Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

IRGC: No peace without Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories

Press TV – June 4, 2026

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps has stated that no peace will be established in the region without the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories in Lebanon, as it condemns ongoing Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians.

In a statement issued on the recent events in Lebanon on Thursday, the IRGC declared that international condemnations and expressions of disgust from countries and nations around the world have had no effect on the behavior of Tel Aviv’s “bloodthirsty rulers.”

“The arrogant American regime, under the pretext of establishing peace, has only increased crime and genocide through its interventions,” the statement read.

The IRGC described the Israeli army as “cowardly and incapable,” stating that it tries to compensate for its battlefield defeats by killing civilians and destroying homes, hospitals, and schools.

“This racist regime, despite unlimited support from America and European countries, has not even been able to win the hearts of the people of a single occupied village during its shameful existence,” the statement said.

“Its skill is merely ruling over burned lands, and every day we witness the destruction of the homes of the oppressed people of Palestine and Lebanon at the hands of this aggressor regime,” it further said.

The IRGC asserted that the Lebanese nation will not allow the occupying regime to achieve through a forced agreement what it could not achieve through war, even with the support of the “child-killing American regime.”

“Our primary condition for accepting a ceasefire in the regional war has been a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon,” the statement said.

The IRGC stated that the enemy must urgently halt its attacks on the Lebanese people, immediately withdraw from occupied Lebanese territories back behind international borders, and recognize Lebanon’s territorial integrity.

“The Lebanese nation is the pride of the Ummah and a symbol of the honor of the region’s peoples. We will support them with all our being. No peace will be established in the region without withdrawal from the occupied territories of Lebanon,” it said.

On Monday, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had ordered strikes on the Dahiyeh area, a predominantly Shia district in Beirut’s southern suburbs, and issued evacuation orders covering the entire area.

In response, Iran’s central military command warned that if Israel carried out its threat to bomb southern Beirut, Iranian forces would retaliate against the northern occupied territories.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry also said Tehran was ready to help Lebanon resist the “illegal aggression,” adding that a Lebanon ceasefire is “an integral part of any ceasefire and any final agreement” with the United States.

Shortly after Iran’s warning, US President Donald Trump said on social media that he had intervened, claiming he had held a “very productive conversation” with Netanyahu that prevented further escalation.

He also said he had reached an understanding with Hezbollah through senior representatives, stating that the resistance group had agreed to halt attacks in exchange for Israel refraining from strikes.

A Pakistan-brokered ceasefire between Tehran and Washington, which also covers Lebanon, has been in place since early April, though Israel has continued carrying out daily attacks on the Arab country in violation of the truce.

Iran has repeatedly said that any ceasefire must be comprehensive, covering all fronts, including Lebanon, and has warned it will not tolerate continued Israeli attacks on the country.

June 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Comments Off on IRGC: No peace without Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories

Israeli war chief vows continued strikes on Lebanon as part of ‘conditional’ truce

The Cradle | June 4, 2026

Israeli War Minister Israel Katz vowed on 4 June that Tel Aviv will continue attacking Lebanon and that any truce is conditional on Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the south Litani area, after Beirut announced its acceptance of a framework allowing continued attacks on its country.

The war chief’s comments coincided with continued airstrikes on south Lebanon.

“Any ceasefire in Lebanon remains conditional on the prior removal of Hezbollah elements from the area south of the Litani River,” Katz’s statement read.

He emphasized that Israel “will not” withdraw its troops from south Lebanon, including from the Beaufort Castle, and said residents of the south “will not return at this stage.”

Katz said the Israeli army will remain in what he described as a “security zone” in Lebanon up to the ‘Yellow Line’ area or so-called ‘Forward Defense Line.’

He also claimed that the reality “imposed” by Israel in Lebanon will lead to an agreement that achieves security for the residents of the north “for the first time in 50 years.”

The war minister also stated that, with US backing, Israel reserves the right to carry out strikes, including in Beirut, in response to any rocket fire toward Israeli settlements.

His comments coincided with continued Israeli strikes on south Lebanon.

Israel’s Channel 12 reported that the Israeli army is continuing its operations in Lebanon and has not received any new instructions despite the announced ceasefire understandings.

A series of drone strikes was reported across southern Lebanon on Thursday morning.

An Israeli drone strike targeted a vehicle between the towns of Kfarwa and Zefta. Additional strikes were reported at the Kfar Rumman roundabout near the Al-Aytam station and the Nejda Hospital Road.

Drone strikes also targeted a vehicle near the Nmairiyeh junction, as well as the towns of Shhour and Bastat.

Hezbollah resistance fighters remain present across the areas of south Lebanon that Israel has occupied. Hezbollah said on Thursday that its fighters targeted Israeli troops at the Beaufort Castle at around midnight, and later announced rocket attacks on forces in Qantara and Al-Bayyada.

While speaking to journalists on Thursday, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said that Wednesday’s negotiations were extremely difficult and resumed only after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio intervened, following their suspension by delegation head Simon Karam.

He added that he is awaiting responses from all concerned parties and compliance guarantees, and that implementation could begin within 24 hours of final approval.

Aoun warned that the agreement that has been reached represents the “last” opportunity.

On Wednesday, a new round of US-hosted direct talks between Lebanon and Israel – a violation of Lebanese law – concluded.

After the talks, the US, Israel, and Lebanon announced that they reached an agreement on the implementation of a conditional ceasefire.

According to the joint statement, the arrangement is “contingent” on a complete halt to Hezbollah fire and the withdrawal of all Hezbollah operatives from the area south of the Litani River.

The agreement calls for the creation of “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon where the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would exercise exclusive control, excluding all non-state actors. The parties said these measures are intended to pave the way toward a broader security and political agreement between Lebanon and Israel.

The statement also outlined plans for continued direct negotiations under US sponsorship, including discussions on a security framework focused on strengthening Lebanese state control, preventing the re-emergence of “armed groups,” and advancing a comprehensive “peace and security” agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

The next round of talks is scheduled for the week of 22 June.

The three governments also condemned Iran’s regional activities, while Israel reiterated that its security requires the disarmament of Hezbollah and the dismantlement of its infrastructure across Lebanon.

Lebanon, for its part, pledged to strengthen the LAF with US support and reaffirmed its commitment to state “sovereignty” and the implementation of the cessation of hostilities.

The statement contains no explicit Israeli commitment to halt attacks on Lebanon. Instead, the proposed ceasefire is conditioned on a complete cessation of Hezbollah fire and the withdrawal of Hezbollah operatives from south of the Litani River.

The arrangement effectively requires Hezbollah to withdraw under continued Israeli fire.

The Lebanese resistance has repeatedly vowed that it will not return to the November 2024 deal or any agreement allowing Israel to attack at will and maintain an occupation in Lebanon. It has yet to officially comment on the deal announced by the US, Lebanon, and Israel.

June 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , | Comments Off on Israeli war chief vows continued strikes on Lebanon as part of ‘conditional’ truce

UNIFIL peacekeeper killed after shells strike position near Marjayoun

Al Mayadeen | June 4, 2026

A UNIFIL peacekeeper died early Thursday from critical injuries sustained when mortar shells struck his position near Marjayoun in southeastern Lebanon.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said the peacekeeper succumbed to his wounds several hours after the attack, which also injured two other members of the peacekeeping force, who are receiving treatment at a medical facility within a UNIFIL base, according to the mission.

A series of systematic Israeli attacks

The attack comes against the backdrop of mounting evidence pointing to a pattern of Israeli attacks impacting UN positions in southern Lebanon. A UN inquiry conducted indicated that Israeli tank fire struck a UNIFIL site in early March, injuring peacekeepers, while repeated incidents over the past year have included drone-dropped explosives and machine-gun fire directed near or at UN locations.

Since then, several other attacks have been recorded against UN posts in South Lebanon, particularly amid the escalating Israeli aggression against South Lebanon.

In April alone, three Indonesian peacekeepers were killed, sparking intense backlash in Jakarta. Days later, UNIFIL reported escalating Israeli attacks against its positions, including ramming UN vehicles, firing near personnel, and obstructing operations.

UNIFIL further stated that Israeli troops have “continually blocked peacekeepers’ movements on this road,” alongside additional restrictions on freedom of movement recorded across multiple areas in southern Lebanon.

The force also reported deliberate damage to its infrastructure. Since early April, Israeli soldiers have “destroyed force protection cameras in UNIFIL’s Naqoura headquarters and five other positions on the Blue Line from Ras Naqoura to Maroun ar Ras,” undermining the mission’s ability to monitor developments along the sensitive frontier.

June 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on UNIFIL peacekeeper killed after shells strike position near Marjayoun

Hours after reiterating ‘ceasefire’, ‘Israel’ targets car in S.Lebanon

Al Mayadeen | June 4, 2026

An Israeli drone strike targeted a vehicle on the Nmeiriyeh road in the Nabatieh district, injuring three people, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported early Thursday.

According to Al Mayadeen’s correspondent, an Israeli airstrike targeted the towns of Deir al-Zahrani and Shoukin in the Nabatieh region. Israeli warplanes also targeted al-Mansouri in Tyre.

Another Israeli drone strike hit the Nabatieh–Kfar Reman road, and another targeted a roundabout in the town of Kfar Tebnit.

In Tyre, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that an Israeli drone carried out a strike on the town of Shhour, alongside artillery shelling that targeted the towns of Hanine and Mansouri. Israeli occupation forces also carried out a large-scale detonation on the outskirts of the town of Zawtar al-Sharqiyah.

Two airstrikes targeted the towns of Shaqra and Burj Qalawiyah in southern Lebanon overnight as well.

Meanwhile, Israeli reconnaissance drones continue hovering over the coastal road in the Tyre area, the entirety of South Lebanon, reaching the capital, Beirut, and its southern suburbs.

US-Israeli-Lebanese statement reiterates ‘ceasefire’

The attacks come after the US State Department released a joint statement by the United States, the Lebanese government, and “Israel” outlining the outcome of US-mediated negotiations aimed at implementing a ceasefire in Lebanon. The agreement stipulates a “complete cessation of fire by Hezbollah” and the withdrawal of all its fighters from areas south of the Litani River.

Under the framework, the two sides also agreed to swiftly establish so-called “model zones” in which the Lebanese Army would exercise exclusive authority, with all non-state actors excluded from those areas.

The US State Department said the measures could facilitate progress toward “a comprehensive agreement for peace and security,” adding that all parties reaffirmed that the future of relations between Lebanon and “Israel” should be determined by their respective governments through US mediation rather than any parallel track.

The latest strike comes amid continued Israeli attacks across Lebanon despite the ceasefire announced by Washington in April. Since then, the Israeli occupation has carried out hundreds of airstrikes and attacks targeting civilians, towns, and areas in southern Lebanon, while the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, continued to respond with operations against occupation forces and settlements in support of Lebanon and its people.

What is the Resistance’s position?

Speaking to Al Mayadeen, Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah affirmed on Monday the Resistance’s support for a comprehensive ceasefire across all Lebanese territory, noting that only a full ceasefire would be accepted by the Resistance, as a prelude to the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from all Lebanese soil.

Fadlallah said that there was an attempt by the US Secretary of State on Sunday to promote a new deterrence equation, “the Southern Suburb for the North,” without a commitment to a comprehensive ceasefire, reiterating that this proposal was rejected. He noted that a development also occurred in light of the Iranian position regarding intervention.

He warned that Lebanon is facing a treacherous enemy, stressing that what matters is reaching what serves the country’s interests and safeguarding its sovereignty, and that they will not accept a return to what existed before March 2.

June 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , | Comments Off on Hours after reiterating ‘ceasefire’, ‘Israel’ targets car in S.Lebanon

US says Lebanon, Israel reach new ceasefire deal, Hezbollah vows resistance, rejects disarmament

Press TV – June 4, 2026

The United States says Lebanon and Israel have agreed to implement a new ceasefire following Washington-mediated talks in the US capital, as Hezbollah stresses that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has any authority to dictate the future of the Lebanese resistance movement.

Lebanon and Israel on Wednesday agreed to move forward with a ceasefire aimed at ending months of hostilities, the US State Department announced in a joint statement issued after US-led negotiations in Washington.

The agreement requires a “complete cessation” of fire by Hezbollah and the evacuation of all of the movement’s “operatives from the South Litani Sector.”

Hezbollah has not been a party to the talks and contends it will not abide by any agreement that would undermine Lebanese sovereignty and benefit the Israeli regime.

The agreement announced by the US also includes the establishment of “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon where the Lebanese army “will take exclusive control of the territory to the exclusion of all non-state actors.”

“Israel and Lebanon reaffirmed that they have no hostile intent toward one another and committed to continuing direct negotiations to build confidence, resolve all outstanding issues, and work toward a comprehensive agreement” between the two sides, it further read.

The latest understanding emerged despite continued violence on the ground, including Israeli attacks that reportedly killed at least nine people in southern Lebanon on Wednesday and cross-border operations claimed by Hezbollah.

The ceasefire effort follows several rounds of direct talks between Lebanese and Israeli officials, who do not maintain formal diplomatic relations.

Earlier this week, Iran warned that Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon could jeopardize ongoing talks with Washington.

Trump acknowledged growing frustration with the Israeli regime’s actions, claiming he had intervened to prevent an imminent Israeli strike on Beirut and had spoken with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah representatives who agreed that “all shooting will stop.”

Trump also confirmed reports that he had called Netanyahu “crazy,” explaining that he was “a little bit perturbed” by Israeli attacks on Lebanon that were undermining US diplomatic efforts.

Separately on Wednesday, Mahmoud Qomati, deputy head of Hezbollah’s Political Council, stressed that the resistance would neither retreat nor surrender its arms.

“The resistance continues and will prevail,” he told Al Jazeera.

“All US and Israeli efforts will fail. The confrontation continues, and the resistance against Israeli aggression remains steadfast,” he added.

Rejecting foreign demands regarding Hezbollah’s military capabilities, Qomati emphasized that “the United States and Israel have no right to speak about the weapons of the resistance, because this is an internal Lebanese matter on which we agree.”

Pointing to Hezbollah’s long history, the movement’s official also stressed, “We have been fighting for 50 years and are not among those who have weakened the Lebanese state. No one can force the Lebanese resistance to disarm.”

Qomati also noted that previous Lebanese governments had supported the resistance, unlike the current administration, emphasizing that while Iran supports Hezbollah as a resistance movement, “we are not a pawn in the hands of any country.”

June 4, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , | Comments Off on US says Lebanon, Israel reach new ceasefire deal, Hezbollah vows resistance, rejects disarmament

Trump’s call to Bibi probably didn’t happen

By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 4, 2026

Donald Trump’s explosive telephone call to Benjamin Netanyahu has taken the internet by storm. But can we really believe it’s true?

Can we believe what we have just witnessed with the explosive telephone conversation between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu? According to Washington insiders who provide no concrete evidence of the call, Trump exploded with rage over the telephone with Bibi shortly after Iran pulled out entirely from the so-called peace talks – after Israel continued its bombing and illegal invasion of Lebanon.

Indeed, it was reported that Israel had actually cancelled air strikes on Lebanon at the request of Trump, as he tries to bring Iran back to the negotiating table – or so the British pro-Israel broadsheet The Telegraph presents it.

According to The Telegraph, the U.S. president phoned Benjamin Netanyahu on the evening of June 1st after Iran walked away from peace talks and said it would return only if Israel ceased its attacks on Lebanon and Gaza.

Apparently, the call was so heated that a number of swear words were used by Trump, followed by threats – indicating, if we are to believe the call took place, that Trump is really desperate to get out of the Iran war, a war he started because he was talked into it by Israel’s intelligence chiefs.

One U.S. official told Axios that Mr Trump told Mr Netanyahu that following through on his plans to bomb Lebanon would further isolate Israel on the global stage, adding that he thought Netanyahu was “crazy”. Two sources went further and recalled how Trump claimed that he had helped keep the Israeli prime minister out of jail – a reference to Mr Netanyahu’s ongoing graft trial.

Summarising the U.S. president’s remarks, a Washington official said: “You’re f—ing crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your a–. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”

A second source briefed on the call said Trump was “p—-” and at one point yelled at Mr Netanyahu: “What the f— are you doing?”

Yet was any of what was reported the truth? Given that the outlets reporting on the call are Zionist, it begs the question: why would they report on something which is so damaging to the Israeli prime minister and hardly paints Trump in a good light either?

One answer might be that the whole call was staged and leaked to the press in a bid to regain the confidence of the Iranians, who lack motivation to move forward in the talks as they trust nothing that comes from the American side. Another possibility is that Western consumers of media are being prepared for a huge false flag attack, and the architects of such a plan believe that reasserting Trump over Netanyahu is a good move. Of course, a third scenario is that it really did happen, and it was a tactic for Trump to leak the essence of the call to the press in a desperate bid to claw back some credibility, given that he is looking so foolish and very much under the thumb of Netanyahu. In this last scenario, it doesn’t necessarily ring true that the dog and its tail have been restored to their correct positions, in terms of who tells whom what to do on the foreign stage.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that Israel has stopped bombing Lebanon for the moment, which would indicate that Trump is trying his best to get a deal with Iran. Lebanon for the time being seems to be playing a pivotal role in the entire Iran war, although it is likely that most of the information Trump is being given is tailored to what he wants to hear, rather than the truth. In the Oval Office, he announced that no ships are getting through the blockade when, on the same day, 24 ships got through escorted by the Iranians – as well as announcing that nearly all of Iran’s missile production had been taken out (which couldn’t be further from the truth). Given the amount of lies and fantasies being produced on Trump’s side, it’s not hard to not take the Bibi telephone call seriously. The only real test of whether Trump is really calling the shots now is whether Israel will continue to disrupt any deals that he tries to put together. Whether the call was genuine or not is less important than what those who presented it to the press are attempting to pull off: a recalibration of the working relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

For the moment, the internet has gone into overdrive with the creativity you might expect, even animating the call itself with AI. While it is true that Trump in many ways has saved Netanyahu, for the moment, from being netted by the judiciary on corruption charges, it seems far-fetched that Trump would tell him everyone hates him. If only that were true. If you struggle to doubt the authenticity of the call, then simply ask yourself: if Trump were to call Bibi and give him a real piece of his mind, how would you fantasize that call might go?

June 4, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s call to Bibi probably didn’t happen

Former Israeli soldier: I left the Gaza war with shame and regret

Palestinian Information Center – June 3, 2026

GAZA – British magazine The Economist published an extensive testimony from a former Israeli soldier who took part in the war on Gaza, describing practices he says he witnessed firsthand during military operations and expressing deep feelings of shame and regret over what occurred in the territory.

The interview was conducted through the Israeli organization Breaking the Silence, which collects testimonies from soldiers who served in the Palestinian territories. The soldier was identified under the pseudonym “Jonathan.”

He said he joined the fighting following the October 7, 2023 events, believing he was participating in what he considered “the most just war in Israel’s history.” However, his experiences on the ground led him to completely reassess those beliefs after months of combat.

According to the soldier, his unit entered Gaza under what he described as vague combat directives. He said troops were not given clear rules of engagement regarding civilian protection and that the prevailing assumption was that anyone remaining in targeted areas after evacuation orders and bombardment could be treated as a legitimate target.

He added that Palestinian men of fighting age were often viewed as potential threats and noted that many of those killed during operations were unarmed. In many cases, soldiers were unable to verify the identities of those they targeted amid the chaos and destruction of war.

In one of the most significant parts of his testimony, the soldier alleged that the Israeli military used Palestinian detainees in field operations, forcing them to inspect buildings and move ahead of troops to check for explosives or ambushes. He said the practice was commonly referred to among soldiers as the “Mosquito Protocol.”

He further stated that discussions within military units focused less on the legality of using civilians as human shields and more on how to manage those compelled to carry out such tasks.

The soldier also described widespread destruction of homes and infrastructure across Gaza, saying that demolition gradually became the primary mission for many infantry units, even though soldiers often did not understand the broader strategic objectives behind the operations.

He said doubts increasingly emerged among soldiers as the war continued without achieving its stated goals, and that frustration grew within the military over the lack of a clear strategy and the prolonged nature of the conflict.

The former soldier accused Israeli media outlets of ignoring much of the suffering endured by Palestinians in Gaza, saying the gap between what he witnessed firsthand and what was presented to the public ultimately motivated him to speak out.

He concluded by saying that he no longer feels pride in his Israeli identity or his military service, adding that he is ashamed of what took place and can no longer imagine raising his country’s flag above his home as many citizens do elsewhere.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Former Israeli soldier: I left the Gaza war with shame and regret

The UK Government Will Persecute Those Vocal about Israel, But Not War Criminals

By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | June 3, 2026

After Declassified-UK revealed that around 2,000 Britons have served in the Israeli military since the beginning of the Gaza Genocide on October 7, 2023, a campaign has now been launched to demand that London pursue justice. Instead of pursuing potential war criminals, the British authorities appear too busy cracking down on critics of Israel.

A major campaign has been launched by Declassified and the International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), demanding “in the interests of transparency, public safety, and justice”, the British government adhere to the following demands:

  • “Track the movements of Brits who have served in the IDF (Israeli army – PC)”.
  • “Subject them to secondary screening where necessary at ports of entry”.
  • “Support robust war crimes investigations in line with domestic and international law”.

Producing a letter addressed to the British leadership, the campaign quickly attracted the signatures of 60 prominent individuals– including lawyers, military veterans, politicians and Genocide Scholars. The campaign was also grounded in the fact of the recent meeting of the Hague Group, where 40 States convened to demand the implementation of international law in order for Israel to be held accountable.

This is but one of various initiatives launched to achieve justice for the victims of the Gaza genocide, aligning alongside activist work, legal projects, political lobbying efforts, and even efforts through the world’s top legal bodies.

Notably, the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have so far failed to achieve their desired results. Similarly, South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is still pending. Having worked to discourage the usefulness of international law, these cases also highlight a clear reality: individual nations’ leaders must be forced to take action, not simply a court.

The Declassified-ICJP campaign seeks to push the UK government to implement the law, which is why so many are getting behind it, hoping that the pressure will finally make London do the right thing.

For its part, the British government has been doing precisely the opposite of what this new campaign demands. In fact, in a recent move, it decided to reject the entry of prominent Leftist commentators Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker. Instead of admitting in a public statement why they had done this, they instead fed the information to The Times newspaper, informing them that comments critical of Israel were the reason for refusing them entry.

A range of personalities, from journalists to activists and former politicians, have also notably been detained at British ports of entry, under the Terrorism Act, all because of their outspoken stances on the issue of Palestine and criticism of the Israeli government. Palestine Action was even designated a terrorist organization for launching a campaign to directly confront weapons manufacturers in the UK that are affiliated with Israel’s biggest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, or supply the Israeli military directly.

Journalists like Asa Winstanley of the Electronic Intifada and activists such as Sarah Wilkinson were even subjected to police raids on their personal homes. These are not isolated cases and there have been numerous others since the beginning of the genocide.

All of this begs the question: If the free speech rights of Britons and foreign visitors to the UK are nullified when it comes to criticizing and voicing discontent at Israeli war crimes, does the British government care for domestic legislation, let alone international law? Or, is there simply an exception to Israel that puts its officials and citizens outside of the law altogether?

Take, for example, the infamous case of Shemema Begum, a British national who was brainwashed by Daesh (IS) propaganda and headed to Syria in order to become part of the group as a bride to a fighter. Begum had made this decision at 15 years of age, and as a result, the British State revoked her citizenship, refusing her entry back into the country.

Keep in mind that Begum never committed any provable war crime, much less engaged in committing genocide; she was also a young teenager when she made this decision. The UK government, however, made the determination that she was unfit for her British passport and could no longer return to the nation of her birth.

A few years after this was all decided in court and the British Home Office fought its case – after presenting its arguments as both legally binding and moral principles – there are now some 2,000 Britons who were adults who made the decision to actively fight in a military, committing what the ICJ has ruled a plausible genocide.

Thousands of UK citizens who served in a military commanded by men who now have war crimes arrest warrants issued for them, yet not a single one has been stripped of their citizenship, there is no evidence that a single one of them has even been questioned at a port of entry, let alone investigated. All of this again points back to the question of double standards and whether the UK considers Israelis as above both domestic and international law.

If the answer is that Israel is simply above the law, then this sets a dangerous precedent and poses a major security threat inside the UK and outside its borders also. If London believes that the law doesn’t apply to Israel, then its legal system loses all legitimacy in the eyes of the public and downgrades the status of the nation in the international order.


– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on The UK Government Will Persecute Those Vocal about Israel, But Not War Criminals

From Evo Morales to Rodrigo Paz: Bolivia’s Dramatic Shift Toward Israel

Israel finds another South American country to prey on

José Niño Unfiltered | June 3, 2026

Bolivia is experiencing its deepest political and economic crisis in four decades, and the responses from Washington and Jerusalem have been striking in their similarity. Since early May 2026, a massive wave of protests led by Indigenous communities, miners, peasant unions, transport workers, teachers, and supporters of former leftist president Evo Morales has swept the country. Dozens of roadblocks have shut down highways, cutting off food, fuel, and medical supplies to cities. Protesters are demanding the resignation of President Rodrigo Paz, a center-right figure who took office on November 8, 2025, ending nearly 20 years of rule by the left-wing Movement for Socialism.

The protesters’ core grievances include fuel shortages, year-on-year inflation exceeding 20 percent at the time Paz took office, austerity cuts including the elimination of state fuel subsidies under Supreme Decree 5503—which practically doubled the consumer cost of fuel overnight—and a land classification law, Law 1720, seen as threatening Indigenous land rights by making farmland eligible for seizure as loan collateral. Although the government repealed Law 1720 on May 13, protests have continued to spread, with demands expanding to include wage increases, labor reform, and Paz’s resignation

The Paz government came to power on a platform of re-aligning Bolivia with the United States and Western financial institutions. Within weeks of taking office, Paz met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and signed a deal restoring Bolivia’s full diplomatic relations with Israel, which had been severed in 2023 under the prior MAS government to protest the war in Gaza. He also secured a $3.1 billion loan from a Latin American development bank, invited the DEA back into Bolivia, and joined Trump’s “Shield of the Americas” security coalition alongside Argentina, El Salvador, and a dozen other right-leaning governments.

When the protests erupted in mid-May, both the United States and Israel issued statements that journalist Max Blumenthal flagged for their remarkable similarity. Blumenthal, editor at The Grayzone, tweeted that “The US and Israel have released strikingly similar statements on Bolivia. It’s almost like they’re one single consolidated regime mobilized in defense of global oligarchy, and against indigenous resistance.”

The Israel Foreign Ministry posted on May 17 that “The State of Israel expresses its support and solidarity with the government and people of Bolivia, as well as with President @Rodrigo_PazP, who was legitimately and democratically elected. We are following with concern the humanitarian situation caused by the riots and road blockades, which have led to shortages of food and essential supplies for the population. Israel supports the efforts of the Bolivian government to promote dialogue and preserve democratic stability in the country.”

Two days later, the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs tweeted that “In Bolivia, riots and blockades have created a humanitarian crisis, causing shortages of medicine, food and fuel. We condemn all actions aimed at destabilizing the democratically elected government of @Rodrigo_PazP and support it in its efforts to restore order for the peace, security, and stability of the Bolivian people.”

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau called the protests a “coup d’état” and said “Make no mistake about it. This is a coup that’s being financed by this unholy alliance between politics and organized crime throughout the region.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that “the United States stands squarely in support of Bolivia’s legitimate constitutional government. We will not allow criminals and drug traffickers to overthrow democratically elected leaders in our hemisphere.”

The coordinated messaging reflects a deeper history between Bolivia and Israel that has oscillated dramatically over eight decades.

Bolivia’s relationship with Israel began on a supportive note. On November 29, 1947, Bolivia voted yes on UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Plan that paved the way for Israel’s declaration of statehood. Bolivia formally recognized Israeli sovereignty in 1949, and the two countries established diplomatic relations in 1950. This support was not accidental. Bolivia had served as a sanctuary for thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing Europe throughout the 1930s and 1940s. German-Jewish mine owner Maurice Hochschild used his relationship with Bolivian President Germán Busch to facilitate visas for German and Austrian Jewish refugees, and founded the Sociedad de Protección a los Inmigrantes Israelitas (SOPRO) to support refugee integration. An estimated 7,000 Jewish immigrants had settled in Bolivia by the end of 1942, per the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Jewish community established the Círculo Israelita de Bolivia in La Paz, which became the highest synagogue on earth at nearly 12,000 feet above sea level.

For the first five decades of their formal relationship, Bolivia and Israel maintained stable and cooperative ties. Israel’s development cooperation agency MASHAV, founded in 1958, extended its agricultural technology transfers, water management expertise, and capacity-building programs to countries across Latin America and Africa. A bilateral visa waiver established in 1972 allowed Israeli citizens to travel to Bolivia without a visa. Every year, some 20,000 IDF veterans discharged from compulsory military service headed to South America to decompress, and Bolivia—with its dramatic Andean landscapes, the Salar de Uyuni salt flats, the Amazon basin, and the Yungas jungle—became one of the most popular destinations on the circuit.

Everything changed with the election of Evo Morales in 2006. Morales, Bolivia’s first Indigenous president, built his foreign policy around a fierce anti-imperialist agenda that treated U.S. foreign policy and Israeli military actions as twin expressions of the same Jewish supremacist system of dominance engulfing most of the globe. He rapidly aligned Bolivia with the ALBA bloc, which included Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Venezuela, with Iran as an outside partner.

The first direct rupture came on January 14, 2009, during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead. Morales announced Bolivia’s severing of diplomatic relations, calling Israel’s treatment of Palestinians “a genocide.” He demanded that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert face criminal charges and called for Israeli President Shimon Peres to be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize.

The relationship deteriorated further during Israel’s 2014 Gaza War. Morales declared Israel a “terrorist state” and announced the cancellation of the 1972 visa waiver agreement. “We are declaring [Israel] a terrorist state,” Morales stated during a talk with a group of educators in the city of Cochabamba. Earlier that month, he had filed a request with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to prosecute Israel for crimes against humanity.

The Morales years also introduced a significant covert dimension to Bolivia’s estrangement from Israel. As Bolivia aligned with Iran, the country became what U.S. intelligence officials described as a “secondary node” for Iranian intelligence operations in the region. Morales’s disputed reelection in October 2019 triggered mass protests, and he resigned under pressure from the military on November 10, 2019, after Bolivia’s military commander publicly called on him to step down. The interim government led by Jeanine Áñez, who assumed the presidency on November 12, immediately began reversing Morales-era foreign policies. Within days, Foreign Minister Karen Longaric announced the expulsion of Venezuelan diplomatic staff and Bolivia’s withdrawal from ALBA, and the government joined the Lima Group. Bolivia severed ties with Cuba on January 24, 2020, becoming the only country in the Western Hemisphere without diplomatic relations with Havana. On November 27, 2019, just two weeks after Morales’s resignation, Bolivian Foreign Minister Karen Longaric announced the restoration of diplomatic relations with Israel.

Bolivia’s October 2020 elections brought the Movement for Socialism back to power under Luis Arce. The most provocative development of the Arce period came in July 2023 when Bolivia’s Defense Minister Edmundo Novillo traveled to Tehran and signed a security and defense memorandum of understanding with Iranian Defense Minister Mohammad Reza Ashtiani. The agreement included provisions for Iranian military drones to be deployed in Bolivia for ostensible border security and counternarcotics purposes.

Following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli military campaign in Gaza, the Arce government moved quickly. On October 31, 2023, Bolivia became the first Latin American country to sever diplomatic relations with Israel over the latest Gaza war. Deputy Foreign Minister Freddy Mamani announced the decision “in repudiation and condemnation of the aggressive and disproportionate Israeli military offensive taking place in the Gaza Strip.” Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lior Haiat called the move “a surrender to terrorism and the Ayatollah regime in Iran.”

In October 2024, Bolivia filed a Declaration of Intervention at the International Court of Justice, joining South Africa’s case alleging Israeli genocide in Gaza. Bolivia’s October 2025 presidential election produced a watershed result. Rodrigo Paz won with more than 54 percent of the vote, the first time in 20 years that no MAS candidate won the presidency. Paz, son of a former Bolivian president and educated in the United States, campaigned under the slogan “Capitalism for all.” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar signaled Israel’s desire to mend bilateral relations with Paz in the days following his election.

On December 10, 2025, Sa’ar and Bolivian Foreign Minister Fernando Aramayo signed a joint declaration in Washington restoring full diplomatic ties. Bolivia’s Foreign Ministry stated that “Bolivia and Israel fully restore their diplomatic relations and open a new stage of strategic cooperation.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Paz directly on December 10, 2025. The two “agreed on the need to promote cooperation in various fields, with an emphasis on security, and to restore the vibrant tourism of many Israeli travelers” to Bolivia, per an Israeli government readout. Netanyahu personally invited Paz to visit Israel.

Israel’s most significant strategic interest in Bolivia is its lithium. Bolivia holds the world’s largest proven lithium reserves, an estimated 23 million metric tons representing approximately 20 percent of global reserves. Under Morales and Arce, Bolivia struck lithium deals primarily with China and Russia. Bolivia’s rapprochement with Israel places it within the orbit of the Isaac Accords, a framework modeled on the Abraham Accords and championed by Argentine President Javier Milei. The Genesis Prize Foundation celebrated Paz’s election as “a new opportunity for friendship and closer ties with Israel.” The unusually strong expression of solidarity with Paz’s government amid the May 2026 protests represents a level of public backing rarely extended to a foreign head of state.

As Bolivia is drawn into the web of the Isaac Accords, the pattern becomes unmistakable. Israel’s intervention in Bolivian politics is a calculated maneuver to secure lithium and dismantle indigenous resistance to naked forms of resource extraction. When we stop viewing Israel as just another nation and start recognizing it as an imperial entity, things become clearer. This is a transnational power structure that advances the interests of a Jewish supremacist elite at the expense of every nation in its path. Bolivia is simply the latest frontline in the expansion of this parasitic endeavor.

June 3, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Comments Off on From Evo Morales to Rodrigo Paz: Bolivia’s Dramatic Shift Toward Israel

Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda

By Andi Olluri | Al Mayadeen | June 1, 2026

Andi Olluri argues that the Gaza “peace process” serves as a propaganda framework that legitimizes Israeli occupation and Western policy objectives while presenting Palestinian surrender and disarmament as prerequisites for peace. Media and political elites, he contends, have systematically reframed ongoing violence, occupation, and collective punishment as diplomacy, while marginalizing Palestinian proposals for political settlement.

In Gaza, “Israel” has effectively been working toward the goal they have had since day one, namely “not fighting a terrorist organization but against the State of Gaza”, “not provide the other side with any capability that prolongs its life” and thus effectively fight against “not only Hamas fighters with weapons”, but “the entire Gaza population”, quoting Giora Eiland, former Israeli head of the National Security Council.

This has been the consistent goal ever since, stated over and over again by the top Israeli leadership. “We are deep inside Gaza and will never leave all of Gaza – that will not happen,” in the words of War Minister Israel Katz. In short, “full conquest of the Gaza Strip, to establish Israeli control over all the territory of the Strip”, as the government explained in April.

The stage for illegal “full conquest of the Gaza strip” was set last fall, when the international community approved of the US Board of Peace (BoP) – Orwell would have loved that one. This brilliant propaganda coup was achieved after we killed at least 200,000 Palestinians, according to Western intelligence estimates, and physically eradicated the country in a war with the specific purpose of ethnic cleansing, and with sadism that would have put Pol Pot to shame.

The background happens to be quite revealing, and is of course completely forgotten now – minimal reporting as there was to begin with. Western designs and plans to control Gaza were basically declared to be tantamount to lawless aggression. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the West is “under obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal” occupation and attack. The ICJ also ordered to immediately halt “financial, economic, military or technological aid to the State of Israel, and punish such violations” and that Western terror states must pay “full reparation” to the Palestinians.

Naturally, then, the West immediately sent tens of billions in military aid to “Israel” – and engaged directly in military operations and occupation administration, as Western intellectuals marched further with self-adulation of our service for international law and democracy. The story was, incidentally, similar to when the International Criminal Court (ICC) declared an arrest warrant for Western-supported Israeli terrorists and war criminals. In that case, the US, Britain, and the EU simply destroyed the court (once a darling, when it went after Russia) with crushing sanctions, outright threats, and carefully orchestrated smear campaigns.

Western leaders were refreshingly honest, and noted that their official stance here is that the court “is for Africa and thugs like Putin,” according to Senator Lindsey Graham. That is entirely correct: we must pretend to care about international law when condemning official enemies, and make sure to keep quiet when we conduct global gangsterism.

This entire episode was plainly too embarrassing to be remembered, and had to be censored into total historical oblivion – an easy task for the Western doctrinal system. On full display is the utter servility and cowardice of the media and intellectual classes, as they joined their state in its rampage against international law, and defenseless people withstanding Western aggression.

Well, after all of these triumphs, the BoP could be created. Its founding documents – as confirmed by the subsequent events, too – made clear that Gaza has no right to self-defense, and that Israeli-American occupation could continue and in fact expand. Thus, the very purpose of the BoP was to enable maintaining the situation created by “Israel’s” illegal attack, in defiance of the world court – and to the deafening praise and awe of the media.

Thus, Dennis Ross, senior US Middle East diplomat and apologist for Western atrocities, celebrated that the BoP “is reason for hope,” and that the “constellation of force” consisting of “a powerful United States” with its Israeli and Arab satellites “are also cause for optimism.” Not everything is so glitzy, however, and there is a problem: “Hamas … could try to violate the cease-fire’s various terms”. If “commitment from Hamas” can be ensured, then we will be able to enforce the “peace plan”, to quote the European Council on Foreign Relations, the leading European policy forum.

Slaughtering hundreds of thousands in an illegal war of extermination, starving the population, destroying the courts that came in our way is no issue of concern and merits not one phrase in the journals of opinion or the public debate. Only “hope” and admiration of our “force” is permissible after a successful genocide.

The fact that we can even talk of a “peace plan” organized by the attackers ethnically cleansing the victim is a logical impossibility in itself. It is comparable only to, say, the Nazi press being filled with “optimism” as the Führer implements his “peace plan” after he successfully conquered Norway. The plain absurdity of it all is too spectacular even to talk about, but cannot be perceived in a society as deeply indoctrinated as ours. Stating the simple truth is simply incomprehensible, comparable to speaking a foreign language or imagining a “round square”.

We read, without anyone raising even an eyebrow, that this is the “best chance .. in decades to create a Gaza controlled not by Hamas or Israel, but by its people” (a total lie, of course). “For the first time in a long while, there are some bright lights in Gaza”, and therefore “any sensible person should wish success for the Board of Peace”, as liberal Washington Post’s David Ignatius put it. If this can be achieved through crushing the indigenous resistance, Hamas, then “that would be a historic feat indeed” – to use the words of Cambridge’s Chair of International Law professor Marc Weller, illustrating his contempt for court orders and international law.

The “best chance” for a free Gaza, then, is not to stop the attack, occupation and then colonization, followed by reparations for this crime of this century. Or perhaps to follow the orders of the world court, which would in fact mandate all of these things. Rather, it is to carry out this “war of extermination: the indiscriminate, unrestrained, cruel, and criminal killing of civilians” as the top Israeli political echelon itself describes it, and then impose a capitulation ultimatum on the population that has not yet been killed and starved to death. Only then can we celebrate the “bright lights in Gaza”.

We witness with clarity the utter irrelevance and disregard for concepts such as illegal aggression, mass slaughter, and international law among Western intellectuals. This is required for anybody wishing to be regarded as a respected intellectual, be granted a nice law professorship at an elite university or gain access to the media; otherwise you cannot be part of the “debate”.

Well, fast forward to today. The dear Leader declared that “peace” had been achieved and that we ought to look away, and naturally loyal media dutifully followed order. Careful studies showed that Western media coverage of Gaza then immediately dropped, while daily Israeli massacres in Gaza (around 1,000 murdered and more than 2,500 wounded as of writing) continue since November 2025, virtually without a whisper of criticism.

The only issue of concern is whether Hamas will “agree” to disarm or not. Translating that from Newspeak to English: will our victim agree to give up all resistance to our invasion and occupation plans, thus alone sticking to our fraudulent version of the accords, as we violate their terms every day? That is the meaning of the entire “debate” about Hamas’ disarmament when you put the euphemisms aside.

In short: the whole purpose of the fraudulent “ceasefire” designed to lower Hamas’ guard is thus to force the Palestinians to be “implementers of the decisions of others,” leaving them “once again not at all the masters of their own fate” (UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths), and thus “prevent a Palestinian state,” according to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

In a terrorist culture such as this, in which a leading doctrine is that no one has the right to defend themselves from Western attack, it is natural that we are furious and concerned at the slightest sign that the Palestinians should try to defend themselves instead of capitulating. On this issue, near 100% consensus reigns throughout the entire political spectrum.

For example, former Middle East correspondent for AP, Dan Perry, berated that “Hamas is making a mockery of … Trump’s plan” – not the US and “Israel”, of course. The Palestinians, then, “are still trapped under the boot of a jihadist mafia that destroyed their lives” – again, not the Western genocide and war of extermination – and therefore “Israel will never agree to a Palestinian state as long as Hamas remains an armed militia with any prospect of again seizing control.”

Since everybody has already internalized the understanding that no one has the right to self-defense against Western attack, it is pointless to ask why Hamas and the Palestinians must accept the existence of a Western-armed proxy state occupying it and launching constant wars of aggression against the civilian population, deemed illegal by the world court. Or, why Palestinians must accept the attacker’s murderous “plan” that they have no right to dictate. Or, why “Israel” and the West, the aggressors, should not be held to the same standard as the occupied and attacked, and be forced to disarm as they launch multiple wars of aggression in the region. These suggestions are not denied; rather they cannot be thought in the minds of Western elites – a considerable achievement in the history of brainwashing.

Consider Dennis Ross and David Makovsky – leading foreign policy “experts” and senior Obama Middle East advisors. “The success” of the “peace plan” will “depend on the disarmament of Hamas,” they said, warning that “if Hamas chooses not to disarm and Gaza does not reunify, the future looks bleak.” Similarly, New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman was worried: “Do I think it [disarming Hamas] would be easy? Of course not. Do I think the Palestinians have an aged, corrupt leadership that needs replacing, energizing and reforming — and have plenty to answer for themselves for their own plight? I sure do.” Therefore, “disarmament” must be forced – perhaps without Netanyahu – so that the West may “consolidate any strategic gains.”

Similarly, Elliot Abrams and his colleagues were worried that the Palestinian Resistance “has largely refused to give up its weapons … As a result, the IDF cannot pull out of Gaza.” Furthermore, “there is no easy way to keep Hamas down” since “Hamas, after all, is as unyielding and belligerent as terrorist groups come.”

Putting aside the factual falsifications, let’s consider this logic, which everyone regards as correct. By their own standard, then, Palestine – and a host of others being attacked by the West, such as Iran, Yemen, Lebanon – would have to invade “Israel”, kill (in proportion) 1 million Israelis, physically annihilate most of “Israel”, occupy it and demand that the population capitulates, as well as drop bombs on its financiers in Washington, Brussels, London and so on. “Israel, after all, is as unyielding and belligerent as terrorist” states “come”, and it has “largely refused to give up its weapons” and stop its aggression in accordance with the ICJ orders, so as a result, Hamas cannot pull out of Tel Aviv.

But none of this can be discussed – surely not in any publication that can reach a general audience – since the level of fanaticism, distortion and genocidal frenzy is much too high among Western political and cultural circles.

In other words, only tactical debate over how we best crush our victim and ensure that they will not be able to fight back is permitted to be printed. It is far beyond conceivable that there would be any tactical debate anywhere over how the Palestinians – the party being attacked and ethnically cleansed – could best defeat “Israel” and its Western masters, and that we should send them military aid to do so.

Consider, for example, the leading Middle East “specialist” Julie Norman. She explained that it “was always likely to be difficult to move from the initial ceasefire to the second phase of US President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan.” Reason? Primarily because “Hamas rejected a disarmament plan” by “the US-led ‘Board of Peace’.” Therefore, “there is no peace process on the horizon, nor is there a political pathway available to Hamas if the group lays down its arms.”

In short, “Gaza will also need to deradicalize” and have their weapons removed – only then can “sustainable peace” and the “peace process” be fulfilled (The Atlantic ).

The “peace process” is a funny word used in political discourse. It simply means whatever the West happens to be saying. If “Israel”, Washington, the EU have physically destroyed a country, killed a tenth of the population (almost all civilians), blocked the ICJ orders to stop the illegal occupation, vetoed all diplomatic resolutions at the UN Security Council (UNSC), and then demanded that those left alive in Gaza unconditionally surrender – then that is the “peace process” per definition.

Also, notice that everyone takes for granted as a matter of fact that Hamas has not been willing to accept a political resolution through diplomacy. That fairy tale – which is a total inversion of reality and nurtured in the media – is a remarkable propaganda coup when we look at the actual facts. Unfortunately, the actual historical record is almost uncorrectable thanks to the dishonesty of the Western media and intellectual classes, which have done an impressive job at distorting the plain facts, as they must.

In the real world, the US and “Israel”, with their enthusiastic European sponsors, have rejected all proposals from Hamas, the UNSC, the Arab League, and so on, all of them in fact absurdly accommodating to “Israel” and sometimes going beyond the maximalist and rejectionist claims made even by the Israelis. For the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to the history spanning one year prior to today, but this has been constant throughout the entire war of extermination in Gaza.

During the spring of 2025, Hamas agreed to the massive reconstruction plan offered by the Arab League, which stipulated that Hamas leave power and be replaced by a technocratic “committee” – which was immediately rejected by the US and “Israel” since it obstructed “ethnic cleansing” of Gazan Palestinians “under any pretext or justification.”

Hamas offered a separate proposal to “end the war in Gaza” with a five-year truce, as well as to “free all hostages at once.”

In September, Hamas repeated its “readiness for a comprehensive deal” releasing “all” captives and ceding all power over Gaza “immediately”, thus “ending war”, in exchange for an end to the Israeli occupation.

In December, Hamas offered “a guarantee that no weapon will be fired from Gaza against Israel, and it will do that by burying the weapons”, and a total truce “for seven to ten years between Gaza and Israel, and Hamas will not use the weapons.”

This month, May, the Palestinian factions, including Hamas, “called for negotiations over the disarmament of Hamas and other groups to be tied to the granting of political rights for the Palestinian people ‘within the national framework,’ as well as to commitments that the people of Gaza would no longer be killed.”

All of these proposals were flatly rejected by the West and “Israel” (thus automatically banning it from history and mainstream reporting too), offering in return only maximalistic demands that we know the Palestinians cannot accept. That is, disarmament and defenselessness before they are given any guarantees in return. They must trust in Washington and Tel Aviv to engage in good behavior and abide by treaties and agreements. Western propagandists cannot comprehend why the Palestinians do not happily agree to this sign of our generosity and humanism, having swallowed their own lofty and embarrassing rhetoric about “peace offers.” But victims have no difficulty in seeing right through the reality which it tries to mask, having witnessed previous “cease-fires” broken by Israel in Gaza, “diplomacy” in Iran, Lebanon and so on.

In fact, Hamas’ compliant stance in diplomatic negotiations is not only infinitely more forthcoming than “Israel’s”, but perhaps unique in modern history. Faced with a lawless aggressor and the world’s superpower waging a war with the intent of – and in practice carrying out – physical eradication of its country, Hamas is willing to guarantee its security, agree to have no means of self-defense against future attack and so on. They do not even demand that “Israel” give back the lands it illegally occupies, nor that it pays reparations, which is the minimum required action as determined by the ICJ court ruling. Most shockingly, Hamas does not even demand that the US and “Israel”, the aggressors that constantly disregard agreements and treaties and attack multiple countries in the region, disarm themselves. That would be the bare minimum any sane person observing the situation would require.

The situation is clear: Hamas’ readiness to accommodate in diplomatic negotiations is – as far as I know – unique in modern political history, agreeing to concessions more far-reaching than, say, the Versailles Treaty. And they cannot demand, and so they do not demand, even the minimal rights they would have in any honest negotiation with the US and “Israel”, since the Western states would never tolerate even the thought of it.

But these trivially obvious truths, and the vast documentation to illustrate them, cannot be mentioned in a cultural climate as ours, where the commitment to terror and lawlessness flourishes and where the population must remain carefully protected from the dangerous realm of fact.

In short, “Israel has effectively been given a licence to torture Palestinians” and continue their war of extermination, “because most of your governments, your ministers, have allowed it”, as UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese put it (the US sanctioned her).

It is through such propaganda techniques and distortions discussed here, that the media and intellectuals have presented the government’s necessary propaganda version of the “peace process.” They have thereby “allowed” for our governments to divert attention away from the basic reality of what is happening, as they exterminate Gaza under the thin facade of “diplomacy.”

June 2, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on Capitulate or Die: The Gaza ‘peace process’ and Western propaganda

Hungarian PM Magyar claims that he has obtained billions in EU funds, but what strings are attached?

Orbán is skeptical, writing: “Free cheese is only in the mousetrap”

Remix News | June 1, 2026

Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar recently traveled to Brussels to discuss the country’s frozen EU funds, which have reportedly been withheld illegally up until now. Despite Magyar’s claims that the money would be released simply in return for fighting corruption, various media outlets are reporting there is much more to the deal than that, including indications that Hungary will have to implement the EU’s demand for migrant quotas under the Migrant Pact one way or another.

“Based on today’s meeting, €16.4 billion euros have been unlocked,” the Hungarian prime minister told the press after Friday’s meeting. However, that is also not true, as there are still many conditions the country must meet before the money is made available.

Officials from the EU commission were far more cautious with their description of the deal, saying the broad strokes of the deal had been determined, but conditions must still be met.

“We haven’t agreed to disburse the funds,” a senior commission official told Politico. “We’ve agreed on a list of commitments which, if completed by Aug. 31, will trigger the payment of those funds.”

In addition, inquiries made by journalists yielded no official details regarding the specific terms of the pact.

The announcement has sparked widespread curiosity regarding the concessions made by the Hungarian government, given that EU officials previously stated funds would only be released following specific structural reforms.

In fact, after the deal was announced, former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán publicly demanded transparency from Magyar regarding the negotiations.

“We call on the Prime Minister to immediately publish the details of the von der Leyen-Péter Magyar pact. What did he sell to Brussels for Hungarian interests? Free cheese is only in the mousetrap,” Orbán wrote in his post.

German media outlet Tichys Einblick appears to be highly skeptical about the deal, which discussed the questions posed by journalists after the deal was allegedly reached.

“The very second question [from journalists] concerned migration policy: Will Hungary implement the Migration Pact? Ursula von der Leyen was the first to reply: Of course, people had talked about the migration pact, it was an agreement that affected and bound all Member States equally, and there had been discussion about how to get Hungary to implement this pact too. It took her a minute to answer that.

Then came Péter Magyar, who began by saying that he too would now answer ‘briefly.’ It took him five times longer than the President of the Commission, of course, and he squirmed around a clear answer. With remarkable verbal slalom technique, he explained that the migration pact was not a big deal, that it did not mean allowing migrants into the country, that one could also contribute in other ways, such as with money or contributions to border protection. (The EU had never accepted that Orbán’s border fence was Hungary’s contribution to European migration policy).

The migration pact, Magyar continued, came about in Orbán’s time, thanks to Orbán, so to speak. In summary: The migration pact is not bad, insofar as it is bad, that is Orbán’s fault, and Hungary… Well, you had to read between the lines for that, but it was actually clear from the combined statements of the two: The Magyar government will implement the migration pact in one way or another.”

While Magyar is claiming the sole condition for securing the over €16 billion was simply stamping out corruption, clearly there could be other conditions attached.

During the press conference, Ursula von der Leyen commended the swift formation of the new Hungarian government and its proactive approach, indicating a willingness to maintain this momentum in future consultations.

Questions were also raised concerning the rule of law, an area where the commission has historically demanded strict compliance before releasing frozen assets. This financial issue remains politically sensitive for the leadership in Brussels. Von der Leyen previously faced intense criticism for her handling of Poland, where funds were released to the former right-wing government before required reforms were fully executed. Furthermore, Hungary is operating under a compressed timeframe to secure the capital.

Time constraints are also a pressing factor for Ursula von der Leyen, who faces domestic political risks and previous votes of no confidence. The broader rise of the European right wing, fueled by dissatisfaction with centralized EU bureaucracy, intensifies the pressure. Any perceived mishandling or bureaucratic delay in delivering the agreed funds could draw heavy criticism from both the left and an electorate increasingly fatigued by centralized governance.

Consequently, the Commission President must balance projecting a firm stance on institutional expectations to her political base while supporting the new Hungarian prime minister, whom she visibly favors. This urgency, however, introduces systemic risks. The European Commission was asked if a rushed implementation of reforms might precipitate a constitutional crisis, mirroring events in Poland where Prime Minister Donald Tusk utilized legally questionable measures to consolidate power and disable opponents. At the time of publication, the chief spokesperson for the European Commission had not provided a response to these inquiries to Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.

June 1, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , | Comments Off on Hungarian PM Magyar claims that he has obtained billions in EU funds, but what strings are attached?

AIPAC concealing support for candidates as its brand becomes ‘toxic’ in Democratic primaries: Report

Press TV – June 1, 2026

The pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC has adopted fundraising methods that obscure its role in directing campaign contributions to political candidates, as support for the Israeli regime declines among Democratic voters in the United States, according to a report.

AIPAC has traditionally highlighted its success in helping elect candidates committed to supporting the regime, including backing billions of dollars in annual US military aid.

Reporting on Sunday, however, Israeli paper Ha’aretz said growing criticism of the regime among Democratic voters has made public association with the lobbying group a potential political liability.

“But as the Israel-boosting organization’s brand becomes toxic in many Democratic primaries, [AIPAC] has adopted a new fundraising method that hides its involvement in steering funds to favored contenders,” it wrote.

According to the report, AIPAC has encouraged donors to contribute through online portals it controls that direct funds straight to candidates’ campaigns, thereby “erasing AIPAC’s fingerprints in public data.”

The tactic was reportedly used in Michigan, where Congresswoman Haley Stevens is running for an open Senate seat against Abdul el-Sayed. During the campaign, el-Sayed criticized Stevens for accepting AIPAC-linked funding, saying the money had “bought” her support for continued US military aid for Tel Aviv.

The Detroit News reported that AIPAC raised several million dollars for Stevens through a fundraising page hosted on its website. Ha’aretz also said the group previously emailed donors directing them to candidate-specific donation pages on the “Pro-Israel Network” website rather than to AIPAC itself.

The report added that these portals allow AIPAC to gather donor information and share it with candidates, while working on their behalf and “shielding” the process from public view. According to Ha’aretz, the strategy helps candidates avoid criticism for accepting AIPAC support at a time when only 13 percent of Democratic voters reportedly view the regime favorably.

In March, Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego said, “I wouldn’t take AIPAC money because you have to basically be endorsing what’s happening right now, and it’s not good.”

Ha’aretz also reported that AIPAC has increasingly operated through political action committees whose names do not reference either the organization or the regime.

The issue has also surfaced among Republicans. Earlier this month, AIPAC spent $16 million in efforts to defeat Representative Thomas Massie, a prominent critic of Tel Aviv, in a Republican primary. Following his defeat, Massie said, “It’s turned into a referendum on whether Israel gets to buy seats in Congress.”

June 1, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on AIPAC concealing support for candidates as its brand becomes ‘toxic’ in Democratic primaries: Report