How hawks in US are trying to demonize students protesting Israeli genocide
By Mohsen Badakhsh | Press TV | May 12, 2024
The US government has resorted to brutal measures not only to suppress the growing student movement in colleges across the country against the US-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza but also to demonize it by labeling protesters as “criminals” and “terrorists.”
Such oppressive measures – by a country that routinely uses its propaganda machinery to project itself as the “leader of the free world” – evoke familiarity as Washington has always falsely accused countries, organizations and individuals critical of its hegemonic policies of such measures.
In the past week, many American lawmakers across the political spectrum have labeled these protesting students and professors at America’s most prominent universities as Iran-backed “terrorists”, “pro-Hamas fanatics” and “criminals,” while referring to the traditional Palestinian keffiyehs as “terrorist headdress” and the protest encampments on college campuses as “little Gazas.”
Such racist and derogatory language against Palestinians as well as American critics of Washington’s military and economic support for the Israeli apartheid regime and the ongoing Gaza genocide was employed by members of the US Congress at the behest of the powerful pro-Israel lobby.
Take note of the following remarks by Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas made last week while introducing legislation to cut off federal funding of universities that have not done enough to suppress student protests against the persisting US-Israeli genocide in Gaza.
“We’re here to discuss ‘little Gazas’ that have risen upon campuses across America and liberal college administrators and politicians who refuse to restore law and order and protect other students. These ‘little Gazas’ are disgusting cesspools of anti-Semitic hate — full of pro-Hamas sympathizers, fanatics and freaks,” Cotton stated.
“The terrorist sympathizers in these ‘little Gazas’ aren’t peacefully protesting Israel’s conduct of the war. They’re violently and illegally demanding death for Israel, just like their ideological twins: the ayatollahs in Iran,” he hastened to add, trying to connect the pro-Palestine campus movement to Iran.
Such remarks point to Washington’s long-held strategy of linking Iran, a country that has dared to challenge the Western hegemony, to any meaningful criticism of its Israeli ally while falsely depicting the Islamic Republic and resistance groups as instigators of terrorism and human rights violations.
This is while top American officials have admitted to establishing, enabling and funding the world’s most notorious terrorist groups – such as Daesh (ISIS) – to wage wars of terror and destabilize countries such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
Washington has also earned notoriety for waging military coups to topple popular governments and install ruthless dictators to push their interests in different regions, including Iran, all in the name of “democracy” and “rule of law.”
Joining the hawkish Arkansas senator in sponsoring the so-called ‘Bailouts for Campus Criminals Act’ were 18 other Republican senators that likened peaceful student protesters to “terrorists” and “criminals” just for taking a stand against US support for the Israeli regime’s genocidal war on Gaza.
“Hamas sympathizers engaging in criminal behavior on college campuses should be ineligible for student loan bailouts,” said Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee who co-sponsored the bill.
“We must hold these criminals accountable and ensure taxpayer dollars do not go toward paying off their debt,” she added, while having no word on billions of dollars worth of weapons sent to Tel Aviv by US President Joe Biden that are used to slaughter Palestinian children and women.
Meanwhile, Republican Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Rick Scott of Florida, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, and others also demanded a freeze on federal funding for US universities that have not done enough to condemn and punish student protesters.
The move also signifies that major US higher education institutions rely heavily on federal funding and are expected to abide by Washington’s policies, including its support for genocidal war crimes in Gaza.
Unfazed by the hostile and repressive crackdown on student protests at major American universities, teenage high school students in numerous US cities have started their own protest rallies against Washington’s ironclad support for persisting Israeli war crimes across occupied Palestine.
The emergence of the new protest movement led by the younger American student community in major US states such as New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Oregan, Maryland and Washington clearly points to the futility of harsher measures taken by US officials aimed at deterring and punishing any opposition to its oppressive policies – nationally as well as through foreign interference.
The development has raised new fears among US politicians and analysts about likely repercussions in the presidential and congressional elections next November for both political parties amid concerns about a potential upheaval and violence in the rematch presidential race between the 82-year-old Biden and the 80-year-old former president Donald Trump.
Moreover, a dozen American senators have also issued strongly-worded warning to the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s chief prosecutor Karim Khan against the UN court’s possible handing of arrest warrants against the Israeli regime officials over their persisting genocidal war on the Gaza Strip.
“Target Israel and we will target you,” vowed pro-Trump Republican senators that included Tom Cotton, Mitch McConnell, Rick Scott, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.
The move came amid speculation that the court may issue arrest warrants against top Israeli officials over the genocidal war in Gaza that has so far killed nearly 35,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.
Also this week, the largest American Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization slammed the US House of Representatives for passing a controversial legislation that criminalizes any criticism of the Israeli apartheid regime.
In a statement released on Wednesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) insisted that the so-called ‘Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023’ is a “one-sided, and dishonest” document that ignores persisting anti-Palestinian racism across the United States.
The House approved the bipartisan bill, introduced by New York Republican Congressman Mike Lawler, in a 320-91 vote and forwarded it to the Senate for passage and likely enactment by Biden’s signature.
Pointing to Washington’s traditional support for persisting Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian population, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei reiterated earlier this month the validity of Tehran’s distrust of the US and rejection of the apartheid Zionist regime, citing American complicity in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its brutal crackdown on student protests.
Ayatollah Khamenei declared that the only solution to the Palestinian issue would be the return of the entire land to its rightful owners and allowing them to decide what to do with the Zionist occupiers.
He further pointed to the expansion of the American student protest movement to universities across Europe and other parts of the globe, insisting that “Gaza remains the leading concern of the world” with a growing realization about the evil nature of the Zionist regime as well as the validity of the Islamic Republic’s unrelenting policy of rejecting the legitimacy of the Israeli occupying entity.
It remains to be seen what Washington’s defiance of the growing worldwide condemnation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza will spell for it in a highly sensitive election year in the face of a very divisive Congress and persisting tensions with Russia, China and the West Asia region over various military, political, economic, and strategic issues.
Mohsen Badakhsh is an educator and freelance journalist.
University nabs $42 million for ‘pandemic preparedness’ 2 weeks after firing scientist for questioning COVID shots for kids
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | May 8, 2024
A Canadian university has fired Patrick Provost, Ph.D., a professor and scientist experienced in the field of RNA and lipid nanoparticles, reigniting the debate around academic freedom and the suppression of scientific discourse.
Laval University, a public research university in Quebec City, suspended Provost multiple times for publicly questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the necessity of vaccinating children.
On March 28, the university fired Provost, who had tenure in the Department of Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and Immunology at the university’s Medical School.
The firing, which comes as his previous suspensions are still being arbitrated — and despite a Quebec law protecting academic freedom — first made headlines in Quebec’s Le Devoir on April 26, a day after Libre Média published portions of Provost’s letter to colleagues.
“Are we witnessing the re-engineering of society, where we will no longer be able to freely express or debate … where professors will censor themselves, rather than intervene … in order to preserve their privileges?” Provost wrote.
Laval’s controversial decision follows Harvard University’s example in March, when it fired Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, ostensibly for non-compliance with the university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
‘I could not remain silent’
Over his 35-year career in academic research, Provost authored nearly 100 papers, was cited in over 16,000 research articles and received three “Discovery of the Year” awards in recognition of his research.
He was a leading expert in the field of RNA for the past 20 years and in the field of lipid nanoparticles for the past 10 years.
His extensive knowledge of these key components of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines compelled him to question the possible dangers associated with the novel treatments when the Canadian government rolled them out in 2021.
“Being aware of the potential risks, known and unknown, associated with these new ‘vaccines,’ I could not remain silent on such important issues, where lives were at stake, particularly those of children,” Provost wrote in his letter.
He said he felt compelled to share his concerns with the public, colleagues and government officials, to promote transparency and informed decision-making.
Despite his attempts to engage in dialogue and debate, Provost received no response other than the disciplinary actions taken by Laval University.
He was suspended without pay on four separate occasions. The first suspension, of eight weeks, was imposed on June 13, 2022, following a complaint from a professor, and the second, of four months, was imposed on Jan. 23, 2023, after a complaint from a citizen.
A sixth complaint was dropped on Feb. 14, 2023, after more than 275 colleagues wrote to the university denouncing its treatment of Provost as “abusive.”
Laval maintains his actions were not related to academic freedom but instead infringed on the university’s policymaking authority, Provost told The Defender.
In his letter, Provost expressed his disappointment in the lack of open discussion on the COVID-19 vaccine issue, asking, “Why have peers disappeared from adversarial public debate?”
Academic freedom ‘the last line of defence’ for democracy
Provost’s dismissal sparked concerns about the enforcement of Quebec’s law — passed in June 2022 — protecting academic freedom, The Epoch Times reported.
“University professors have the right to criticize their own institutions — even the government,” Provost told The Defender, who said his case should never have gone before an arbitrator.
The parliamentary minister declined to intervene, however, and — wanting to avoid the accusation of intervening in the legal process — claimed the arbitration process must proceed, according to Provost.
Critics argue that the law was not effectively enforced, leading to the suppression of dissenting opinions and the punishment of researchers who challenge dominant narratives.
The Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université (FQPPU), told The Epoch Times that Provost’s dismissal was an “unacceptable attack against academic freedom.”
FQPPU President Madeleine Pastinelli said, “If the theses defended by a professor are upsetting or erroneous, it’s the duty of other specialists in the field to criticize or contradict them on a scientific level and certainly not for managers to establish the limit between what is valuable or not.”
“It’s not normal for professors to fear retaliation when they speak publicly against government directives,” said Quebec Conservative Party Leader Éric Duhaime. “In democracy, universities must remain independent from political interests.”
In a letter of support for Provost, nine Canadian academics warned, “If we give place to censorship in the university, we give place to censorship virtually everywhere else.” They called academic freedom — and particularly tenure — “the last line of defence” for democracy.
Provost agreed, telling The Defender, “If the freedom of speech of professors disappears, democracy will disappear too, quite soon after.”
Canada is lost. Democracy only exists with robust academic freedom
1/ Great to see that BOTH Prof @provost_patrick‘s union & the Quebec Federation of University Professors (QFUP) supporting/defending him against what they call is an “unacceptable attack against academic freedom” https://t.co/p76ZoXhOEe
— Kulvinder Kaur MD (@dockaurG) May 2, 2024
Laval got $42 million for pandemic preparedness two weeks after firing
Provost’s dismissal also raised concerns about the influence of financial interests and political pressure on academic institutions.
Douglas Farrow, Ph.D., professor of theology and ethics at McGill University in Montreal and one of the authors of the recent letter in support of Provost, wrote on his Substack that the suppression of academic freedom often aligns with the interests of powerful entities, such as pharmaceutical companies and government agencies that provide significant funding to universities.
Farrow highlighted funding recently received by Laval University: “[$]42 million from the Canada Foundation for Innovation to set up a centre to help prepare for future ‘pandemics.’”
“That’s a lot of money,” Provost told The Defender. “I’m wondering if my dismissal is linked to this announcement, which came about two weeks after I’d been fired.”
“Those vested interests don’t give a damn about science as such,” Farrow wrote. “It is ‘The Science’ they care about, because that is the kind of science you can be told by narrative-spinners to follow.”
Hopes for a favorable ruling
Provost and the Union of Laval University Professors have filed around 20 formal grievances challenging his suspensions and dismissal.
Provost said he hoped a favorable ruling from the arbitrator on the initial suspension would function “like falling dominoes,” setting a precedent for lifting the subsequent suspensions and ultimately paving the way for his reinstatement.
However, the arbitration process is expected to be lengthy, with a decision on the first suspension not anticipated until January 2025, more than three years after the alleged offenses.
If arbitration fails, Provost said he may pursue other options but lamented that “the legal system is really very corrupted by the government” in Canada.
The long battle has taken a toll on Provost’s energy and finances, which are now exacerbated by the loss of his position entirely. He has four children who are still financially dependent, with two still at home.
His two college-aged children have to “work more and borrow money from the bank,” he said, but noted that his family has been “very, very supportive.”
“Father, don’t worry about us,” his children told him. “You have to win this fight and we stand behind you.”
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The Myth of Online Radicalisation
By Iain Davis | The Disillusioned Blogger | May 10, 2021
In 2021, following the tragic murder of David Amess MP, the UK legacy media reported that Ali Harbi Ali, the man subsequently convicted of murdering Mr Amess, was quite possibly radicalised online:
Social media users could face a ban on anonymous accounts, as home secretary Priti Patel steps up action to tackle radicalisation in the wake of the murder of MP David Amess. [. . .] Police questioning Ali Harbi Ali on suspicion of terrorism offences are understood to be investigating the possibility that the 25-year-old [. . .] was radicalised by material found on the internet and social media networks during lockdown.
The police had already stated that the crime was being investigated as a terrorist incident. They reported a potential motive of Islamist extremism.
Ali Harbi Ali had been known to the UK government’s Prevent counter-radicalisation program for seven years, prior to murdering Mr Amess. In 2014 Ali Harbi Ali was referred to the Channel counter-terrorism programme, a wing of Prevent reserved for the most radical youths. A referral to Channel can only have come from the UK Police. The official guidance for a Channel referral states:
The progression of referrals is monitored at the Home Office for a period, with a view to offering further support if needed. An audit of non-adopted referrals is undertaken where these did not progress to police management. The Home Office works with Counter Terrorism Policing Headquarters to share any concerns and agree necessary steps for improvement in partnership with the local authority and police.
It is likely, therefore, that Ali Harbi Abedi was known to the UK government, counter-terrorism police and the intelligence agencies. Yet we are told, having been flagged as among the most concerning of all Prevent subjects, for some seemingly inexplicable reason, Ali Harbi Ali was not known to the intelligence agencies. To date, there has been no explanation for this, frankly, implausible claim.
Following his conviction, the UK legacy media reported that Ali Harbi Ali was an example of “textbook radicalisation.” This was a quite extraordinary claim because there is no such thing as “textbook radicalisation.”
Ali Harbi Ali said that he had watched ISIS propaganda videos online. This was also highlighted at his trial. Consequently, the BBC reported:
[. . .] for a potentially bored teenager living a humdrum life in suburban London – the [Syrian] war not only appeared like an exciting video game on social media, it came packaged with an appealing message that there was a role for everyone else. [. . .] Harbi Ali told himself he could [. . .] join the ranks of home-grown attackers – on the basis of an instruction [online videos] from an IS propagandist who played a major role in the spread of terrorism attacks in western Europe.
The story we are supposed to believe about Ali Harbi Ali’s alleged path toward radicalisation is that he became a terrorist and a murderer because he watched YouTube videos and engaged in online groups that support terrorism. This is complete nonsense.
What is the Radicalisation Process?
In 2016, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson issued a report to inform potential UN strategies to counter extremism and terrorism. Emmerson reported there was neither an agreed-upon definition of “extremism” nor any single cogent explanation of the “radicalisation” process:
[M]any programmes directed at radicalisation [are] based on a simplistic understanding of the process as a fixed trajectory to violent extremism with identifiable markers along the way. [. . .] There is no authoritative statistical data on the pathways towards individual radicalisation.
This was followed, in 2017, with the publication of “Countering Domestic Extremism” by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS report stated that domestic “violence and violent extremist ideologies” were eventually adopted by a small minority of people as the result of a complex and poorly understood “radicalisation” process.
According to the NAS, there were numerous contributory factors to an individual’s apparent radicalisation, including sociopolitical and economic factors, personality traits, psychological influences, traumatic life experiences and so on. Precisely how these elements combined, and why some people were radicalised, while the majority who experienced the same weren’t, remained unknown:
No single shared motivator for violent extremism has been found, but the sum of several could provide a strong foundation for understanding
In July 2018, researcher team from from Deakin University in Australia largely corroborated Emmerson’s and NAS’ findings. Adding some further detail and research, their peer-reviewed article, “The 3 P’s of Radicalisation,” was based upon an meta-analysis of all the available academic literature on the radicalisation. They identified three broad drivers that could potentially lead someone toward violent extremism. They called these Push, Pull, and Personal factors.
Push factors are created by the individuals perception of their social or political environment. Awareness of things likes state repression, structural deprivation, poverty, and injustice can lead to resentment and anger. Pull factors are the elements of extremism that appeal to the individual. This might include an ideological commitment, a group identity and sense of belonging, finding a purpose, promises of justice, eternal glory, etc. Personal factors are the aspects of an individual’s personality that may predispose them to being more vulnerable to Push or Pull influences. For example, mental health problems or illness, individual characteristics, their reaction to life experiences and more.
Currently, the UN cites it’s own report—Journey To Extremism in Africa—as “the most extensive study yet on what drives people to violent extremism.” Building on the work we’ve just discussed, the report concluded that radicalisation is the product of numerous factors that combine to lead an individual down a path to extremism and possible violence.
The myriad of contributory factors to the radicalisation process acording to the UN’s “best study.”
The UN stated:
We know the drivers and enablers of violent extremism are multiple, complex and context specific, while having religious, ideological, political, economic and historical dimensions. They defy easy analysis, and understanding of the phenomenon remains incomplete.
The BBC report of “textbook radicalisation” was total rubbish. Everything we know about the radicalisation process reveals a convoluted interplay between social, economic, political, cultural and personal factors. These factors, which “defy easy analysis,” may combine to lead someone toward violent extremism and potentially terrorism. In the overwhelming majority of cases they do not.
It is extremely difficult to predict which individual’s may be radicalised. Millions of people experience all of the Push, Pull and Personal contributory factors and only a minuscule minority turn to extremism and violence.
We can say that watching videos and hanging around in online chat groups may be part of the radicalisation process but, absent all the other contributory elements, in no way is it reasonable to claim that anyone becomes a terrorist simply because they are “radicalised online.” The suggestion is absurd.
This absurdity was emphasised by the UN in its June 2023 publication of its report “Prevention of Violent Extremism.” The UN reported:
[. . .] deaths from terrorist activity have fallen considerably worldwide in recent years.
During the same period global internet use had increased by 45%, from 3.7 billion people in 2018 to 5.4 billion in 2023. Quite clearly, if there is a correlation between internet use and terrorism—doubtful—it’s an inverse one.
Adopting the precautionary principle we should perhaps be encouraging more people to have more access to a wider range of online information sources. There is a remote, but possible chance that this assists, in some unknown way, the reduction of violent extremism and deters the tiny minority from turning toward terrorism.
Marianna Spring
Exploiting the Online Radicalisation Myth
State propagandists, like the BBC’s Marianna Spring, have been spreading disinformation about online radicalisation for some time. They have been doing this to deceive the public into thinking that government legislation, such as the Online Safety Act (OSA), will tackle the mythical problem of online radicalisation.
In a January 2024 article she titled “Young Britons exposed to online radicalisation following Hamas attack,” Marianna Spring wrote:
It is a spike in hate that leaves young Britons increasingly exposed to radicalisation by algorithm. [. . .] Algorithms are recommendation systems that promote new content to a user based on posts they engage with. That means they can drive some people to more extreme ideas.
Building on her absurd Lord Haw-Haw level tripe, in reference to the work of the UK Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) Spring added:
The focus is on terrorism-related content that could lead to violence offline or risk radicalising other people into terror ideologies on social media.
Building on this abject nonsense Spring continued:
So what about all of the hate that sits in the middle? It’s not extreme enough to be illegal, but it still poisons the public discourse and risks pushing some people further towards extremes. [. . .] Responsibility for dealing with hateful posts – as of now – lies with the social media companies. It also lies, to some extent, with policy makers looking to regulate the sites, and users themselves. New legislation like the Online Safety Act does force the social media companies to take responsibility for illegal content, too.
This blurring of definitions from “terrorist” to “hate” to “hateful posts” to “extremes” was a meaningless slurry of specious drivel designed to convince the public that terrorists become terrorists because they watch YouTube videos or are influenced by the “hurty words” they read and share on social media. None of which was true.
Spring’s evident purpose was to lend some credibility to the State’s legislative push to silence all dissent online and censor legitimate public opinion. Spring spun the idea, that online radicalisation exists, to encourage people to give away their essential democratic rights in order to stay safe.
This moronic argument convinced the clueless puppeticians—we keep electing to Parliament by mistake—to pass the Online Safety Act into law in October 2023. They were told that it would protect children and adults from “harm”:
The kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from are set out in the Act, and this includes content relating to [. . .] terrorism.
Imagining this is what the Online Safety Act was supposed to protect adults from, the OSA received its Royal assent. Now that we have it on the statute books all the anti-democratic oppression it contains has been let loose.
The UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) creates the offence of “sending false information intended to cause non-trivial harm.” Quite what “non-trivial harm” is supposed to mean isn’t entirely clear. The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) certainly doesn’t understand it:
Section 179(1) OSA 2023 creates a summary offence of sending false communications. The offence is committed if [. . .], at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience. [. . .] Non-trivial psychological or physical harm is not defined [. . .]. Prosecutors should be clear when making a charging decision about what the evidence is concerning the suspect’s intention and how what was intended was not “trivial”, and why. Note that there is no requirement that such harm should in fact be caused, only that it be intended.
Its seems the legal profession can’t quite grasp the horrific implications of the new punishable offence the UK State has created. Perhaps because they still imagine they serve a democracy. There’s no need for any confusion. The UK State has been quite clear about the nature of its dictatorship:
These new criminal offences will protect people from a wide range of abuse and harm online, including [. . .] sending fake news that aims to cause non-trivial physical or psychological harm.
“Fake news” is whatever the State, the Establishment and their “epistemic authorities” say it is. what constitutes “non-trivial harm” is also an entirely subjective judgement for the State. The Online Safety regulator, Ofcom, will decree the truth and the State will punish those who dare to contradict its official proclamations based upon whatever the Secretary of State tells Ofcom to outlaw.
If you think this sounds like “thought crime,” you are right. That is precisely what it is.
The idea that the OSA has something to do with protecting children and deterring people from online radicalisation was a sales pitch. Propagandists like the BBC’s Marianna Spring were dispatched to make the ridiculous arguments to deceive the public into believing their own speech needs to be regulated by the State.
The State is Completely Disinterested In Terrorist Content Online
Inciting violence, crime or promoting terrorism, sharing child porn and the online paedophile grooming of children has been illegal in the UK for many years. The Online Safety Act adds absolutely nothing to existing laws. The problem has never been insufficient law it has been insufficient enforcement.
In addition, it couldn’t be more obvious that the UK State and its propagandists are not in the least bit interested in tackling alleged “online radicalisation.” It is revealed in Marianna Spring’s article (referenced above) she reportedly got her wacky ideas about online radicalisation from CTIRU team members.
The CTIRU was set up in 2010 to remove “unlawful terrorist material” from the Internet. It makes formal requests to social media and hosting companies to take down material deemed to be terrorist related. If online radicalisation were a thing, which it isn’t, the CTIRU has been tasked for 14 years with stopping it. It doesn’t appear to have done anything at all.
The group Jabhat Fateh al Sham (JFS) was formerly known as the Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra (alias al-Qaeda in Syria, or al-Qaeda in the Levant). It subsequently merged with Ansar al-Din Front, Jaysh al-Sunna, Liwa al-Haqq, and the Nour al–Din al-Zenki Movement to form Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), or ‘Levant Liberation Front’.
HTS’ objective is to create an Islamic state in the Levant. According to the UK Government’s listing of proscribed terrorist groups:
The government laid Orders, in July 2013, December 2016 and May 2017, which provided that the “al-Nusrah Front (ANF)”, “Jabhat al-Nusrah li-ahl al Sham”, “Jabhat Fatah al-Sham” and “Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham” should be treated as alternative names for the organisation which is already proscribed under the name Al Qa’ida.
HTS, then, is officially defined as Al-Qa’ida. It is the same group supposedly responsible for 9/11.
In 2016, six years after the CTIRU was formed, BBC Newsnight interviewed Al-Qa’ida’s Director of Foreign Media Relations, Mostafa Mahamed, about the ambitions of Al-Qa’ida. The BBC gave him ample airtime to explain how Al-Qa’ida was leading the fight against the elected Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. The BBC claimed that JFS—now HTS—had formerly split from Al-Qa’ida. Probably attempting to justify its promotion of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The UK Government does not share the BBC appraisal but its Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit doesn’t appear to be overly fussed.
The BBC HTS promo video is still available to watch on YouTube. Alternatively, you could watch a JFS promotional video, or perhaps spend less than a minute searching YouTube to find the slew of videos it provides promoting proscribed Islamist terrorist groups.
You can still watch Channel 4’s in-depth 2016 report extolling the heroics of the Nour al-Din al-Zenki terrorists. This is the group that publicly beheaded a twelve-year-old boy. In fact, Channel 4 promoted those directly responsible for the despicable crime. Channel 4 said the child murderers had won a “famous victory”.
When it was pointed out that these people decapitate children, the BBC leapt to their defence, pointing out that the child was probably a combatant. The BBC didn’t ask its terrorist interviewee, Mostafa Mahamed, whether he was against murdering children in principle.
Such videos have been available online for years and have been shared liberally by mainstream media outlets such as Al-Jazeera, Channel 4, the BBC, AP, France24 and many others. This all seems rather odd, because in 2018, then CTIRU Commander Clarke Jarrett said:
It’s vital that if the public see something online they think could be terrorist-related, that they ACT and flag it up to us. Our Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) has specialist officers who not only take action to get content removed, but also increasingly, are in a position to look at those behind online content — which is leading to more and more investigations.
What does CTIRU mean by “terrorist-related” if not promotional videos made by terrorist organisations? How much investigation is needed to “take down” BBC interviews with Al-Qa’ida spokesmen, and to prosecute those who made and broadcast it?
Why aren’t the hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorist promos currently available via Google services deemed unlawful? Are only some terrorist groups unlawful while others are fine? Why are some terrorists promoted and others not?
The truth is the whole thing is a monumental sham. Not only is online radicalisation a myth the State couldn’t care less about terrorist promotional material. The online radicalisation myth has been punted by propagandists for one reason only. To convince you to submit to online censorship.
Protecting Israel Is Washington’s Number One Job
The White House and Congress rally around the Star of David Flag
BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • MAY 8, 2024
When, as expected, President Joe Biden signs off on the Antisemitism Awareness Act the Department of Education will be empowered to send so-called antisemitism monitors to enforce civil rights law at public schools as well as at colleges to observe and report on levels of hostility towards Jews. The monitors’ reports will eventually wind up in Congress which can propose remedies as required, including cutting funding and recommending civil rights charges in extreme cases. One of the more regrettable features of the act is that it accepts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism as it applies to the state of Israel, making criticism of the Jewish state ipso facto antisemitism. Its text includes the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity” as an antisemitic act. In reality, however, actual antisemitism is not as prevalent as Israel partisans claim. Most of what they call antisemitism is simply criticism of the legally self-proclaimed apartheid “Jewish State” and most of the animosity Israel experiences is opposition to its brutal treatment of the Palestinians. Giving legal sanction to that presumption that Israel must be protected from bigots means that the United States is well on the way to forbidding any criticism of Israel at all. Americans can criticize their own country or nations in Europe, or at least they are able to do so currently, but bad-mouthing Israel could soon constitute a criminal offense.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act is just one aspect of how the power of organized Jewish groups over the government and media is shaping the kind of society that Americans will be living in in the near future. It will be a society devoid of several fundamental constitutional rights, like free speech, due to deference to the preferences of one tiny demographic. And the one most interesting aspect of that power is how it has successfully hidden the fact that it even exists while also propagating the myth that Jews and Israel are especially worthy of special consideration because they are frequently or even always perceived as victims, an extension of the holocaust myth.
Indeed, Israel is recently always in the news and most often completely protected by the media and the talking heads elements, particularly true if one sinks to watching Fox or reading the Wall Street Journal, New York Times or Washington Post. Even the loathsome Benjamin Netanyahu frequently gets good press while nonviolent student peace demonstrators are invariably described as anti-Israeli or pro-Hamas terrorists even when they are assaulted by Zionist thugs led by an Israeli special ops officer and funded and armed by Jewish billionaires as occurred recently in Los Angeles.
Nevertheless, sometimes something slips through the defenses that reveals all too clearly what is going on. In responding to a question from a journalist, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made a claim recently that absolutely no one who has spent any time in Washington will believe. The journalist had asked whether the Federal Government in making its foreign policy decisions tended to favor and/or excuse the behavior of some countries while condemning others for exactly the same actions. Blinken replied “We apply the same standard to everyone. And that doesn’t change whether the country in question is an adversary, a competitor, a friend or an ally.”
Everyone in the room understood very clearly that Blinken wasn’t telling the truth and was trying to preserve the fiction that the United States holds allies and clients to the same “rules based international order” standard that it uses for others, most notably competitor nations like Russia and China or adversaries like Iran. No one takes what Blinken says seriously in any event, and it does not help his general credibility when he feels compelled to lie for no reason whatsoever.
Would that someone in the room had had the temerity to cite one of Blinken’s most egregiously partisan comments, his greeting to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the airport tarmac of Ben Gurion airport shortly after the October 7th Hamas attack. He said “I come before you as a Jew. I understand on a personal level the harrowing echoes that Hamas’s massacres carry for Israeli Jews – indeed, for Jews everywhere.” It prompted one to mutter, “No Anthony, you are the Secretary of States of the United States of America. You are there to represent American interests in avoiding a major war in the Middle East, not to represent the interests of your tribe by declaring yourself one of them.”
The Blinken meeting with Netanyahu was particularly telling as few in Washington would doubt that the Joe Biden White House and Congress have totally surrendered to Israeli interests rather than serving the needs of their constituents in the United States. Paul Craig Roberts describes it as “The US Congress has become an extension of the Israeli government.” To answer the journalist’s question honestly Blinken should have admitted that the Biden government is fully committed to protecting Israel and even its perceived interests when they conflict with normal US policy. On Wednesday the Biden administration indicated that it has indefinitely delayed a required report investigating potential Israeli war crimes in Gaza that was supposed to be released by the US State Department. If the report had concluded, which it should have, that Israel violated international humanitarian law, the US would have to stop sending foreign aid due to the Leahy Law, which makes it illegal for the US government to provide aid to any foreign security forces found to be committing “gross violations of human rights.” So Joe Biden and Anthony Blinken decided to deep six the report instead to protect Israel by breaking US law, though they have reportedly delayed one shipment of bombs lest they be used on civilians in Rafah. Nevertheless, Biden clearly means what he says when he repeatedly stumbles to confirm that US security guarantees to Israel are “ironclad.” Indeed, the tie with the Jewish state goes well beyond what is generally due to anyone even described as an ally, which Israel, also no democracy, is not in any event, as an alliance requires both reciprocity and a precise understanding of the red lines in the relationship.
Nothing illustrates the total subservience of Washington to Israel better than how the United States is unnecessarily getting itself involved in an argument that might well prove to be a major embarrassment as well as trouble in America’s relationship with many foreign states. And, as is often the case, it involves Israel. There have been confirmed reports that the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is preparing to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and two other senior Israeli officials in connection with war crimes related to the ongoing genocide directed against the Gazans. Netanyahu is reportedly reaching wildly out to his many “friends” to prevent such a development. And, in line with Washington-Jerusalem thinking that every good crisis deserves an excessive use of force or even a military solution, there are already reports that pressure, including threats, is being exerted both by Israel and the US against the jurists on the court and even directed against their families. The Israeli government warned the Biden administration that if the ICC issues arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, it will take retaliatory steps against the Palestinian Authority that could lead to its collapse, further destabilizing the region. Israel is also conducting a parallel diplomatic channels outreach in Europe to convince the local governments to advise their representatives on the court that it would be desirable to squash its investigation.
Netanyahu, who called President Joe Biden and asked for help, has in response to news reports tweeted that Israel “will never accept any attempt by the ICC to undermine its inherent right of self-defense. The threat to seize the soldiers and officials of the Middle East’s only democracy and the world’s only Jewish state is outrageous. We will not bow to it.” Netanyahu also denounced the possible warrants as an “unprecedented antisemitic hate crime.” As ICC deliberations are secret it would appear that an American or British jurist must have leaked the story to enable Netanyahu to mount a campaign against it. The White House and Congress are already moving full speed ahead to make the warrants go away and are exploring options to directly confront and discredit the court if the Israelis are actually punished.
The US has nothing to gain and much to lose in confronting the ICC as the court is generally well respected. And more might be coming. There are reports that prosecutors from the ICC have interviewed medical staff at two of Gaza’s largest hospitals in their investigation of other possible war crimes committed by Israel in connection with the mass graves recently discovered. ICC was founded in 2002 as a last resort court to deal with war crimes and crimes against humanity that were not addressable otherwise. The court was established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute). Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction. However, should a warrant in Netanyahu’s name be issued, his travel could be restricted, as the 123 countries that recognize the court may consider themselves obliged to arrest him.
As of March 2023, there were 123 member states of the Court. The United States is no longer a member because on May 6th, 2002, the United States, having previously signed the Rome Statute, formally withdrew its signature and indicated that it did not intend to ratify the agreement. Another state that has withdrawn its signature is the Sudan while some states that have never become parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China. United States policy concerning the ICC has varied by administration. The Clinton administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The George W. Bush administration, which was the US administration at the time of the ICC’s founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama administration subsequently re-established a working relationship with the Court as an observer. There has been no change in the status since that time, but the relationship is regarded as inactive.
What will the United States do to bail out Israel one more time? It has already made its position known. White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre stated “We’ve been really clear about the ICC investigation. We do not support it. We don’t believe that they have the jurisdiction.” Deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel doubled down on that declaring “Our position is clear. We continue to believe that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Palestinian situation.” The White House was joined by leading congressional Republicans. Zionist Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has pressured the White House and State Department to “use every available tool to prevent such an abomination,” explaining how conceding the point to ICC “would directly undermine US national security interests. If unchallenged by the Biden administration, the ICC could create and assume unprecedented power to issue arrest warrants against American political leaders, American diplomats, and American military personnel.”
There is a precedent to the US taking action against the ICC. On September 2, 2020, the United States government imposed sanctions on the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, in response to an investigation by the court into US war crimes in Afghanistan, so there is some sensitivity to the fact that as the US is the world’s leading source of war crimes, it would be wise to delegitimize agencies that would look too deeply into that fact. But the ICC sometimes has its uses as when the Biden administration publicly welcomed a war crimes investigation by the ICC against Russian President Vladimir Putin over the war in Ukraine. Asked why the United States supported an International Criminal Court investigation into Russian officials, Patel declared that “There is no moral equivalency between the kinds of things that we see [Russian President Vladimir Putin] and the Kremlin undertake in comparison to the Israeli government,” once again demonstrating that what Blinken said to the journalist was nonsense.
The Republican Party is seeking to outdo the White House in demonstrating its love for Israel. A letter signed by twelve GOP Senators was sent to Karim Khan, chief prosecutor on the ICC. The letter threatens members of the court over the possible indictment of Netanyahu and company. The group of 12 Republican senators who I like to refer to as the “Dirty Dozen” due to the large political contributions they receive from pro-Israel sources, sent a letter to the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Karim Khan that threatens “severe sanctions” if the court goes ahead with the plan to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu, his Defense Minister and one other senior official. The letter, dated April 24, referenced the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, a law that authorizes the president to use any means to free any US personnel detained by the ICC even though it does not apply to Israel. It says, ridiculously, that “If you issue a warrant for the arrest of the Israeli, we will interpret this not only as a threat to Israel’s sovereignty but as a threat to the sovereignty of the United States” and goes on to deny that the ICC even has jurisdiction to issue warrants since Israel is not a member of the court. The apparent drafter, Senator Tom Cotton, was seemingly unaware that Palestine is a member of the ICC and the arrest warrants would be based on war crimes committed by Israel on its nominal territory, Gaza and the West Bank.
The letter concludes with a heavy-handed threat: “The United States will not tolerate politicized attacks by the ICC on our allies. Target Israel and we will target you. If you move forward with the measures indicated in this report, we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and your associates, and bar you and your family from the United States. You have been warned.” A few days later, the ICC issued a statement condemning the threats made against the court and said attempts to “impede, intimidate, or improperly influence” ICC officials must “cease immediately.” The 12 Republican senators who signed on to the letter include Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Marsha Blackburn, Katie Boyd Britt, Ted Budd, Kevin Cramer, Ted Cruz, Bill Hagerty, Pete Ricketts, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, and Tim Scott. Only Lindsay Graham was missing and he was probably busy drumming up support for his plan to “destroy the enemies of the state of Israel.” Cotton, who has recommended that people who are inconvenienced by protesters should confront them and beat them up, has also introduced legislation denying college loan relief to students who faced state or federal charges while demonstrating against the deaths in Gaza. Some other Republican congressmen who are short on brain cells but strong on Israel are seeking to have protesters “convicted of unlawful activity on the campus of an American university since October 7th 2023” deported to do six months community service in Gaza, though how that would be implemented is not clear. Congressman Randy Weber of Texas explained “If you support a terrorist organization and you participate in unlawful activity on campuses, you should get a taste of your own medicine. I am going to bet that these pro-Hamas supporters wouldn’t last a day, but let’s give them the opportunity.”
So the United States will again go to bat for Israel and Israel will ignore what comes out and dodge any consequences. The real losers in the process will be the American people, who more clearly than ever will see and hopefully recognize that they have a government that spends an awful lot of time and money on Israel and doing things that are being promoted by Jewish groups. We have a legislature and executive branch that have been corrupted and compromised from top to bottom, always doing what is wrong for the most selfish reasons, often out of loyalty to foreign governments like Israel that could care less. The United States was once a symbol of freedom and opportunity. Now it has become an international embarrassment.
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.
Ireland Calls on Tech Giants to Muzzle Election “Misinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | May 8, 2024
Ireland’s Electoral Commission Chief Executive Art O’Leary is warning tech companies behind major social media platforms to adhere to what he considers their responsibilities in the electoral process.
On the one hand, O’Leary is effectively threatening they could be facing unspecified “reputational consequences” that are “not good” in case they are found to be uncooperative in what appears to be the ultimate goal here – censorship, i.e., “removal of material” that is found to be causing “damage to democracy.”
On the other hand, the Electoral Commission chief seems satisfied that the companies the Irish authorities would like to keep under control during the campaign period are in fact “very conscious” of the circumstances, and will, in other words, “behave.”
This obvious attempt to secure that tech firms censor content of their own accord is necessary since the current laws in Ireland do not allow the Commission to impose such decisions; but O’Leary is optimistic and says that the organization he heads has forged “positive relations” with these companies – all the way to “mechanisms to ensure disinformation is taken down quickly,” say reports.
The elections O’Leary has in mind are local Irish and European Parliament ballots scheduled for early June, and as far as the authorities in that country are concerned, “disinformation” is expected from only one corner of the domestic political spectrum – what they brand as “the far-right.”
That’s because groups allegedly espousing such views are planning protests in Dublin – and despite the fact that their political opponents plan the same, that is, to hold so-called “counter-rallies.”
But only the “far right” is singled out as the potential source of “disinformation,” which has a decent chunk of the state apparatus, (national police security and intelligence department, broadcasting regulator, etc.) mobilized to deal with it and what are considered “online harms.”
Now the Election Commission is also joining these efforts, with O’Leary sharing his thought process in an interview he gave the Irish Examiner.
He admitted that there has been “no real evidence” that foreign countries are trying to interfere in the elections, yet this does not prevent alarmist rhetoric, including around that possibility, and AI generated content.
Another of O’Leary’s ideas is to consider extending the moratorium on election coverage imposed on legacy media to online outlets.
The Proof of Censorship is… Censored
By Jeffrey A. Tucker | Brownston Institute | May 7, 2024
It’s not been a good week for the Censorship Industrial Complex.
The machine has been built and put into action over nearly a decade but largely in secret. Its way of doing business has been via surreptitious contacts with media and tech companies, intelligence carve-outs in “fact-checking” organizations, payoffs, and various other clever strategies, all directed toward boosting some sources of information and suppressing others. The goal has always been to advance regime narratives and curate the public mind.
And yet, based on its operations and insofar as we can tell, it had every intention of remaining secret. This is for a reason. A systematic effort by government to bully private sector companies into a particular narrative while suppressing dissent contradicts American law and tradition. It also violates human rights as understood since the Enlightenment. It was a consensus, until very recently, that free speech was essential to the functioning of the good society.
Four years ago, many of us suspected censorship was going on, that the throttling and banning was not merely a mistake or the result of zealous employees stepping out of line. Three years ago, the proof started to arrive. Two years ago, it became a flood. With the Twitter files from a year ago, we had all the proof we needed that the censorship was systematic, directed, and highly effective. But even then, we only knew a fraction of it.
Thanks to discovery from court cases, FOIA requests, whistleblowers, Congressional inquiries thanks to the very narrow Republican control, and some industrial upheavals such as what happened at Twitter, we are overwhelmed with tens of thousands of pages all pointing to the same reality.
The censors developed a belief at the highest levels of control in government that it was their job to govern what information the American people would and would not see, regardless of the truth. The actions became truly tribal: our side favors banning gatherings, closing schools, says the Hunter Biden laptop is a fake, favors masking, mass vaccination, and mail-in voting, and denies the import of voter fraud and vaccine injury, whereas their side takes the opposite approach.
It was a war over information, undertaken in total disregard for the First Amendment, as if it doesn’t even exist. Moreover, the operation was not only political. It clearly involved intelligence agencies that were already hip deep in the “all-of-society” pandemic response.
“All of Society” means all, including the information you receive and are allowed to distribute.
A vast swath of unelected bureaucrats took it upon themselves to manage all knowledge flows in the age of the Internet, with the ambition to turn the main source of news and sharing into a giant American version of Pravda. All of this occurred right under our noses – and is still going on today.
Indeed, censorship is a full-on industry now, with hundreds and thousands of cut-outs, universities, media companies, government agencies, and even young people in school studying to be disinformation specialists, and bragging about it on social media. We are just one step away from a New York Times article – as follow-ups to their recent praise of the Deep State and also government surveillance – with a headline like “The Good Society Needs Censors.”
Incredibly, the censorship is so pervasive now that it is not even reported. All these revelations should have been front page news. But so captured is the news media today that there are very few outlets that even bother to report the fullness of the problem.
Not receiving nearly enough attention is the new report from the Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government of the US House of Representatives.
Running nearly 1,000 pages including documentation (however many pages are purposely blank), we have here an overwhelming amount of evidence of a systematic, aggressive, and deeply entrenched effort on the part of the federal government, including the Biden White House and many agencies including the World Health Organization, to tear out the guts of the Internet and social media culture and replace them with propaganda.
Among the well-documented facts are that the White House directly intervened in Amazon’s own marketing methods to deprecate books that raised doubts about the Covid vaccine and all vaccines. Amazon responded reluctantly but did what it could to satisfy the censors. All these companies – Google, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon – became acquiescent to Biden administration priorities, even to the point of running algorithmic changes by the White House before implementation.
When YouTube announced that it would take down any content that contradicted the World Health Organization, it was because the White House instructed them to do so.
As for Amazon, which is like every publisher in wanting full freedom to distribute, they faced intense pressure from government.
These are just a few of thousands of pieces of evidence of routine interference from government against social media companies, either directly or through various government-funded cut-outs, all designed to enforce a certain way of thinking on the American public.
What’s amazing is that this industry was allowed to metastasize to such an extent over 4-8 years or so, with no legal oversight and very little knowledge on the part of the public. It’s as if there is no such thing as the First Amendment. It’s a dead letter. Even now, the Supreme Court seems confused, based on our reading of the oral arguments over this whole case (Murthy v. Missouri).
One gets the sense when reading through all this correspondence that the companies were more than a bit rattled by the pressure. They must have wondered a few things: 1) is this normal? 2) do we really have to go along? 3) what happens to us if we just say no?
Probably every corner grocery store in any neighborhood run by a crime syndicate in history has asked these questions. The best answer is to do what you can in order to make them go away. This is precisely what they did time after time. After a while, the protocol probably begins to feel normal and no one asks anymore the basic questions: is this right? Is this freedom? Is this legal? Is this just the way things go in the US?
No matter how many high officials were involved, how many in the C-suites of big companies participated, however many editors and technicians of the best credentials played along, there can be no question that what took place was an absolute violation of speech rights that very likely exceeds anything we’ve seen in US history.
Keep in mind that we only know what we know, and that is severely truncated by the force of the machinery. We can safely assume that the truth actually is far worse than we know. And further consider that this censorship is keeping us from knowing the full story about the suppression of dissidents, whether medical, scientific, political, or otherwise.
There might be millions in many professions who are suffering right now, in silence. Or think of the vaccine-injured or those who have lost loved ones who were forced to get the shot. There are no headlines. There are no investigations. There is almost no public attention at all. Most of the venues that we once thought would police such outrages have been compromised.
To top it off, the censors are still not backing down. If you sense a lessening of the grip for now, there is every reason to believe it is temporary. This industry wants the entire Internet as we once conceived of it completely shut down. That’s the goal.
At this point, the best means of defeating this plan is widespread public outrage. That is made more difficult because the censorship itself is being censored.
This is why this report from the US House of Representatives needs to be widely shared so long as doing so is possible. It could be that such reports in the future will themselves be censored. It could also be the last such report you will ever see before the curtain falls on freedom completely.
Washington police clear pro-Palestine encampment, arrest dozens
Press TV – May 8, 2024
US police have arrested dozens of students after clearing an encampment of pro-Palestinian protesters at George Washington University in Washington, DC.
Just before dawn, hundreds of officers entered the campus and used pepper spray to disperse the protesters and clear the encampment, according to GW Hatchet, the university’s independent student-run newspaper.
“Officers gave their third and final warning to demonstrators to move at about 3:30 a.m., saying all who remained in U-Yard and the stretch of H Street in front of the plaza would be arrested,” GW Hatchet wrote.
Between 30 and 40 protesters were arrested, according to CNN.
Citing familiar sources, the newspaper said police charged several protesters with unlawful entry.
Protesters were carrying signs that read, “Free Palestine” and “Hands off Rafah.”
Since mid-April, students have been demonstrating against Israel’s war on Gaza at about 140 colleges in the United States.
The demonstrators are demanding their universities cut direct or indirect financial ties with US weapons manufacturers and Israeli institutions.
Many also want their universities to end academic relationships with the regime’s institutions.
Similar demonstrations have also spread to campuses in Britain, France, Australia, Canada and elsewhere.
In New York, hundreds of protesters have been marching through the city on Wednesday against Israel’s invasion of Rafah, and US support for the regime’s military.
An estimated 1.4 million people, displaced from elsewhere in Gaza by Israel’s seven-months war, are now sheltering in the southern city of Rafah.
Israel on Tuesday seized control of Gaza’s vital Rafah border crossing, prompting fears of a planned ground offensive on the last refuge of the Palestinians.
TikTok Fights Back Against Ban
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | May 7, 2024
On Tuesday, TikTok, together with its parent company ByteDance, took legal action in the US federal court to challenge a new law endorsed by President Joe Biden.
This legislation mandates that ByteDance either sell TikTok by January 19 or cease its operations in the US. The suit, filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, claims that the law infringes on several constitutional grounds, particularly violating the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
TikTok, immensely popular among 170 million Americans, faces an existential threat under this law, enacted on April 24. The filing emphatically states that divestiture is unfeasible — “not commercially, not technologically, not legally.” It warns of an inevitable shutdown, which would “silence the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere.”
Here are the key points you should know about TikTok’s argument:
Unprecedented and Discriminatory Legislation: TikTok claims that the Act is the first of its kind to single out and ban a specific online platform, infringing upon the rights of 170 million American users to participate in a global community of over a billion users.
Violation of First Amendment Rights: TikTok argues that the Act violates the First Amendment by imposing a ban on a major platform for speech and expression. They contend that the legislation infringes on free speech rights by selectively targeting TikTok based on its ownership and content.
Impractical Divestiture Requirements: The Act provides TikTok the option to divest its U.S. operations as an alternative to a ban. TikTok contends this divestiture is commercially, technologically, and legally infeasible, especially within the mandated timeline, making it a non-viable option.
Lack of Substantive Justification: TikTok criticizes the Act for lacking concrete legislative findings or evidence that TikTok poses a national security threat. They argue the legislation is based on speculative risks rather than substantiated threats.
Existence of Less Restrictive Alternatives: TikTok points out that they have proposed and negotiated comprehensive security measures with the U.S. government, referred to as “Project Texas”, which were disregarded in favor of the more extreme measure of banning the platform.
First Amendment Concerns: The First Amendment argument is particularly strong. US courts generally apply strict scrutiny to laws that target specific speech platforms or types of speech. Under strict scrutiny, the government must prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. TikTok’s claim that the Act fails to meet this standard because it is overbroad and not the least restrictive means to address the alleged security concerns could resonate with the courts.
Selective Targeting and Discrimination: TikTok’s argument that the Act discriminates against it by specifically targeting its platform while offering other companies potential exemptions or less severe restrictions could be seen as a violation of the equal protection principles implicit in the Fifth Amendment. This argument about selective targeting could strengthen TikTok’s case if they can convincingly argue that similar platforms are treated differently without a reasonable basis.
Feasibility of Alternatives: The argument regarding the feasibility of divestiture and the existence of less restrictive means (such as the security measures TikTok proposed) could also be pivotal. Courts often look favorably on arguments that a law is not narrowly tailored if there are obvious, less restrictive alternatives that could achieve the same goals.
Critics argue that the law encroaches on the First Amendment rights of TikTok users and labels the law as an unjustified overreach by the government. On the other hand, proponents of the law cite national security concerns, fearing that the Chinese government might access or manipulate data collected on American users.
The legislation was swiftly moved through Congress amid bipartisan concerns over potential data privacy violations and content manipulation by Chinese authorities via TikTok. Despite such claims, the US government has yet to disclose concrete evidence supporting these allegations.
The ongoing battle over TikTok is part of a broader dialogue concerning the intersection of technology, privacy, and national security. Legal scholars note that the outcome of this lawsuit might set a significant precedent affecting digital media regulations in the US.
Adding complexity to the situation, the lawsuit reveals that TikTok has invested $2 billion in data protection measures for US users and engaged in extensive negotiations with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). These discussions culminated in a draft National Security Agreement, which included severe measures such as a “shut-down option” for the US government. However, meaningful negotiations ceased in August 2022, and by March 2023, CFIUS demanded a divestiture of the US TikTok operations.
LAPD’s Failure to Protect Peaceful Protesters at UCLA from Right-Wing Mob Shows Real Priorities
By Jeremy Kuzmarov | CovertAction Magazine | May 6, 2024
In 1991, Frank Donner, former director of the ACLU’s Project on Political Surveillance, published a book entitled Protectors of Privilege, which provided a history of police suppression of left-wing and labor protests in the United States.
A key chapter in the book focused on the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), whose reactionary political function was epitomized by two of its most notorious chiefs: William Parker and Daryl Gates, who were overtly racist and supported anti-democratic paramilitary policing practices.
The LAPD’s true colors were on display at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) at the end of April when its officers stood by for hours as hundreds of right-wing vigilantes attacked pro-Palestinian demonstrators in what Al Jazeera described as a “really shocking and ugly scene of violence.”
The LAPD then aggressively broke up the pro-Palestinian demonstrators’ encampment using flash bangs and riot gear, arresting around 200 of the anti-genocide protesters who were entirely peaceful. (none of the vigilantes were arrested).[1]
![Pro-Israel attackers try to remove barricades at a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles, on May 1, 2024 [David Swanson/Reuters]](https://i0.wp.com/covertactionmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/pro-israel-attackers-try-to-remove-barricades-at-a.jpeg?resize=696%2C473&ssl=1)
Pro-Israel attackers try to remove barricades at a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles, on May 1, 2024. [Source: msn.com]
On May 2, a day after the break-up of the encampment, I visited the UCLA campus and witnessed students and university employees clearing the protest area.
Though many of the students were refusing to speak to any media, I managed to interview one, Lisa Cooper, who described herself as a seasoned organizer originally from New York who had joined the protesters in solidarity with them.
Cooper told me that she helped run a wellness center in the encampment that brought in acupuncturists who administered treatment to students who had either been physically attacked or were dealing with emotional trauma and the stress of living in the encampment while studying for mid-terms.
The students believed they had to do something in the face of the horrific atrocities going on in Gaza.
Cooper said that dissent was currently under siege in the U.S. and that the protests provided an opportunity to get people thinking about societal problems and realities, and that the students involved felt empowered by their experience, which they would take with them into other aspects of their lives.
As part of the daily programming, students coordinated teach-in events like during the 1960s era Vietnam campus protests. Benjamin Kersten, a Ph.D. student in art history, told the UCLA Daily Bruin that “this is a public university that preaches the importance of education, and yet, topics like Palestine are not taught. A lot of the programming shows that people here are taking their education into their own hands, and learning what it means to teach each other and enact activist values.”[2]
According to Cooper, public protest is a right Americans enjoy under the U.S. Constitution and that this should not be forgotten.
Cooper said that the right wing vigilantes who stormed the encampment were equipped with bear mace, projectiles and other weapons that they deployed against protesters, causing injuries to some of the students.
One protester had 16 staples inserted into his scalp.
Because the students did not want to call 911 and put themselves at risk of suspension or arrest, other students drove them to the hospital by car.
UCLA students clearing material from protest encampment on May 2. [Source: Photo courtesy of Jeremy Kuzmarov]
Cooper herself was not injured in the attack, but said that the vigilantes hurled racial slurs at her (she is African-American).
The main police units that broke up the encampment were officers of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) who, she said, are not required to wear body cam devices. CHP was backed up by the LAPD, whose presence was ubiquitous around the campus during my visit.
Cooper said that UCLA should be called to account for not allowing peaceful protests on public property.
UCLA President Michael Drake released a statement supporting the university’s decision to label the protest encampment as unlawful, noting that, “when it threatens the safety of students or everyone else, we must act.”[3]
UCLA President Michael Drake [Source: thelantern.com]
However, there is no evidence that the encampment threatened the safety of UCLA students in any way[4]; rather, it was the vigilante counter-demonstrators who compromised the safety of UCLA students expressing their constitutional right to dissent.
- During the vigilante attack, a group reportedly piled on one person who lay on the ground, kicking and beating the person until others pulled him out of the scrum. The editor of the UCLA Daily Bruin, Catherine Hamilton, was punched in the chest and upper abdomen by the vigilantes. Robert Reynolds of Al Jazeera reported that the vigilante mob, which called for a second Nakba, “appear[ed] to be all largely people who are not of student age and they’re not from the UCLA campus, but what they’re doing is trying to harass and attack the pro-Palestinian demonstrators.” The leaders of the anti-war encampment at UCLA said that “law enforcement simply stood at the edge of the lawn and refused to budge as we screamed for their help. The only means of protection we had was each other as the attack went on for more than seven hours.” “The university would rather see us dead than divest,” it added in a statement posted on X. The Los Angeles Public Defenders’ Union called the UCLA arrests “shameful and a complete failure of leadership.” President Garrett Miller said they are ready to “represent every person facing charges.”
- Dylan Winward, “Encampment Hosts Programming, Draws Counter-Protesters,” UCLA Daily Bruin, April 26, 2014, 2. Winward’s article detailed how Jewish Voices for Peace organized a passover seder in the encampment and shabbat service, dispelling the myth that somehow the students involved in the encampment were anti-semites.
- Anna Dai-Liu and Dylan Winward, “Pro-Israel counter-protesters attempt to storm encampment, sparking violence,” UCLA Daily Bruin, May 1, 2024, 1.
- Sam Mulick, “UCLA Community Responds to Palestine Solidarity Encampment,” UCLA Daily Bruin, APril 26, 2024, 3 quotes from students, the majority of whom had highly positive views of the encampment. This included numbers of Jewish students. One student quoted in the article expressed appreciation that students of this generation were politically active and cared about the plight of oppressed people in the world, while another said the encampment was an effective method to engage community members on the campus. Still another, a psychology student, Erin Lee, told The Daily Bruin that UCLA should offer more support to Palestinian students, and that the university had taken a direct role in the war in Gaza through its investments in companies affiliated with the Israeli military. She added correctly that while she thinks students in the encampment were sending a very powerful message, she doubts the UC system will respond to their actions.
The beast of ideology lifts the lid on transformation
By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 6, 2024
The Transformation is accelerating. The harsh, often violent, police repression of student protests across the U.S. and Europe, in wake of the continuing Palestinian massacres, exposes sheer intolerance towards those voicing condemnation against the violence in Gaza.
The category of ‘hate speech’ enacted into law has become so ubiquitous and fluid that criticism of the conduct of Israel’s behaviour in Gaza and the West Bank is now treated as a category of extremism and as a threat to the state. Confronted by criticism of Israel, the ruling élites respond by angrily lashing out.
Is there a boundary (still) between criticism and anti-semitism? In the West the two increasingly are being made to cohere.
Today’s stifling of any criticism of Israel’s conduct – in blatant contradiction with any western claim to a values-based order – reflects desperation and a touch of panic. Those who still occupy the leadership slots of Institutional Power in the U.S. and Europe are compelled by the logic of those structures to pursue courses of action that are leading to ‘system’ breakdown, both domestically – and concomitantly – provoking the dramatic intensification of international tensions, too.
Mistakes flow from the underlying ideological rigidities in which the ruling strata are trapped: The embrace of a transformed Biblical Israel that long ago separated from today’s U.S. Democratic Party zeitgeist; the inability to accept reality in Ukraine; and the notion that U.S. political coercion alone can revive paradigms in Israel and the Middle East that are long gone.
The notion that a new Israeli Nakba of Palestinians can be forced down the throats of the western and the global public are both delusional and reek of centuries of old Orientalism.
What else can one say when Senator Tom Cotton posts: “These little Gazas are disgusting cesspools of antisemitic hate, full of pro-Hamas sympathisers; fanatics and freaks”?
When order unravels, it unravels quickly and comprehensively. Suddenly, the GOP conference has had its nose rubbed in dirt (over its lack of support for Biden’s $61bn for Ukraine); the U.S. public’s despair at open border immigration is disdainfully ignored; and Gen Z’s expressions of empathy with Gaza is declared an internal ‘enemy’ to be roughly suppressed. All points of strategic inflection and transformation – likely as not.
And the rest of the world now is cast as an enemy too, being perceived as recalcitrants who fail to embrace the western recitation of its ‘Rules Order’ catechism and for failing clearly to toe the line on support for Israel and the proxy war on Russia.
It is a naked bid for unchecked power; one nevertheless that is galvanising a global blow-back. It is pushing China closer to Russia and accelerating the BRICS confluence. Plainly put, the world – faced with massacres in Gaza and West Bank – will not abide by either the Rules or any western hypocritical cherry-picking of International Law. Both systems are collapsing under the leaden weight of western hypocrisy.
Nothing is more obvious than Secretary of State Blinken’s scolding of President Xi for China’s treatment of the Uighurs and his threats of sanctions for Chinas trade with Russia – powering ‘Russia’s assault on Ukraine’, Blinken asserts. Blinken has made an enemy of the one power that can evidently out-compete the U.S.; that has manufacturing and competitive overmatch vs the U.S.
The point here is that these tensions can quickly spiral down into war of ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ – ranged against not just the China, Russia, Iran “Axis of Evil”, but vs Turkey, India Brazil and all others who dare to criticise the moral correctness of either of the West’s Israel and Ukraine projects. That is, it has the potential to turn into the West versus the Rest.
Again, another own goal.
Crucially, these two conflicts have led to the Transformation of the West from self-styled ‘mediators’ claiming to bring calm to flashpoints, to being active contenders in these wars. And, as active contenders, they can permit no criticism of their actions – either inside, or out; for that would be to hint at appeasement.
Put plainly: this transformation to contenders in war lies at the heart of Europe’s present obsession with militarism. Bruno Maçães relates that a “senior European minister argued to him that: if the U.S. withdrew its support for Ukraine, his country, a Nato member, would have no choice but to fight alongside Ukraine – inside Ukraine. As he put it, why should his country wait for a Ukrainian defeat, followed by [a defeated Ukraine] swelling the ranks of a Russian army bent on new excursions?”
Such a proposition is both stupid and likely would lead to a continent-wide war (a prospect with which the unnamed minister seemed astonishingly at ease). Such insanity is the consequence of the Europeans’ acquiescence to Biden’s attempt at regime change in Moscow. They wanted to become consequential players at the table of the Great Game, but have come to perceive that they sorely lack the means for it. The Brussels Class fear the consequence to this hubris will be the unravelling of the EU.
As Professor John Gray writes:
“At bottom, the liberal assault on free speech [on Gaza and Ukraine] is a bid for unchecked power. By shifting the locus of decision from democratic deliberation to legal procedures, the élites aim to insulate [their neoliberal] cultish programmes from contestation and accountability. The politicisation of law – and the hollowing out of politics go hand in hand”.
Despite these efforts to cancel opposing voices, other perspectives and understandings of history nonetheless are reasserting their primacy: Do Palestinians have a point? Is there a history to their predicament? ‘No, they are a tool used by Iran, by Putin and by Xi Jinping’, Washington and Brussels says.
They say such untruths because the intellectual effort to see Palestinians as human beings, as citizens, endowed with rights, would force many Western states to revise much of their rigid system of thinking. It is simpler and easier for Palestinians to be left ambiguous, or to ‘disappear’.
The future which this approach heralds couldn’t be farther from the democratic, co-operative international order the White House claims to advocate. Rather it leads to the precipice of civil violence in the U.S. and to wider war in Ukraine.
Many of today’s Woke liberals however, would reject the allegation of being anti-free speech, labouring under the misapprehension that their liberalism is not curtailing free speech, but rather is protecting it from ‘falsehoods’ emanating from the enemies of ‘our democracy’ (i.e. the ‘MAGA contingent’). In this way, they falsely perceive themselves as still adhering to the classical liberalism of, say, John Stuart Mill.
Whilst it is true that in On Liberty (1859) Mill argued that free speech must include the freedom to cause offence, in the same essay he also insisted that the value of freedom lay in its collective utility. He specified that “it must be utility in the largest sense – grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being”.
Free speech has little value if it facilitates the discourse of the ‘deplorables’ or the so-called Right.
In other words, “Like many other 19th-century liberals”, Professor Gray argues, “Mill feared the rise of democratic government because he believed it meant empowering an ignorant and tyrannical majority. Time and again, he vilified the torpid masses who were content with traditional ways of living”. One can hear here, the precursor to Mrs Clinton’s utter disdain for the ‘deplorables’ living in ‘fly-over’ U.S. states.
Rousseau too, is often taken as an icon of ‘liberty’ and ‘individualism’ and widely admired. Yet here too, we have language which conceals its’ fundamentally anti-political character.
Rousseau saw human associations rather, as groups to be acted upon, so that all thinking and daily behaviour could be folded into the like-minded units of a unitary state.
The individualism of Rousseau’s thought, therefore, is no libertarian assertion of absolute rights of free speech against the all-consuming state. No raising of the ‘tri-colour’ against oppression.
Quite the reverse! Rousseau’s passionate ‘defence of the individual’ arises out of his opposition to ‘the tyranny’ of social convention; the forms, rituals and ancient myths that bind society – religion, family, history, and social institutions. His ideal may be proclaimed as that of individual freedom, but it is ‘freedom’, however, not in a sense of immunity from control of the state, but in our withdrawal from the supposed oppressions and corruptions of collective society.
Family relationship is thus transmuted subtly into a political relationship; the molecule of the family is broken into the atoms of its individuals. With these atoms today groomed further to shed their biological gender, their cultural identity and ethnicity, they are coalesced afresh into the single unity of the state.
This is the deceit concealed in classical Liberalism’s language of freedom and individualism – ‘freedom’ nonetheless being hailed as the major contribution of the French Revolution to western civilisation.
Yet perversely, behind the language of freedom lay de-civilisation.
The ideological legacy from the French Revolution, however, was radical de-civilisation. The old sense of permanence – of belonging somewhere in space and time – was conjured away, to give place to its very opposite: Transience, temporariness and ephemerality.
Frank Furedi has written,
“Discontinuity of culture coexists with the loss of the sense of the past … The loss of this sensibility has had an unsettling effect on culture itself and has deprived it of moral depth. Today, the anticultural exercises a powerful role in western society. Culture is frequently framed in instrumental and pragmatic terms and rarely perceived as a system of norms that endow human life with meaning. Culture has become a shallow construct to be disposed of – or changed.
“The western cultural elite is distinctively uncomfortable with the narrative of civilisation and has lost its enthusiasm for celebrating it. The contemporary cultural landscape is saturated with a corpus of literature that calls into question the moral authority of civilisation and associates it more with negative qualities.
“De-civilization means that even the most foundational identities – such as that between man and woman – is called into question. At a time when the answer to the question of ‘what it means to be human’ becomes complicated – and where the assumptions of western civilisation lose their salience – the sentiments associated with wokeism can flourish”.
Karl Polyani, in his Great Transformation (published some 80 years ago), held that the massive economic and social transformations that he had witnessed during his lifetime – the end of the century of “relative peace” in Europe from 1815 to 1914, and the subsequent descent into economic turmoil, fascism and war, which was still ongoing at the time of the book’s publication – had but a single, overarching cause:
Prior to the 19th century, he insisted, the human way of being had always been ‘embedded’ in society, and that it was subordinated to local politics, customs, religion and social relations i.e. to a civilisational culture. Life was not treated as separated into distinct particulars, but as parts of an articulate whole – of life itself.
Liberalism turned this logic on its head. It constituted an ontological break with much of human history. Not only did it artificially separate the ‘economic’ from the ‘political’, but liberal economics (its foundational notion) demanded the subordination of society – of life itself – to the abstract logic of the self-regulating market. For Polanyi, this “means no less than the running of society as an adjunct to the market”.
The answer – clearly – was to make society again a distinctly human relationship of community, given meaning through a living culture. In this sense, Polanyi also emphasised the territorial character of sovereignty – the nation-state as the pre-condition to the exercise of democratic politics.
Polanyi would have argued that, absent a return to Life Itself as the pivot to politics, a violent backlash was inevitable. (Though hopefully not as dire as the transformation through which he lived.)
After Positioning Military Biolabs Around the Globe, US Officials Urge Biodefense Buildup
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 07.05.2024
Russia’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops have spent over two years studying and publicizing sensitive documents and analytical materials on the extent of Pentagon, CDC and US biotech firms’ funding for unethical and potentially illegal military biological research in Ukraine and around the world.
US biodefense planners are preparing to release a ‘bombshell’ report calling on all levels of the US government to radically improve national biodefense measures and create a national strategy to address global biological threats.
The document, seen by Axios ahead of publication, was put together by the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, a panel of former high-ranking US officials and lawmakers, including senior former Clinton, Bush and Obama administration staff. The Commission, created in 2014 to “provide for a comprehensive assessment of the state of US biodefense efforts,” has called its new report the 2024 National Blueprint for Biodefense.
The ‘blueprint’ highlights the growing risks stemming from the outbreak of infectious diseases, bioweapons research and lab leaks, predicting that the number of biothreat incidents will increase over time, and urging policymakers to make major new investments in biodefense.
“We’re not putting enough emphasis on getting ahead of these biological threats,” Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense executive director Asha George said. George urged Biden National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to spearhead a national biodefense effort and set up a deputy advisor post to deal with the job’s daily duties.
The Committee is asking Washington to create a unified federal biodefense budget, and multiyear funding for programs as part of an agenda featuring 36 separate recommendations, from the creation of a congressional working group and biodefense reviews once every four years, to amendments to the 1944 Public Health Service Act to “produce a research and development plan for reducing pathogen transmission in built environments.”
Curiously, the panel’s recommendations also feature a section on “emerging astrobiological threats,” warning about “the intersection of space exploration and infectious disease,” and of the possibility of space-based microorganisms being brought to Earth and posing a threat to the planet’s “human, animal, plant, or ecosystem health.”
Threats Closer to Home
Additional details on the contents of the report have yet to be publicized. However, based on the information made available by Axios, it will offer little if any data on the US government’s own role in creating, manipulating and spreading biological threats globally, starting with the National Institutes of Health gain of function research which may have sparked the global Covid-19 pandemic, to the operation of dozens of military-grade biolabs around the world, including in Ukraine, Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Russia’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops warned in January that Washington’s goals in the military-biological domain are multifold, ranging from the creation and manipulation of the causative agents of “particularly dangerous infections in regions of the world that are strategically important for the United States,” to efforts to achieve global “superiority” in biomanufacturing, biological monitoring, and the expansion of potentially unethical and illegal military biological research outside US jurisdictions.
RCBD Troops chief Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov has indicated that the US military bioresearch program “consists of government agencies and private contractors,” including representatives of big US pharmaceutical companies and that “through the organs of the executive branch, a legislative framework is being created to finance military-biological research directly from the federal budget.” In turn, Kirillov said, “guarantees provided by the state attract funds from non-governmental organizations,” including the Clinton, Soros and Rockefeller foundations.
NATO Goes All In on Transhumanism
The ‘2024 National Blueprint for Biodefense’ report comes less than a month after the NATO alliance published details on an alarming new “international strategy to govern the responsible development and use of biotechnologies and human enhancement technologies.”
On the pretext of unsubstantiated claims that adversaries, including Russia, are planning to deploy chemical and biological weapons, the NATO strategy offers a Brave New World-style vision of the need to fast track the development of biotech and human enhancement (BHE) technologies, predicting that they will “transform our economies, societies, security and defense in unprecedented and unforeseeable ways.”
NATO cites the AI-assisted modification of biological processes, cells and cellular compounds as “opportunities” to “enhance our defense and security,” including via “biotechnological and non-biotechnological interventions that enable individuals to operate beyond normal human limits or abilities.”
This scary new BHE push has been met with opposition from social conservatives worldwide, who have cited work in this direction as a means to establishing unprecedented levels control over humanity.
Featured Video
Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Dirty Little Secret behind the “Global Terrorism Index”
The Omission of Israeli Terrorism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
By Karin Brothers | Global Research | December 6, 2014
… The Israeli settlements — all of which are illegal – have been identified as a major impediment to peace. The refusal of a major “global” terrorism report to name the Israeli settlers as one of the groups most responsible for terrorism not only misrepresents a major source of regional violence but exposes the Global Terrorism Index as a propaganda tool that supports a U.S. agenda.
In recent years, governments have been attempting to thwart terrorism by blocking supportive fund-raising. When it comes to Israeli settlements, however, the US and Canada actually encourage fund-raising by giving organizations (such as Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) and the Jewish National Fund) financial support in the form of donor tax-deductions.
Charities which provide funds for the Israeli settlements should be regarded as terror-financing organizations. They should not only lose their tax-deductible status, but they should be banned because they support the violation of international humanitarian law. The terror-financing laws that are being strictly enforced for Muslim charities should be applied to Christian and Jewish charities as well. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trump Administration Moves To Automate U.S. Military Draft Registration
- Spain orders reopening of Tehran embassy, condemns Israel’s carpet bombing of Lebanon
- Israel faces ‘unsustainable’ strategic crisis following 40-day war against Iran: Analyst
- Iran restricts Hormuz access to 15 vessels per day under ceasefire terms: Report
- The ‘Opposition Party’ Has Done Nothing to Stop the Iran War and Much to Goad Trump Into Continuing It
- Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal
- How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
- The Black Cube Files: How Former Mossad Operatives Flipped a Nation
- Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s position on US-Iran ceasefire: What you’re not being told
- Israel’s priority lies in destroying chances of peace between Iran, US: Ex-UN nuclear chief
- If Americans Knew
- The gallows law: Israel moves toward executing Palestinian children
- Tucker Carlson: The Path to Peace requires ending ‘special alliance’ with Israel
- This is ceasefire? Israel’s biggest massacre yet in Lebanon, another journalist killed in Gaza – Daily Update
- Tucker Carlson on Israel: This Is the Behavior of an Ally? Really?
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- A sigh of relief over Iran, but Gaza and Lebanon in dire straits – Daily Update
- Thousands dead and neighborhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
- The war the US is fighting for Israel could cost trillions
- ‘Cigarette Burns, Nail Wounds’: Toddler Tortured in Gaza to Coerce Father
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 