‘Hate speech’ laws are not simply censorship. Their deeper purpose is to terminate equality under the law, so the normative indigenous members of a nation are made to feel like an alien underclass.
Pawns Take Out the Kings & Queens
Those who have doubted that Western Civilisation is in the process of being dismantled are about to receive their definitive reply. The supposedly ‘unavoidable’ fire-brigade damage inflicted on our freedoms in the Spring of 2020, which has never been repaired or reversed, is about to be consolidated. The shout of ‘Emergency!’ was at that time sufficient to quiet most objections and provide reassurance that this was indeed a temporary imposition. Now, two and a half years later, the maintenance vans pull up and the workmen start to scrutinise the damage done by the firemen — the windows shattered by their axes, the shards of glass still protruding dangerously upwards, the splintered frames. As we look on expectantly, imagining that they are about to replace the broken glass and repair the damaged frames, another convoy of vehicles pulls up, this time bearing men with sledgehammers, crowbars, pneumatic drills, wonder bars, angle grinders — and, bringing up the rear, a scammel transporter with a large crane and wrecking ball. It becomes clear that what the workmen have in mind is not reconstruction, but demolition.
Thus, the ‘emergency’ is signalled as over and the Era of Permanent Despotism begins. Now we move into the world predicted two years ago by one Larry Fink, the CEO of the world’s leading assets management behemoth, BlackRock: ‘Markets don’t like uncertainty. Markets like, actually . . . totalitarian governments, where you have an understanding of what’s out there, and obviously the whole dimension is changing now with a democratisation of countries. And democracies are very messy.’
Since those fateful days in the Spring of 2020, this was always going to happen, being baked into the lockdown cake. This is because, if an ‘authority’ suspends supposedly inalienable rights and freedoms, and then, after a long period of withholding them without objectively discernible justification, trickles their simulacrum back out under the rubric of concession, it soon becomes clear that these rights and freedoms have ceased to exist. After that, it is only a matter of carting the husks away.
The portents of this were present from the beginning — in the absence of appropriate responses from media and ‘civil liberties’ bodies, in the strange mutism that gripped the familiar voices of objection and dissent — the poets, artists, philosophers — in the vacuum created by dogs not barking. It is like — as we have so often repeated in mutating sentences to ourselves, as though trying to hit upon a new formulation that would magic some new apprehension of the meaning of things — we have awoken in a world after a long, oblivious sleep, to find that the world has not merely changed but turned into something like the opposite of what we recall from the moments before unconsciousness. Out in the street in search of clues as to the dateline, we make eye-contact in the hope of encountering someone as troubled by what we are finding as ourselves, but receive back merely blank, indifferent stares. The New Normal is already normalised, and our memories of freedom and reason are as though increasingly unreliable, if not actual signs of derangement.
On mature reflection, it becomes clear that the era of freedom was not a stage along the way to Utopia, but a brief experiment that has now been abandoned as a failure. Only certain elements of the Freedom Revolution have been deemed worthy of retention: the right of the richest to stay rich; the rights of nonces and perverts to have their evil ways with children; the right of those claiming victimhood to plunder the reserves of those entitled to make no such claim. All this was set out in advance in the loosely framed prospectus known as Cultural Marxism. Even those who took the warnings on this score seriously did not take them seriously enough, for this new formula for human co-existence was in deadly earnest, whereas we thought it had something to do with the passing disgruntlement of the young or the ideological fancy of some of life’s losers. Now, or at least soon, we shall begin to see that it is all meant to be permanent and, once accomplished, irreversible.
Each former nation and its former citizens will soon discover their own concrete examples of what is a universal project of reversing the presumed gains made within Western civilisation going back to the Magna Carta. Some 30 months ago, we passed the terminus of the period of personal freedom, barely even remarking the moment, which occurred on perhaps an evening in late February or early March of 2020. Since then, we may have noticed in fits and starts that most of what we had always taken for granted about our terms of existence in the public world had changed utterly. The assumption that, as free people, we had the right to walk unfettered down a road or street, answerable to no one; or speak our minds on matters that struck discordantly our sense of justice or truth; or speak casually using possessive adjectives like ‘my’ or ‘our’ in respect of a house or a country — all this was coming to an end. In the interval between the initial sledgehammer blows to the windows of our liberty and the arrival of the demolition crews to take down the remnants of Western civilisation, we had gotten accustomed to being, you might say, pampered serfs, a condition that perhaps had some residual harmonic in the tom-tom rifts rippling through from back the ancestral line. We were ready for the next bulletin from on high. And now it has arrived, or is about to arrive, to a notice board near you, and the chief ‘takeaway’ is that the pampering is about to come to an end.
This week, in my country, Ireland, the bulletin board has overnight been posted with a new set of instructions, concerning what may be written, said or — in the first analysis — thought. It is called the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill, 2022, and relates to the issue that has become known as ‘hate speech’, which refers to the manner in which the citizenry is henceforth to be permitted to speak to and about certain named categories of ‘protected minorities’ whom we awoke not long ago to find unexpectedly in our midst. A quarter of a century ago, most of these minorities were unrepresented in our country, and no one dreamed that it might be necessary to introduce ‘hate speech’ legislation to protect the population from the various categories of ‘hate’ going around at that time. Since the turn of the millennium, however, our political class, under instructions from unseen external masters, has been diluting our population with indifferent aliens, more or less randomly selected or self-selecting, and delivered here for the purpose of sundering the claimed attachment of the Irish to the country they once thought of as ‘theirs’ — this country called ‘Ireland’. The Irish in general did not react with hostility to the newcomers, but that may have been because neither did they understand that the influence of new arrivals here was merely the first step in a much more elaborate and ominous process. This moment of the commencement of the Era of Permanent Despotism, however, brings a new dimension: the news that these outsiders are not merely hopeful newcomers, to be welcomed or tolerated or resented or embraced, but in fact the legal inheritors of what we once thought of as ‘our’ country. The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill, 2022 makes this abundantly clear: These people are not in any sense to be regarded as having come here as mendicants or aspirants, but as the legally protected instruments of a new order that essentially excludes those who were here all along.
The idea of Ireland belonging to the Irish is now legally dead — the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill, 2022 makes that quite clear. The idea of ‘my’ or ‘our’ country is dead too: It’s with O’Leary in the grave.
I confess that, having warned at some length about the dangers of the Irish manifestation of ‘hate speech’ laws — well in advance of their arrival — (see here and here),
I had lapsed into a distracted complacency at the moment of their publication in draft form last week. Bizarrely throwing myself at the mercy of jounaliars — a word I actually invented! — I read a number of media accounts that appeared to suggest that the sting of the proposals had been pulled — possibly on legal advice — and what remained was merely a reheating of existing lip service provision concerning ‘incitement to hatred’, which had barely if ever been used in its prior manifestation.
This article from the Irish Mirror, sent to me by a friend, provides an example.
Its description of the draft legislation expressly states that its primary purpose is to augment existing law with regard to crimes perceived to have an aggravating element of prejudice — or ‘hatred’ — based on, for example, race or sexual identity.
The report states:
The new Bill will create, for the first time in Ireland, specific hate crime offences.
They will be in the guise of aggravated forms of existing criminal offences where offenders are motivated by hatred of a protected characteristic such as race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity and disability.
The report, citing a Department of Justice statement, later elaborates:
‘All offences that were aggravated by a hate element will incur penalties that are higher than the ordinary form of the offense [sic], unless the penalties are already set at the maximum possible.
‘The Bill also provides that in any offence, other than the specific aggravated offences, where the Court determines that the perpetrator was motivated by prejudice in carrying out the offence, the Court shall treat that as an aggravating factor in sentencing the person.’
Even allowing for the article’s extreme tendentiousness and sensationalist mode of expression, it was hard, reading it, to see how such a measure could be any more than tedious, a nod toward multiculturalism, progressivism, et cetera, and therefore no great cause for concern. Perhaps our commentaries at the preliminary stages had had some effect? After reading the article, I responded reassuringly to what I thought my friend’s somewhat overwrought response to it, foolishly using the Mirror report as my point of reference:
In my estimation it will have no effect: The new Act is a paper tiger, which has been radically watered down from the early proposals and drafts of the Bill. This legislation requires an actual crime to have been committed, which may then be deemed to be of greater gravity by virtue of some ‘hate’ dimension. So it will only be relevant if, for example, someone assaults another person and it emerges that they were motivated by racism, or whatever. The sole area in which it might have relevance for commentators arises if the police were to engineer a situation where a crime was committed and could be linked to some utterance of a public figure. If someone beats up some nonce, for example, and offers as a defence that he was inspired to do it by Gemma O’Doherty, John Waters [et cetera]. But such prosecutions are already provided for in the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act, which has been used about half a dozen times in 33 years, and never for this purpose. It is clear that the legal advice the Government was receiving made clear that they had no constitutional basis for creating the law they were seeking to, in which someone could have someone else prosecuted for ‘hate speech’ on the basis that he or she was ‘offended’ by something that person said, even if the ‘offence’ was targeted at someone else who was not offended. This Act is a very long way from that, and is clearly a face-saving exercise intended to reassure the Combine that ‘something is being done about hate speech’, when in reality little or nothing is altered.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG! I cannot say whether the article — and others of a similar nature that I have come across — was intended as a piece of deliberate misdirection, or whether it was simply a lazy co-option of a departmental press release with perhaps a similar objective, but either way it could scarcely have been pitched at a further remoteness from the truth. Certainly the author of the article does not appear to have had a copy of the draft Bill in front of him as he wrote his prejudicial diatribe, since virtually all of the article is directed at the provisions contained in the second half of the Bill, so that he would have had to plough his way through the most radical and important elements in order to construct the article as he did. This may indeed be part of a deliberate strategy to lull the public into a false sense of complacency — insofar as the public is exercised in the matter at all, which to a high degree it is not. In any event, it briefly lulled me into something that does not flatter me. It was several more days before I came to read the draft Bill, and what I found therein rattled me to the core of my being.
********************
Having since had an opportunity to read the draft Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill, 2022, I believe it to be extremely dangerous and, in fact, capable of, in the first instance, entirely deleting what is left of public debate or discussion on a number of issues: viz, race, ‘colour’, sexuality, what is called gender, Islam, atheism, et cetera — i.e. ‘protected characteristics’, which essentially means characteristics protected under Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism — as well as, purely tokenistically, nationality, disability and ‘descent’, whatever that may be.
Essentially, the Bill identifies and lists (though mostly without defining) the qualifying ‘protected characteristics’ which entitle a person to enhanced protection from the critical opinions of others under such headings. Instead of ‘critical opinions’, however, the Bill uses the term ‘hatred’, an amorphous term that is nowhere defined other than tautologously, as follows:
‘hatred’ means hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics.
The Bill co-opts ideological definitions like ‘colour’ and ‘gender’ without defining them legally or in everyday terms. Instead it presents a series of inter-linking reiterative terms that simply assume the definitions to be already clear.
‘Gender’, for example, is ‘defined’ as follows:
‘gender’ means the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.
To the apocryphal man arrived from the Moon, this might refer to anything from hair-colour to horsepower.
In some contexts, by way of offering clarification, readers of the Bill are referred to the EU Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of November 2008, dealing with ‘combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law’. (Confirming that the Bill is, accordingly, the expression of EU policy and mandates.) However, the Framework Decision tells us very little else, its ‘definitions’ being just as tautologous as those in the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill, 2022, which lazily informs that ‘A word or expression that is used in this Act and is also used in the Framework Decision has, unless the context otherwise requires, the same meaning in this Act as it has in the Framework Decision.’
‘Hatred’, for example, is defined in the Framework Decision as follows:
‘Hatred’ shall be understood as referring to hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin.
This is in no sense a definition of ‘hatred’. In fact, it tells us nothing of what hatred is, assuming that everyone already knows. The trouble is that, when the law starts to trick around with notions that ‘everyone already knows’, we very rapidly descend into subjectivism, arbitrariness, and — yes — prejudice.
Other critical words, terms and concepts are not defined at all. The concept of ‘incitement’, for example, is nowhere spelt out as to its meaning or particularities in either the Bill or the EU Council Framework Decision. What are to be the thresholds between acceptable public discourse (said to be protected in the Bill, but never defined) and what is called ‘hatred’? Who decides, and on what basis, is never specified.
Due to the paucity of adequate definitions, the Bill, once passed, would place virtually all consideration of the relevant issues in the hands of judges — all or most of whom are likely to be in sympathy with the Cultural Marxist agenda, or at least aware of which side their bread is buttered on — or juries likely to be prejudiced by relentless, expensively-purchased propaganda and NGO agitation.
In relation to the headline ‘offence’ of ‘incitement to violence or hated to persons on account of their protected characteristics’, the Bill would in effect render unsafe any commentary at all on certain contentious issues — for example transgenderism, immigration and the activities of homosexuals and/or LGBT activists. This is because the framework of the legislation is so hastily sketched out that it would be a matter ultimately for the subjective appraisal of a judge as to whether the alleged offence constituted a ‘hate crime’ or not, requiring would-be critics of the policy or campaign in question to err on the side of extreme caution. The result would be an inevitable chilling of all commentary in these areas.
The same will apply in respect of the consequence of the section headed ‘Offence of condonation, denial or gross trivialisation of genocide, etc., against persons on account of their protected characteristics’
The introduction of such an offence would, I believe, destroy any possibility of achieving revision of established understandings of key historical events, even if new information were to become available, rendering the existing interpretations cast in stone. Indeed, it is possible that, in certain circumstances, it might open up the possibility of rendering the use of the word ‘genocide’ illegal for all usage except in respect of those formally approved prior episodes in which it is already an agreed definition (i.e. ‘events specified in Article 6 of the Rome Statute’ — issued by the International Criminal Court in Rome on July 17th, 1998). This might mean, for example, that someone describing the Covid vaccination programme as ‘genocide’, in a context in which ‘hatred’ of some individual or group covered by the ‘protected characteristics’ provision was in the mix, might find themselves on the hook under this heading also and thereby liable, on summary conviction, to a sentence of up to 12 months, or, in the case of convictions on indictment, a sentence of five years imprisonment.
The offence of incitement would mean, in effect, that anyone who, in seeking to comment on certain controversial matters, risked ignoring the new underfoot conditions might be subject to prosecution on foot of the actions of random or unknown individuals which had simply been associated by the prosecutorial authorities or some (not necessarily implicated) complainant with some statement of that person at any time in the past. The connection could be made subjectively and would only need to satisfy a test of ‘reasonableness’, whatever that might mean.
It also seems that someone could be convicted under this legislation for simply possessing material likely to incite hatred — for example, a book by an author — such as Douglas Murray’s books about mass immigration and Woke insanity, for example — who is critical of issues implicating individuals or groups with ‘protected characteristics’.
The relevant section here specifies that a person shall be guilty of an offence of inciting violence or hatred if he/she ‘prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics with a view to the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public, whether by himself or herself or another person . . . or being reckless as to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited.’ It shall be a defence to plead that the material was purely for the defendant’s own use, but if ‘it is reasonable to assume that the material was not intended for the personal use of the person’, the person shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have been in possession of the material for the purposes of disseminating it to others.
In any particular case where allegations are made under the provisions of this legislation, if passed into law, concerning incitement to violence or hatred, or condoning or trivialising genocide, a search warrant may be obtained to search any premises at which any relevant material is alleged to exist. If a judge of the District Court is satisfied by information on oath of a police officer that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of, or relating to, the commission of an offence is to be found in a particular place, the judge may issue a warrant for the search of that place and any persons found there. The investigators may use ‘reasonable force’ to enter the place named in the warrant, to search it and anyone found there, and to ‘examine, seize and retain anything found at that place, or anything found in possession of a person present at that place at the time of the search’, that the investigating officer(s) reasonably believe(s) to be evidence of, or relating to, the commission of an offence.
The legislation will also permit the seizure and retention of any such material — for example a computer or document — ‘for so long as is necessary’. The officer conducting the search may open and operate any computer found at the location or require anyone present to supply relevant passwords or encryption keys, or operate a computer for the purpose of enabling a search of its contents, and, if requested, to produce the information accessible by the computer ‘in a form in which the information is visible and legible, or . . . in which it can be removed and in which it is, or can be made, visible and legible.’
In other words, Welcome to Stasi Ireland, changed utterly in the name of progress and ‘tolerance’: totalitarianism bearing down on all in the name of defending the sensitivities of noisy minorities.
Incidentally, the generality of the Bill’s provisions refers to material being disseminated ‘to the public’ and to ‘a section of the public’, suggesting that it shall not be a defence to argue that the commentary was — in whatever sense — ‘in-house’ — even if the location of the alleged offence was a private house: it is entirely probable that the law will be applied to statements made in a private dwelling where non-family members are present and have elected to file a complaint.
The religious aspects are confusing (religion is, nominally at least, a ‘protected characteristic’) and likely to be of no benefit in protecting any aspects of Christian culture or belief. For the first time, atheism becomes a protectorate of Cultural Marxism. Since the Government has already taken steps to remove anti-blasphemy legislation and its constitutional underpinning, it is scarcely credible that the effect of this law would be to restore it in substance, other than for groups (like Muslims) that are protected under another characteristic as well.
The supposed ‘free speech provision’ of the Bill is meaningless and toothless, since it offers only the promise that consideration of a reference to a person or group on the basis of protected characteristics shall not ‘solely’ be the basis of the court’s decision. Again this is ringed around with non-specific concepts and loose definitions. There is supposedly a provision allowing for ‘reasonable and genuine contributions’, in the contexts of literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse, and we are told that this means ‘a contribution that is considered by a reasonable person as being reasonably necessary or incidental to such discourse.’ Again, who decides this? How is ‘reasonably necessary’ to be measured? In a highly-charged, propagandised culture such as Ireland has recently been converted into, how can this be regarded as offering any guarantee of protection to someone seeking to advance unpopular, untested or culturally unsupported viewpoints? And, since the public discourse occurs primarily to support the advancement of tentative and often esoteric ideas, how can this be described as a protection for freedom of expression and commentary where it might matter? It is interesting, here, that the term ‘reasonable person’ has hitherto been mainly associated, legally speaking, with defamations, where at stake in the judicial process would be the reputation of a specific individual. In such circumstances, the complained-of commentary would be defensible by dint of truth or fair comment, but here, since the entire crucible is decked out in ideology, anyone who detects disparagement of himself under a ‘protected characteristic’ will be able to trump any defence of free expression by virtue of his hurt feelings. Before writing, saying something — and yes, according to the Bill, ‘displaying’, ‘publishing’, ‘distributing’, ’disseminating’, ‘showing’ or ‘playing’ such communications, or ‘making the material available in any other way including through the use of an information system to the public or a section of the public’ — the would-be cultural critic will therefore need to think about how his remarks will go down with the most ideologically-slanted person in the (court)room.
Indeed, the restriction is likely to go much further in practice, since the text of the legislation refers to problematic ‘behaviour’ as well as statements.
For the purposes of this Part, a person’s behaviour shall include behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does and such behaviour may consist of a single act or a course of conduct.
What this means is anyone’s guess, but it is certain that, by ‘behaving’ — i.e., by being alive and breathing in a public space — a person may be liable to prosecution under this legislation. It all depends on how his ‘behaviour’ or ‘communications’ is/are interpreted by the most angry/paranoid individual in the vicinity. For once in this piece of draft legislation, we have stumbled upon a reliable — if accidental — definition, for this is the precise definition of totalitarianism.
Under the heading of ‘incitement to hatred’, the Bill supplants the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989, which will be repealed in the new law, if it is passed. This crime, it appears, can now be committed either with intent or inadvertently, since the criteria include inciting violence or hatred against a protected group or person with or without the intention of doing so. The criterion, again, will be whether some unspecified observer, applying some unspecified non-definition, believes that such an incident of incitement has occurred. Here, the Bill again provides for the defence of ‘genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse’, but nothing of this is defined, and already the NGO lobbyists are screaming blue murder against any such defence being permitted. Indeed, the incorporation of ‘bodies corporate’ within the scope of the Bill’s prosecutorial reach will mean that theatres, media organisations, cinemas, art galleries, political organisations, churches, schools and colleges, and scientific bodies may be held responsible for anything said or communicated, or any behaviour of any person on its property, that is found to fall under the heading of ‘hatred’.
A body corporate shall be liable if the relevant offence is ‘attributable to the failure, by a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in that capacity, to exercise, at the time of the commission of the relevant offence and in all the circumstances of the case, the requisite degree of supervision or control of the relevant person.’ In such circumstances, the body corporate shall be guilty of an offence.
As regards jurisdiction, the Bill stipulates that its provisions should apply to all material placed on any information system, ‘whether or not the offence involved material hosted on an information system in the State’, or ‘whether or not the person was in the State when the offence was committed.’ This would seem to mean that any person, in any country, might be liable to prosecution in Ireland for anything posted on any such information system, regardless of the location of that system. Again, total totalitarianism.
All in all, it is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation every bit as bad as was promised by the various projections and drafts we saw coming through over the past couple of years. In effect, anyone seeking to speak publicly about any of the issues relating to ‘protected characteristics’ (chiefly Cultural Marxist obsessions) would be taking their liberty in their hands.
Let us be straightforward: The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 is essentially a Bill to protect the pursuit of the externally imposed policy amounting to a programme for the destruction of Ireland from any internal commentary or criticism.
A friend observes: ‘Even in the Arts (theatre, literature, painting, film-making, etc), anything that ‘offends’ those protected anti-Christian minorities will be deemed a hate crime offender, hence, culture is f****d. If they carry out this law in a draconian way and start jailing people, Ireland will become unliveable. Basically, it’s a law that prevents heteronormative people and Christians from expressing the truth.’
This, of course, is entirely correct. The vagueness of the legislation will, if anything, exacerbate its intrinsically tyrannical nature, imposing a chilling cautiousness on those who might be disposed to challenge proposed initiatives and developments, especially those proposing the most radical changes to Irish society. These laws will therefore enable even the most far-reaching of reality-reshaping measures to be pushed through the institutions of society without any possibility of proper discussion or debate.
But, over and above all that, the proposed law is a charter for the disincorporation of each and every existing Irish-born person as a proprietorial shareholder of the nation of Ireland, from which flows the inevitable effect of winding up the Irish nation as a community of people sharing the same island space. ‘Hate speech’ laws are not simply censorship — their deeper purpose is to terminate equality under the law, so that the normative indigenous members of a nation are made to feel like an alien underclass, while the actually imported underclass, and the State-sponsored disaffected, are used as battering rams to decimate the native culture and existing societal structures — the pawns taking out the Sovereign People, Kings and Queens alike.
This has, finally, triggered the vindication of the fear expressed by the great Irish journalist and patriot, Thomas Davis:
‘This country of ours is no sand bank, thrown up by some recent caprice of earth. It is an ancient land, honoured in its archives of civilisation, traceable into antiquity by its piety, its valour, and its sufferings. Every great European race has sent its stream to the river of Irish mind. Long wars, vast organisations, subtle codes, beacon crimes, leading virtues, and self-mighty men were here. If we live influenced by wind and sun and tree, and not by the passions and deeds of the past, we are a thriftless and a hopeless people.’
The Government, of course, has such contempt for the intelligence of the Irish public that it will claim that what it is seeking to achieve is a kinder, gentler Ireland for everyone. This is nonsense: The way to achieve a kinder, gentler Ireland would have been to control inward migration to whatever was necessary to meet the needs of the economy, and the limits of what the culture could bear. At the very least, it would have entailed consulting the population concerning what a succession of governments since the turn of the millennium has imposed. By dint of stealth and moral blackmail, the political class has, for more than 20 years, been flooding the country with indifferent aliens who come here seeking benefits and are coached on arrival by NGOs to treat the host population as inherently racist. This, too, is a key element of the Cultural Marxist agenda, which seeks to impose burdens of guilt on ‘white’ populations on foot of the mixed history of Western imperialism. Ireland, however, far from having an imperial past, was itself, for hundreds of years, the casualty of English colonialism, having had much of its culture, including its language annihilated by barbaric laws, and its population periodically decimated by genocide camouflaged as natural disaster. These calamities also, of course, provoked the mass exodus of population to the New World and Britain, leaving Ireland in the early years of the third millennium semantically helpless before the disingenuous charge that, its own people having been ‘welcomed’ in these places, the Ireland of 2010 and 2020 had a responsibility to repay the favour to the universe. What is never allowed is that Irish people went abroad with little or no chance of ever returning home, to work like Trojans in menial jobs in inhospitable places, leaving their native land to stagnate for want of youthful energy and creativity.
Ireland, then, itself a sufferer at the hands of globalist colonialism, has in recent years been force-fed a diet of imported ideology, including Critical Race Theory, which creates a public discussion bearing the almost constant insinuation that Ireland is on a par with Alabama in its past treatment of black and coloured people. The truth could hardly be more different, but truth has been among the most recent emigrants from the Emerald Isle. The result is that the Irish Government, under instructions from the EU bureaucrats, now invites the world to our shores, with promises of free houses, incomes without obligation, immunity from all kinds of legal consequences for wrongdoing — and now: cultural protection from the merest slight of a disgruntled native who is himself entitled to none of these benefits. This week, homelessness among Irish people approached 11,000 — the highest ever recorded — while a massive building near Castlebar was being prepared to house a further tranche of (alleged) Ukrainians. Irish people live in tents and cardboard boxes while Ukrainians, supposedly ‘fleeing a war zone’, but without encountering any process of vetting or verification, move into duplex apartments at the taxpayer’s expense.
Among the true objectives of the ‘hate speech’ legislation is to protect a treasonous political class against criticism from its own taxpaying population for the crimes it is committing against them, its treachery against the heroes of the long struggle to achieve freedom at a cost invariably paid in blood and life-force, and ultimately the destruction of one of the oldest and intellectually richest cultures in human history.
But even this is not the deepest, most malevolent of the reasons why the Irish political class — Irish-born men and women who have been privileged to be entrusted with care of their country and its inheritance, are in 2022 seeking to impose these new Penal Laws on their own people. The deepest reason has to do with facilitating powerful and already wealthy outsiders in plundering Ireland of everything worth taking, nailed down or otherwise.
The proposed law will destroy — as is the uppermost intention behind it — the concept of equality before the law. It need hardly be pointed out that the Bill, while presenting itself as a charter for increased tolerance and societal gentleness, is in reality a charter for the dominance of minorities over the pre-existing population. In each individual case, it will defend, uphold or elevate that which is alien, esoteric or abnormative, which means that the normal, the here-before and the undemanding get stuffed and silenced every time. It is obvious that anyone who imagines they will be able to use the law to defend themselves from attacks on their Catholicism/Christianity would be barking up the wrong tree. Similarly anyone imagining that it offers some kind of protection from what the new gender ideology classes as ‘cis gender’ persons (i.e. those who wish to remain as they were made) had better think again. The law will benefit listed minorities only, and everyone else will be laughed out of court by the occupiers of a now all but totally corrupted Bench. Because this is a Cultural Marxist-inspired law, it is designed to weaponise the grievances of minorities so as to silence and thereafter dispossess the indigenous former majority. The trick is that it empowers each individual only in particular sub-divisions of his existence — sexuality, colour, et cetera — while simultaneously denying him as much as anyone else the generic rights that citizens of Western democracies (now ‘former democracies’) took for granted until the day before yesterday. Even the most ‘protected characteristic’ endowed beneficiaries will be entitled to prosecute their grievance only on the narrow basis of particular, singular characteristics, and in other contexts have the same rights as everyone else, which is to say practically none. The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill, 2022 will not restore to any person walking upon the sand bank of 2023 Ireland the rights which the political class stole from the Irish people in 2020, with no intention of restoring.
Once the Bill passes into law, what for the moment we might call the ‘native Irish’ will immediately become second-class legal citizens, being in a sense the prisoners and slaves of newcomers boasting legally superior ‘protected characteristics’ that give them exalted protection in any dispute with a native Irish person. Each surviving member of the native Irish will thereafter live on tenterhooks, waiting for the moment of accusation, to be followed hard in the ideological kangaroo courts of post-Irish Ireland by conviction, punishment, incarceration, and thereafter lifetime ignominy. Placing this alongside other imminent measures, such as the banning of public protests under certain headings (abortion, for example), the ‘delimiting’ of private property, and the seizure by the State of rights over every drop of water in the land, what we are observing is the introduction of a new charter of Penal Laws directed at the indigenous people of Ireland, albeit this time framed and implemented not by a monstrous occupier by their own elected ‘representatives’, the ‘monsters with human faces’ who smile as they help the robber barons to steal our children’s birthright. Be in no doubt: The ultimate purpose of this is the wholesale plunder of all resources that have not already been transferred into the ownership/control of the Combine.
What is happening, then, amounts to the final dispossession, re-plantation and re-colonisation of Ireland and the re-enslavement of the indigenous Irish people, using indifferent aliens baited by fistfuls of toytown money, as the principal instrument of plunder.
The present moment is a little analogous to what occurred a decade ago, when the Irish electorate was persuaded to annul the parental rights of parents, essentially transferring them in their entirely to the State, in the name of giving ‘rights to children’. This cleared the way for gay marriage, gay parenting and ‘legal’ gay families, at the expense of the normative and natural definitions arising from procreative heterosexuality. In a somewhat comparable fashion, enforced mass migration is an instrument of rights-stripping in the context of the nationhood of the individual: each newcomer is set against each indigenous person, who is thereby cancelled out and reduced to a free-floating nomad in his own former country. That much of this process will be effected on an ostensibly ‘voluntary’ basis — i.e, people surrendering to the chilling intent of the legislation — is all part of the plan. When it is all done and dusted, and the old Irish take belatedly to recrimination, they will be told that there was nothing in the least coercive about the handover: They went along with everything of their own free will, and have no one to blame but themselves.
It is important to stress that what is happening is in no sense or respect intended to be to the ultimate benefit of the newcomers, who are simply being used as proxy occupiers so as to effect the first, and most difficult, stage of dispossession. To loosen the grip on Ireland of a people who, in many instances, can trace their lineage there for hundreds or thousands of years, is a massive undertaking. The purpose, in the first instance, as already stated, is to dislodge the Sovereign People, and the proxies are here used as pawns to take out the Kings and Queens who have lived here all their lives and thought of this, their metaphysical home, as being no sand bank thrown up by some recent caprice of earth.
November 27, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Human rights, Ireland |
Leave a comment
The anti-Arab Religious Zionist party will also be in charge of the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank
Knesset member Itamar Ben-Gvir, who heads the Religious Zionism party is held back during a special session on 13 June, 2021. (Photo: EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP – Getty Images)
Israel’s Likud party, led by Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu, on 25 November reached its first coalition deal with the Jewish supremacist ‘Religious Zionist’ (Otzma Yehudit) party.
As per the agreement, anti-Arab zealot Itamar Ben Gvir will serve in the newly created role of National Security Minister – an expanded public security minister role – and will have a seat in the security cabinet.
“We took a big step tonight toward a full coalition agreement, toward forming a fully, fully right-wing government … I am happy that the agreement on the ministries that Otzma Yehudit will receive will allow us to realize our election promises,” Ben Gvir said in a statement.
While Likud and the Religious Zionist party have so far only signed an annex to a coalition deal, the agreement will also give Ben Gvir’s extremist group control of the ‘Development of the Negev, Galilee, and National Fortitude Ministry;’ the role of deputy minister in the Ministry of Economy; chairmanship of the Knesset’s Public Security Committee; and rotating chairmanship of the Special Committee for the Israeli Citizens’ Fund (which oversees state revenue from gas drilling).
The ‘Negev and Galilee Ministry’ will specifically be responsible for regulating the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Moreover, Ben Gvir’s freshly minted National Security Ministry will also be handed control over the West Bank Border Police, while a new “expanded southern law” will be implemented that will permit Israeli troops to shoot Palestinians “caught stealing weapons from military bases.”
During this month’s elections, the Religious Zionist party helped Netanyahu secure a commanding 64-seat majority in the Knesset.
The far-right party has on previous occasions called for the formal annexation of the entire occupied West Bank – in violation of international law – as well as the seizure of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem to place it under Jewish ownership.
Ben Gvir himself has led several violent incursions into the Muslim holy site under police protection and has overseen the expulsion of Palestinian worshippers.
Weeks before the election, Ben Gvir made headlines for pulling a gun on Palestinians in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem, urging settlers to shoot at the locals.
He is also an outspoken proponent of creating a “deportation law” that would target anyone who is “disloyal” to the State of Israel.
Earlier this month, Israeli media reported Ben Gvir asked for tougher conditions for Palestinian prisoners, as well as unfettered access for settlers into Al-Aqsa Mosque, during early coalition talks with Likud.
On top of this, just this week, the firebrand lawmaker called for the resumption of targeted assassinations of Palestinians in the wake of a bomb attack in occupied Jerusalem.
November 25, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, West Bank, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Israel’s designate Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been accused of breaking his agreement with Arab countries that normalised relations with the Occupation State during the current coalition negotiations. The Likud leader is reported to have agreed to move the civil administration in the West Bank from Israeli Ministry of Defence to the Ministry of Finance to appease far-right member of the Knesset, Bezalel Smotrich.
Religious Zionism will be handed the civil administration portfolio, according to Haaretz. The Ministry is hugely significant for Palestinians, as it oversees coordination of Israel’s activity in the Occupied West Bank. The agreement was reached as part of the ongoing coalition talks between Netanyahu’s Likud and Religious Zionism, which stalled once more after the parties failed to reach agreement on several other key issues.
Though details of the talks are yet to be disclosed, Likud is said to have acceded to Religious Zionism’s demand for some of the powers of the civil administration, which is under the Defence Ministry. The deal will mean that Smotrich, who is an advocate of Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise, will be handed power in approving Palestinian construction plans and settlement construction in Area C. Decisions around illegal outposts, illegal construction and work permits for Palestinians falls under the remit of the administration.
The biggest prize for Religious Zionism, which became the third largest party with 14 Knesset seats, is to seize control over affairs in the Occupied West Bank. Although past Israeli governments showed reluctance to annex the territory completely over concerns around backlash from the international community, Religious Zionism has no such fear.
Officials in Religious Zionism claimed, Wednesday, that the Party acceded to Netanyahu’s requests to forgo the defence portfolio in exchange for the Finance Ministry. The condition for the agreement is that the responsibility for settlements and the civil administration is transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the Ministry of Finance. Under International law, the West Bank is occupied, which means that the military of the occupying power oversees the territory.
Netanyahu has been accused of reneging on his deal with the Arab States by agreeing to the transfer of the civil administration. “Moving the civil administration in the West Bank from Israeli Ministry of Defence to the Ministry of Finance will be a ‘soft annexation’ of the WB & violation of the commitment Netanyahu gave the US & UAE to suspend his annexation plan,” said Israeli journalist, Barak Ravid on Twitter. “It could harm the Israel-UAE peace treaty,” Ravid added, referring to 2020 normalisation deal.
Referred to as the “Abraham Accords,” the UAE hailed the deal as victory for the two-state solution. Abu Dhabi defended its decision to normalise relations with the Occupation State by insisting that it had prevented Israel from annexing the West Bank, a threat which Netanyahu, who was the Prime Minister at the time, had issued.
It is not clear what steps the UAE will take in response. UAE Foreign Minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed (ABZ) raised his concerns over Religious Zionism becoming part of a coalition with Netanyahu, during a recent visit to Israel.
November 25, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | Israel, Palestine, UAE, West Bank, Zionism |
Leave a comment
On 24 November, the Israeli Chief of Staff, General Aviv Kochavi, announced a significant expansion of joint activities with the US army in the region, indicating that Israel would work at a faster pace against the “positioning” of the Iranian government in the Middle East, according to Al-Arabiya news.
“To enhance our capabilities in the face of the challenges in the region, joint activity with CENTCOM will be significantly expanded in the near future. At the same time, the IDF will continue to act at an accelerated pace against the Iranian regime’s entrenchment in the region,” he said.
Kochavi returned from the United States on 24 November and met with US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, with whom he discussed strengthening cooperation between the two military forces, according to Al-Arabiya.
The White House announced that US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan met with Aviv Kochavi in Washington and discussed several issues during the meeting.
National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said in a statement on 21 November that Sullivan “affirmed the US administration’s firm support for Israel’s security, and the two sides exchanged views on a broad range of regional security issues of mutual interest.”
“Sullivan affirmed US President Joe Biden’s commitment to ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” she added.
Meanwhile, The Times of Israel reported that Kochavi told US military officials that the two countries should accelerate what he described as “offensive operations plans” against Iran.
On 19 November, US Forces Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Michael Erik Kurilla announced in Bahrain that a US task force will deploy more than 100 unmanned vessels by 2023 to “help ensure maritime security” in the Gulf region’s strategic waters, according to Mehr News Agency.
“By this time next year, Task Force 59 will bring together a fleet of over 100 unmanned surface and subsurface vessels operating together, communicating together, and providing maritime domain awareness,” Kurilla announced during the annual Manama dialogue conference.
The Pentagon has also been collaborating with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other nations in West Asia over the past eight months to create a network of unmanned drones to counter Iran in the Persian Gulf.
November 25, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Joe Biden and Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem, West Bank on July 15, 2022. [Palestinian Presidency – Anadolu Agency]
Further proof of US President Joe Biden reneging on his electoral promises with regard to Palestine is the ongoing refusal to reopen the US Consulate in occupied Jerusalem for use by Palestinians, and opting instead for creating a new role of Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs, which has been given to Hady Amr. Amr served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs, and is known mostly for insisting that Israel devises ways to strengthen the Palestinian Authority; for Israel’s benefit, of course.
Equally clear is that PA Leader Mahmoud Abbas is acquiescing to US demands, despite his lamentations that the Biden administration is also employing the waiting tactic, which has stalled Palestinians’ political trajectory for decades. The PA’s delight at Biden’s election win was just a brief interlude; it soon became clear that his predecessor Donald Trump’s legacy would not be rescinded, apart from the US decision to allocate some financial support for Palestinian humanitarian needs.
According to Axios quoting an unnamed US State Department official, “The Washington-based Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs will engage closely with the Palestinians and their leadership and, together with Ambassador [Thomas] Nides and his team, continue to engage with Israel on Palestinian-related issues.”
While Israeli media is describing the move as an upgrade of US-Palestinian relations, diplomatic engagement between the US and the PA remains one that prioritises colonial collaboration, given that despite promises to bring the US back to the fold of international consensus regarding the two-state compromise, Washington remains tied to Trump’s political legacy. The international community has also aligned itself with the Abraham Accords, since the plans mirror mainstream engagement with Israel. The PA, on the other hand, simply bleats its opposition and backs down before accepting concessions in return for its subjugation.
Amr will be working under Barbara Leaf, the US Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs who, last September, stated that improving economic conditions in the occupied West Bank was crucial to “sustain improvement in security conditions.” Israel’s security, that is. Diplomatic relations with the PA, as far as the US is concerned, are only valid as long as it means that security coordination will remain “sacred”, as Abbas puts it. Outside of the security coordination parameters, the PA is a main player that only exists as an entity that fails to take political steps against Israel’s colonial expansion.
The US has stated repeatedly its purported commitment to reopen its consulate in Jerusalem, yet appointing Amr as special representative is another indication that the Palestinian request will go unheeded for the time being. Hence the creation of a role that purportedly champions Palestinian affairs and diplomatic relations with Washington. Yet another “concession” to Palestine that works in Israel’s favour.
Former US Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations, and former Ambassador to Israel, Martyn Indyk described the US move as “a signal to the Palestinians of their importance”. Yet, the US does things differently with Israel. It doesn’t offer concessions to Israel; it offers military, financial and economic support, while Palestinians remain tethered to a humanitarian project that only serves Israel’s expansionist plans and interests. Importance does not necessarily have a positive connotation. In this case, the Palestinians’ “importance” is not directed towards their political rights, but the means through which Israel and the US can further their diplomatic engagement behind a facade that generates less criticism and fewer allegations of American bias towards the colonial-occupation state.
November 24, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Portland Prosecutors, the Anti-Defamation League and the Anarchist Violent Extremist organization Rose City Antifa colluded to indict an innocent white man of murder, recently leaked grand jury documents show.
On July 29th, a white man named Jascha Manny was working as a doorman at Mary’s Club, a strip club in Portland’s Old Town neighborhood.
During his shift, he witnessed a group of black men threatening a couple of homeless people. The aggressors were also shining a high-powered strobe light into the eyes of the random indigent citizens.
As the encounter escalated, Manny rushed to confront the bullies in hopes that they would leave the people alone.
It was then that 19-year-old Lauren Teyshawn Abbott Jr pulled out a firearm and began shooting at Manny. The bouncer responded by returning fire, killing Abott and injuring his associate, 23-year-old Kolby Ross.
The entire incident was caught on video from multiple angles and witnesses supported Manny’s testimony, but thanks in part to the ADL’s intervention, left-wing District Attorney Mike Schmidt called a grand jury in August in an attempt to indict him for murder and assault.
During the proceedings, prosecutors centered their argument for criminal charges on prejudicial information secretly provided to them by the ADL’s “Center on Extremism,” which asserted that Manny had pro-white political beliefs.
The Jewish group, which works closely with local law enforcement and the FBI, had laundered this specious information from Rose City Antifa, a domestic extremist group that openly avows violence and was actively involved in organizing Portland’s brutal 2020 riots.
There was never any evidence that Manny was motivated by race when he decided to return fire against the blacks shooting at him. The goal of the ADL’s intervention in this case appears to have been to offend the assumed political sensibilities of jurors into indicting an innocent man.
According to local news reports, the grand jury was shown images and writings demonstrating Manny’s alleged political ideology, but after seeing mounds of exculpatory evidence, they declined to indict.
This vindication did not change the minds of left-wing activists. In response to DA Schmidt’s statement that his hands are tied, various anarchist, Jewish and liberal groups have joined forces to organize a pressure campaign to have Manny charged with hate crimes, not for his actions, but for his beliefs.
November 20, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | ADL, Antifa, United States |
Leave a comment
The White House and the US State Department have disowned an FBI investigation into the murder of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Aqla in a last-ditch attempt to appease “furious” Israeli officials, according to US news outlet Axios.
Axios’ correspondent in Israel, Barak Ravid, claims senior Israeli officials were informed of the FBI probe three days after the 1 November elections, at which point they “urged” the White House to “fix the situation” before the investigation was leaked to the press.
Tel Aviv reportedly warned Washington that once news of the probe became public, the situation “would turn into a bilateral crisis.”
“We spoke to every Biden administration official we work with and made it clear how furious we were,” Ravid quotes a senior Israeli official as saying.
Outgoing Defense Minister Benny Gantz reportedly held a “difficult call with a very senior US official” before the probe was made public, telling them that Israel would not cooperate “in any way with the FBI investigation.”
Gantz reiterated this stance this week, calling the FBI probe a “mistake” and saying Israel “will not cooperate with an external investigation, and will not enable intervention to internal investigations.”
Outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid echoed the same sentiment, saying: “Our soldiers will not be investigated by the FBI or by any other foreign country or entity, however friendly it may be. We will not abandon our soldiers to foreign investigations.”
For their part, US officials told their irate Israeli counterparts that the White House and the State Department were not part of the decision-making process of the Department of Justice (DOJ), adding that the probe is “an independent decision … [not] motivated by a political decision.”
In May of this year, an Israeli sniper shot and killed Abu Aqla in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin. At the time, the Palestinian-American journalist was wearing body armor clearly labeled ‘PRESS.’
Independent investigations by the UN, human rights groups, and western media outlets have all concluded that Abu Aqla was deliberately shot by an Israeli soldier. Moreover, the investigations show that neither the journalist nor the occupation troops were in an active-fire zone at the time of the murder.
These findings are corroborated by the testimonies of the journalists who were accompanying the Al Jazeera reporter, as well as by the video footage of her murder.
Despite the mountains of evidence, both the US and Israel avoided placing any blame on the Israeli soldiers who fired at the group of Palestinian journalists.
In September, self-proclaimed ‘centrist’ Lapid said in no uncertain terms that he would “not allow an [Israeli] soldier … to be prosecuted just to receive applause from abroad,” before adding that “no one will dictate opening fire instructions to us.”
His statements were made on the heels of a squalid Israeli investigation into the events of 11 May, which concluded that “there is a high possibility that Ms. Abu Aqla was accidentally hit by [Israeli] gunfire fired toward suspects identified as armed Palestinian gunmen during an exchange of fire.”
In July, a US forensic investigation into the murder reached “no definitive conclusion” on the origin of the bullet that killed Abu Aqla, suggesting that gunfire from Israeli positions was “likely responsible.”
A mere two weeks after Abu Aqla’s death, an Israeli soldier shot and killed Palestinian journalist Ghufran Warasneh in Al-Arroub refugee camp, north of Hebron in the occupied West Bank. At the time, Warasneh was headed for her first day at work.
November 17, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Despite the recent signing of a historic maritime border agreement between Tel Aviv and Beirut, tensions continue to remain high, with both Israel and the United States attempting to force Lebanon into compliance with their regional agenda.
Although Israeli and Lebanese leaders signed letters of intent earlier this month ending their long-standing maritime border dispute and averting a major escalation in their ongoing conflict, the two sides still remain technically at war. Beirut refuses to recognise Israel, maintaining the stance that first the Palestine issue must be resolved, as Tel Aviv maintains control over the Shebaa Farms area which Lebanon claims to be its territory.
Last week, drone strikes were reported to have killed up to 25 people after targeting a fuel aid convoy that had just passed the Al-Qaim crossing into Syria from Iraq. There are conflicting reports on who actually carried out the attack, with both Israel and the United States accused of having been behind it. The US military instantly distanced themselves from the incident, by denying they had carried out any strikes, whilst the Israeli government refused to comment and is now widely assumed to be culpable. According to Iraqi authorities, the fuel trucks, numbering 22 according to Iranian state-media, were approved for heading out of the country and seemed to be part of Iran’s new agreement with Lebanon to provide free fuel.
Despite opposition from top US officials, in August Lebanese Prime Minister Nijab Mikati accepted an offer from Tehran to supply Lebanon with fuel free of charge. Although the US ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea, had warned Beirut not to take the offer from Iran, it was decided that going ahead with receiving the Iranian gift was in the Lebanese national interest. It is likely that the temporary US silence following this was in large part to do with the then-ongoing maritime border dispute between Tel Aviv and Beirut. The US has repeatedly attempted to counter Iranian influence in Lebanon, even going as far as claiming Beirut is not in need of the Iranian fuel, whereas the country is clearly in a state of economic collapse and suffers a shortage.
After Hezbollah, one of Lebanon’s most popular political parties, organized Iranian fuel shipments in 2021, Washington quickly took to countering any future attempts for Tehran to come to the aid of the Lebanese economy. A deal was then organized in September of 2021, under US supervision, for Egypt to supply natural gas through Jordan and Syria into Lebanon, in order to ease the energy crisis. However, the US government had pledged to amend its Caesar Act sanctions that it currently implements against Damascus to allow for the deal to go ahead, but has so far failed to do so. Although the Lebanese State is now quickly taking to exploring and, it hopes, extracting natural gas from the offshore Qana prospect, which it secured its rights to under its maritime border agreement with Israel, this process could take years to bear fruit.
In the short term, Beirut needs a solution to its energy crisis and Iran is offering free fuel to supplement part of its needs. Washington and its close ally Tel Aviv see this as a plot between Hezbollah and Tehran to take control over the Lebanese State. Although Lebanon is technically an independent state, the reality is that France, the US and the Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia, hold huge shares of influence in the political and economic affairs of the country, and none of them feel comfortable with the idea of Tehran having a significant influence.
The regional strategy of the United States government, which Israel is also in lockstep with, is to combat the influence of the Iranian government. Part of this strategy is to pressure more Arab States to normalize ties with Tel Aviv and to give up on the consensus amongst Arab League States to adhere to the Arab Peace Initiative. The initiative maintained that recognition of Israel by Arab states, along with the establishment of military, economic and political ties, could not come without the realisation of a Two-State solution under which the creation of a viable Palestinian State would be established. So far the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Egypt, Sudan and Jordan have all normalized ties with Tel Aviv, abandoning the Palestinian cause for Statehood. The US Biden administration is clearly seeking to add Saudi Arabia to the list, but eventually wants to go further than that.
At the recent COP27 climate meeting, held in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh, Lebanese, Iraqi and Israeli representatives were all photographed standing near each other and had agreed to a distant cooperation on combating climate change. In Israeli and US media, this has been framed as somewhat of a breakthrough, despite being officially undermined by both Baghdad and Beirut. What is certain, however, is that the US and Israel are continuing to send a message to Lebanon, that they will not let it simply go about its business and thrive without adhering to their own agenda. Hence the US has not allowed for the Egypt-Jordan-Syria deal for transfer of fuel into Lebanon.
The most insidious part of the stance maintained by the US government is that Lebanon cannot simply leave the Iranian sphere of influence altogether and Washington is well aware of this. As long as Lebanese Hezbollah remains a popular force in the country, there will always be a link between Tehran and Beirut. This means that the US policy is designed to punish the Lebanese people for not getting rid of Hezbollah, something that neither the US nor Israel will dare try to do themselves. If Israel and the US are both in lockstep about preventing Iranian fuel from reaching Lebanon, then this means that they are simply depriving Lebanon of its ability to get back on its feet, all in the name of combating Iran and Hezbollah. In their eyes, if the Lebanese people perceive the Iranian fuel imports to be their saving grace, this runs counter to US hegemony and, together with the latest perceived victory for Hezbollah in forcing the Israelis to negotiate a maritime border settlement, Tehran would come off with greater support in Lebanon.
The US and Israel are proving incapable of allowing the Lebanese people to achieve a greater standard of life, due to the fact that Hezbollah and Iran are still there. Meanwhile, getting rid of Hezbollah would not only be militarily impossible, but there is also no evidence that such a move would actually bring stability – as evidenced with the case of Sudan, which normalized ties with Israel and earned itself a place in the good books of the US government, but the West is yet to aid the country, which endures a continuous state of crisis.
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News. Director of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’.
November 16, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The United Nations General Assembly has finally voted on a resolution calling on Israel to destroy its entire nuclear arsenal and allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit its nuclear facilities. 152 countries voted “yes”, five – Canada, Israel, Micronesia, Palau, and the United States – against, and another 24 countries, including members of the European Union, abstained from voting.
Few people can say where the “great states” of Micronesia or Palau are located. It is well known that the official head of Canada is the King of Great Britain, and it is not surprising that these three countries have, as befits good servants, unanimously followed the American order. Most states, aware of the enormous danger posed by Israel with its secret nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, responsibly voted in favor of this resolution.
The document states that Israel is the only state in the West Asian region and one of the few members of the UN (193 in total) that has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The strong support for the resolution at the UN General Assembly in New York reflects widespread international frustration with the Israeli regime’s control of the nuclear threat in West Asia. This is especially true given how many countries Israel has invaded or attacked and how many genocides it has committed. The presence of Israel’s nuclear weapons has made the occupation regime over the Arab people of Palestine, according to the Saudi newspaper Arab News, “an extraordinary source of instability in the region.”
The resolution reiterated “the importance of Israel acceding to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and placing all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency to achieve the goal of universal adherence to the treaty in the Middle East (West Asia).” The document called on Israel “to accede to the Treaty without further delay, not to develop, produce, test, or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and to place all of its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under comprehensive safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as an important confidence-building measure among all states in the region and as a step toward strengthening peace and security.”
Despite fierce and extensive Western propaganda and hysteria focused on Iran’s nuclear program, which has been repeatedly deemed peaceful by the IAEA, the resolution emphasizes that Israel poses a real threat to the region. The proposal for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in West Asia was also approved by the First Committee with 170 votes, including Iran. Perhaps not surprisingly, Israel was the only state to again oppose the text, as has happened repeatedly in the United Nations. The United States, Cameroon, Comoros, and Tanzania were the only four countries to abstain.
Iran’s representative to the UN General Assembly First Committee, Heidar Ali Baluji, criticized Israel for acquiring weapons of mass destruction and spending huge sums on conventional military needs. “In addition to weapons of mass destruction, the Israeli regime continues to threaten peace and security in the region and beyond with its large arsenal of sophisticated conventional offensive weapons. The regime is the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign aid since World War II,” Baluji said. Israel spent $24.3 billion on the military last year, equivalent to 5.2% of its GDP, placing it among the top five countries in West Asia for military spending. How much the Israelis spend on the military nuclear program and the constant improvement of these deadly weapons is anyone’s guess.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at Israel’s Dimona nuclear power plant, made headlines when he revealed Israel’s nuclear secrets to the world. The regime sent him to prison and only in 2004, after serving an 18-year sentence, most of which he spent in solitary confinement, was he released. However, strict conditions were placed on his release, including a ban on leaving Israel, a ban on entering the Palestinian territories, and a ban on communicating with foreign journalists. Since his release, Vanunu has served at least two prison terms after being convicted of alleged parole violations.
Not only does Israel possess nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the regime also disposes of its nuclear and radioactive waste in the Palestinian-occupied West Bank. According to numerous reports that have appeared in Palestinian and Arab newspapers in recent years, there is growing concern about the high rates of various cancers and birth defects among people in the southern West Bank. Israel has turned Palestinian towns and villages into a dumping ground for its nuclear and radioactive waste. Investigations in the Palestinian town of al-Khalil have revealed that its residents are suffering from radioactive contamination. According to reports, the radiation originates from Israeli nuclear facilities and nuclear waste storage sites in the area. It could also be the result of the use of depleted uranium weapons against the Palestinians.
Based on numerous studies, it is widely believed that there is a strong link between radiation and nuclear waste from Israel’s Dimona reactor (where a nuclear weapons facility was completed in 1963) and an increase in cancer cases in the southern West Bank. In the same areas in the south of the occupied West Bank, not a single case of cancer was reported before the Israeli factory began producing nuclear weapons. Many Palestinians currently suffer from cancer and birth defects, as well as recurrent miscarriages among women.
According to an Arabic Post investigation, Israeli authorities have not heeded official warnings from Palestinian officials who expressed serious concern about the danger of high levels of nuclear radiation in the atmosphere and groundwater in areas in the south of the West Bank, particularly in the city of al-Khalil (Hebron), where record levels of cancer and fetal malformations are recorded every year.
In December 2021, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh accused Israel of dumping hazardous nuclear waste, such as burnt oil, chemical and electronic waste, and others in the Palestinian territories. All this, he said, poses a long-term threat to the Palestinian environment (soil, water, air, and wildlife), in addition to the outbreak of cancer and birth defects. “There are 6,251 cancer patients in the country, which is a high percentage compared to neighboring countries,” Shtayyeh said. He also attributed this to the fact that the Israelis use the occupied territories as a dumping ground for nuclear waste.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani speaking before the UN, said that Israel’s advanced nuclear program poses a serious threat to international security and stability. Kanaani called on the IAEA to fulfill its mandate and responsibility in this regard.
It is worth noting that, according to various experts, Israel has 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal due to its active nuclear policy and the patronage of the West, especially the United States. It has repeatedly vehemently refused to have its military nuclear facilities inspected, not to mention refusing to sign the NPT. At the same time, Iran is a party to the NPT and has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is exclusively civilian in nature and subject to the strictest oversight by the UN and the IAEA. It is not surprising that Iran has repeatedly been subjected to the most thorough inspections by international bodies, and in Israel, even experts do not know where and what is located, not to mention the fact that not a single IAEA inspection has taken place there.
The policy of double standards is quite clear. When it comes to stopping nuclear proliferation, Israel is absolved of its responsibility. As a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran operates a peaceful program for energy and medical purposes, but is subject to the most stringent inspection program in IAEA history. At the same time, the West, especially the United States, has imposed the most painful sanctions regime on the Islamic Republic.
At the same time, Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear warheads, is not inspected by either the UN or the IAEA, and these organizations do not even want to hear about any control of Israel’s military nuclear program. On the contrary, Israel is supplied with endless amounts of military weapons (paid for by American taxpayers) and huge sums of money from the West, and also enjoys great diplomatic and political support on the world stage. An umbrella of uncontrollability, so to speak, is erected over Tel Aviv. The West is making it clear to Israel: do what you want, and we will cover you. But it is not the same for the peoples of this region, over whom hangs constantly the nuclear sword of Damocles, which can break loose at any moment with the use of nuclear weapons and the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
Viktor Mikhin is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
November 16, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Canada, Israel, NPT, Palestine, Sanctions against Iran, United States, West Bank, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Is that what the ‘wag the dog’ US relationship with Israel is all about?
Jonathan Greenblatt, the aggressive head of the Jewish advocacy group the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently attacked some comments on the Israel relationship made by former President Donald Trump, who prefaced his remarks by accurately observing that “No President has done more for Israel than I have.” Greenblatt nevertheless complained in a tweet that “We don’t need the former president, who curries favor with extremists and antisemites, to lecture us about the US-Israel relationship. It is not about a quid pro quo; it rests on shared values and security interests. This ‘Jewsplaining’ is insulting and disgusting.”
Greenblatt’s perpetual whine is also “insulting and disgusting” but he possesses little in the way of introspection or restraint. He and his predecessors in the Jewish lobby have historically been largely successful in selling a load of self-serving nonsense about why the United States has become a client state that has its Middle Eastern foreign policy run out of Tel Aviv by a racist regime. US political and national security interests in the region have been subordinated to those of Israel. Washington provides political cover for anything Israel chooses to do and, the ultimate absurdity, the American taxpayer gifts a relatively wealthy Israel with $3 billion in “aid” per year plus other trade and co-production benefits.
To justify it all, phrases like “the only democracy in the Middle East” and “Israel has a right to defend itself” roll off the lips of a host of bought-and-paid-for congress critters like the chorus in a Greek tragedy every time the Israelis see fit to kill a few more Palestinians, Syrians or Iranians. Even killing American citizens like Rachel Corrie, 34 members of the crew of the USS Liberty and Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh does not draw any censure from Washington. Beyond that, Israel has recently convinced the US government to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which incorporates criticism of the Jewish state as ipso facto the mark of an anti-Semite. And going still further, twenty-six state governments have chosen to penalize their citizens who, in seeking benefits or a job at local level, refuse to sign or swear to a statement that they will not support any boycotts of Israel.
It is all about the dual loyalty that many Jews have as relates to Israel. Indeed, one might argue that folks like Greenblatt have something amounting to singular loyalty, and it is at least questionable whether any of that applies to the good old U S of A. Recently Greenblatt and his host of perpetual complainers have been riding hard the alleged surge in anti-Semitism, as defined by them to justify everything they and their Israeli brethren do. They know they can get away with saying and doing almost anything when it comes to Israel, to include the shamelessly hyped alleged sad plight of perpetual Jewish victims worldwide, even in the United States where they enjoy unparalleled and grossly disproportionate privilege, power, status and wealth. Jewish power driven by Jewish money dominates much political interaction while also driving the accompanying media narrative. And the Jewish/Israeli viewpoint defines what are acceptable viewpoints within academia while also shaping the product that comes out of the entertainment industry, as well as the decision making in many business and financial services sectors.
Israel is about to put together its most extreme right-wing government ever, headed for the third time by Benjamin Netanyahu and including probable cabinet level ministers who have been described as “terrorists,” “racists,” and even “fascists.” The pressure on the Palestinians will no doubt intensify with the objective of first fully establishing control on the ground before ethnically cleansing the Arabs to produce an overwhelmingly dominant Jewish state. Settlements will expand and new ones will be planted while armed settlers destroy the livelihoods of the remaining Palestinians, compelling them to flee. And there will also be pressure from Netanyahu to force the United States to take the offensive against Iran, up to and including a military first strike to destroy its fictional nuclear weapons program. President Joe Biden has already committed the United States to do something like that, promising that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
Articles in the Jewish media in particular but also in national publications like the New York Times and Washington Post suggest that many liberal Jews are concerned over the right-wing political shift in Israel, which might be described as being in the grip of “religious nationalism.” Diaspora Jews understand that it will become harder to defend the actions of the Jewish State and to sell the current “tie-that-binds” to both an American and international audience.
The perception that Israel, which in 2018 declared itself to be legally the nation state of the Jews with “exclusive right of self-determination,” is already an apartheid state that casually commits what many would describe as war crimes is growing and will almost certainly impact on the international acceptance of the Israelis. But in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and France in particular, such concerns might be considered overwrought as Jewish hard power and money have effectively bought into and even dominate some aspects of their respective political and economic systems. A clear majority of British Members of Parliament are members of various “Friends of Israel” associations and in the US both parties are heavily dependent on Jewish/Israeli donors for campaign funding and also to ensure a friendly media. Most congressmen have learned the lesson that criticizing Israel is a red line that must not be crossed if one wants to remain in office, so it is most likely that the US love affair with Israel will continue no matter what Netanyahu and company do.
One might reasonably consider two things when it comes to the lopsided Israel-US relationship. First, how accurate is the Greenblatt boast that it rests on “shared values and security interests?” And second, to what extent are ADL, not to mention groups like the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), actually acting as directed agents of the Israeli government and therefore subject to the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 which would open up their books to scrutiny and also require some transparency vis-à-vis their contacts with the Israeli Embassy and the country’s Foreign Ministry and intelligence and security agencies?
First of all, Greenblatt’s claim of shared values is completely a fraud unless one considers corrupt elections to protect the likes of Hunter Biden and Netanyahu, who has been accused of corruption in Israel which the election result will enable him to avoid. Israel is no democracy unless one considers that disenfranchising many of the potential voters in the area that you control is somehow “democratic.” The United States is meanwhile becoming more like Israel. It is turning into a managed democracy where the party in control uses that power to attack and delegitimize the opposition. This occurred in 2016 with Trump vs. Hillary and has been taking place since the 2020 election through Democratic Party apparatchik attempts to link the GOP to the post-electoral January claimed insurrection. Of course, Trump himself has unfortunately hurried this process along through his ill-advised attempts to focus his support among Republicans based on how enthusiastically they support his insinuations, which is at least tactically a bad move.
Security interests? I was in the CIA overseas at a post where we would receive much processed Israeli intelligence. Believe me, it nearly all related to making Muslims look bad. Any “threat” information that Israel is able to collect legitimately the United States NSA and other intelligence organizations are able to do as well or better. The United States could drop Israel as an intelligence partner tomorrow and it would not make any difference vis-a-vis US national security. Greenblatt is as usual blowing smoke to enhance the value of the bilateral relationship, such as it is. In reality it is a rip-off all to the advantage of Israel.
Finally, there is the issue of the Israel/Jewish lobby serving as an active agent for the Jewish State of Israel, which clearly it is and does do. After last week’s election, AIPAC boasted that a pac that it had set up had raised $17 million to defeat candidates critical of Israel, while also supporting those politicians who were friends, 95% of whom were elected. To pretend that the Lobby exists to provide some kind of perspective or balance in foreign policy is a case of who is kidding whom on the issue. As one of my agents in Turkey used to describe it, “It is as the hand fitting into the glove.” The Justice Department should move to investigate and, if necessary, indict all Jewish organizations that have sustained contact with the Israeli government as foreign agents, no exception. Yes, I know, it will never happen, particularly with Attorney General Merrick Garland nee Garfinkel in charge as he is too busy investigating Russia.
So here we go again. A new government alignment will soon be in place in Washington but nothing changes. Israel’s friends will be firmly in control until someone in power has the guts to go after all the Jewish organizations that are part of the so-called Israeli lobby. Make them register, find out where their money comes from and check out their close and continuing relationships with the Israeli government. And by the way, forget all about that “shared values” and “security interests” nonsense, it’s all a sham. I would like to invite Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden to travel with their families to the Israeli army occupied West Bank and live as Palestinians for a few weeks. They would get a good taste of Israeli “values.” And as for “security interests,” it’s all about Israeli perceptions, isn’t it? Genuine American interests in the Middle East region have long been ground down under the heel of Jewish power in the United States and people like Jonathan Greenblatt will continue to use their bully pulpit to make sure that critics of the process are effectively silenced.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
November 15, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Permanent Representative of Syria to the United Nations, Bassam Sabbagh, says Israel must join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and eliminate its stockpile of nuclear weapons in order for a nuclear-weapon-free zone to be established in the Middle East.
Speaking at the Third Session of the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction in New York, Sabbagh lambasted Western countries, particularly the United States, for their generous support of the Israeli regime.
He argued that the approach has emboldened the regime to possess and develop more such munitions and to refuse to subject its nuclear facilities to international supervision, which have posed serious threats to regional peace and security.
He also complained that the tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons failed to introduce practical steps that would guarantee the effective implementation of the 1995 Middle East Resolution, which serves as a fundamental pillar in supporting the non-proliferation regime on the regional level.
The senior Syrian diplomat said Damascus supported the UN General Assembly resolution as a path parallel to the implementation of the Middle East Resolution, and not an alternative to it.
“Ever since the adoption of the resolution, Syria has cooperated with regional states participating in the conference to achieve their common goals. The progress made by the conference indicates the sincere and serious efforts made by participating countries, and reveals, on the other hand, the disregard of Israel and the United States for the international will. This practice goes hand in hand with their obstructionism to create a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction,” Sabbagh noted.
“Syria considers establishment of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction as an important measure on the path of disarmament, empowerment of the non-proliferation regime, and a serious contribution to the protection of regional and international peace and security,” he said.
“Syria is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and tabled a draft resolution in 2002 and 2003 aimed at establishment of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. The United States, however, aborted that initiative to protect Israel,” the Syrian diplomat said.
Israel, which pursues a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear weapons, is estimated to possess 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, making it the sole possessor of non-conventional arms in West Asia.
The illegitimate entity has, however, refused to either allow inspections of its military nuclear facilities or sign the NPT.
What has emboldened Tel Aviv to accelerate its nuclear activities, according to observers, is the support from the United States and Europe, the two parties most critical of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.
November 15, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | European Union, Israel, Middle East, NPT, Syria, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The “message of Jewish supremacy” dominates Israel’s proposed civic curriculum, sources in the Education Ministry are reported saying. The curriculum was formulated over the past year by five members of the curriculum committee. All are Jews and three are said to be religiously observant. The curriculum is expected to serve as a basis for a new high school civics program in the future and is pending final approval.
“The program conveys well the message of Jewish supremacy to the students,” Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Democracy Institute is reported saying in Haaretz. He stressed that the contribution of Israel’s education system could not be ignored when looking at the recent election results. “The subject has been hijacked by the right and shaped in accordance with its values,” said another Education Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Jewish supremacist groups and members of the Israeli Knesset that have been slammed for their openly fascist views emerged as the biggest winners. They won 14 seats, the third highest but, more importantly, they have become kingmakers for the foreseeable future.
The new curriculum is meant for the ninth grade in public non-religious schools and religious schools in the general community and public schools in Arab and Druze communities. It was recently brought up for discussion among senior Education Ministry officials.
According to a copy of the curriculum obtained by Haaretz, the first part deals with Israel’s Declaration of Independence, with a focus on “the government authorities and a number of representative symbols and laws.” The second part offers a list of topics to choose from, including “Israel and the Diaspora”, “Religion-State Relations”, “The Israeli-Arab Conflict” and “the Founding Fathers”. There is no mention of the existence of millions of Palestinians or the economic and social inequality within Israel.
Words like “equality is not mentioned once in the new curriculum, while in the current curriculum, the word it appears nine times, mainly with regard to equality before the law. “Loyal” has been introduced for the first time within the context of being “law-abiding and loyal to the State”. The list of goals does not include the State’s obligation to care for and serve its citizens and that the word “rights” does not appear.
“At the heart of the democratic system is the human being, together with various combinations of values of equality and liberty. This is not seen in the curriculum,” an Education Ministry official is reported saying. The term human dignity is said to have been removed. The curriculum has not yet been approved and is under review.
November 14, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 