Singapore police open probe over Palestinian flag displayed at Massive Attack concert
The Cradle | July 31, 2026
Singaporean police are investigating an incident involving the display of a Palestinian flag during a concert by the British band Massive Attack, which ended its performance in the country by raising the flag on stage, according to a police statement issued on 31 July.
Police and media stated that investigations are ongoing concerning what was described as “a possible breach of license conditions.”
Under Singaporean law, no foreign national emblem may be shown in public without a permit or an exemption.
The Palestinian flag carries particular sensitivity given Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s sizable Muslim population.
The home affairs ministry issued a public advisory in 2023 against displaying or wearing items connected to events in Palestine and Israel.
“The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict is an emotive issue. We would like to advise against the public display and wearing of articles in relation to the conflict, given the heightened sensitivities,” the ministry said.
The case of Massive Attack is far from the first display of solidarity with Palestine to draw legal action.
Since the start of the Gaza genocide in October 2023, efforts to support Palestine have faced some of the broadest and most diverse crackdowns on public protests.
In the US, authorities and universities have responded to Gaza solidarity demonstrations with mass arrests, suspensions, and criminal charges against students and faculty, while federal officials have threatened funding cuts and investigations targeting pro‑Palestinian activism.
The UK government has used anti‑terror legislation and public‑order powers to ban groups, impose strict conditions on rallies and detain thousands of protesters, activists and academics for expressing support for Palestine.
In France, interior‑ministry directives have led to repeated nationwide bans on pro‑Palestinian demonstrations, with police deploying tear gas, water cannon and mass fines to disperse gatherings and prosecutors pursuing criminal cases against organizers and participants.
In Germany, one of Israel’s staunchest allies, state authorities have treated common pro‑Palestinian slogans as criminal offenses, imposed protest bans, carried out hundreds of arrests and fines, and pursued deportations and other immigration measures against foreign activists involved in solidarity actions.
Saudi Arabia’s militarization of Red Sea will not safeguard shipping in waterway: Yemen
Press TV – August 1, 2026
Saudi Arabia’s decision to build an international coalition and militarize the Red Sea will not protect its vessels in the waterway, says a prominent member of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, warning that such move will mount regional tensions and complicate the security landscape.
Abdulaziz bin Habtour, in a statement issued on Friday, called the proposed Saudi maritime coalition a facade for persisting with the aggression and blockade against Yemen.
He stated that the Bab al-Mandab Strait continues to be accessible for international navigation, emphasizing that Yemen’s maritime measures target only Saudi vessels, calling them a reaction to the blockade placed on Yemen.
Bin Habtour said that earlier warnings to the US-led “Prosperity Guardian” coalition underscored that the Red Sea crisis couldn’t be resolved through military force, but by terminating Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and removing the blockade.
He noted that removal of the Saudi blockade and cessation of the military campaign against Yemen, instead of militarizing the Bab al-Mandab Strait, is the sole method to ease regional tensions.
Reuters quoted people familiar with the deliberations that Saudi Arabia seeks to form an international coalition against Yemen in the Red Sea.
The coalition’s composition has not been finalized and discussions are ongoing with numerous countries, the sources were quoted as saying.
On July 20, the Sana’a government declared a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia, stating that its authorities have enforced “an unjust and oppressive siege” on Yemen for almost 12 years, “looting our resources and enforcing a total blockade.”
Since then, the Yemeni Armed Forces said they have launched attacks on Saudi vessels in the Red Sea.
Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies launched the blockade on Yemen as part of a full-scale war since March 2015, with military, political, and logistical support from the United States and other Western states.
The war has killed tens of thousands of Yemenis, while consistently falling short of its main objective of restoring power to Yemen’s former Riyadh-friendly regime.
Following a fragile UN-brokered ceasefire in 2022, the United States, Britain, and the Israeli regime waged many rounds of aggression against Yemen. The attacks sought to cripple Sana’a’s capability to stage solidarity strikes against Israeli targets in response to Tel Aviv’s war of genocide on the Gaza Strip.
Yemen vs. Saudi Arabia: A Strategy of Strangulation and Asymmetric Response
By Mohammed ibn Faisal al-Rashid – New Eastern Outlook – August 1, 2026
The conflict in Yemen, now in its second decade, has entered a new and extremely perilous phase. Recent developments indicate that Sanaa has transitioned from defense to active deterrence, leveraging asymmetric capabilities to strike at the vital arteries of its powerful neighbor.
What once appeared to be a localized skirmish on the periphery of the Arabian Peninsula has now morphed into a direct threat to the Kingdom’s energy security and the stability of the entire region. This escalation unfolds against a backdrop of mounting tensions between the “Axis of Resistance” (Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah) and the bloc led by the United States and Israel, lending the Yemeni crisis a geopolitical dimension that reaches far beyond the bilateral relationship between Sanaa and Riyadh.
The Bombing of Hodeidah as a Trigger for Escalation
The immediate catalyst for the sharp deterioration was Saudi airstrikes on targets in Hodeidah province, including telecommunications infrastructure and the strategically vital island of Kamaran. These actions, which Riyadh framed as a show of force and a preemptive measure against Houthi expansion, were interpreted by the Yemeni side as a flagrant violation of sovereignty and an act of aggression. The Saudi-led coalition had hoped to degrade the enemy’s military capacity; however, the outcome was precisely the opposite. The very next day, July 25, the Yemeni Armed Forces announced the execution of two large-scale operations targeting the Kingdom’s “energy engine.” This lightning-fast response demonstrated not only the Houthis’ high state of combat readiness but also their determination to carry the war onto enemy territory, employing a principle of “an eye for an eye.”
The retaliatory strikes targeted strategic Saudi Aramco facilities in the cities of Jizan and Yanbu. According to reports, the attacks employed dozens of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and swarms of drones. Footage circulating on social media captured plumes of smoke rising over the Jizan refinery complex, while satellite imagery and regional sources confirmed direct hits. The selection of targets represents a highly precise strategic move, indicating a deep analysis of Saudi economic vulnerabilities. Yanbu is a critical node for Saudi oil exports via the Red Sea, purpose-built to bypass the vulnerable Strait of Hormuz. By striking Yanbu and Jizan, Yemen is effectively attacking the “western escape route” of the Saudi economy, demonstrating an ability to project force up to a thousand kilometers away.
These attacks have also exposed glaring gaps in Saudi Arabia’s air defense network. Costly Western air defense systems, including American Patriot batteries, have proven vulnerable to coordinated, massed strikes employing inexpensive yet effective munitions. This is a classic example of asymmetric warfare, where the cost of the weapons used is incomparably lower than the cost of their interception and the damage inflicted. The cost-effectiveness of such tactics presents Riyadh with an excruciating dilemma: continue with expensive intercepts or absorb the damage from regular attacks, both of which lead to enormous financial losses and undermine the region’s investment appeal.
The Naval Blockade: An Equation of “Blockade for Blockade”
A central element of Yemen’s new strategy is the imposition of a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia. On July 20, the Houthis announced a prohibition on shipping for vessels flying the Saudi flag and any cargo destined for the Kingdom’s ports. They repeatedly stressed that the blockade does not apply to international shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and is directed exclusively against Saudi Arabia. Movement spokesman Mohammed Abdul Salam denied reports of closing the strait, framing the measures as a legitimate response to years of blockade against Yemen. Yemen’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abdulwahid Abu Ras stated that the decision establishes an equation of “blockade for blockade” and constitutes a right to self-defense guaranteed under international norms.
This move fundamentally alters the rules of engagement. For over a decade, the Saudi-led coalition has maintained an air, naval, and land blockade on Yemen, leading to a devastating humanitarian crisis, famine, and epidemics. Now that Sanaa is employing similar tactics, Western powers, which remained silent for years about the suffering of the Yemeni people, have suddenly voiced deep concern. This situation lays bare a glaring double standard in international law: the right to freedom of navigation suddenly becomes sacrosanct only when the interests of Western allies are threatened. The counter-blockade, beyond its military dimension, carries powerful political and economic weight, directly threatening Saudi Arabia’s ability to export goods via the Red Sea and jeopardizing its energy security.
General Mobilization and Internal Consolidation
Parallel to the naval and missile campaigns, Yemen is intensifying its domestic political mobilization. Ansar Allah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi issued a decree for general mobilization, placing hundreds of thousands of tribal members and regular army units on combat alert. Mass rallies were held in the northern provinces, showcasing societal unity and a readiness for a protracted confrontation. Reports indicate the formation of a new internal structure—the “General Mobilization Forces”—modeled on Iran’s Basij, signaling long-term planning and an ambition to create deeply layered defensive and offensive capabilities. This militarization of civil society is transforming Yemen into a “fortress” where every resident is potentially a fighter, making occupation or a ground invasion an extremely risky undertaking for the Saudi coalition.
The Yemeni conflict is increasingly intertwined with the broader regional confrontation between the Axis of Resistance and the Western-backed bloc. The escalation is occurring amid tensions between the U.S. and Iran, as well as the ongoing war in Gaza. In response to the Saudi strikes, the Yemeni parliament expressed its full support for the actions of the armed forces, describing them as an inevitable response to the unjust blockade.
The New Reality and Prospects for Confrontation
Thus, the current conflict has far surpassed the bounds of a localized confrontation. Yemen, employing a strategy of asymmetric deterrence, has successfully seized the initiative, transforming years of blockade into a powerful tool of pressure on Saudi Arabia. Strikes on oil facilities and the imposition of a counter-blockade signal a new reality: the era of impunity for Saudi aggression has ended. Any further escalation by Riyadh will have catastrophic consequences for its own economic and energy security. Moreover, the Houthis’ success in confronting the technically advanced Saudi military serves as an inspiring example for other proxy forces in the region.
The situation is reaching a boiling point, and the world holds its breath awaiting the next moves from both sides. Several scenarios are possible, ranging from attempts to renew diplomatic contacts under UN auspices to a full-scale regional war involving external powers. However, one thing is clear: the balance of power in the region has irrevocably shifted, and the old methods of pressuring Yemen are no longer effective. Saudi Arabia will be forced to reconsider its strategy, recognizing that a military solution to the conflict is unattainable and that the economic cost of continuing the war has become prohibitively high. The era of cheap oil and unpunished airstrikes is a thing of the past, giving way to an era of complex negotiations and mutual deterrence.
Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, Political Scientist, Expert on the Arab World
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
Germany scrambles to evade Nicaragua’s landmark Gaza genocide case at ICJ
The Cradle | August 1, 2026
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced on 31 July that it will hold hearings from 7 to 10 September on Germany’s bid to dismiss Nicaragua’s landmark genocide case, hoping to prevent judges from ruling on Berlin’s role in enabling Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza.
Germany filed its preliminary objections to Nicaragua’s case on 21 October 2025, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and arguing that several of Nicaragua’s claims are inadmissible.
The filing automatically froze all proceedings, leaving evidence of Germany’s complicity in genocide unexamined until judges rule on Berlin’s challenge.
Germany will open oral arguments on 7 September, with Nicaragua responding the following day. Berlin will return on 9 September, and Managua will close on 10 September.
In April 2024, the ICJ denied Nicaragua’s request for Germany to stop military exports to Israel and to resume UNRWA funding, which Germany had suspended in January 2024.
On 1 March 2024, Nicaragua filed the case accusing Germany of violating the Genocide Convention, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and fundamental norms of international law. The charges relate to Germany’s political, financial, and military backing of Israel and its decision to cut off funding to the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees.
Managua asserts that every party to the genocide convention has a duty to do everything possible to prevent genocide, and that a recognized risk of genocide against Palestinians has existed since October 2023.
Berlin argued that only a small share of its export licenses to Israel covered weapons, yet Germany remains Israel’s second-largest arms supplier after the US, issuing export licenses worth over $571m between October 2023 and May 2025.
Beyond weapons, Berlin has locked in security ties with Israel while moving to stamp out criticism of it at home.
Germany’s upper house approved a bill on 10 July criminalizing the denial of Israel’s “right to exist,” punishable by up to five years in prison, a measure the Bundestag’s own research service warns would breach constitutional protections on free expression.
Netanyahu and German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt signed a security agreement in Jerusalem on 11 January, expanding military cooperation against Iran and resistance factions in Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen.
Iceland’s forthcoming referendum on EU membership
By Alfred de ZAYAS | CounterPunch | July 29, 2026
In August 2026 Icelanders will vote in a referendum whether Iceland should open accession talks with a view to joining the European Union[1].
Icelanders would be well advised to keep away from the EU, which has morphed from a peace-loving European integration movement into a war-mongering globalist machine run by a bloated bureaucracy in Brussels that operates without transparency or accountability and endorses militarization and virulent Russophobia.
In the light of Iceland’s venerable democratic traditions going back to the Thingvellir Parliament of the tenth century[2], it would be madness for the Icelanders to abandon their hard-won sovereignty and independence.
In 1992 and 93 Iceland did negotiate the EEA (European Economic Area) agreement that gave it access to the EU market but without membership and many of the obligations. The EEA agreement came into effect in 1994, and was negotiated during the period after the adoption of the Treaty of Maastricht (see below). It is important to know that the EU in the time of Maastricht was fundamentally different to EU following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007. The EU is now speeding into a more centralised, authoritarian and even totalitarian future.
There is another important consideration. The Treaty of Lisbon is in many aspects incompatible with the UN Charter. Icelanders must actually choose between their obligations under the UN Charter and the commitments and actions that flow from the Treaty of Lisbon and the arbitrary decisions of the European Commission, currently under Ursula von der Leyen.
UN membership
Let us review a bit of history. Iceland joined the United Nations in 1946.
The purposes and principles of the UN are laid out in Articles 1-2 of the Chater, notably a joint commitment of all members to advance peace through cooperation, multilateralism, conflict-prevention, respect of the sovereign equality of states, the self-determination of peoples, the promotion of human rights and the right to development.
Article 103 of the Charter, the supremacy clause, stipulates: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
Because of this overarching legal commitment, every UN member State must consider, before entering into any treaty or joining any other organization, whether such action would be compatible with UN membership.
Article 52 of the UN Charter stipulates that UN members can join other organizations “provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” (emphasis added)
This short paper argues that Iceland should not become a member of the European Union, which admittedly had very good beginnings, but which gradually moved away from its original peace-oriented vocation and emerged as a competing supra-national geopolitical entity with aims and activities frequently in conflict with the United Nations Charter, General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions.
On the basis of the Schuman Declaration (1950) the Treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957) the European Common Market was established with the purpose of advancing European integration, democracy and human rights. For decades the European States worked in tandem with the United Nations and contributed to stability and prosperity in the region.
The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) created the European Union and promoted peace and human rights while respecting diversity and state sovereignty. Article 6 of the Maastricht Treaty stipulated:
“The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. 2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. 3. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States…”
This arrangement was compatible with the UN Charter and guaranteed the respect of national identities and approaches in a manner consistent with the UNESCO Constitution, which also values the richness of diverse cultures and perspectives and discourages top-down homologation.
Unfortunately, the globalist movement in Europe largely homologized foreign policy, culture and even morals, in disregard of local approaches and traditions. When in 2004 the idea of a European constitution was aired, it was quickly defeated in public opinion polls and in the referenda held in France and the Netherlands in 2006. The European populations felt that the proposed constitution threatened their national identities guaranteed in the Treaty of Maastricht, that it opened the way to authoritarianism or even totalitarianism driven by a Brussels bureaucracy disconnected from the peoples of the member States of the European Union.
In the light of the impossibility to adopt the European Constitution by direct democratic vote, the bureaucrats decided in 2007 to drop the project of a European Constitution, and instead to take a short-cut relying on the parliaments of the member States, which were more easily manipulated than the populations they represented.
The Treaty of Lisbon or 13 December 2007 emerged as an Ersatz or surrogate European constitution, adopted in a questionable manner, and in any case unrepresentative of the wishes of the populations concerned.
Lip service was given to the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the EU acts (in theory) only where its member states agree unanimously. This reflects the legal norm that governmental decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible while still remaining effective. Smoke and mirrors.
In practice, however, the sovereignty of European States has been significantly reduced since 2007, and the Brussels bureaucracy has imposed rules and regulations – as well as unilateral coercive measures, wrongly referred to as “sanctions” – in an increasingly authoritarian manner, in disregard of the “margin of discretion” of supposedly sovereign European countries.
Particularly dangerous is the fact the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg sides with the European Council in most cases, notwithstanding well-based challenges from individual States. In effect, EU law has primacy over the laws of member states, even in matters of access to information, freedom of opinion and expression, morals and national security.
In its Orwellian judgment of 2 July 2026, the EU Court in Luxembourg approved the legality of EU censorship of the internet and the criminalization of social media messages including electronic links to sanctioned senders[3]. In this genuinely totalitarian judgment, not only the rights of news services to broadcast information and perspectives are being violated by EU law, but also the right of every EU citizen to access and publicly discuss politically relevant information.
Access to information and freedom of opinion and expression are at the very core of every democracy. These rights are stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union, in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee.[4]
This and other recent decisions by the European Court of Justice illustrate that there is no longer an effective recourse or remedy, because the European Court of Justice is clearly beholden to the EU Council.
Even the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has failed to protect European citizens from confiscation of private property e.g. pursuant to EU sanctions against Russia, and in clear violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Here too, the right to private property has been done away with by the supra-national decision of EU bureaucrats to issues “sanctions” on targeted countries or persons.
Because of the severity of the consequences of these measures, numerous human rights organizations, including the Geneva International Peace Research Institute[5], have presented legal briefs to the Council of the European Union enumerating the violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus far GIPRI and other organizations have received no appropriate response, other than a blanket reaffirmation from Brussels that the extra-judicial measures adopted pursuant to EU sanctions are legal.
A particularly egregious case of the new EU totalitarianism are the sanctions imposed on six European citizens for allegedly expressing views close to those of the Russian argumentation concerning the causes of the Ukrainian war since the Maidan coup d’état in February 2014. Among those impacted are the retired Swiss Colonel and intelligence officer Jacques Baud,[6] and the German journalist Husseyn Dogru.
Moreover, as I explained before the UN Security Council on 25 March 2024[7], the EU “sanctions” are not compatible with the UN Charter. For years now the European Union systematically violates resolutions of the General Assembly[8] and of the UN Human Rights Council[9], which condemn US and EU “sanctions” as incompatible with the UN Charter, international law, human rights norms and the right to development. Moreover, EU “unilateral coercive measures” make the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals nearly impossible, and, together with the illegal US sanctions regime, cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands worldwide, as determined by the British medical journal The Lancet. The imposition of such unilateral coercive measures undoubtedly constitutes the “use of force” in contravention of article 2(4) of the UN Charter and have no justification in international law in the absence of UN Security Council approval. EU “sanctions” violate the right to life, the right to development, and the self-determination of peoples.
Another worrisome development in Europe is the systematic war-propaganda and fear-mongering, the refusal to settle disputes by peaceful means, in contravention of article 2(3) of the UN Charter and the virulent Russophobia displayed by the Brussels bureaucracy, in gross violation of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates:
“1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”[10]
In 2024 and again in 2025 the Geneva International Peace Research Institute submitted legal briefs to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to article 15 of the Statute of Rome, alleging violations of articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute by the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. EU policies are contrary to international criminal law in that they have provided and continue to provide military, political, economic, diplomatic and propagandistic support to a genocidal State, thus enabling Israel to continue the genocide against the Palestinians and to engage in acts of aggression against Lebanon, Syria, Iran etc.
Collectives of jurists in France, Italy and Germany have also submitted legal briefs challenging the actions by EU member states as contrary to the UN Charter, the Statute of Rome, the ICCPR (articles 6, 7, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25), the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union.
All of the above activities by the European Union document the fact that the initially peace-loving institution has morphed into a totalitarian organization that no longer conforms with article 52 of the UN Charter, because it does not promote the purposes and principles of the UN but actually works against them.
Iceland must be very careful in considering any kind of association with the EU. A coherent foreign policy by Iceland would reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter and avoid any treaties or association that would restrict its sovereignty and margin of discretion and violate its obligations pursuant to the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The perception of the EU as a bastion of the “rule of law” and human rights can no longer be empirically sustained. Vestiges of a positive perception of the EU are only a product of public relations, indoctrination and relentless propaganda.
Yet, in our world of Orwellian newspeak and cognitive dissonance, some – even in Iceland – pretend that it is perfectly normal to be committed to the UN Charter while working against its purposes and principles through aggressive policies adopted by the Brussels bureaucracy.
A well-advised Icelandic voter should reject any association with the European Union, because the EU is no longer the peace-loving Common Market but has morphed into a totalitarian organization that does not respect the democratic rights of European peoples but pretends to impose a one-size-fits all, one-narrative for all, on all European citizens.
All freedom-loving Icelanders are called upon to defend Iceland’s sovereignty and independence.
Notes.
[2] https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/05/thingvellir-northern-europes-first-parliament/
https://www.thingvellir.is/en/education/history/assembly-site/
https://www.rferl.org/a/ecj-eu-russia-sanctions-oligarchs/33434950.html
[5] Gipri.ch
[8] Resolution 80/209 of 17 December 2025
[9] Resolution 61/9 of 27 March 2026
Ukraine committing ‘piracy’ – Rosatom CEO
RT | August 1, 2026
Rosatom CEO Aleksey Likhachev has accused Ukraine of “piracy” after a civilian container ship belonging to the Russian state nuclear corporation was sunk by a Ukrainian drone strike.
The MV Yanina, a freighter belonging to Rosatom subsidiary FESCO, was attacked by two Ukrainian drones about 130 miles off the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, Likhachev said in a press release on Saturday.
“It was a perfectly ordinary, peaceful container ship sailing in international waters and carrying civilian goods – ranging from frozen foods to construction and finishing materials,” he said. “Such an attack can only be characterized as piracy and maritime banditry.”
Likhachev also thanked the international crew of the container ship Delphinus, captained by an Egyptian national, “who, despite the danger posed by drones, headed to the shipwreck site at night and rescued 16 of our 17 men.”
“The world changes, yet the concept of ‘maritime brotherhood’ remains an enduring value!”
The remaining crew member was saved by Russian Black Sea Fleet aircraft, Likhachev said, adding that all of the sailors are in “satisfactory” condition.
Kiev has escalated attacks on civilian vessels in the Black and Caspian seas in recent months, with Vladimir Zelensky claiming that Ukraine was working to strain Russian military logistics.
Earlier this week, Ukrainian drones struck two tankers carrying cargoes for the international Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) in the Caspian Sea off Kazakhstan. The company, whose shareholders include US and European firms, condemned the strikes as “terrorist attacks.”
In retaliation, Russia escalated strikes on Ukraine’s principal Black Sea port of Odessa, targeting fuel and lubricant storage meant for the Ukrainian armed forces, as well as on ships it said were transporting military cargo.
Lobbying for Zionism reviewed by David Miller
By David Miller | July 30, 2026
Did Zionism begin as a Christian project which was only later a Jewish movement?
This is what Ilan Pappé says in the book Lobbying for Zionism.
In my review of the book, I show this is wrong.
Here is an excerpt:
The contribution of the first section of the book is to unearth the hidden history of the Christian Zionist movement. This is a fascinating and useful account of the contribution of a certain fraction of practical British imperialism to the idea of the construction of a Jewish state in the historic territory of Palestine.
In the conclusion, Pappé mentions that ‘Christian fundamentalists, who, as I’ve shown, were the first Zionists in the modern era’. He also states that ‘Zionism began as a Christian project, and thus the early lobbyists were what we would call Christian Zionists today.’ He goes on to criticise Mearsheimer and Walt, saying they ‘described this Christian lobby as a junior partner in the overall lobbying effort in the USA. This appeared to be the case in 2007 — but the picture was very different nearly a decade later during the Trump era.’
But of course, the picture was not very different either during Trump’s first or second presidency. Christian Zionists do have greater numbers of foot soldiers than do Jewish Zionists, but they have only a handful of representatives at the top of the Trump power matrix (for example, Pence and Pompeo in the first period, and Hegseth and Huckabee in the second). As reporting in the Forward, or JFeed, shows, it is Jews that dominate in terms of power players and finance.
Pappé’s conclusion is predicated on his analysis at the start. The opening words of the book are: ‘Zionism began as an evangelical Christian concept and later an active project.’
The main progenitors of the idea were, according to Pappé, Lord Shaftesbury, Colonel Henry Churchill, and Sir George Gawler from the 1830s onward. Though Jewish Zionists of the time are mentioned, such as Sir Moses Montefiore, this all predates the moment when, as Pappé writes, ‘the first settlers arrived [in Palestine] on 6 July 1882’, a group of 14 Russian Jews who arrived at Jaffa Port.
But, as Pappé surely knows, Jewish settlement in Palestine long pre-dates 1882 (see below). Except for Montefiore, none of these figures are mentioned in Pappé’s index and Pappé does not mention Montefiore’s numerous visits to Palestine, or his role in financing Jewish settlement.
In the end, then, the book appears to be advancing a case which is not supported either by the known facts on Jewish settlement in Palestine or by empirically grounded research on the activities of the Zionist movement.
Read the full review via The Column, the new magazine from @ukcolumn .
Navy retiring USS Fort Worth halfway through lifespan
By Stavroula Pabst | Responsible Statecraft | July 31, 2026
This week, the Navy retired a littoral combat ship only halfway through its lifespan.
The USS Fort Worth, a surface combatant ship which cost $400 million to build, entered service in 2012. It was originally meant to serve until the late 2030s, but was retired early due to chronic repair issues and related costs, and longstanding concerns regarding its overall viability.
A major issue for the USS Fort Worth was its combining gear, which connects its gas turbine and engines to its water jet shafts. The combining gear took critical damage back in 2016 when crew members failed to follow proper procedures while testing its engines, rendering the boat functionally unusable.
The Navy initially scheduled the USS Fort Worth’s retirement for 2022, after only ten years of service. However, the Navy repurposed the ship instead, using it to test new technologies at a port in San Diego.
“By retiring early-hull test platforms like Fort Worth, the Navy redirects investments toward upgrading the remaining LCS inventory with enhanced capabilities,” the Navy said in a statement this week. Its retirement helps ensure “the active ships remain relevant, combat-credible, and reliable throughout their service lives.”
But, as Dan Grazier, the director of the Stimson Center’s National Security reform program, tells RS : “The whole Littoral Combat Ship concept has failed.”
“It’s a poorly designed ship that [has an] excessive maintenance burden,” Grazier said. To Grazier’s point, a 2022 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found the Navy “hasn’t demonstrated that this type of ship can perform its intended missions,” and that it was less likely than its counterparts to withstand combat.
The USS Fort Worth’s untimely demise is representative of a broader procurement crisis, where the Navy has repeatedly failed to deploy reliable ships that can perform their intended function.
Rather, as Grazier tells RS, the Navy has often opted to build elaborately designed ships with unproven technologies, which often do not work as planned.
“The Navy’s now feeling the real consequences of years of bad policy,” Grazier said. “The size of the fleet is shrinking.”
The Navy originally planned to buy 55 littoral combat ships; it cut back to 32 in 2014 as questions mounted about the program’s viability. It now has 27.
BIRX POINTS THE FINGER AT FAUCI, DENIES LOCKDOWN BLAME
The HighWire with Del Bigtree| July 30, 2026
Deborah Birx got a hero’s welcome on News Nation, claiming she never understood how the country went from slowing the spread to a full shutdown, and pointing to Fauci’s private calls with governors and mayors as the cause. Jefferey Jaxen pulls up the actual headlines and timeline on the woman who was named White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, and it tells a very different story.
Russian Strike on US Drone Factory in Kiev Makes Clear – NATO’s Overseas MIC Footprint Is Fair Game
Sputnik – 31.07.2026
A July 24 Russian attack on the Ukrainian capital hit a drone factory belonging to Terminal Autonomy – a Delaware-HQ’ed maker of low-cost UAV and AI navigation systems.
The attack deprived Ukraine’s military of a key long-range strike drone capability in the form of AQ-400 Scythe (32kg payload, 750km range) and AQ-100 Bayonet (4kg, 60km) drones.
More importantly, it sent Zelensky’s NATO “partners” an unmistakable message: if they set up shop in Ukraine, their manufacturing facilities will be targeted.
“I do expect that the strikes on Western facilities as and when they are identified will continue and probably intensify,” veteran French geopolitical analyst Come Carpentier de Gourdon told Sputnik, adding that he expects “growing dissention and disagreement” within NATO on how to react.
“So far the EU and its allies, particularly the US, have hidden as far as they could any losses and even denied that their facilities or personnel were attacked and hit. That policy will probably continue for as long as possible, but the resolve will also probably be very weakened eventually,” given the difficulty of “selling” it to these countries’ respective populations.
As for immediate consequences, they may include:
- the “postponement” of new NATO weapons manufacturing contracts in Ukraine
- more production in neighboring countries
- most importantly, a blow to Ukraine’s attempt to sell itself as a nascent global manufacturer of drone hardware, including for the conflicts in the Middle East.
Merz readies secret plan to move German troops to Russian border – media
RT | July 31, 2026
The German government is developing a “secret plan” to prevent regional authorities from potentially obstructing the deployment of NATO troops to the Russian border, according to a joint investigation by The Telegraph and Die Welt.
The “contingency” measures are reportedly driven by fears that the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party could secure enough support in upcoming regional elections in two eastern states to form local governments.
Known for criticizing Berlin’s anti-Russia policies as harmful to Germany’s national interests, the right-wing party has grown to become the country’s most popular political force after once again being excluded from last year’s federal coalition talks.
In the state of Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD currently enjoys the support of 41% of voters, a recent survey suggested, compared with only 24% for Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU). In the northeastern state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, the AfD is polling at 36%, seven points ahead of its closest competitors, the Social Democratic Party.
Berlin has long accused the AfD of extremism, while Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has claimed that the party has “undeniable” ties to Russia and must be deprived of access to classified information if it comes to power.
The federal government is now seeking a way to rein in what The Telegraph bluntly described as “pro-Kremlin traitor states” in the event that NATO decides it is time to go to war with Moscow.
NATO roundabout
The scenario centers on NATO’s Reinforcement and Sustainment Network, which involves moving large troop contingents, heavy equipment, and logistical supplies to bloc members in Eastern Europe and the Baltic. Germany is set to play the role of what The Telegraph and Die Welt described as NATO’s “roundabout,” with its geographical location making it a central logistics hub.
The head of Germany’s Joint Operations Command, Lieutenant General Alexander Sollfrank, stated last year that Berlin is prepared for a war with Moscow and stands ready to facilitate the deployment of 800,000 NATO troops toward the Russian border in less than six months.
Moscow has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of attacking NATO unless attacked first and has dismissed such allegations as “nonsense” designed to justify Russophobic hysteria and rampant militarization.
Nevertheless, the NATO mechanism could be triggered without any hostile move by Russia, “at the first sign” reported by a Western intelligence service that Moscow was preparing an attack, according to The Telegraph.
Protests and obstructionism
The issue poses significant challenges for Berlin because such a deployment would technically take place before any conflict with Russia had actually broken out, while regional authorities enjoy broad powers over activities on their territory during peacetime.
An uncooperative regional government could potentially delay troop movements through “bureaucratic obstructionism” by withholding the necessary permits or refusing to provide NATO troops with police escorts and priority access to local roads.
Merz’s government also reportedly expects the deployment to trigger protests among local residents and debates within regional authorities about the extent to which they want to become involved in a process that could “expose them as part of NATO’s logistical hub.”
Bending the rules
Under German law, the federal government has very few ways to limit states’ independence short of declaring a state of emergency or imposing martial law. “The key question is how to circumvent a state not adhering to the federal idea without violating the constitution,” Roderich Kiesewetter, an MP from Merz’s CDU, told The Telegraph and Die Welt, adding that the Interior Ministry is drawing up relevant plans.
Berlin has already set the secret plan in motion to “create mechanisms that would make it possible to overrule individual states or to take the necessary measures,” added Tobias Krull, deputy chairman of the Saxony-Anhalt parliament’s Interior Committee.
Few details have emerged about what such plans could entail, but nationwide emergency regulations are reportedly being revised as part of the scheme. “Federal law takes precedence over state law – it’s as simple as that,” an unnamed lawmaker told the outlets.
Germany’s Basic Law allows for so-called “federal enforcement” if a regional government violates an obligation under federal law, but the clause has never been invoked.
During a state of emergency or under martial law, the federal parliament could also activate certain provisions allowing the government to intervene in state affairs and simplify military logistics. This would still require a two-thirds majority – something Merz’s government would be unlikely to secure, given that the AfD controls more than 23% of the seats in the Bundestag, while another 10% are held by the Left – another party the chancellor has ruled out cooperating with.
With Karim Khan’s dismissal, the elimination of the war crimes court is near-complete
By Jonathan Cook | July 30, 2026
The most important question we should be asking after Karim Khan’s dismissal last week as chief prosecutor of the ICC – the international war crimes court in The Hague – is not whether he is guilty of “sexual misconduct” against another staff member, identified as “Sarah”.
That can only be decided through a legal process – one, let us note, that has already taken place. A fact-finding body carried out a lengthy investigation of Sarah’s allegations over more than a year; its thousands of pages of evidence were then evaluated in detail by three senior judges.
Though you would not know it from the media coverage, they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest any kind of misconduct by Khan, sexual or otherwise.
Strangely, that determination was largely confirmed by an extraordinarily deferential “exclusive” CNN interview with Sarah, aired earlier this month.
She declined to give any meaningful details of what Khan had allegedly subjected her to, and celebrity interviewer Christiane Amanpour delicately avoided pressing her for any clarification.
No matter. The purpose of the CNN interview was never about excavating facts. It was designed to offer face-saving cover as an entirely political body called the Assembly of States Parties, comprising diplomatic representatives of the 125 states signed up to the ICC, entirely ignored the legal findings and dismissed Khan.
Paradoxically, it was the Assembly of States Parties that appointed the judges who had concluded that there was no evidence of misconduct or breach of duty by Khan. That inconvenient judgment was simply reversed, despite the Assembly members being in no position to weigh the evidence themselves.
We should not forget that many of these states have an investment in weakening the only international court that can bring their own senior officials to trial for war crimes.
In May 2024 – shortly before Sarah made her allegations – the ICC demonstrated that it was finally ready to prosecute western leaders for war crimes, not just those from the Global South or from the West’s official enemies, such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
Khan issued an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Both are accused of crimes against humanity for starving the people of Gaza through a prolonged blockade of food, water and power.
Were Netanyahu ever to face trial – and found guilty, as he almost certainly would be – a lot of other leaders would have good reason to fear they might be found culpable next, not least for their complicity in Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.
The question that needs answering now is not whether Khan is guilty of misconduct – that has been decided at a political level, not a legal one. No, we need an answer to an equally political, and far more troubling, question.
“Cui bono?” Or “Who benefits?”
The evidence is hiding in plain sight. The evidence is revealed both in the deeply politicised process that led to Khan’s downfall, and in what that process means for the future of the court.
Covert war
Khan is not the first ICC chief prosecutor to face extreme pressures – and, as with Khan, those pressures surfaced at the very moment Khan’s predecessor tried to take on Israel over its war crimes.
Fatou Bensouda faced a “covert war” waged against her by Israel for the best part of a decade, according to an investigation by the Guardian in May 2024, just as Khan issued his arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
The Guardian’s report, published nearly three years after Bensouda had completed her nine-year term at the ICC, revealed that, during that time, she had faced threats to herself and her family, the monitoring of her communications, and an intimidating visit to her home.
More recently, Bensouda has confirmed these accounts in an interview with Al Jazeera. Bensouda notes that she repeatedly reported Israel’s campaign of intimidation to the Dutch authorities, but they did nothing to investigate the threats or protect her.
She also says certain “authorities” – she does not name them – warned her that she was going too far in investigating Israeli crimes and that “you could be harmed or you could be killed, or family members could be harmed in some way.”
The campaign of threats – instigated by Yossi Cohen, then the director of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad – intensified as Bensouda considered whether to open a formal investigation into Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories.
Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people, we should remember, predate – by decades – Hamas’ attack on 7 October 2023. In fact, though no one is supposed to mention it, Israel’s sustained crimes of occupation are the self-evident cause of that Hamas attack.
An Israeli source told the Guardian that “the Mossad’s objective was to compromise the prosecutor or enlist her as someone who would cooperate with Israel’s demands”– that is, scrap the ICC’s investigation into Israeli crimes. Another source admitted that Cohen was acting on Netanyahu’s instructions.
During one contact, Cohen reportedly issued a Mafia-style threat to Bensouda: “You don’t want to be getting into things that could compromise your security or that of your family.”
The Guardian reported that the Mossad “took a keen interest in Bensouda’s family members and obtained transcripts of secret recordings of her husband, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the situation. Israeli officials then attempted to use the material to discredit the prosecutor”.
The paper also noted that there were fears among senior ICC officials that “Israel had cultivated sources within the court’s prosecution division” – the division Khan would inherit from Bensouda.
Cohen was described as “stalking” Bensouda, and personally “ambushed” her in a hotel room in New York in 2018. Afterwards he repeatedly phoned her, in a threatening manner that was said to have escalated over time. When Bensouda asked Cohen how he had obtained her phone number, he reportedly replied: “Did you forget what I do for a living?”
According to the Guardian :
On one occasion, Cohen is said to have shown Bensouda copies of photographs of her husband, which were taken covertly when the couple were visiting London. On another, according to sources, Cohen suggested to the prosecutor that a decision to open a full investigation would be detrimental to her career.
Between 2019 and 2020, the Mossad had been actively seeking compromising information on the prosecutor and took an interest in her family members.
The spy agency obtained a cache of material, including transcripts of an apparent sting operation against her husband.
Israel used the materials to mount a “smear campaign” against her, but one that ultimately proved unsuccessful.
Concerted backlash
When Khan took up the role of ICC chief prosecutor in June 2021, he proved reluctant to pick up where Bensouda had left off on the Palestine case. Presumably, he was only too aware of the retaliation from Israel against her.
Bensouda had announced in December 2019 that she had grounds to open a full criminal investigation into allegations of war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
However, in the face of a concerted backlash from western states, she delayed opening the investigation. She first sought a ruling from a pre-trial chamber of ICC judges – presumably in the hope it would serve as some kind of insurance policy – on whether the court had jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories.
By February 2021 the judges confirmed what was already self-evident. The court did have such jurisdiction because Palestine had been signed up to the court since 2015.
Bensouda stepped down a few months later.
The door was now open for Khan to prosecute Israeli officials for war crimes. However, the new chief prosecutor gave every appearance – perhaps understandably – of preferring to sit on his hands.
It was not just Israel that had been fearsomely opposed to its officials being tried for war crimes. Washington was equally incensed at the prospect – sometimes, it seemed, more so than over the possibility that US officials might also face arrest warrants for crimes committed by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Between 2019 and 2020, during Trump’s first presidency, the US imposed severe visa restrictions and financial sanctions on Bensouda. Mike Pompeo, then US secretary of state, linked the sanctions to the Palestine case: “It’s clear the ICC is only putting Israel in [its] crosshairs for nakedly political purposes.”
Khan might well have avoided pursuing Israel indefinitely had it not been for the events that followed 7 October 2023.
Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, its devastation of the enclave’s homes and infrastructure, and its starvation of the entire population were actions so criminally abhorrent that UN agencies, major human rights groups and Holocaust scholars were soon all in agreement that they amounted to genocide.
In May 2024, Khan announced arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, as well as three Hamas leaders subsequently killed by Israel.
Tsunami of threats
Shortly before Khan made that announcement, 12 senior US Senators had sent a threatening letter to the ICC: “Target Israel and we will target you.” The letter ended: “You have been warned.”
Describing Israeli and US sovereignty as inseparable, the senators reminded Khan that Washington had demonstrated “the lengths to which we will go to protect [our] sovereignty.”
A 2002 law, popularly known as “The Hague Invasion Act”, authorises the US president “to use all means necessary and appropriate” to bring about the release US persons and any allies imprisoned or detained by the ICC. Those allies, it goes without saying, include Israeli leaders.
Such threats, it should be noted, are a violation of Article 70 of the Rome Statute.
Following the issuing of the arrest warrants, there followed a tsunami of similar threats – and presumably more that have yet to become public – against Khan and the ICC.
A British-Israeli lawyer within the ICC – one known to have ties to Netanyahu’s legal adviser – warned Khan “they will destroy you and they will destroy the court” if the warrants were not rescinded. He urged Khan to “climb down the tree” and drop the case.
The UK’s foreign secretary of the time, David Cameron, phoned Khan to tell him Britain would defund the court and withdraw from the Rome Statute that founded the ICC if Khan did not back down.
Cameron warned Khan that he was “on the brink of making a huge mistake” and urged him to “take a step back and consider things”. He added that applying for arrest warrants for Israeli officials was tantamount to “dropping a hydrogen bomb”.
Meanwhile, Trump issued an executive order imposing aggressive financial sanctions against Khan and other ICC officials, including several of its judges.
Khan himself received warnings that Israel’s Mossad was continuing its operations in The Hague, where the ICC is located, to monitor and compromise the court’s investigators as they compiled evidence on Israel – just as it had done earlier under Bensouda.
Khan publicly stated that retaliatory threats and intimidation were explicitly targeting members of his own family.
Untouchable criminals
What conclusions should we draw from all of this?
Quite aside from the matter of whether Sarah’s allegations of “sexual misconduct” are true or not, it is clear that Israel and the US have been digging for dirt – and apparently ready to fabricate such dirt – on any chief prosecutor who tries to hold them to account for their crimes.
Both have indicated that they are ready to manipulate legal and political processes to ensure the outcome they desire: that they remain untouchable.
We have a template for how this plays out. Julian Assange, founder of the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks, published details in 2010 of US and British war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost immediately he found himself entangled in accusations of sexual misdemeanours – in his case in Sweden – that were similarly amplified by an uncritical western media.
Assange faced years in various forms of confinement while the US and UK pressured Sweden to keep alive an investigation against him Swedish prosecutors at least twice sought to drop for lack of credible evidence.
In fact, the US and UK never wanted the evidence tested – they were quite happy with a permanent, unresolved “investigation” – precisely because they knew it would have been unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.
The point was simply to generate constant headlines about “rape”, turning Assange into a pariah, justifying his effective disappearance from public life, severely weakening Wikileaks as a whistleblowing platform, deflecting attention from the all-too-real crimes committed by the US and Britain, and paving the way to a political show trial to extradite him to the US on entirely confected “espionage” charges.
This has been repeated in the case of Khan and the ICC. In Khan’s case, the evidence was tested and found inadequate. So the legal process has been replaced by a flagrantly political one.
Khan has been turned into a legal pariah, even stripped of his right to work as a lawyer in the UK by the British Bar Association.
The ICC has been further weakened, just as Israel and the US have expressly stated they wanted it to be. Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of state, has recently launched an official campaign to dismantle the ICC “brick by brick”.
He says: “Now they [the ICC] are going to see the consequences”. Consequences of what? Of seeking to enforce international law against a key US client state.
Meanwhile, accountability for the all-too-real crimes being committed by Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank – and actively supported by western states like the US, Germany and Britain – recedes yet further into the background
As each brick protecting the ICC is dismantled, a brick is added to the wall of protection around Netanyahu and Israel’s genocidal war machine.
Israel, meanwhile, is barely concealing that it has been masterminding the effort to destroy the ICC.
According to Guy Azriel, the diplomatic correspondent for i24 News, Israeli foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar “oversaw a dedicated task force and employed intensive diplomatic efforts aimed at securing Khan’s removal from office”.
Hillel Neuer, director of the Israel apologist group United Nations Watch, cheered what he called “our campaign to remove” Khan, and warned Francesca Albanese, the UN’s legal expert on the occupied Palestinian territories, “you’re next”.
Like Khan, Albanese has been searching for practical, legal ways – not just rhetoric – to hold Israel and its western allies to account for the crimes in Gaza.
Predatory states
The ICC claims its work will not be affected by Khan’s removal and that the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant will still be pursued under new stewardship. That seems doubtful.
Israel and the US are cranking up the intimidation of the ICC, which has no tools – beyond the support of members states – to enforce its rulings or protect itself from the hostility of a rogue superpower.
Currently the court appears paralysed, allowing Israel to muddy the waters with interminable, and vexatious, appeals against the arrest warrants.
Any lawyer who takes up the post of ICC chief prosecutor will be only too aware of the fate that befell Khan and the campaign of intimidation against Bensouda as soon as each tried to enforce accountability on Israel and its western patrons.
It will take a very brave individual indeed to renew that task. Khan’s successor will understand that, in any further confrontation with Israel and Washington, the US will not hesitate to crush the ICC and, with it, remove the only effective restraint on criminality by powerful states.
More likely, however, the Assembly of States Parties – the political body that ousted Khan – will privately require from his successor reassurances that the new chief prosecutor reliably defer to the principle of Israeli and western impunity. Only someone less willing to ruffle feathers stands any chance of being appointed.
That was the clearest of messages sent by the Assembly when a majority of member states voted to be rid of Khan. The short-lived experiment in creating a mechanism for enforcing international law is over. We are back to the law of the jungle.
Hundred of thousands of people around the world – more likely millions – will now find themselves even more exposed to the criminal actions of predatory states. Unlike Khan’s accuser, they are unlikely to ever get their day in court.
Featured Video
Macgregor: We Haven’t Seen the Worst of the Iran War Yet
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
New Book
Breast Cancer: Before You Consent
A new Unbekoming paperback
Lies are Unbekoming | September 18, 2026
Peter Gøtzsche reviewed every randomised mammography screening trial ever conducted for the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane’s headline is that, assuming a 15% mortality reduction, one woman in 2000 avoids dying of breast cancer over ten years. Ten are overdiagnosed and treated. Two hundred experience false alarms.
But that headline assumes the reduction. When Gøtzsche looked only at the trials with adequate randomisation — the higher-quality ones — the reduction disappeared. No effect on breast cancer mortality. No effect on all-cause mortality.
This is the Cochrane finding, published in the establishment’s own database of systematic reviews.
No woman being asked to consent to a mammogram this week knows it.
That is why the new Unbekoming paperback exists. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US-Denmark Agreement on Greenland Is ‘PR Stunt’ Ahead of Midterms
- Araghchi: Military intervention cannot create security; coercion cannot bring peace
- Fraud Squared
- Breast Cancer: Before You Consent
- Iran’s Plan to Shut Down AI in the Persian Gulf
- Israel seeks ‘compensation’ from Washington over Saudi F-35 sale
- Saudi crown prince seeks dialogue with Ansarullah after Yemeni blows: Report
- Damascus rejects Saudi request for Syrian fighters to counter Yemen: Report
- South Korea says will not send troops to join terrorist US war on Iran
- Russia Just Struck the Eyes of NATO’s War Machine in Ukraine
- If Americans Knew
- Inside the siege, the ruined buildings of Gaza – Daily Update
- Debunking The Claim That Macklemore Has A “History Of Antisemitism”
- CPJ demands release of arrested Palestinian-US journalist near Bethlehem
- Robert Kraft: The Billionaire Friend of Netanyahu Pulling The Strings Behind the Macklemore/Ed Sheeran Blow Up
- Columbia Administered Fund Gives Big Money to Pro-Israel Groups
- Deportation Case of Palestinian Activist Salah Sarsour Tests First Amendment
- ‘We Will Not Forget’: Palestinians Mark 44 Years since Sabra and Shatila
- Why do we let Zionists decide what we can and can’t say?
- US welcomes Israeli, Iranian delegations to UN, but not Palestinians – Daily Update
- Biden’s Genocide Accomplices Targeted by New Accountability Campaign
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 