued to act in an aggressive zionist fashion.
Kennedy did not just issue warnings. To the chagrin of the Israelis, JFK established friendly relations with Egypt’s President Nasser. The Kennedy administration provided loans and aid to Egypt.
The JFK administration supported UN resolution 194 which called for the right of return for Palestinian refugees driven out of their homeland. Although Israel committed to abide by UN resolutions when it was admitted to the United Nations in 1949, the Israelis reneged on this commitment and were hostile to the resolution. The day before JFK was assassinated, the New York Times reported (p 19), “Israel Dissents as U.N. Group Backs U.S. on Arab Refugees” and “U.S. Stand Angers Israel.” The second item begins, “Premier Levi Eshkol expressed extreme distaste today for the United States’ position in the Palestinian-refugee debate.”
John Kennedy’s brother Robert was Attorney General and headed the Department of Justice. For two years, up until the end of 1963, the DOJ made increasingly strict demands that the American Zionist Council (AZC) register as agents of a foreign country. In response, the AZC stalled, delayed, and created the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The most intense disagreement between Tel Aviv and Washington was regarding the nuclear site under construction at Dimona. JFK was intent on stopping the expansion of countries which possessed nuclear weapons. Although IsraeliPrime Minister Ben-Gurion said the nuclear site was for peaceful purposes, JFK insisted that the US needed to inspect and confirm this. The inspection deadline was December 1963.
In each of these four areas of contention, US policy changed dramatically after JFK was assassinated and Lyndon Johnson became president. Dimona was never properly inspected, and LBJ did not object to Israeli acquisition of nuclear weapons. The demand that the American Zionist Council register as an agent of a foreign country was dropped. Over time, the US withdrew their support of UN resolution 194, and LBJ was hostile to Nasser and ended US loans and support. Details of this process are described in this article and this book.
Israel Policy Since JFK and Today
With few exceptions, US policy has been subservient to Israel’s wants ever since JFK. An extreme low point was the treachery of President Johnson in covering up the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty during the June 1967 “Six Day War”. News about the Israeli killing and injuring of over 200 US sailors was suppressed for decades.
Damaged USS Liberty on 9 June 1967, one day after attack (Public Domain)
Now we are in a new extreme low point. In his first presidency, Trump flouted international law and longstanding US policy by moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The significant move was driven by mega donor Sheldon Adelson who wanted it announced on Trump’s first day in office. Another prime concern of Adelson was to torpedo the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. Trump responded as expected and withdrew the US from the agreement, effectively killing it.
Now President Trump’s administration is trampling on the right to free speech and aggressively suppressing critics of Israel. This repression on behalf of Israel was taking place under Biden but has escalated dramatically. Authorities have imprisoned a perfectly legal resident, Mahmoud Khalil. They have forced Columbia University to punish students without just cause and to impose obvious restrictions and prohibitions on speech and opinion. Why did they do this? It appears to follow the wishes of megadonor Miriam Adelson. She is president and chief funder of the Maccabee Task Force, which has campaigned on these issues for months.
As reported at Responsible Statecraft,
“Adelson’s support for the administration’s campaign to stifle criticism of Israel on college campuses isn’t a new focus but her alignment with the levers of state powers to implement her vision are unprecedented. In fact, tax documents reveal that she is directly overseeing a social media campaign targeting Khalil and Columbia University.”
In addition to suppressing free speech and punishing critics of Israel, the Trump administration has bombed and attacked an independent country (Yemen) in the service of Israel. They are doing this despite the fact that Yemen did NOT threaten U.S. ships in the region. The Houthi government only threatened Israeli ships after Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire and prevented food and other necessary humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. Israel, with U.S. support, is blatantly defying the International Court of Justice which ordered Israel to “maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance” and “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” Israel is in violation of this order and the US is complicit by providing most of the weapons.
President Trump, who campaigned and won election on the pledge to STOP needless wars, has started a new war with Yemen which is of no benefit to the US but serves the interests of Netanyahu’s Israel. Will he authorize attacks on Iran, in further subservience to Bibi?
Corruption of the Political Process
When Jewish donors to JFK’s 1960 campaign suggested they should determine his Mideast policy, JFK was shocked and definitively said NO. As reported by Seymour Hersh in “The Samson Option”, Kennedy talked with a friend who described what happened: “As an American citizen he (JFK) was outraged to have a zionist group come to him and say, ‘We know your campaign is in trouble. We’re willing to pay your bills if you’ll let us have control of your Middle East policy.” At that time, JFK vowed to change the US electoral system to prevent this corruption if he got elected. As president, he tried, but faced big hurdles and did not succeed.
Ever since JFK’s death, pro-Israel forces have had undue influence on U.S. policy. If the International Court of Justice decides that Israel is committing genocide, as seems likely, the U.S. will be the primary collaborator in the war crimes. The US is increasingly alone in supporting the zionist state as it practices apartheid within Israel, theft of land in the West Bank, and massacres in Gaza including attacks on hospitals, schools, and UN facilities. Fourteen countries now support South Africa’s charges of genocide against Israel.
Under Democratic President Joe Biden, U.S. policy to Israel was unwaveringly obsequious. Despite 70% of Democratic Party voters wanting the U.S. to get a ceasefire in Gaza, the Biden/Blinken team refused to do this. The Democratic Party leaders’ zionist ideology combined with zionist financial influence superseded their party members’ wishes. Netanyahu ignored Biden’s “red lines” with impunity.
Republican President Trump has taken this to a new level. His zionist donors determine his Israel policy. To protect Israel, Trump issued an executive order which weaponizes antisemitism. Universities are being compelled to implement a new definition of antisemitism which conflates criticism of Israel with ethnic discrimination. Trump’s campaign to “Make America Great Again” has evolved into “Miriam Adelson Gets All”.
It is a remarkable descent from the days when JFK did what was best for the U.S. as well as being best for Palestinians and non-zionist Jews.
Rick Sterling is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be reached at rsterling1@gmail.com.
Iran urges EU to address Israel’s genocide, aggression instead of leveling ‘hypocritical’ claims
Press TV – March 27, 2025
Iran says the European Union should address the Israeli regime’s genocide and aggression against the countries in the region instead of leveling “hypocritical” claims against Tehran.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remark on Thursday in reaction to the latest allegation by European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who on Monday claimed Iran posed a threat to global stability and said Tehran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Kallas made the remarks during a press conference in al-Quds with Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar.
She also accused Iran of supporting Russia in the war with Ukraine.
Baghaei condemned the EU’s double standard policies and said, “If Kallas is truly concerned about stability and security in the region, she should address the [Israeli] regime’s genocide in Gaza and its repeated acts of aggression against Lebanon and Syria as well as the military occupation of these two countries’ territories.”
He added that such baseless statements, illogical remarks and hypocritical claims against Iran lack credibility.
Unlike her predecessors, who tried a bit to consider the principles of international law in expressing the EU’s positions, Kallas “speaks recklessly”, the Iranian spokesperson emphasized, warning that even if the EU foreign policy chief’s remarks are rooted in her lack of experience, they would further undermine Europe’s credibility in the eyes of any impartial observer.
Iran has repeatedly rejected accusations that it has supplied weapons to Russia for direct use in the war in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Russia has repeatedly warned that a flow of Western weapons to Ukraine will only prolong the conflict.
Tehran has also stressed on numerous occasions that it is not seeking nuclear weapons and has put its civilian nuclear program under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency which has verified its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Tehran is a signatory.
The allegations against Iran come as Israel is believed to be the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in West Asia.
Some New Tales from the Darkside
Beatings and arrests continue both in the US and the Middle East
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • March 27, 2025
The news cycle over the past week has been dominated by reports and analysis of the Signal group chat involving top national security officials discussing aspects of the recent air strikes which have been directed against the Houthis in Yemen. There are four basic issues that are being examined by both the media and by elected and appointed government officials. First is the apparent ignorance of ordering the strike at all since the panel appeared not to know very much about the target or why the US was escalating the conflict. Second, was the possibly accidental inclusion in the list of participants of a journalist who is closely connected to Zionist Israel, having voluntarily served in the Israeli Army as a prison guard, where he may have tortured Palestinians, and who plausibly is a dual national US-Israeli citizen. Third is the security of the Signal technology itself, which was reportedly initially created to permit such sharing of confidential views online for criminal purposes, but which might be vulnerable to penetration by any professional foreign intelligence service including those of Russia, China, the United Kingdom and, of course, Israel, which would have had a serious interest in what Washington was intending to do in Yemen. Fourth, is the question whether Donald Trump knew about the meeting and approved what was being discussed.
My own experience of secure communications enabling meetings goes back nearly fifty years when nearly every national security-linked facility, including Embassies and military bases, had a so called “bubble” which was enclosed and electronically sealed to prevent outside penetration to learn what was being discussed and by whom. Since that time, there have been huge advances in protecting communications but friends who are still in the intelligence community insist that what is being protected can be made vulnerable by the cyber agencies that exist in various competitive countries that spend billions of dollars to do just that.
The participants in the Signal meeting are now scrambling to make their case that they did nothing wrong, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in particular is arguing that the discussion was not classified even though the issue related to sensitive intelligence regarding the United States plans for escalating a war against a country with which it was not technically at war. The deniers are certainly wrong in making that case, either that or they were incapable of understanding what was on the table. The presence of Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine is more difficult to comprehend as he is no friend of the Trump Administration, but it is now being argued that it was either done absentmindedly by Michael Waltz, the national security director who chaired the meeting, or it was caused by a fit of confusion due to the fact that the “Goldberg” who was supposed to be invited was someone else. In any event, Jeffrey Goldberg first surfaced the story of the Signal meeting and then followed up with a full transcript. Was it all some kind of clever ploy to push Trump into making the decision to go full throttle and attack Iran? It would not be above Netanyahu to arrange something that convoluted and flat out evil and we shall see about Iran soon enough, but certainly Goldberg could only have been there due to manipulation of a situation in which he was pursuing a pro-Israel agenda. Waltz is taking credit for the snafu at the moment but that position might change as he comes under more pressure to resign.
In any event, the Signal story will no doubt be discussed and both embellished and dismissed during the next few days, but one thing it does demonstrate is the relative lack of knowledge that comes across as incompetency on the part of the Trump national security team. And the role of Trump himself will also be hotly debated as he has personally been playing a key role in foreign policy decision making, though so far he is only speaking up to support the work of his subordinates.
Actually there are couple of other stories that surfaced last week that I much prefer. First is the ongoing battle to silence, imprison and actually deport anyone who is critical of Israel or of Jewish group behavior. This has been job number one for the Israel Lobby, which has been eminently successful under both the Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations, so much so that the sentiment that Israel controls America has been growing among the US public to such an extent that it surfaces regularly.
The Justice Department has reportedly acted on President Trump’s Executive Order on Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, through the formation of a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. The Task Force’s first priority will be to root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses. It is currently on the prowl, visiting four cities (Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Boston) where it will investigate ten elite universities. It has been suggested that Israeli investigators might well be part of the teams that will actually go into the classrooms, dormitories and administrative buildings on campus, all done without search warrants or probable cause. And the universities have basically surrendered over the issue of freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and regarded by many as the “right” that is most vital if the people are to enjoy fundamental liberties.
A recent arrest of a foreign student took place in Somerville Massachusetts on Tuesday March 25th when Turkish graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk was on her way to meet friends at an Iftar dinner to break their Ramadan fast, but she never made it. Instead, the 30-year-old was arrested and physically restrained by six armed plainclothes immigration officers near her apartment, close to Tufts University’s campus where she was a PhD student. Surveillance cameras show how one officer wearing a hat and hoodie grabbed her arms, causing her to shriek in fear while another confiscated her cell phone. The officers reportedly only showed their badges after Ozturk was restrained with her hands cuffed behind her back. According to the University, she was enrolled in a doctorate program at Tufts University on a valid F-1 visa, which allows international students to pursue full time academic studies, in which she was in good standing. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesman issued a statement on Wednesday claiming that Ozturk “engaged in activities in support of Hamas, that relishes the killing of Americans” but didn’t specify what those alleged activities were. In fact, friends report that Ozturk has not even been active in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The DHS spokesman never the less pressed on and explained “A visa is a privilege not a right. Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated. This is commonsense security.” Nevertheless, no actual charges have been filed against Ozturk but the State Department has indicated that her visa has been terminated and she has been transferred to the Central Louisiana Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Processing Center in Basile, where other students are also being held.
It is believed that Ozturk’s actual “crime” consisted of having cowritten a March 2024 op-ed in the school’s newspaper where she criticized Tufts’ response to the pro-Palestinian movement, calling for the school to “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide” and also urging divestment of any holdings in Israeli companies and government. Ozturk was to a certain extent a victim of vigilante justice. Her photo and details appear on a website called Canary Mission, run by a Jewish extremist group that says it is dedicated to documenting individuals and organizations “that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.” Tufts University officials said the school had no prior knowledge of the arrest and did not cooperate with it. Several professors, speaking off the record, were shocked and described how many on campus are fearing what comes next.
One final tale comes from a place formerly known as Palestine, where armed Israeli settlers descended upon the Palestinian village of Susiya in the Masafer Yatta region of the occupied West Bank and assaulted Hamdan Ballal. Ballal is the co-director of the film “No Other Land” which recently has been in the news since it won an Oscar in Hollywood for best documentary. As is always the case when Jews assault Arabs, Israeli soldiers were present at the scene and stood by as Ballal was attacked and beaten along with other local residents, only to then detain him and two other Palestinians overnight in a military base, where they endured further abuse from the “Most Moral Army in the World” before being released.
Of course, President Trump did not register a complaint at the treatment of Ballal. What happened to the Palestinian was not just a random encounter. As co-director of a film that documents the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the violent expansion of Israeli settlements in his region, he has used his platform to speak directly and unapologetically about Israeli apartheid and theft. Friends of Israel clearly see that as a threat and they have succeeded in blocking the showing of the documentary in the US, where it has been unable to obtain a distributor. Targeting Ballal is part of a broader strategy by the Israeli government and groups like the settlers of silencing Palestinian cultural figures and truth-tellers, especially those who succeed in establishing prominent narratives worldwide. The underlying message is that if even an award-winning filmmaker isn’t immune to state violence, then Palestinians should rightly walk in fear or get out. The sad part is that international media, which should have recognized something was wrong when Palestinians without global awards and credentials — students, farmers, mothers, teachers — have been arrested and beaten and tortured by Israeli forces every day, ignored their plight. Their stories do not make headlines. Their names are rarely known. In death, all they become is a number, like the tens of thousands who are buried under rubble in Gaza and who will never be commemorated.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
The First Amendment Protects Mahmoud Khalil
By Gary Chartier | The Libertarian Institute | March 26, 2025
One of Donald Trump’s first official actions as president was to sign an executive order designed to protect freedom of expression against government pressure. Soon after, Vice President J.D. Vance issued a vigorous challenge at the Munich Security Conference to speech restrictions in Europe. After years of government assaults on freedom of expression, people who cared about First Amendment values were cautiously optimistic.
Then came the administration’s attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil.
Khalil, a permanent legal resident of the United States who is married to an American citizen and who is soon to be a father, was detained by the government after he participated in protests focused on the plight of people in Gaza.
In a court filing supporting the decision to deport him, the administration maintained that his “presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Obviously, this can’t mean that he was physically impeding the formulation or implementation of foreign policy. He threatened, if he did, to bring about “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” because what he did had the potential to change people’s minds. He was targeted because of the anticipated impact of his actual (and potential) expressive activity.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a similar rationale for Khalil’s deportation. “And if you tell us, when you apply for a visa, ‘I’m coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events,’ that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States of America,” according to the Secretary. “If you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa.” (He makes a separate point about Khalil’s involvement in disruptive activities on the Columbia University campus, which I’ll bracket here.)
Rubio’s claim about “the foreign policy interest of the United States” makes sense only if, again, the worry is that the kind of protest in which Khalil was involved risked contributing to changes in policy, or at least signaled Khalil’s personal opposition to the that policy. (Rubio conveniently equates current U.S. foreign policy with “the foreign policy interest of the United States.” But let that slide.)
Khalil has been targeted because of core First Amendment activity: speech and assembly.
Rubio and other defenders of the administration’s position might argue for the legitimacy of Khalil’s deportation by arguing that, as a non-citizen, he’s not protected by the First Amendment. But the Constitution’s language makes no reference to citizens. And there are good reasons for treating it as applicable to Khalil.
The Bill of Rights appears to be intended to apply across the board to those affected by the actions of the U.S. government. Does anyone seriously think that the government could deny non-citizens the protection of the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in civil cases, or claim that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive bail is inapplicable to non-citizens? Unless the Constitution explicitly limits a given safeguard to citizens, we should read it as protecting everyone the government can impact.
And permanent residents, like Khalil, seem especially worthy of constitutional protection. After all, they are not tourists or brief visitors. They have established substantial ties to the United States and have demonstrated that they are good neighbors. They are often on the road to citizenship.
Whatever we judge to be the primary focus of the First Amendment, singling our people for sanctions because of what they say is deeply problematic. When the government targets the nonviolent expression of particular ideas, on anyone’s part, it sends the message that those ideas are disfavored and that others expressing them can expect to be penalized. Deporting Khalil because of the potential impact of his expressive acts exerts a chilling effect on the expression of officially disapproved ideas about the Middle East—by citizens as well as non-citizens.
The content-focused rationale the government has offered for Khalil’s deportation is a rationale it could invoke to attack citizens for what they say, too. A U.S. citizen who writes an op-ed criticizing some aspect of current foreign policy and whose action the government believes could influence others to avoid supporting its position could be penalized in multiple ways. Citizens (probably) can’t be deported for political dissent. However, if the rationale the government has offered here is upheld, they could be denied other discretionary benefits.
The First Amendment should also be read as protecting Khalil from deportation for the content of his speech because it doesn’t primarily or exclusively serve the interests of speakers. At least as important is the protection it offers to listeners.
Restricting listeners’ access to information undermines democracy and the free formation of public opinion. The more people have the chance to encounter varied voices, the more they have the chance to weigh arguments, evaluate insights, and assess factual claims for themselves. A government that can filter what people hear can artificially insulate its policies against critical push-back and keep them from being altered in light of relevant facts and norms. (Consider, for instance, how frequently governments that rush to war try to censor not only stories about specific military actions or espionage techniques but also arguments for peace.)
There’s no Middle East exception to the First Amendment. The administration can underscore its commitment to freedom of expression by not acting as if there were. The Constitution weighs strongly against deporting Khalil on the basis of what he’s said. Freeing him will benefit not only him and his family but also all Americans.
Featured Video
Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Crusades – colliding narratives
Ashes of Pompeii | June 13, 2026
They say history is written by the victors, but the Crusades offer an interesting historical contrast: a two-century collision that produced not one history, but two parallel, irreconcilable realities. The dates and the battles are identical in both accounts, but the moral axis is entirely flipped.
In the traditional Western narrative, the Crusades are framed as a heroic, if tragic, epic. The First Crusade is a pious pilgrimage; the knights are romanticized figures of chivalry in shining armor, bravely holding the line in a hostile, exotic land. The eventual loss of the Holy Land is mourned as the “fall of Outremer,” a tragic retreat of European civilization. In this telling, the East is often reduced to a passive backdrop, its inhabitants viewed through a lens of mystique or backwardness, mere obstacles to a divine mandate.
But cross the Mediterranean, and the exact same timeline reads like a chronicle of foreign invasion and eventual, hard-won restoration against the barbarous northerners. The dates do not change, but the adjectives do. Here is the history as it is remembered in the Levant… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The 12 Screenings That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find
- Iran deputy FM says MoU with US finalized, to be signed in Geneva on Friday
- With one strike, Netanyahu tries to kill two peace deals
- Iran warns ‘no point’ in deal with US if Israel remains unrestrained
- Ukraine as a laboratory of ‘techno-fascism’
- Desperate Starmer choosing piracy as distraction over UK crime crisis – Putin envoy
- The Crusades – colliding narratives
- Trita Parsi: Iran War Ends Today? Threats of Deporting Trita Parsi
- What Is SIDS?
- DHS docs: Govt bracing for nationwide anti-AI riots, preparing to crack down on dissent
- If Americans Knew
- Did Trump just threaten a nuclear attack on Iran? Another merger for Israel-Firster David Ellison –Daily Update
- Israeli Firm Accused of Launching Smear Campaigns During US, European Elections
- As World Cup kicks off, Gaza amputee girls chase football dreams
- Oxfam: More Palestinians killed by Israel across West Bank in last 3 years than previous 17 years combined
- US-Iran ceasefire may be imminent, but will Israel blow it up? – Daily Update
- The Issue of Israel Is Ending Democracy In Michigan
- Israel is stealing homes, livelihoods, and lives in West Bank
- Gaza is not an aberration – Israel planned this genocide decades ago
- Israel is changing the face of Lebanon, mainstream media is normalizing it – 3 articles
- Genocide lobby benefits from EU anti-racist fund
- No Tricks Zone
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
Aletho News 