US, UK accused of hindering investigation into UN chief’s plane crash in 1961
UN secretary general Dag Hammarskjöld, who died in a plane crash in Africa in 1961 en route to talks with Katangan rebels. (Photo by REX)
Press TV – March 2, 2024
Scholars have accused the United States and the United Kingdom of impeding a United Nations investigation into the 1961 airplane accident that resulted in the death of UN chief Dag Hammarskjöld.
Hammarskjöld, a Swedish national, was killed in a plane crash, which was allegedly taken down intentionally on September 18, 1961, while en route to mediate a ceasefire between UN peacekeepers in the Congo and separatists from the breakaway Congolese region of Katanga.
During a conference in London, attendees were briefed by Stephen Mathias, the UN assistant secretary general for legal affairs, on the latest developments in the investigation, which aims to obtain archived documentation from member states.
The attendees expressed concerns that both the US and UK were delaying the transfer of potentially crucial information.
“While Belgium, Sweden and Zimbabwe demonstrated serious efforts, the US and UK responses were wholly inadequate and showed contempt for the UN inquiry,” said the organizers of Thursday’s conference, the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London and the Westminster United Nations Association.
“The most recent general assembly resolution to renew the investigation was co-sponsored by 142 UN member states out of 193 – but not by the US and the UK,” said Susan Williams, a researcher whose 2011 book “Who Killed Hammarskjöld” contributed to the reopening of the UN inquiry.
Paul Boateng, the former UK high commissioner to South Africa, said: “The work must continue because it is part of a wider struggle to support democracy, the international rule of law, and the UN, all under increasing threat.”
“There must be no stone unturned to get at the truth. The suspected murder of a UN secretary general is a crime too grave to be obliterated by time.”
The crash resulted in the death of 15 other passengers, and its first inquiry, which was carried out by Rhodesian authorities, concluded that the crash was the result of a pilot error, but the finding was controversial.
People who witnessed the crash on the ground had claimed that they saw another aircraft apart from the chief’s.
At that time, French and British intelligence officers were reported to be near Ndola, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), where the crash took place, while US intelligence officers were monitoring communications from Cyprus and reported hearing communications consistent with the UN plane coming under fire.
Hammarskjöld was killed amidst a contest for resources in Africa during the post-colonial era, during his last journey, he was en route to a clandestine gathering aimed at mediating an end to the civil conflict in the newly liberated Congo, a nation abundant in minerals and teetering on the edge of collapse.
In the year before, the eastern province of Katanga had declared independence in 1960. While being a major contributor to the country’s economy, this region is renowned for its vast ore deposits, including uranium ore used in the atomic bomb, which was dropped on Hiroshima.
German Military’s Crimean Bridge Strike Talk: ‘NATO Has Found Itself in Hot Water’
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 02.03.2024
The situation around the leaked conversation between high-ranking German army officers has once again refuted NATO’s allegations about the alliance’s non-interference in the Ukrainian conflict, experts told Sputnik.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has demanded an “immediate explanation” from Berlin on the audio recording released earlier this week by Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT and Rossiya Segodnya, Sputnik’s parent media group.
In it, German generals are heard discussing a potential attack on the Crimean Bridge with Taurus missiles.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stressed in a statement that attempts by German authorities “to dodge the question will be considered an admission of guilt.”
High-ranking German officers discussed launching strikes on “Russian civilian infrastructure either with the tacit official consent of Berlin or behind its back; both variants are the matter of serious concern,” military expert Robinson Farinazzo, a former Brazilian Navy officer, said in an interview with Sputnik.
“The authorities are either aware of everything or they knew nothing, which means it was the military’s conspiracy – something that should be punished accordingly, right down to an option of all those involved being brought to tribunal,” Farinazzo said.
“If Berlin was in the know, it can be likened to a declaration of war,” he insisted, urging Moscow and Berlin to use diplomatic channels to defuse tensions over this information “about aggressive intentions.”
According to the expert, “It’s hard to imagine what measures Moscow might take if it considers actions by the German officers a serious provocation.”
The former Brazilian naval officer also drew attention to German authorities keeping mum on the matter. Likewise, how the information comes amid disagreements among Western countries on additional military aid to the Kiev regime, including the possibility of providing Ukraine with the Taurus cruise missiles and sending NATO military units to the country.
In this vein, Farinazzo said he believes that further developments will depend on whether the US Congress will okay more supplies to Ukraine or not. Even if Congress gives the green light, this will only add to prolonging the conflict and will fail to change the situation on the battlefield in favor of Ukraine, per the expert.
“The West and high-ranking NATO officers have already realized the fact that Ukraine cannot win. A potential strike on the Crimean Bridge would be tangible from a psychological point of view, but it would hardly affect the course of the special military operation, since Russia instead can use railroad or sea transport,” Farinazzo said.
International relations expert Tito Livio Barcellos Pereira from the Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo, for his part said that the conversation once again raises doubts about the veracity of previous claims by Western authorities that NATO countries are not involved in the Ukraine conflict.
“NATO countries, which previously argued that they were not directly involved in the conflict and only limit themselves to sending aid to Kiev, have found themselves in hot water. Their claims are becoming less credible, while Russia’s arguments are sounding more convincing,” the expert underscored.
He noted that “in this situation, the leaders of Western states will probably have to explain themselves before lawmakers and the entire society of their countries, as well as before other NATO members, which have a more restrained stance.”
In Pereira’s opinion, the situation could lead to an even greater escalation of tensions between Russia and NATO, especially given that the alliance “does not want to hear the arguments by Moscow, which has repeatedly warned against the alliance’s infrastructure getting closer to Russian borders.”
“The German military’s recorded conversation once again confirms that the alliance continues to be involved in a [proxy] war with Russia,” Pereira concludes, berating Kiev and the West for deliberately sabotaging all alternative peace initiatives put forward by the Global South.
Why the West can’t be trusted to observe its own ‘red lines’ in Ukraine
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | March 2, 2024
French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have disagreed publicly over how to support Ukraine – which has been ruthlessly deployed by the West as a geopolitical proxy – in its conflict with Russia. Macron used a special EU meeting he had convened, rumor has it directly inspired by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, to state, in effect, that sending Western combat troops into Ukraine was an option.
Of course, the West already has troops on the ground, including those flimsily camouflaged as volunteers and mercenaries, or otherwise participating in the conflict (for instance by planning and targeting), as a recent leak of US documents has confirmed. But an open intervention by ground forces would be a severe escalation, directly pitting Russia and NATO against each other, as Moscow has quickly pointed out, and making nuclear escalation a real possibility.
Russia has deliberately tolerated a certain degree of Western intervention, for its own pragmatic reasons: In essence, it seeks to win the war in Ukraine, while avoiding an open conflict with NATO. It is willing to pay the price of having to deal with some de facto Western military meddling, as long as it is confident it can defeat it on the Ukrainian battlefield. Indeed, the strategy has the added advantage that the West is bleeding its own resources, while the Russian military is receiving excellent hands-on training in how to neutralize Western hardware, including much-touted “miracle weapons.”
You do not have to believe Moscow’s words, but simply consult elementary logic to understand that there is an equally hard-headed limit to this kind of calculated tolerance. If the Russian leadership were to conclude that Western military forces in Ukraine were endangering its objectives (instead of merely making achieving them harder), it would raise the price for certain Western countries. (Selective treatment would be adopted to put under stress – quite possibly to breaking point – Western cohesion.)
Consider Germany, for instance: Berlin is by far Ukraine’s biggest bilateral financial supporter among EU states (at least in terms of commitments). Yet militarily, for now, Russia has been content with, in essence, shredding German Leopard tanks as they arrive on the battlefield. And, in a sense, punishing Germany’s meddling can safely be left to its own government: the country has already taken massive hits to its economy and international standing.
But if Berlin were to go even further, Moscow’s calculations would change. In that case, as little as German mass media allow German citizens to think about it, a “sobering” (to use a term from Russian doctrine) strike – initially probably non-nuclear – on German forces and territory is possible. The domestic consequences of such an attack are unpredictable. Germans might rally round the flag, or they might openly rebel against an already deeply unpopular government that has been sacrificing the national interest with unprecedented bluntness to Washington’s geopolitics.
If you think the above sounds a little far-fetched, I know of someone who clearly does not share your complacency: the German chancellor. Stung by Macron’s provocation, Scholz countered with telling alacrity. Within 24 hours after the surprise French move, he publicly ruled out the sending of “ground troops” by “European nations or NATO nations,” underlining that that this red line has always been agreed on.
In addition, the chancellor also chose exactly this moment to reaffirm that Germany will not deliver its Taurus cruise missiles to Kiev, as escalation that proponents have long demanded, including inside Germany. With, according to Scholz, the capability of striking Moscow, Berlin’s missiles in Ukrainian hands and Macron’s hypothetical ground forces have one thing in common: they come with a serious risk of spreading direct fighting beyond Ukraine, in particular to Western Europe and Germany.
In other words, the leaders of the two countries traditionally recognized as the core of the European Union have displayed profound disagreement on a key issue. Macron, it is true, often says more than he means or will care to remember. Scholz is an extreme opportunist, even by the standards of professional politics. In addition, clearly intentional indiscretions from the two men’s teams point to mutual and heartfelt antipathy, as Bloomberg has just reported. We could dismiss the spat between them as nothing but the result of incompatible political styles and personal animosity.
But that would be a grave mistake. In reality, their open discord is an important signal about the state of thinking, debate, and policy making within the EU, and, more broadly, NATO and the West. The real challenge is to decipher what this signal means.
Let’s start with something the two leaders will not openly admit but, it is virtually certain, share: The background to their quarrel is their fear that Ukraine and the West are not only losing the conflict, but more importantly in the information-streamlined West, that this defeat is about to become undeniably obvious. For instance, in the shape of further Russian advances, including strategic victories like the taking of Avdeevka and a partial or total collapse of Ukrainian defenses. Even the robustly bellicose Economist, for instance, is now admitting that Russia’s offensive is “heating up,” that the fall of Avdeevka has not made the Russian military pause, and that Ukrainians themselves are “becoming pessimistic.” Both Macron’s remarks and Scholz’s hasty disclaimer are indicators of a growing and well-founded pessimism, perhaps even incipient panic among Western elites.
Yet that does not tell us much about how these elites really intend to react to this losing game (assuming they know themselves, that is). In principle, there are two strategic options: raise the stakes (again) or cut your losses (finally). At this point, the “raise the stakes” faction is still dominating the policy debate. The negative response to Macron’s show-stealer move has overshadowed that the general trend of the NATO and EU strategy is still to add fresh resources to the fight, for instance by agreeing to source ammunition from outside the EU, a move long resisted by France. At least as far as the public is permitted to see, NATO and the EU are still run by sunk-cost-fallacy addicts: The more they have failed and lost already, the more they want to risk.
In reality, however, the option of deception and the temptation of self-deception (they easily blend into each other, an effect commonly known as “drinking your own Kool Aid” ) make things more complicated: Take, for instance, Russia’s evidence, in verbatim transcript detail, of high-ranking German military officers discussing – or was it “brainstorming” ? – how Ukraine could, after all, use Taurus missiles to attack the Kerch Strait Bridge that connects Crimea with the Russian mainland, while maintaining, in effect, plausible deniability. Scholz’s public statement that “German soldiers must at no point and in no place be linked” to Taurus attacks is proof that evading responsibility – or the impossibility to do so – are on his mind. As you would expect from a politician whose only strategy is finding the path of least resistance.
The muddled German response to this embarrassing intelligence fiasco (Why exactly was something so obviously sensitive discussed via hackable telecommunications instead of in a secure room, for instance?) only confirms that the Russian evidence is authentic. Instead of denying that the discussion took place, Germany has reacted – in typical authoritarian manner – by blocking social media accounts reporting it, and by trying to spin the conversation as nothing but a harmless thought experiment.
And yet, Scholz’s suspiciously elastic phrasing and the German officers’ discussion do not mean that such a course of naively transparent cheating will be adopted by Berlin. It may even have been a way of figuring out why that would not work.
Especially if this information is not entirely new, Russia’s choosing to publicize it now and perhaps even risking some (minor) intelligence disadvantage by revealing the extent of the German military’s penetration is, of course, also a signal to Germany’s leadership: Moscow will not play along with plausible deniability (a “don’t even try” message) and is deadly serious about this red line (a “we mean it” message). This as well may help focus minds in Berlin and make cheating less likely.
In any case, the evidence of German officers thinking about how to help attack Russia without leaving fingerprints does underline two things: Western public statements can easily be deliberate lies; and even when they are not, they are always open to radical revision. Indeed, Macron, too, alluded to that fact, pointing out that even if direct military intervention is not a consensus yet, it could become one in the future, just as other red lines have been crossed before.
In that light, Macron’s loose talk could be read as just another bluff – or, as they say in France, “strategic ambiguity” : a desperate attempt to strut so fiercely that Russia will not press its military advantage. If that was the French president’s intention, it has backfired spectacularly: Macron has provoked not only Germany but other, bigger Western players as well to clarify that they do not agree with him. Note to the Jupiterian self in the Élysée Palace: It’s not “ambiguous” when everyone who counts says “No way!”; it’s not very “strategic” either.
Yet it would be complacent to take solace from Macron’s current isolation. First, it is not complete: There are hardcore escalationists, such as the Estonian leader Kaja Kallas, in the EU and NATO who have praised him precisely because they want to drag everyone else into a direct clash with Russia. It is good that these especially zealous warmongers do not have the upper hand for now. But they have not been defeated or even appropriately marginalized either, and they will not give up.
Second, a strategy of escalation and threats can get out of hand. Consider the too-little-known fact that, in the July Crisis of 1914, just before World War I started, even the German emperor Wilhelm II had moments where he privately felt that it could still be avoided. That, however, was after he and his government had personally done their worst to bring the big war about. Lesson: If you take too many risks, at some point you may no longer be able to dial down the escalation you have promoted yourself.
Third, and most fundamentally, while rationally applied dishonesty is not unusual in international politics, for an international system to produce stability, it must first produce predictability. That, in turn, requires that even deception is kept within tacitly agreed limits and is, to a degree, predictable (because of its underlying rationality). The problem with the post-Cold War West is that it has chosen to forget and flaunt this basic rule of global order. Its addiction to unreliability is so severe that signals of escalation are inherently more credible than signals of de-escalation, as long as there is no principal, general, and clearly recognizable change of approach.
Put differently, Macron’s current isolation does not count for much because its due-diligence interpretation from Moscow’s perspective has to be that he merely went a little too far too soon. Neither Scholz’s nor other Western disavowals make a difference. What would make a difference is a united and clear signal by the West that it is now ready for genuine negotiations and a real compromise settlement. For now, the opposite remains true.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul.
Hysterectomy – On Stealing Womanhood
Lies are Unbekoming | February 25, 2024
This all started from one line in the interview I did with Carol Peterson.
Hormones – Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)
“Most reasons for hysterectomies can be tied to progesterone deficiencies and most could be avoided with rational supplementation.”
I realised I didn’t know anything about hysterectomies, but I knew it was a major surgery, and here was Carol saying that most could be avoided.
I followed my curiosity and here we are with this article.
I cannot believe what I have discovered. It’s actually hard to put into words.
I think I will do more than just this article on the subject.
How is it possible that cutting out a woman’s uterus is the second most common surgery in the US?
About 600,000 women a year undergo hysterectomies in the U.S., the second most common surgery, surpassed only by cesareans. – Wittelsey 2011
Surely, they are all necessary:
Over 5,000 women whose doctors have recommended hysterectomy have received the names of second opinion physicians from the HERS Foundation, says Coffey. Only 2% of the 5,000 have gone on to have the surgery. – HERS
Surely, they wouldn’t do it for the money, would they?
“Some of us aren’t making a living, so out comes a uterus or two each month to pay for the rent,” admitted a Baltimore specialist in a 1975 New York Times interview.
How did Big Medicine reach the conclusion that a woman doesn’t need her uterus?
“Your uterus is nothing but a big, unresponsive blob.” — The Woman Doctor’s Medical Guide for Women by Barbara Edelstein, MD (1982)
The structural problem seems to be one of lying to women about the risks and aftermath:
According to Nora Coffey, founder and President of the non-profit HERS Foundation in Philadelphia, PA, too many doctors perform unnecessary hysterectomies, too many fail to tell women that there can be devastating after-effects from removal of the uterus or ovaries, and too many don’t offer alternative treatment for the problems that are, seemingly, so quickly solved with the knife.
One of the most significant points that jumped at me from the page was “loss of maternal feeling”:
Coffey says that HERS has also counseled over 9,000 hysterectomized women who are experiencing symptoms such as loss of maternal feeling, bone and joint pain, chronic fatigue, hot flashes, insomnia, loss of short-term memory, diminished emotional responses, loss of sexual desire and a host of other hysterectomy-related symptoms.
Of the millions of women that have had this done to them, how many have lost their maternal feeling towards their children. Women carry that maternal feeling into the world too. What happens to the world when maternal feeling is vanquished?
I now wonder how many women in power have had a hysterectomy. Is it more than the wider population? What are the consequences of this? Does it help with climbing the ladder? Does it impact empathy?
I think these are all fair questions because of the sheer scale of the issue.
At the end of each day of counseling, I knew there were a few more women out there who would avoid unnecessary surgeries because they received information from HERS. It was too little too late, however, for 621,000 other women in this country each year—more than 22 million hysterectomized women alive in America today? – The H Word (2008)
They remove the ovaries also about half the time by scaring woman with ovarian cancer:
In this country, half of the women who undergo a hysterectomy also have their ovaries removed. The reasoning given is to “save” the woman from the remote possibility of ovarian cancer.
However, Dr. Lauersen issues this warning to women concerning prophylactic excision of the ovaries: “Usually it is not necessary to remove the ovaries of a menstruating woman during hysterectomy. A doctor may say that he wants to remove the ovaries to prevent ovarian cancer, an insidious disease that does not have obvious symptoms. However, studies have indicated that it would take 7,500 oophorectomies (excision of the ovaries) in order to prevent one death from ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer, which only accounts for 4% of all cancers in women, is more frequently discovered after menopause in women between 55 and 64 years old.”
Because fibroid growths are often called “tumors”, the lay patient may immediately fear that she has cancer. However, according to Dr. Lauersen, fewer than one half of one percent ever proceed to that stage.
The removal of ovaries is castration.
Castrated men were called Eunuchs.
We don’t have a word for castrated women. I think they, the butchers, prefer it that way.
I really don’t have words to describe this butchery.
We live in three dimensions. The physical, the mental and the spiritual.
We have been trained to diminish the spiritual, to our own detriment.
Somewhere deep in the bowels of Big Medicine, there is a spirit, and that spirit hates humanity, and very specifically it hates women.
There is no other conclusion I can reach anymore.
After reading this long stack, if you reach a different conclusion, let me know in the comments.
Carol Peterson pointed me to HERS to further my education, and it was there that I discovered Nora Coffey and her great book The H Word, that I’m reading now, co-authored with Rick Schweikert. I can definitely recommend it.
It turns out that Rick wrote a play…you will never guess what he called it…
What are the odds!!
The following statistics and Q&As are drawn from these three sources:
HYSTERECTOMY: THE SHOCKING TRUTH by Lee Rothberg (whale.to)
The Hysterectomy Epidemic: Where’s the Outrage? – Ms. Magazine (msmagazine.com)
Female Anatomy: The Functions of the Female Organs – HERS Foundation
Let these numbers wash over you as you start coming to terms with the scale of what has been done to women.
- About 600,000 women a year undergo hysterectomies in the U.S. This makes it the second most common surgery among women in the country, surpassed only by cesarean sections.
- 90 percent of hysterectomies are avoidable, according to Dr. Mitchell Levine, suggesting that the majority of these procedures could be managed with alternative treatments.
- 70 to 76 percent of hysterectomies do not meet the recommended criteria for necessity according to an expert panel and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), indicating a high rate of potentially unnecessary surgeries.
- 210,000 women could avoid losing their ovaries annually if alternative treatments were pursued instead of hysterectomies, based on the 70 percent estimate of avoidable procedures.
- 15 to 30 percent of women who conserve their ovaries during hysterectomy lose ovarian function anyway, highlighting the risk of menopausal symptoms and hormonal imbalance even when ovaries are not removed.
- Women who have their ovaries removed face a higher risk of early death from any cause, primarily from heart disease and lung cancer, as found in a study of almost 30,000 women followed for 24 years.
- For every 24 women having bilateral oophorectomy, at least one will die prematurely as a result of the procedure, emphasizing the significant risk associated with the removal of both ovaries.
- Women who undergo hysterectomy report a range of adverse effects in significant percentages, including 79.6% experiencing loss of sexual desire and profound fatigue, and 79.1% noting personality changes.
- The HERS Foundation’s ongoing study reveals that 72.8% of respondents report loss of stamina post-hysterectomy, indicating the extensive impact on women’s overall well-being and quality of life.
- 35-40% of women whose ovaries are not removed during hysterectomy experience a loss of ovarian function, which equates to a form of castration and results in the cessation of hormone production critical to various aspects of health.
- Only about 10 percent of hysterectomies are performed for cancer, indicating that the vast majority are for benign conditions that might be managed with less invasive options.
- An expert panel found that up to 70% of hysterectomies recommended were inappropriate based on developed criteria, highlighting a substantial issue with surgical decision-making.
- 512,000 women undergoing hysterectomy last year had their ovaries removed during the surgery, whether the ovaries were healthy or not, potentially subjecting these women to unnecessary risks.
- Women who had their ovaries removed had a seven-times greater incidence of heart disease, showing the critical role of ovarian hormones in cardiovascular health.
- The HERS Foundation has counseled over 5,000 women whose doctors recommended hysterectomy, with only 2% going on to have the surgery after receiving second opinions or learning about alternatives.
- Women report a total loss of sexual feeling after hysterectomy in a significant number of cases, affecting their quality of life and personal relationships.
- Hysterectomized women have protruding bellies and little or no waist due to the unnatural shifting of bones and organs inside the pelvis after the surgery.
- Over 9,000 hysterectomized women report experiencing symptoms such as loss of maternal feeling and personality change, as documented by the HERS Foundation.
- Women who undergo hysterectomy are at risk for urinary incontinence and chronic constipation due to weakening of the pelvic floor and loss of feeling from the severing of pelvic nerves.
- A landmark Nurses Health Study concluded that women who had their ovaries removed faced a higher risk of early death, primarily from heart disease and lung cancer, compared to those who did not.
Next, I have created 30 Q&As that again take us from beginner to advanced on the subject, but I have also taken chapter 4 of The H Word and spliced it throughout the Q&A. It’s a very important chapter and you will see why shortly.
- What is a hysterectomy? A hysterectomy is a surgical procedure that involves the removal of the uterus. This operation can be performed for various medical reasons, including but not limited to uterine fibroids, endometriosis, uterine prolapse, chronic pelvic pain, abnormal bleeding, or cancer. The procedure effectively ends menstruation and the ability to become pregnant.
- What is an oophorectomy? An oophorectomy is the surgical removal of one or both ovaries. When both ovaries are removed, it’s called bilateral oophorectomy. This procedure can lead to immediate menopause if both ovaries are removed before a woman naturally enters menopause, significantly impacting her hormonal balance and potentially increasing her risk for certain health issues, such as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease.
- Why are hysterectomies performed? Hysterectomies are performed for various reasons, often as a last resort for conditions that have not responded to other treatments. Common reasons include uterine fibroids that cause pain or bleeding, uterine prolapse, cancer of the uterus, cervix, or ovaries, endometriosis, abnormal vaginal bleeding, chronic pelvic pain, and adenomyosis. Each condition affects the quality of life and may necessitate the removal of the uterus for relief or cure.
- What are the potential risks associated with hysterectomy? The risks associated with hysterectomy include those common to major surgeries, such as infection, blood clots, hemorrhage, and adverse reactions to anesthesia. Specific to hysterectomy, risks can include damage to surrounding organs, chronic pain, hormonal imbalances when the ovaries are removed, and long-term effects such as increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and osteoporosis. Emotional and psychological effects, including depression and a sense of loss, may also occur.
- How does the removal of ovaries (oophorectomy) affect a woman’s body? The removal of ovaries leads to a sudden drop in the production of hormones such as estrogen and progesterone, leading to what is known as surgical menopause. This abrupt change can cause severe menopausal symptoms, including hot flashes, mood swings, vaginal dryness, decreased libido, and increased risk for osteoporosis and heart disease due to the loss of estrogen’s protective effects.
- What emotional or psychological effects can result from a hysterectomy? Beyond the physical impact, a hysterectomy can have significant emotional and psychological effects. Many women report feelings of loss or sadness after the procedure, particularly if they had not completed their families or if the surgery was done as part of cancer treatment. There may also be changes in self-image and sexual identity, as well as anxiety and depression due to hormonal changes, especially if the ovaries are removed.
- How can a hysterectomy impact a woman’s sexual function and libido? A hysterectomy can impact sexual function and libido in several ways. The removal of the uterus may change the nature of orgasm due to the absence of uterine contractions. If the ovaries are removed, the resulting drop in hormones can lead to decreased libido, vaginal dryness, and discomfort during sex. However, for some women, relief from chronic pain or heavy bleeding after hysterectomy improves their sexual health and quality of life.
- What is estrogen replacement therapy (ERT), and why might it be used after a hysterectomy? Estrogen Replacement Therapy (ERT) is a treatment used to alleviate menopausal symptoms by replacing estrogen, which is no longer produced by the ovaries after oophorectomy or natural menopause. After a hysterectomy, particularly when the ovaries are removed, ERT can help manage symptoms such as hot flashes, vaginal dryness, mood swings, and prevent osteoporosis by compensating for the loss of natural estrogen.
- Can you explain the role of testosterone in women’s health post-hysterectomy? Testosterone plays a crucial role in women’s health, contributing to muscle strength, bone density, and sexual desire. After a hysterectomy, especially with oophorectomy, women may experience a drop in testosterone levels, leading to decreased libido, fatigue, and loss of muscle mass. Testosterone therapy, albeit less common than estrogen therapy, may be considered for some women to address these issues.
- What are some alternative treatments to hysterectomy for conditions like fibroids and endometriosis? Alternative treatments to hysterectomy for managing conditions like fibroids and endometriosis include medication to manage symptoms, hormone therapy to shrink fibroids or control endometriosis, minimally invasive procedures like uterine artery embolization for fibroids, and laparoscopic surgery to remove endometriosis lesions or fibroids while preserving the uterus.
Nurses and doctors’ wives. Seattle, Washington—Rick Schweikert
When Nora told me that women sometimes send HERS photos of themselves before and after hysterectomy, I didn’t think too much about it. Until, at the premiere of un becoming in New York, a woman with tears in her eyes thanked me, saying, “You’re probably going to think I’m crazy, but can I show you a picture of me before the surgery?” And then after the next show it happened again. A woman who was married to a doctor said, “This is me before the surgery.” We spoke with women all over the country who carry around photos to remind themselves of who they were before a doctor removed their female organs.
The biggest difference I notice in the photos is their eyes.
As one woman explained, she showed me her photo to prove that before the surgery she was strong, vibrant, healthy, and happy,
“When I still had that glint in my eyes.”
The main protagonist in un becoming is an artist named Emma Douglas. She’s a painter who refers to her work as her life’s breath. She’s married to an anesthesiologist named Sam Morgan.
Sam’s best friend happens to be Dr. James Ridge, the gynecologist who recommends “exploratory” surgery to Emma. Halley Ridge, Dr. Ridge’s wife, was hysterectomized by her husband’s colleague, but the audience doesn’t discover that until the end of the play. In the end, Halley helps Emma avoid the surgery.
un becoming places accountability for hysterectomy on the shoulders of those who are most responsible. The villain of the play is a gynecologist, and the hero is a hysterectomized woman his wife. This scenario had never been portrayed in any stage pr duction before. When actors first picked up the script, they some times found the story hard to believe, as was the case with one u the members of the Seattle cast. But it’s unfortunately a common story.
What follows is an excerpt from one of the thousands of emails we’ve received from women whose lives mirror the story of un becoming:
Hi there,
My name is… I am from… My doctor who I loved and never questioned, suggested a hysterectomy. He didn’t think me being only 30 years old was an issue since I was married and had…children. He explained that I would take an estrogen pill each day, and basically I would be good as gold. ( Not his words) that is how he made it seem. NO SIDE AFFECTS WERE EVER MENTIONED! I was told it would be no different than my c section surgeries as far as the pain was concerned. My mother had a hysterectomy…..and told me that it would take a year before I felt better, however she had no idea what she would live the rest of her life like either. I…am having joint pain in my hands, knees, elbows and back. Before the hysterectomy I was fine, due to the pain I can no longer roller skate with my children, dance around the house and I fear that I am going to have to close my business. The list of side effects since the hysterectomy is too long…to put in this e-mail.
This morning out of desperation…I found your site. I am beside myself thinking I am only going to get worse. I am an artist and yesterday I couldn’t hold the paint brush to paint at my easel, typing this e-mail is painful. What can I do? Do you have any info that might help me?
Is there anyone else going through this?
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely;
(name and other identities omitted for confidentiality)
There have been a few books, such as Mary Daly’s GYN/ ECOLOGY, that accurately portray the life-altering effects of hysterectomy. But most books on the subject ultimately twist the truth around to benefit the self-serving interests of its author, the publisher, or the university or pharmaceutical company that sponsored the author’s research. un becoming is the story of hysterectomy told through the eyes of women—not the medical industrial establishment that targets them. The story is fictional, but two of the women who joined the protest in Seattle reminded us that the imaginary plot and characters are based on common experiences.
- How does the HERS Foundation assist women considering or affected by hysterectomy? The HERS Foundation provides education, advocacy, and support to women facing hysterectomy. They offer comprehensive information on the effects of hysterectomy, alternative treatments, and the importance of informed consent. By empowering women with knowledge, HERS aims to help them make informed decisions about their health care and advocate for less invasive treatments when appropriate.
- What long-term health risks are associated with hysterectomy and oophorectomy? Long-term health risks associated with hysterectomy and oophorectomy include an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, hormonal imbalance, and early menopause symptoms if the ovaries are removed. There’s also a potential risk for urinary incontinence, bowel dysfunction, and changes in sexual function.
- How does a hysterectomy affect a woman’s cardiovascular health? A hysterectomy, especially when accompanied by oophorectomy, can affect a woman’s cardiovascular health by increasing the risk of heart disease. Estrogen has a protective effect on heart health, and its sudden decrease can lead to higher cholesterol levels, increased blood pressure, and a greater risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.
- What are the uterine functions beyond childbearing? Beyond childbearing, the uterus plays a role in sexual health and pleasure, with uterine contractions contributing to orgasmic experiences for some women. It also supports pelvic anatomy, maintaining the proper position of surrounding organs and structures. Additionally, the uterus is involved in hormonal regulation and may have protective effects against certain diseases.
- What common misconceptions exist about the effects of hysterectomy on women’s health? Common misconceptions include the belief that the uterus is only necessary for childbearing and that its removal doesn’t impact hormonal balance or sexual function. Many are unaware of the potential for long-term health consequences, such as increased risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis, as well as the emotional and psychological impact.
- How do societal views on female reproductive organs influence decisions about hysterectomy? Societal views often reduce female reproductive organs to their roles in childbearing, overlooking their importance to overall health, hormonal balance, and sexual function. This can contribute to a cavalier attitude towards hysterectomy and oophorectomy, underestimating the procedures’ impacts on women’s lives and health.
- What legal and ethical concerns arise from the high rate of unnecessary hysterectomies? The high rate of unnecessary hysterectomies raises legal and ethical concerns about informed consent, the adequacy of patient education regarding alternatives, and potential financial incentives driving surgical recommendations. It also highlights the need for greater advocacy and protection for patients’ rights to understand and choose less invasive options.
- How might the rate of hysterectomy surgeries be affected by the availability of alternative therapies? The availability of alternative therapies could significantly reduce the rate of hysterectomy surgeries by offering less invasive options for conditions traditionally treated with hysterectomy. Increased awareness and accessibility to treatments like hormone therapy, myomectomy, and endometrial ablation could empower women to choose alternatives that preserve their reproductive organs and minimize long-term risks.
- What advancements have been made in treatments for conditions like endometriosis without resorting to hysterectomy? Advances in the treatment of endometriosis include laparoscopic surgery to remove endometrial tissue while preserving the uterus, improved hormonal treatments to manage symptoms, and new medications targeting endometriosis’ pathophysiology. Research into non-hormonal treatments and immunotherapy offers hope for less invasive, more effective management strategies.
- How could patient education and advocacy change the future of gynecological health care? Patient education and advocacy can significantly impact gynecological health care by demanding a higher standard for informed consent, promoting awareness of less invasive treatments, and challenging the normalization of radical surgeries like hysterectomy. Empowered patients are more likely to seek second opinions, choose alternatives, and advocate for research into new treatments, leading to a shift towards more patient-centered care.
During the protests and talkbacks after the play, we met hundreds of hysterectomized women who were either nurses or the wives of doctors. And if that woman herself was an attorney or a nurse, audiences were shocked to hear that even that wasn’t enough to protect them. Nora often says, “The greatest number of hysterectomy scars are worn by the wives of doctors. Second is nurses.”
One of the women who joined us in Seattle was a writer who wrote a book about the before-and-after of hysterectomy. Her friend Fran (name changed for confidentiality) told her the story of how she ended up on an operating table. Fran was a registered nurse whose husband was a doctor: The surgeon who performed the “exploratory surgery” on her was the father of her daughter, close friend. All were in agreement that no organs were to be removed. She previously had one of her ovaries removed for an ordinary cyst, and she and her husband specifically made it clear that under no circumstances were the uterus or the remaining ovary to be removed. After the operation the surgeon emerged from the operating room, announcing that he had “excised the problem.” Fran’s husband, waiting for news about the surgery, was relieved…until the surgeon informed him that although he didn’t remove her uterus he did remove her remaining ovary, against their expressed wishes.
As medical professionals, Fran and her husband knew that ovarian function is critical to health and wellbeing. Uterine function and viability depends on ovarian function. By removing Fran’s remaining ovary, they knew that her hormone-responsive uterus would atrophy.
In order to keep her uterus viable, Fran was prescribed high levels of exogenous hormones—that is, hormones produced outside of her body. But while the endogenous hormones (produced naturally within her body) were beneficial to her, the exogenous hormones came with a host of dangers. The increased risk of cancer (breast, ovarian, uterine, and others), stroke, heart disease, dementia, and so on have been well-documented in studies and in literature. Because of the adverse effects of high doses of hormones, coupled with the devastating physical loss of ovarian function (the predictable aftereffects of castration), Fran was now unable to control her emotions. So she was prescribed potent anti- depressants and other anxiety-controlling drugs with unknown potential interactions.
The betrayal of trust by her profession filled her with rage and despair. Nora says the angriest women who contact HERS are nurses and the wives of doctors. She was both. Her rage consumed her.
When she and her husband attended a HERS conference in Dallas a few years later, she said her medical records showed there was nothing of significance wrong with the first ovary the doctor had removed, and the remaining ovary was also healthy when he removed it.
In the end, the couple sued the doctor. It was a fairly blatant case of a high-handed doctor mutilating a woman against her expressed wishes. But she lost the lawsuit. The jury favored the doctor’s word over hers and determined that the mutilating surgery had met the current “accepted standard of care.” As the surgeon’s defense attorney put it, her husband was a doctor and she was a nurse, so they should’ve known better.
Once the doctor became focused on Fran’s benign ovarian cyst—a natural variation that required no treatment—a cascade of devastating decisions and actions ensued. Menstruating women produce an ovarian cyst every month. It’s normal for the ovaries to develop physiologic (or functional) cysts when they ovulate mid-cycle, which wax and wane larger before menstruation and smaller after menstruation-usually a functional cyst develops on the right ovary one month, and on the left ovary the next month.
Other common, benign, ovarian cysts include dermoid, endometrioma (also called “chocolate” cysts), borderline, and teratoma. Dermoid cysts are rarely a cause for concern. They’re primordial cysts that usually contain hair, teeth, and often fat. Like endometrioma, dermoid cysts tend to grow bilaterally (on bot) ovaries), but they can also develop on only one ovary. They can occur on the outside of the ovary on a stalk that extends from the ovary (its blood supply), or they can occur inside the ovary, encapsulated. Women are often told that the ovary with the cyst must be removed, but this begins with the faulty premise that the development of these cysts requires action. In fact, except for borderline cysts, which have a small incidence of becoming cancerous, these cysts are benign-they don’t become malignant. Although they can become quite large, they may never cause a symptom. If they don’t bother you, there’s no reason to do anything about them.
The worst-case scenario is they can rupture, but cysts don’t rupture spontaneously—usually only through some kind of trauma to the abdomen, such as a forceful blow to the pelvis. If they do rupture, surgery is performed to irrigate the pelvis, which removes the contents of the cyst.
If the cyst is causing problems you can’t live with, a cystectomy (surgical removal of the cyst) can usually be performed without removing the ovary-if the surgeon has the skill to do so.
Ovaries are very resilient. They can be cut into pieces (called a wedge resection), the cyst removed, the pieces of the ovary sutured back together, and the ovary usually functions normally again.
If a cyst grows very large, some women feel pelvic pressure internally or they might experience urinary frequency. But usually they present no symptoms and are detected incidentally during a pelvic exam. Some women are especially prone to developing dermoid or endometrioma cysts, and after they’re removed they may develop them over and over again. This is a time when they’re especially vulnerable to hysterectomy, which is one reason to not go down the surgical path to begin with.
A Pap smear performed during a so-called well-woman visit is all too often an invitation to unnecessary treatment. The incidence of cancer in the female and the male sex organs is nearly identical, but men don’t have their sex organs routinely inspected.
And if doctors are hysterectomizing and castrating more than half a million healthy women each year, clearly the safe thing to do is to stay away from doctors and hospitals…even if you’re a nurse and your husband is a doctor.
- What role do the ovaries play in a woman’s body after menopause? After menopause, the ovaries continue to produce hormones, albeit at lower levels, including testosterone and a small amount of estrogen. These hormones play crucial roles in maintaining bone density, sexual desire, and overall well-being. The loss of ovarian function due to oophorectomy can therefore have significant health implications.
- What are the implications of “surgical menopause”? “Surgical menopause” refers to the abrupt onset of menopause symptoms following the removal of the ovaries. This sudden hormonal shift can lead to severe menopausal symptoms, increased risk for cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and a decline in sexual function. Unlike natural menopause, the transition is immediate, and symptoms can be more intense.
- How does the removal of the uterus and ovaries relate to increased risks of diseases such as osteoporosis and heart disease? The removal of the uterus and especially the ovaries disrupts the body’s hormonal balance, leading to a decrease in estrogen levels. Estrogen plays a protective role in heart health and bone density; its loss accelerates the risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. The abrupt change due to surgery amplifies these risks compared to the gradual transition of natural menopause.
- What is the significance of informed consent in the context of hysterectomy? Informed consent is crucial in ensuring that women are fully aware of the potential risks, benefits, and long-term implications of a hysterectomy, as well as alternative treatments. It represents an ethical obligation for healthcare providers to ensure patients make truly informed decisions about their care, acknowledging the profound impact on their health and quality of life.
- How can the structural changes post-hysterectomy affect the pelvic anatomy and function? Post-hysterectomy structural changes can include pelvic organ prolapse, where the bladder, bowel, and vagina may shift or descend due to the loss of uterine support. This can lead to urinary incontinence, bowel dysfunction, and changes in sexual function. The severing of nerves and ligaments during surgery can also result in chronic pain and a decrease in sexual sensation.
- What impact does hysterectomy have on the skeletal structure, specifically the spine and rib cage? The removal of the uterus can lead to a shift in the pelvic bones and a change in the structural alignment of the spine and rib cage. As the pelvic support structure is altered, it can result in a compressed spine, decreased height, and a protruding abdomen. This skeletal impact can lead to chronic back pain and alterations in physical appearance.
- What are the common physical sensations lost or altered after hysterectomy? Women may experience a loss of sensation in the pelvic area, diminished sexual response, and changes in orgasmic capability following hysterectomy. The severing of nerves during the procedure can lead to numbness, tingling, or pain in the pelvic region, affecting sexual health and overall quality of life.
- How does hysterectomy affect a woman’s hormonal balance and overall endocrine function? Hysterectomy, especially with the removal of the ovaries, drastically affects a woman’s hormonal balance by eliminating the primary sources of estrogen and progesterone. This can lead to immediate menopause, with symptoms like hot flashes, mood swings, and increased risk for conditions related to hormonal deficiency, such as osteoporosis and heart disease.
- Discuss the relationship between hysterectomy and increased risks of mental health issues. The hormonal changes and physical alterations following hysterectomy can contribute to mental health challenges, including depression, anxiety, and a sense of loss or grief. The impact on sexual function and self-identity can further exacerbate these issues, highlighting the need for comprehensive pre- and post-operative counseling and support.
- What future research directions are suggested by current findings on the effects of hysterectomy and oophorectomy? Future research should focus on long-term outcomes of hysterectomy and oophorectomy, exploring alternative treatments that preserve the uterus and ovaries, and the development of targeted therapies to manage conditions like endometriosis and fibroids without radical surgery. Studies on the psychosocial impacts of these surgeries and the efficacy of hormone replacement therapy in mitigating long-term risks are also needed to guide patient-centered care.
Hospitals are dangerous places. We’re certainly not the first ones to say so. Nor was Robert S. Mendelsohn, an M.D. who was the President of the National Health Federation, the director of a hospital in Chicago, and a medical school professor:
I have always told my patients that they should avoid hospitals as they would avoid a war. Do your utmost to stay out of them and, if you find yourself in one, do everything possible to get out as soon as you can. After working in hospitals for most of my life, I can assure you that they are the dirtiest and most deadly places in town.
It would be ideal if we were all informed of these basic facts. But informing women about the irreversible aftermath of hysterectomy is bad for business, so we can’t wait for doctors to do it. Women don’t know better because doctors neglect to inform them. The vast majority of the women who call HERS cancel their surgeries after they learn about female anatomy and the function, of the female organs.
“My doctor told me I was endangering my children by not having a hysterectomy,” a woman told us during a talkback. “If I didn’t have the surgery, he said, I was going to die and I wouldn’t’ see my children grow up.”
“So what did you do?” I asked.
“Nora knows,” she said, “because she looked at my medical records with me, and there wasn’t anything wrong with me.”
“How long ago was that?”
“Fourteen years ago. My kids are in college, and I’m the picture of health.”
If we heard it once we heard it a thousand times – “I canceled my surgery,” women tell us, “and now I’m the picture of health. So why did my doctor tell me I needed a hysterectomy?”
The most frightening lines in un becoming found their way into the play because they’re the things women tell us over and over again about what their doctors told them. They’re repeated from coast-to-coast, from border-to-border, to women born a hundred years apart. While I was working on the first draft of un becoming, my friend’s mother yelled to him while he was on the phone with me, saying, “Tell Rick to put in his play what my doctor told me! Tell him my doctor said, ‘Don’t worry, I’m just taking out the crib, but I’m leaving the playpen.’
In other words, women aren’t able to bear children after hysterectomy, but their sexual partners will still have a vaginal pocket for intercourse, even though a loss of sexual feeling is an anatomical fact for hysterectomized women. So I did put it into the play…but only after I heard that same line a dozen or more times. We continue to hear it from women all over the country, including right there in the state of Washington. These one-liners from gynecologists trivialize women’s concerns about their sex organs as they sit half-naked on examination tables.
Women are told to eat nothing after midnight the night before the surgery and to get their things in order because they’ll be out of commission for a while as they “recover.” But recovery presumes they’ll be the same person after the surgery as they were before, which isn’t possible. What they’re not told is far more important than what they are told. It’s what isn’t being said that’s really at issue here.
One of the protestors who joined us in Seattle was an attorney. Her expertise was drafting language that could be defended in court. She was diagnosed with uterine cancer and consented to a hysterectomy, but not castration. It might seem foolish for a doctor to castrate a bright attorney, who not only modified the hospital’s consent form to reflect her wishes prior to the hysterectomy but also included specific language expressly stating that under no circumstances were her ovaries to be removed. And yet, like the nurse mentioned above, against her wishes a doctor removed her ovaries anyway.
She wanted to sue, but no attorney would take the case because most states have a “reasonable person” or “a reasonable physician” standard. The lawyers advised her that the courts would assume that once she entered the hospital, any reasonable physician would’ve chosen to castrate her while hysterectomizing her-even if it was contrary to her written wishes. If you enter a hospital in a reasonable-physician statute state, your wishes may mean nothing.
The courts will very likely support whatever the doctor deems reasonable.
The issue boils down to whether a woman has the right decide what will be done to her body. The Constitution of the United States guarantees personal sovereignty, and our government exists to protect it. When informed consent is missing from the decision making process, personal sovereignty is denied to women. Decisions about what women will and won’t allow to be done to their bodies should never be taken away from them, under any circumstances.
On the first day of the Seattle protest we turned our signs toward the Swedish Medical Center instead of the traffic, so the doctors and patients inside the building could see them. Massive cranes loomed overhead, a sign that business was booming.
That evening a reading of un becoming was hosted by the Women’s Studies Department at the University of Washington in a lecture hall on campus. Like the cast, a few people in the talk. back had a difficult time accepting that doctors knowingly harm women. It’s an unattractive side of human nature that most people are unwilling to attribute to doctors.
“So who’s to blame?” I asked them. As with most audiences, someone said, “I think women need to educate themselves.” But what does that have to do with whether or not doctors knowingly harm women? And who could possibly be more educated on these issues than a nurse and a doctor? A medical education didn’t save her. Isn’t that what we pay doctors for, to advise us on issues we don’t have time to go to medical school to learn?
Although it’s rare for a doctor to be prosecuted in a criminal court for harming patients, the Seattle Times reported the case of a King County gynecologist convicted of two counts of rape and two counts of “indecent liberties” against four Seattle women who testified against him. The last lines of the Times article read, “Momah remains charged with three counts of health-care fraud, which will be tried later. In addition, he faces civil suits from dozens of women who say he sexually abused them or botched surgeries.” Such cases are common, and for everyone we do hear about, how many more are there that we don’t hear about? Insurance fraud is a criminal offense that is punishable by imprisonment. The unconsented removal of women’s sex organs, though, is a civil offense that usually goes unpunished even in the most blatant cases. To find out why, follow the money. What’s a uterus worth? Not much. But what’s hysterectomy—the 20-30 minute surgery to remove the uterus—worth to hospitals and doctors?
Tens of billions of dollars each year. And what are the male sex organs worth? It’s worth searching for a man’s penis in the dirt and spending nine hours in the operating room reattaching it, as was the case when Lorena Bobbit severed John Wayne Bobbit’s penis after he raped her in 1993.19 Another woman who attended the protest and the play with her husband said they were both grateful to HERS for helping her remain intact. A doctor tried to badger her into letting him hysterectomize her. She sought other opinions, but one doctor after another supported the first doctor’s recommendation, until she found HERS.
Nora was interviewed by a local television station in Seattle, but the hospital administrators at Swedish were smarter than some hospitals we’d been to. They didn’t call the police, so we didn’t’ have flashing lights to draw attention to our protest.
We spoke with a woman who said she was afraid because she couldn’t keep up with the minimum payments she was required to make to Swedish to pay down the debt incurred when she was hysterectomized there without health insurance. Meanwhile, the Swedish website says not only can you make a donation to Swedish, “If you would prefer to pledge a fixed amount on a regular basis, call us and we can help you set up an automatic contribution plan.”
It’s an ugly game of round robin. Surgeons’ wives are hysterectomized, as well as the nurses who assist them in surgery. Indigent women are put on payment plans to pay for unnecessary hysterectomies, or taxpayers are sent the bill via Medicaid and Medicare. The public is encouraged to set up automatic contribution plans to pad the medical industry’s bottom line and help pay surgeons exorbitant payoffs for doing this grisly work. And then the courts protect the doctors and hospital administrators when suits are brought against them, because unwarranted surgery has become the standard of care. Health and wellbeing has almost nothing to do with it.
‘State-minus’: Biden’s Palestine solution
Three decades after the Oslo Lie, neither the US nor the EU are in any position to dangle the promise of a Palestinian state.
By Stasa Salacanin | The Cradle | February 29, 2024
Is it sadly ironic that the issue of Palestinian statehood – unresolved for over 75 years – has resurfaced only after Israel’s wholesale carpet-bombing of the Gaza Strip, killing over 30,000 civilians, injuring tens of thousands more, and destroying significant swathes of the territory’s infrastructure.
University of California (UCLA) historian James Gelvin states the case plainly:
“There would have been no serious discussion of a two-state solution without [the events of] 7 October. As a matter of fact, putting the Palestine issue back on the front burner of international and West Asian politics was one of the reasons Hamas launched its operation.”
As Gelvin explains it to The Cradle, Hamas has already scored several victories since its Al-Aqsa Flood operation: “The Palestine issue is back on the international agenda, it is negotiating the release of its captives as an equal partner to Israel,” and has demonstrated that it is “more effective in realizing Palestinian goals than its rival, Fatah.”
New ‘Biden Doctrine’
While the unprecedented, brutal Israeli military response has indeed illustrated the urgency for establishing a Palestinian safe haven, it is impossible to ignore that western state backers of the 1993 Oslo Accords – which laid out the essential framework for the establishment of a Palestinian state – have then so assiduously ignored and neglected that responsibility.
Even greater hypocrisy emerges from the fact that these western powers, led by Washington, have now decided to force the discussion of Palestinian statehood in the midst of Gaza’s carnage, with an Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is infamously opposed to it.
So, why is this debate possible now? Why was it ignored before 7 October – or even prior to Netanyahu’s return to the prime ministership?
After enormous public and international pressure, US President Joe Biden has, at least rhetorically, reopened the issue of Palestinian statehood. According to the New York Times, the Biden White House’s new doctrine would “involve some form of US recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in return for strong Palestinian guarantees that their institutions could never threaten Israel.”
In addition, the US president’s plan also envisages Saudi–Israeli normalization and a tough military stance against Iran and its regional allies. However, many analysts have already raised questions about the viability of a plan that does not reflect current ground realities.
While Netanyahu rejects the very notion of a Palestinian state, the ‘Biden doctrine’ and its offering of some limited-sovereignty version of a demilitarized Palestinian state is nothing less than humiliating for Palestinians.
Dr Muhannad Ayyash, Professor of Sociology at Mount Royal University, observes that there is no fundamental change of approach by the US on this issue. In short, the Biden administration refuses to clarify what it means by a ‘Palestinian state.’ Its initiative appears mainly to advance a form of a two-state solution that would be palatable to Israel.
Ayyash points out that the key issues related to Palestinian statehood are left unanswered, including the issue of sovereignty, Jewish settlements, the status of East Jerusalem, a necessary West Bank/East Jerusalem connection with the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian right to return, and so forth.
As Israel has firmly insisted on retaining full security control over the entire territory west of Jordan – meaning, over all the territory likely to come under Palestinian (self-)rule – many experts fear that Israel would have the right to militarily enter those territories at will, without Palestinian consent, with the latter banned from assembling its own military force.
This version of ‘statehood’ is not remotely on par with that of other UN member-states, who are entitled, under the UN Charter, to exercise full sovereignty and defend their territorial integrity. Biden’s ‘solution’ of a Palestinian state with limited sovereignty is nothing more than the legalization of Israel’s perpetual occupation of Palestine.
A Palestinian ‘empty shell’
The revived debate on Palestinian statehood is also intricately connected to a big western public relations dilemma. The Atlanticists’ unconditional support for Israel’s illegal, disproportionate military assault against mostly female and child populations has deeply impacted their image and capacity to maneuver in West Asia and beyond.
This is especially true for Washington’s foreign policy objectives in the region, which are facing major, direct resistance on the ground in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
The revival of a two-state solution is, therefore, a “desperate act to salvage some of the credibility or legitimacy of these regimes (both Arab and Western governments),” argues Dr Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Professor and Abdulaziz Said Chair for Peace and Conflict Resolution at the American University in Washington, DC.
For decades, the US has capitulated to Israeli demands on pretty much everything Tel Aviv has ever asked for. In recent years, as Gelvin describes it, the US has mainly focused “on bribing various Arab governments – the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan – to normalize relations with Israel” through the “Abraham Accords,” which, in effect, took the Palestine issue off the table.”
Meanwhile, Arab states managed regional expectations by continuing to pay lip service to Palestinian issues while scuttling any opportunities behind the scenes. With few Arab state allies left, Palestinians themselves had no cards left to leverage – until 7 October.
Now, Israel is doing all it can to negate that day’s gains. Says Ayyash:
“Netanyahu wants to dispense with all pretension about the establishment of the Palestinian state and use this moment to establish full Israeli Jewish sovereignty from the river to the sea, whereas the Biden administration prefers a quieter approach that pretends to care about the aspirations of the Palestinian people in order to maintain its close ties with Arab regimes across the region.”
The two-state solution, according to Professor Abu-Nimer, is, therefore, nothing other than a “fig leaf” to resuscitate the west’s crashing image and should not be viewed as a serious US initiative. The proposed plan is “a skeleton or an empty shell which lacks of any serious form of sovereignty.”
Nathan Brown, an American scholar of Middle Eastern law and politics at George Washington University, largely concurs:
“This is not a step toward statehood but only reviving some provisions of the Oslo Accords. Even at a maximum, it would produce what would have been called a ‘protectorate’ in the nineteenth century, not a state.”
A Palestinian state is not on the cards
Although the US and the EU could exercise immense leverage over Israel to revive the Oslo agreement and fast-track its provisions, they are doing nothing of the sort.
Today, there is a unique opportunity for Tel Aviv’s western allies to play this hand, given the utter collapse of Israel’s image worldwide and the mass public demand for the protection of Palestinians.
Instead, the Biden administration thinks that it can resurrect the two-state idea by mediating a grand regional deal – one that will deliver everything Israel wants, by dangling the promise of a rump Palestinian state.
The White House believes that the reward of normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia will offset for the Netanyahu government a reversal on the question of Palestinian statehood and withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories.
Gelvin dismisses the plan, saying it simply won’t work on so many levels. For starters, “if Netanyahu commits to a Palestinian state and withdrawal from the occupied territories, his government will collapse and he will go to jail.”
Don’t expect anything spectacular from the European Union either. Although EU High Representative for Foreign Relations Josep Borrell has said that a Palestinian state may need to be imposed from the outside without Israel’s agreement, realistically, the range and reach of European foreign policy is minimal or non-existent. According to Gelvin, “the EU has no more leverage against Israel than Costa Rica.”
Abu-Nimer likely speaks for the majority of regional observers – who have seen this game play out before: these top-down western statehood formulas do not work without genuine engagement with Palestinian political representation – in this case, Hamas and other Palestinian resistance organizations.
Thirty-one years after the Oslo Accords promised a Palestinian state, Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza and swallowing up the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Almost five months after the start of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, some of the leverage is back in Palestinian resistance hands, and they are unlikely to trade their gains for an unsovereign rump state which diplomats are privately calling a ‘state-minus.’
Hunter’s Associate: Biden Scion Planned Global Hedge Fund to Benefit Poppa Joe
Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 27.02.2024
As Hunter Biden braces for deposition in the US Congress on Wednesday, his former business associate has spilled the beans about the first family’s plan to build a global hedge fund.
US president Joe Biden’s son Hunter plotted to set up a shadowy fund to cash in on his influence — so says a former business partner.
Independent US media outlet Just the News has obtained a recent statement by Hunter Biden’s business associate Jason Galanis to the House impeachment inquiry.
He said Hunter and his business buddies planned to build a global hedge fund with Joe Biden as its “central asset.”
“The entire value-add of Hunter Biden to our business was his family name and his access to his father, Vice President Joe Biden,” Galanis told the House impeachment investigators. “Our objective was to build a diversified private equity platform, which would be anchored by a globally known Wall Street brand together with a globally known political name.”
Hunter Biden sought “strategic relationships to the venture” with tycoons from all over the world, including from post-Soviet space.
Just the News quoted emails from Hunter Biden’s infamous “laptop from hell” which allegedly confirm the ambitious plan.
“This is a global cooperation group that will assist each other in our respective regions in whatever manner possible,” Hunter’s other associate, Jeff Cooper, wrote in March 2014. The younger Biden proposed a list of billionaire investors for the new venture, including tycoons from China, Spain, Kazakhstan, Russia, South America, Africa and the Middle East.
One of Hunter’s partners, Chinese businessman Xuejun “Henry” Zhao, showed interest in the plan based on the prospect that Joe Biden would join the venture after his vice presidential term ended.
“Mr. Zhao was interested in this partnership because of the game-changing value add of the Biden family, including Joe Biden, who was to be a member of the Burnham-Harvest team post-vice presidency, providing political access in the United States and around the world,” Galanis said.
Galanis’s lawyer provided a draft email backing up the businessman’s testimony.
“Michael, please also remind Henry [Zhao] of our conversation about a board seat for a certain relation of mine,” Hunter reportedly wrote. “Devon [Archer] and I golfed with that relation earlier last week and we discussed this very idea again and as always he remains very very keen on the opportunity.”
According to Galanis, the “certain relation” was none other than Joe Biden. Even though the phrase was removed from the final email, it remained in Galanis’ records.
The group’s plan to assemble a “dream team” of international billionaires and create a global Biden business empire took a serious knock when Archer and Galanis were charged and convicted of a plot to steal $43 million in tribal bonds.
Hunter Biden avoided scrutiny despite “then-available documentation that we were partners, were involved in the decision making that involved illegal self-dealing, and all of us had financially benefited from these schemes,” Galanis claimed.
Galanis told House investigators that the illegal tribal bond scheme was part of a larger effort to create a financial platform for the Biden hedge fund.
“In an effort to build this financial platform, I engaged in unlawful conduct. Our companies were entrusted with $11 billion of union members’ pension fund money whose trust I betrayed,” Galanis stated. “I pleaded guilty. I have had eight years in federal custody to reflect on my actions and I am profoundly sorry for my role.”
Hunter Biden is expected to appear before the Oversight Committee on Wednesday and testify to the Republican-led impeachment hearing about his family’s business dealings and Joe Biden’s role in his son’s financial schemes.
Congressional investigators argue that Joe Biden was used by his son as a “brand” due to his vice presidential position. They say he not only knew about Hunter’s deals but participated in them, likely profiting. Biden has so far denied being aware of his son’s business operations.
House Republicans have been running their investigation into the Biden family’s apparent influence-peddling for several years.
According to US media, Hunter’s testimony will take place behind closed doors — even though he previously insisted on a public hearing — and will not be video-taped, although the transcript will be released to the public.
Houthis Refute Claims They’ve Sabotaged Underwater Cables in Red Sea
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 27.02.2024
Israeli media reported on Monday that the Yemeni militia had targeted “four submarine communication cables” in the area between Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Djibouti.
The Houthis’ Telecommunications Ministry has denied reports by “Zionist-linked media” claiming that they have sabotaged major underwater telecommunications cables connection, Europe, Africa and Asia.
“The Ministry of Telecoms and Information Technology denies what has been published by the Zionist-linked media outlets and also what has been published by other media outlets and the social networks, on allegations as to what [has] been caused to Red Sea submarine cables,” the militia said in an English-language statement Tuesday, a day after an Israeli Hebrew-language newspaper reported that the militia had caused “serious disruption” to internet cables between Europe and Asia.
“Yemen Telecom affirms its pivotal role to continue and build up and develop the international and regional telecom and internet networks which are provided by the submarine cables running within the Yemeni territorial waters and will keep up to facilitate the passage and implementation of the submarine cables projects through the Yemeni territorial waters, inclusive the projects into which the Yemen Republic participated, by Yemen International Telecom Co – TeleYemen,” the statement added.
The Ministry pointed to recent statements by Houthi movement leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi committing the militia to keeping underwater cables and its relevant services “away from any possible risks,” and said the militia’s campaign “to ban the passage of Israeli ships” through Red Sea waters “does not pertain [to] the other international ships which have been licensed to execute submarine works within the Yemeni territorial waters.”
Houthi Politburo member Khuzam al-Assad told Sputnik that the militia undertook “no actions… aimed at damaging internet cables, and we have repeatedly confirmed this.”
Al-Assad said the claims of Houthi attacks on the cables were insinuations being pushed by Tel Aviv, Washington and London to try to turn global public opinion against the Houthis instead of “stopping the crimes of genocide committed by the Israeli Army with the support of the United States and the West against Gaza residents.”
The Israeli media report said four major cables, including AAE-1 (connecting East Asia to Europe via Egypt), Seacom (linking Europe, Africa and India), EIG (linking India and the Gulf to Africa and Europe) and TGN (linking France to India) had been hit, with most of the immediate damage expected to be felt by India and the Gulf States.
Western reporting on possible Houthi operations to sabotage underwater internet cables began to surface in January, with the BBC running a story in early February saying the Houthis “almost certainly would” target the cables “if they could,” while admitting that “the fiber cables, which carry 17% of the world’s internet traffic, lie on the seabed mostly hundreds of meters below the surface – well below the reach of divers.” Only a handful of countries, including the US and Russia, have the capability to sabotage this infrastructure using deep sea submersibles, the outlet said.
The Houthis began a months-long maritime campaign of ship hijackings, drone strikes and missile launches targeting Israel-affiliated commercial vessels in the Red Sea in November in solidarity with Gaza amid Israel’s ground assault into the enclave. The US announced the creation of a naval ‘coalition of the willing’ against Yemen in December, and started bombing the country in January to try to degrade the militia’s missile and drone capabilities. The Houthis responded by banning all American and British ships from passing through the strategic waterway, and launching attacks on US and British warships operating in the area.
The Yemeni militia has effectively shut the Red Sea down to up to 40 percent of its normal commercial traffic, adding tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to global shipping costs and disrupting supply chains worldwide.
Leaked Gaza ceasefire proposal US ‘psychological warfare’: Hamas
The Cradle | February 27, 2024
Hamas official Ahmad Abdul Hadi stated on 27 February that a leaked proposal for a ceasefire deal in Gaza is part of a “psychological warfare” campaign being carried out by the US.
Details of the alleged proposal were leaked to Reuters on Monday, the same day US President Joe Biden said he hoped a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas could be reached by 4 March.
“My national security adviser tells me that they’re close. They’re close. They’re not done yet. My hope is by next Monday we’ll have a ceasefire,” Biden claimed during an appearance on a late-night US talk show.
But Abdul Hadi, the Hamas representative in Lebanon, stated that the resistance movement is not satisfied with the proposal and will not compromise on any of its demands, particularly “on a ceasefire and reaching an honorable, serious deal.”
Hamas is seeking a permanent end to the war and the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Israel is seeking the release of the 136 captives held by Hamas in Gaza and a temporary ceasefire that would allow it to resume the war after a pause.
“We are open to any ideas posed by mediators but are also keen on preserving our key demands,” Abdul Hadi told Al-Mayadeen, adding that Israel is “seeking to hold Hamas accountable for any later failures in talks, planning to use this as an excuse to pave the way for the invasion of Rafah.”
He said the leaks were not part of the Paris negotiations but a US and Israeli attempt to give the public an illusion that Hamas had approved of them. He reiterated that “everything being shared is not serious, but a ploy to maneuver and press on the Resistance.”
The proposal leaked to Reuters outlined plans for a 40-day truce during which Hamas would free around 40 captives – including female soldiers, those under 19 or over 50 years old, and the sick – in return for about 400 Palestinians held captive in Israel.
Israel would withdraw its troops from populated areas of Gaza. Displaced Gaza residents, excluding men of fighting age, would be permitted to return to their homes. Israel would be required to allow additional humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the strip are on the verge of starvation.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) also responded to leaked Paris proposal.
“The leaks are an attempt to pressure the Palestinians and incite them against the resistance.
They are pushing for a ceasefire before Ramadan in anticipation of what might happen in Al-Quds.
The enemy believes that it can deceive the resistance with different methods in order to achieve a victory it has failed to achieve on the ground,” PIJ Political Bureau member Ihsan Ataya told Al-Mayadeen.
In Gaza, residents speaking to Reuters expressed mixed feelings about possible outcomes.
“We don’t want a pause, we want a permanent ceasefire, we want an end to the killing,” said Mustafa Basel, a father of five from Gaza City, now displaced in Rafah.
“Unfortunately, people’s conditions are so grim that some may accept a pause, even [just] during Ramadan,” he said. “They want a permanent end to the war, but the dire conditions make them want a pause even for a month or 40 days in the hope it becomes permanent.”
Kremlin comments on Denmark dropping Nord Stream probe
RT | February 26, 2024
The Danish decision to end its investigation into the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea was probably motivated by Copenhagen’s unwillingness to establish the truth about the crime, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has suggested.
The energy links built to bring Russian natural gas directly to Germany were ruptured by unknown perpetrators in a series of explosions in September 2022. Germany as well as Denmark and Sweden, in whose economic zones the sabotage took place, had each launched separate inquiries. Sweden closed its probe earlier this month.
The Copenhagen Police do not see “sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case in Denmark” over the incident, they said on Monday in a statement announcing the development. The probe, conducted jointly with the Danish Security and Intelligence Services (PET), was “complex and comprehensive” and resulted in a conclusion that the incident was deliberate sabotage. Nothing was said about possible suspects in the press-release.
The situation is “close to absurd,” Peskov told journalists when asked about the news.
“Apparently, they were getting closer to, as they call it, outing their closest allies,” he suggested. “One can only express absolute astonishment and nothing else.”
Denmark said investigators cooperated with “relevant foreign partners,” but Peskov stressed that Russian law enforcement was not among those.
“In the early stages of the investigation, we consistently asked the Danes for information about what had happened, but the requests were rejected,” he said.
A German government spokesman said Berlin remained very interested in getting to the bottom of the crime.
Western media initially rushed to accuse Russia of disabling its own critical infrastructure. Subsequent reports said European investigators found no evidence to support this theory. Leaks to the press identified a “pro-Ukrainian group” and a specific Ukrainian officer currently held in Kiev’s custody under a separate case as potential culprits.
Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed the finger at the CIA, claiming that the Americans were behind the sabotage, when he discussed Nord Stream with journalist Tucker Carlson in a recent interview. He declined to say what evidence led him to that conclusion.
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said in February of 2023 that, according to his source, US President Joe Biden personally ordered the bombing of the pipelines. The journalist claimed Biden was seeking to cement Germany’s antagonism towards Russia in the Ukraine conflict and ensure the EU’s long-term reliance on Western energy. The White House denied the allegation, but Putin has said he found Hersh’s reasoning plausible.
Featured Video
Daniel Davis: Iran Reopens the Strait of Hormuz
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Free Book
Tell Me Again, Who Made The Desert Bloom?
Lawrence of Cyberia | March 19, 2010
In December 1945 and January 1946, the British Mandate authorities carried out an extensive survey of Palestine, in support of the work of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The results were published in the Survey of Palestine, which has been scanned and made available online by Palestine Remembered; all 1300 pages can be read here.
Blog Roll
Aletho News- US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide
- Daniel Davis: Iran Reopens the Strait of Hormuz
- Trump taps military-grade flu pandemic architect to lead CDC amid simultaneous gain-of-function and vax development
- Israeli General: War with Iran does not serve Israel as global standing erodes over Gaza
- The collapse is real – Lebanon ceasefire marks a historic strategic defeat
- Trump keeps Hormuz blockade despite Iran reopening passage
- ‘New order’ in Strait of Hormuz: IRGC Navy mandates authorization for all vessels
- Persian Gulf oil production can take two years to recover from war: IEA chief
- Washington hiding billion-dollar combat losses to Iran’s precision strikes: Report
- Israel Considers Ceasefire a Betrayal
- If Americans Knew
- Senate again fails to block weapons to Israel
- Think the Iran war is a disaster? Blame these DC think tanks first.
- Number of Palestinian Prisoners Rises By 83% Since October 2023
- With multiple “ceasefires” in place, Israel keeps on killing in Gaza and Lebanon – Daily Update
- Mearsheimer: Israel Owns Trump
- Mark Levin and Jonathan Pollard Push for Nuking Iran
- TCN: America Enables Israel’s Crimes
- Israel’s Next Leader Will Be Just Like Bibi – but Without the Corruption
- Born into war, raised across borders: The story of Gaza’s premature babies separated from their parents amid Israel’s genocide
- Israeli soldiers suspected of raping Palestinian detainee allowed to return to service
- No Tricks Zone
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
Aletho News 