Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Italian PM Meloni Embroiled in ICC Complaint Alleging Complicity in Gaza Genocide

21st Century Wire | October 9, 2025

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a number of ministers are confronted with an ICC complaint that accuses them of complicity in genocide, as a group of jurists and attorneys point to ongoing arms collaboration with Israel and a lack of protection for the Global Sumud Flotilla. Jurists and Lawyers from Giuristi e Avvocati per la Palestina (GAP) have initiated two legal actions aimed at holding Italy accountable for its involvement in the Gaza conflict. The first initiative, submitted to the ICC, charges the Italian government with complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The second initiative addresses the government’s purported negligence in safeguarding the Global Sumud Flotilla, a civilian fleet transporting humanitarian aid to Gaza, which was intercepted by Israeli forces in international waters.

According to a report from Lavialibera, the initiative has garnered backing from more than fifty notable figures in Italy, many of whom are active in politics and culture. The initiative has currently attracted the support of nearly 6,000 citizens. Gianluca Vitale, one of the GAP lawyers behind this action, explained to Lavialibera:

“We are calling for proceedings to be initiated against the Italian government, namely Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni , Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani , and Defense Minister Guido Crosetto , as well as Leonardo Spa CEO Roberto Cingolani” adding, “If there is substantial collaboration with Israeli authorities who are committing crimes, it means that the Italian authorities are complicit in the crime being committed.”

In a recent interview with Italian state broadcaster RAI 1, Meloni acknowledged that she and the aforementioned individuals faced a complaint at the International Criminal Court for their alleged involvement in the Gaza genocide.

Despite Meloni’s nervous reaction, the move is not unexpected, given that comparable actions have already been taken throughout Europe. In Germany, legal actions have been filed with the ICC and local courts targeting government officials and arms manufacturers for their alleged involvement in supporting Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Furthermore, more than 100 lawyers in France have officially requested the ICC to look into France’s potential complicity in genocide concerning Gaza.

In her July 2025 report, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, indicates that eight states and at least 1,650 companies, including Italian manufacturer Leonardo S.p.A., contribute to the manufacturing and distribution of components and parts for the Israeli F-35 fleet, which Israel customizes and maintains in partnership with US defense contractor Lockheed Martin and local companies. INVESTIGATE, a project run by Action Center for Corporate Accountability of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), which exposes corporate complicity in state violence, issued a comprehensive report regarding Leonardo S.p.A., Italy’s largest weapons manufacturer and its dealings with Israel.

As per information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Italy was among just three nations that exported “major conventional arms” to Israel between 2020 and 2024. However, it is noteworthy that the United States and Germany accounted for a staggering 99 percent of the exports in the broader category of larger weaponry, which encompasses aircraft, missiles, tanks, and air defense systems.

Furthermore, the Jurists and lawyers for Palestine organization (GAP) formally cautioned the Italian government on September 24, urging it to “take all necessary measures to genuinely safeguard the Global Sumud Flotilla and its participants.” With civilian ships trying to breach the Israeli naval blockade and provide humanitarian assistance to Gaza being intercepted and their crew members detained, legal proceedings are being contemplated to assess the potential accountability of the Italian government regarding the actions of the Israeli Navy. It is generally recognized that the Israeli military’s recent actions against the Global Sumud Flotilla are deemed illegitimate, as they took place in international waters where Israel lacks the legal right to intervene, intercept and abduct its passengers against their will, making such actions a potential act of piracy.

In accordance with the recommendations issued by the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ), all state parties the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court—which Italy ratified on July 26, 1999—are required upon learning of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed, to implement reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide. However, according to GAP, Meloni’s Government has not only refrained from doing so but, to the contrary, contributed to Israel wae crimes against the Palestinians.

According to GAP’s lawyer, the Italian government’s liability hinges on two key factors:

Firstly, demanding compliance to the Israeli blockade and thus deeming it legitimate amounts to complicity in the crime. The blockade is integral to Israel’s criminal actions, whether they be war crimes or genocide, as it plays a role in perpetuating the offensive within the Gaza Strip and employs starvation as a weapon.

The second factor pertains to the choice to withdraw the Navy vessel that was only briefly sent to escort the Global Sumud Flotilla. Withdrawing and consequently denying assistance signifies a failure to fulfill the duty of protection and, once again, inadvertently aids in the perpetration of a crime.

Full article

October 9, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Mystery of Trump, Ukraine, and Russia

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | September 18, 2025

Hardly anyone in the mainstream press addresses the mystery of how Trump went from what was supposedly a secret agent of the Russians to an ardent opponent of Russia in the Ukraine-Russia war. My hunch is that the commentators in the mainstream press are so excited that Trump has turned pro-Ukraine that they don’t care that they were, not so long ago, accusing him of being a secret agent of Russia.

After all, who can forget the daily refrain during Trump’s first term in office. “Robert Mueller is going to save us!” We had to be subjected to that refrain from both Democrats and the mainstream press for more than a year. The notion was that Trump was, as president of the United States, secretly serving the interests of Russia. Democrats and most of the mainstream press were convinced that Robert Mueller, a lawyer who had been appointed as special counsel to investigate the matter, was going to save us all by concluding that Trump was, in fact, serving as a secret agent of Russia, which would then result in Trump’s removal from office through impeachment.

As we all know, Robert Mueller did not save us because there was nothing to save us from. The entire matter was one great big ridiculous conspiracy theory on the part of the mainstream press and Democrats. After a year of extensive investigation by a huge and very expensive staff of lawyers, Robert Mueller ended up concluding that the allegation was bogus.

Nonetheless, most everyone thought that Trump would do everything possible to establish friendly and peaceful relations with Russia. Such a policy, of course, wouldn’t make him a secret agent of Russia, any more than President Kennedy’s efforts in that direction made him a secret agent of Russia.

Yet in his first term in office, Trump ended up taking a fairly adversarial stand toward Russia. It was reasonable to conclude, however, that one reason he did that was an effort to bend over backwards to show that the secret-agent accusations were entirely bogus.

This time around as president, however, there was nothing that Trump had to prove. During his 2024 campaign, he made it clear that he intended to bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war as soon as he took office. Of course, the easiest and fastest way to have done that was to immediately cut off all U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine. For a while, it appeared that that was precisely what Trump was going to do. When Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky visited Trump and Vice President Vance in the White House, both of them berated, insulted, humiliated, and dressed down Zelensky in public. Zelensky ended up leaving that meeting with his tail between his legs. Trump even stated that it was Ukraine that had started the war. The message seemed clear — U.S. aid to Ukraine was going to terminate, which would, of course, have been the logical course of action given Trump’s conviction that it was Ukraine that started the war.

However, sometime afterward, Trump did an about-face and began berating Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin for not doing enough to end the war. He began threatening Putin with more economic sanctions. He made it clear that the U.S. government would continue supporting Ukraine, especially with weaponry. He has also taken an increasingly aggressive position toward Russia and Putin.

The mainstream press treats all this as perfectly normal. I myself find it extremely mysterious. How does a guy who is accused of being a Russian agent go all the way to becoming a Russian adversary? For me, that’s quite a switch.

The following is my opinion as to what has happened to bring about this very radical turnaround. As longtime readers of my blog know, I have long maintained that it is the national-security branch of the federal government — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — that is in charge of the federal government, especially in foreign affairs, and that the other three branches simply operate in support of the national-security branch.

It was the national-security branch that used NATO to successfully provoke Russia into attacking Ukraine. It did that by having NATO, an old relic from the Cold War racket, move eastward toward Russia’s borders knowing full well that Russia would object and ultimately invade Ukraine, after which they could condemn Russia for its “aggression.” The objective was to use a war with Russia to “degrade” Russia, give Russia its own “Afghanistan,” and bring about regime change within Russia. The U.S. would supply the weaponry and cash to Ukraine to accomplish this. It would only be Ukrainian soldiers, not American soldiers, who would be dying and so the American people wouldn’t care about what the national-security branch had done to bring about the war.

What the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA failed to confront was the distinct possibility that Russia would end up winning the war, which would necessarily mean a defeat of the United States. After the deadly 20-year U.S. fiasco war in Afghanistan and the installation of a pro-Iranian regime in the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq, the last thing the national-security branch wants is the humiliation of another military defeat, especially at the hands of Russia — its adversary in its old Cold War racket.

So, it’s my opinion that the national-security establishment has put the squeeze on Trump and made him see how important it is to “national security” that Russia not be permitted to win this war. It is my opinion that Trump has caved in to such pressure, just like Congress and the federal courts have long deferred to the national-security branch. That, to me, is a logical explanation for Trump’s about-face on Russia and also why he no longer heavily emphasizes the need to “drain the swamp” and bring an end to the “deep state.”

October 9, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO eyeing ‘forceful’ response to Russia – FT

RT | October 9, 2025

NATO is considering easing restrictions on pilots to allow them to fire at unauthorized Russian aircraft, and drastically increasing its military footprint on the country’s border, the Financial Times reported on Thursday, citing sources. This comes amid Western claims that Russia violated EU airspace, which Moscow has denied.

Last month, Estonia and Poland claimed that Russian aircraft illegally entered their airspace. Western media has also speculated that Russia may be behind drone incidents in other EU nations, which at times disrupted air traffic. Moscow has said the West has not provided any evidence for the claims.

Several NATO members are now debating “a more forceful response” to Russia, according to the Financial Times.

The reported proposals include arming surveillance drones that currently gather intelligence on Russian military movements and lowering the threshold for fighter pilots on NATO’s eastern border to take down perceived threats. Other options under discussion involve conducting military exercises directly along the Russian border, the report said.

Two NATO officials told the FT that one urgent task is to simplify the rules of engagement, which now differ among member states. Some nations require pilots to visually identify targets before firing, while others permit engagement based on radar data or the perceived direction and speed of an approaching aircraft.

FT sources noted that the talks, initiated by states bordering Russia and backed by France and the UK, later developed into a bloc-wide discussion – which, however, is said to be in the early stages. Some governments reportedly advocate for strong deterrence policies, though others urge restraint to avoid direct confrontation.

The article comes on the heels of last week’s EU summit on creating a ‘drone wall’ to deter alleged Russian incursions, with Politico reporting that the meeting “descended into a familiar stalemate.”

Russia has accused NATO of escalating tensions near its borders through expanded military deployments and exercises. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has also stated that NATO is “de facto at war” with Russia due to the bloc’s support for Ukraine.

October 9, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Europeans negatively react against Brussels’ war psychosis – Peter Szijjarto

By Lucas Leiroz | October 8, 2025

The success of Hungarian pragmatism is apparently influencing other European countries to adopt a policy that diverges from the Brussels establishment—also encouraging ordinary people to vote for dissident candidates who advocate peace and diplomacy, rather than war and sanctions. This is the assessment of Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, who recently commented on the election results in the Czech Republic, applauding the victory of Andrej Babis’s ANO party.

Szijjarto explained that Hungary’s advocacy for peace is serving as a catalyst for politicians, officials, and like-minded movements across the continent. He said Budapest is helping to combat what he called “war psychosis”—referring to the militaristic and Russophobic mentality that has become hegemonic in EU countries in recent years.

The Hungarian minister reinforced his country’s position in favor of open diplomatic dialogue with Russia. Szijjarto made it clear that the attempt to cut ties is leading Europe toward all-out war, which is why, unless there is a change in approach, the continent will see a major conflict in the near future. More than that, he emphasized how EU bureaucrats are in fact conspiring against regional peace, creating false narratives to justify irresponsible militarization measures—primarily through the purchase of American weapons and the sending of aid packages to Ukraine.

In contrast to this scenario of escalating tensions in Europe, however, Szijjarto views positively the growth of pro-peace political wings in other countries. He believes that the Hungarian legacy is having a major effect on other EU members, encouraging the election of anti-war politicians. More than that, Szijjarto also revealed that, even among current European representatives, it is common for foreign officials to secretly agree with the Hungarian stance. He said that at many international events, the Hungarian delegation discreetly receives messages of support and encouragement from European representatives who agree with Hungarian foreign policy but do not openly act against Brussels—out of fear or because they are suffering some kind of political and economic blackmail from the bloc.

“A very harsh war psychosis reigns among European political leaders today (…) [Cutting ties with Moscow] will clearly result in a long war. (…) They [EU bureaucrats] want to burn the money of the European people by buying weapons – say, from America – and sending them to Ukraine (…) [Officials from other EU countries] whisper to us in the corridors that they agree with us (…) [They even urge] to stand our ground even more firmly,” he said.

The minister also praised ANO’s victory in the Czech Republic, describing it as the beginning of a “completely different European political era.” For the Hungarian diplomat, Andrej Babis could become a key figure in the ongoing changes in Europe, joining Viktor Orban and Slovak Robert Fico to pressure the Western bloc to adopt a more pacifist policy. Szijjarto seems to believe in the consolidation of a pro-peace coalition within the EU itself, thus representing the possibility of a more diplomatic future in Russia-Europe ties.

Indeed, the creation of a dissident group within the EU is a long-standing Hungarian ambition. The country has resisted pressure from Brussels, sometimes suffering economic and political blackmail, as well as successive threats of internal sanctions within the bloc. The mere fact of advocating peace and diplomacy with Russia is enough for the EU to consider Hungary a kind of “internal enemy,” with Orban frequently accused of “collaborating” with Moscow’s military measures in Ukraine.

Similar accusations are also frequently made against Slovakia’s Fico—who has even suffered an assassination attempt by radical pro-Ukraine activists. Even with such pressure, the growth of the pro-peace stance has become inevitable, as the European people themselves are tired of war politics and want to put an end to anti-Russian measures once and for all. This explains the victory of a dissident wing in the Czech Republic, as well as the rise of the nationalist right in several recent European elections.

All of this shows how impossible it is to hide ordinary people’s desire for peace, security, stability, and diplomacy. Ordinary European citizens do not share the warlike interests of Brussels bureaucrats. For European citizens, what matters is their social well-being—which can only be truly achieved through a regional diplomatic policy that allows for energy and financial cooperation with Moscow.

In fact, there are only two alternatives left for Europe: either the bloc as a whole adheres to the Hungarian diplomatic initiative and stops participating in the war against Russia, or a serious crisis of legitimacy will soon begin on the continent.

Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | Leave a comment

Merz reveals details of clash with Orban

RT | October 7, 2025

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has admitted to having a heated argument with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban over their approaches to dealing with Russia.

The two clashed at an EU summit in Copenhagen last week, Merz said in an interview to a German broadcaster ntv on Monday.

“He accused [me] of not wanting to negotiate,” the chancellor said, referring to Orban. According to Merz, he responded by stating that Orban’s own diplomatic efforts last year, which involved visits to both Moscow and Kiev, led to nothing. “That’s not the path I want to take,” he added.

When further pressed by host Pinar Atalay whether just saying: “I won’t even try it” would solve the problem, Merz dodged the question by claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin “does not want to negotiate.”

Russia has repeatedly stated throughout the Ukraine conflict that it was ready to sit down at the negotiating table at any time as long as the reality on the ground is taken into account and the root causes of the conflict are addressed during the talks.

Last month, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow is ready to pursue a “compromise” to resolve the conflict if “our legitimate security interests, as well as the legitimate interests of Russians living in Ukraine, are respected in the same way as those of other parties.”

Hungary has been one of the most vocal critics of the EU’s belligerent approach toward Russia. Orban warned after the Copenhagen summit that the EU leaders “want to go to war” with Russia.

Germany has been Kiev’s second largest arms supplier after the US since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Berlin’s position on the conflict has hardened under Merz, who claimed that diplomatic options were “exhausted” and declared that Germany was “already in a conflict” with Russia.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US likely already sent new light JLTV ‘Tomahawk’ launchers to Neo-Nazi junta

By Drago Bosnic | October 8, 2025

Supplying the “Tomahawk” cruise missiles to the Kiev regime has been “on the table” for years. The troubled Biden administration never delivered them, despite repeatedly suggesting it would. Interestingly, Donald Trump regularly criticized such moves as escalatory, insisting that the United States shouldn’t be involved and that it’s only antagonizing Russia. Ironically enough, as soon as he took office, this stance changed dramatically. In a matter of weeks, Trump’s initial promise of “ending the war in 24 hours” degenerated into the same sort of belligerent rhetoric (and moves) as during the Biden era. The new US administration increased American involvement, with military sources suggesting that the Pentagon is close to delivering the aforementioned “Tomahawk” missiles.

Worse yet, some claim that this has already happened and that Washington DC even raised the stakes by supplying new light launchers for the US-made cruise missiles. Namely, since 2019, the Pentagon has been acquiring the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), better known as the Oshkosh Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle (L-ATV). It was designed to replace the AM General High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), better known as the Humvee. One version of the JLTV has been modified for use by the US Marine Corps (USMC) under the Long Range Fires (LRF) program, designed to launch cruise missiles, specifically the infamous “Tomahawk”. The Pentagon intended to give the USMC similar capabilities to those of the US Army, which has the ground-based “Typhon”.

There’s been some confusion even in the US Congress regarding the official designation for the program, with some documents referring to it as the Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF), while others still use the LRF. Either way, the US military’s ability to use operational and strategic weapons on such a small platform can certainly provide it with a significant advantage in terms of risk mitigation. Namely, because the launcher is essentially a modified JLTV truck that’s now in wide use (well over 20,000 have been delivered so far), it makes it very difficult to detect “Tomahawk” carriers. This enables shoot-and-scoot (sort of like hit-and-run) strikes at targets that are 1,600 km away, although some sources claim that it’s 2,500 km for the latest Block V iteration of the “Tomahawk”.

The latest reports suggest that these cruise missiles have already been delivered to the Neo-Nazi junta forces through the main logistics hub for NATO-occupied Ukraine in Rzeszów, southeastern Poland, and are now waiting for the “zero hour” somewhere in Western Ukraine. The Kiev regime lacks the necessary ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities to effectively use the “Tomahawk” to the maximum, meaning that the US/NATO would need to provide the targeting data. This has already been the case with other Western cruise missiles, most notably the Anglo-French “Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG” and the German “Taurus” (the latter is yet to be officially delivered and deployed). Both types are newer and more advanced than the 1980s-era US-made “Tomahawk”.

However, the aforementioned Block V would certainly give them a run for their money, especially if deployed from the highly mobile JLTV trucks. Its ability to move quickly through heavily forested areas makes it extremely difficult to detect, meaning that it could effectively act as some sort of a single-shot “Iskander-K” (uses the 9M728/R-500, with a range of up to 500 km and the Novator’s 9M729, which Western sources claim has a staggering range of up to 5,500 km). The launcher could instantly deploy at virtually any firing position, while its relatively low cost offers the key advantage in terms of mitigating losses. Military sources report that the US could produce 100-200 such units per month, while the number of missiles supplied in each batch can reach over 500 units.

In other words, such a mass production would make it a much bigger challenge than the expensive and overhyped Western European missiles that the United Kingdom, France and Germany can produce in single or double digits, at best. Obviously, this is not to say that the Russian military could be defeated solely with the use of “Tomahawks”, but it could certainly complicate logistics and other operations far behind the immediate frontline. The Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) and its surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems have accumulated extensive experience in countering various types of missiles and drones; however, the mass deployment of different kinds of cruise missiles can pose a significant challenge. Namely, Russia is the largest country on the planet, making it extremely difficult to defend all of its territory.

Thus, the aviation, air defenses and ISR assets will need to work together and closely coordinate their actions in order to defend the most critically important areas (military-industrial facilities, bridges, thermal and nuclear power plants, substations, etc). A&WAC (airborne early warning and control) aircraft such as the A-50U will play a crucial role in this, as they can detect and track very low-flying cruise missiles. The sheer range of the “Tomahawk” puts virtually all of European Russia within striking distance, while the Block V expands that well into Western Siberia, putting even ICBM fields in jeopardy, including the Dombarovsky Red Banner Division of the 31st Missile Army of the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN). This unit is armed with the monstrously destructive R-36M2 “Voyevoda” ICBMs (and likely the RS-28 “Sarmat”).

These missiles are also capable of deploying the Yu-71/74 “Avangard” HGVs (hypersonic glide vehicles), the world’s most advanced hypersonic weapon. The US calculus is pretty clear – deploying these missiles in NATO-occupied Ukraine puts Russia into an incredibly dangerous strategic position. It’s very similar to the geopolitical impact of having “Tomahawk” missiles permanently deployed in the Philippines and Japan, as these put Beijing and most major Chinese cities in range.

Thus, America has the capacity to strike both (Eur)Asian giants with medium-range weapons, while the two can only respond with their strategic arsenals. Although this effectively gives Washington DC the ability to dictate the pace of potential escalation, it still makes the world a far more dangerous place, forcing Moscow and Beijing to contemplate immediate strategic retaliation in order to defend themselves.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia ratifies military deal with Cuba amid US escalation

Al Mayadeen | October 8, 2025

Russia’s Federation Council, the upper house of parliament, ratified an intergovernmental agreement on military cooperation with Cuba on Wednesday, formalizing a framework for strengthened defense collaboration between the two nations.

Legal framework for bilateral cooperation

The explanatory note accompanying the draft highlighted that ratification will facilitate the development and expansion of military cooperation, provide the necessary legal basis to define objectives, directions, and forms of collaboration, and ensure the protection of Russian personnel operating in Cuba from local jurisdiction.

The agreement allows both nations to coordinate military activities while safeguarding the interests of their personnel and national security objectives. It is worth noting that the agreement was originally signed in March 2025.

Moscow’s response to US threats

Military expert Alexander Stepanov, from the Institute of Law and National Security at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, told TASS that the ratification represents a symmetrical response to Washington’s threats to supply Tomahawk cruise missiles to the Kiev government.

“This is about a symmetrical response to the potential supply of Tomahawks,” Stepanov explained.

“The ratified agreement maximally expands our military cooperation and allows, within the framework of bilateral interaction and in coordination with the government of the Republic of Cuba, to deploy virtually any offensive systems on the island’s territory.”

Strategic implications

The move comes amid heightened tensions over US plans to enforce Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities. Moscow has warned that supplying Tomahawk missiles would represent a new level of escalation, prompting Russia to secure its strategic interests and regional alliances.

Earlier on Thursday, US President Donald Trump signaled a tougher stance toward Moscow, declaring that Washington would “get Russia taken care of somehow” as part of efforts to end the ongoing war in Ukraine. His remarks, delivered in an interview with One America News Network, come amid a deepening stalemate in peace talks between Moscow and Kiev.

“We’ll get Russia taken care of somehow. We’re going to get that [conflict done],” Trump said, suggesting a shift toward a more assertive US posture as the conflict enters a new and volatile phase.

October 8, 2025 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

US sent $21.7 billion to Israel to back Gaza genocide: Study

Press TV – October 7, 2025

An academic study has revealed that the United States has funneled $21.7 billion in financial and military assistance to Israel since the onset of the Gaza genocide on October 7, 2023.

The report released on Tuesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs details how the US State Department and the newly renamed Department of War, under both Joe Biden and Donald Trump administrations, have collectively transferred at least $21.7 billion to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

According to the study, the United States supplied $17.9 billion to Israel in the first year of the genocide, during former US president Joe Biden’s tenure, and $3.8 billion in the second year.

A large portion of the assistance has already been delivered, while the remainder will be distributed in the coming years, the report added.

The study notes that Washington is expected to allocate tens of billions of dollars in future funding to Israel through various bilateral deals.

Another analysis, also published by the Costs of War Project, states that the United States has spent approximately $9.65 – $12.07 billion on military operations in West Asia over the past two years.

US spending in the region, such as strikes on Yemen in March and May 2025 and attacks on Iranian nuclear sites on June 22, estimates total costs between $9.65 billion and $12 billion since October 7, 2023, including $2 billion to $2.25 billion for operations against Iran.

Although both reports rely on open-source data, they present detailed assessments of US military support for Israel and estimates of the cost of direct American involvement in the region.

Meanwhile, the State Department has not commented on the amount of military assistance given to Israel since October 2023. The White House referred inquiries to the Pentagon, which oversees only a part of the aid that is given to the Zionist entity.

The studies argue that without US backing, the regime would have been unable to maintain its genocidal campaign in Gaza for two years.

The principal study was produced in collaboration with the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Pro-Israel groups have accused the institute of isolationism and anti-Israel bias, allegations the organization firmly denies.

Meanwhile, Israel’s war machine continues its campaign of destruction, claiming countless civilian lives across Gaza and the wider region.

Since October 7, 2023, when Israel launched its genocidal war on the besieged Gaza Strip, more than 76,000 Palestinians, including over 20,000 children and 12,500 women, have been killed or gone missing, while in its 12-day war with Iran last June, the regime killed at least 1,604 people.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board: When War Architects Become Reconstruction Consultants

By Tamer Mansour – New Eastern Outlook – October 7, 2025

Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?

Tony Blair’s Gaza “Peace” Board

When Tony Blair was announced as co-chair of Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza reconstruction, you might wonder whether this represents a genuine peace initiative or simply another iteration of a pattern that’s been refined over two decades across multiple Middle Eastern theaters.

It might sound paradoxical that the architect of the Iraq War, a conflict built on intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that never materialized, would now be positioned as the overseer of Gaza’s future. But in reality, that’s how these appointments work in the Western establishment.

Previous failures seem to qualify rather than disqualify candidates for new ventures.

The Iraq Blueprint

If you want to understand what awaits Gaza under Blair’s stewardship, the Iraq experience offers an instructive template. The Chilcot Inquiry found that Blair “misrepresented intelligence” and “failed to exhaust all peaceful options” before launching the 2003 invasion.

What’s particularly revealing is that British intelligence agencies knew evidence used to justify the war came from individuals who had been tortured, yet the decision to proceed was made regardless.

Blair and his administration spent a decade denying British complicity in the CIA’s torture programs, only to eventually face uncovered evidence that proves the UK’s deep involvement in the rendition programs. Not to forget the major role the UK played in creating a war that killed over a million Iraqis, further destabilized an already inflammable region, emboldened the mutation of what they called “Al Qaeda” into multiple versions, most famously ISIS, and caused a refugee crisis that Europe complains about the most.

Yet Blair has never faced legal accountability. Instead, he has been rewarded with lucrative consultancy contracts and, incredibly, now oversees yet another Middle Eastern territory devastated by military operations.

No wonder some observers view this appointment with skepticism, is there?

A Consultant’s Portfolio

Since leaving office in 2007, Blair has built what might be called an “advisory empire,” serving various governments. His client list makes for interesting reading, doesn’t it?

In Kazakhstan, Blair advised former President Nursultan Nazarbayev following the December 2011 massacre of at least 17 protesting workers. Leaked emails revealed Nazarbayev paid an estimated £20 million for Blair’s counsel on how to “present a better face to the West.

Blair chose to provide no response on two different occasions to Human Rights Watch when they requested a detailed account of his “consultancy” work and the results it has achieved.

Moving on to Rwanda, where Blair has built a special relationship with Paul Kagame’s regime, which has lasted for decades, dismissing UN reports directly accusing Kagame of committing war crimes in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and during his infamous involvement in the Second Congo War, which lasted for almost 5 years and was called by some “Africa’s World War,” as it involved 8 African countries and 25 armed militias and caused the death of millions of Africans.

Blair’s response to such accusations directed at him and Kagame would put Niccolo Machiavelli to shame, as he said literally, “Our consultancy is not to tell the people of Rwanda what to do, but to help get done what the president wants.”

The Tony Blair Institute’s accounts show income reaching $121 million in a single year, with much of it from advising what reports described as “repressive”.

The pattern seems consistent: Blair provides Western legitimacy to governments willing to pay for it, while actual democratic reforms remain notably absent from the list of deliverables.

The same Western establishment that positioned itself as guardian of international law regarding various conflicts now promotes Blair for Gaza oversight. Yet Blair’s record demonstrates repeated bypassing of the UN Security Council when it suited Western objectives.

In Kosovo in 1999, Blair established his template: bypassing UN authorization, working with militias whose leaders now face war crimes charges, and claiming humanitarian motives afterward. The NATO bombing campaign never received Security Council approval and killed at least 488 Yugoslav civilians.

That intervention transformed NATO from a defensive alliance into an organization “prepared to initiate war beyond the UN.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov continues to reference NATO’s “illegal use of force” in Kosovo when responding to Western criticism.

The rendition operations tell their own story. Blair’s government was involved in the 2004 kidnapping of Abdul-Hakim Belhaj from Malaysia, delivering him to Gaddafi’s torture facilities. The UK government eventually paid £2.3 million in compensation to Sami al-Saadi, though characteristically, it never formally admitted wrongdoing or apologized.

The Gaza Plan: “Investment” or Control?

The leaked 21-page draft proposal outlines a “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (GITA) with an organizational structure worth examining carefully. At the top sits “an international board of billionaires and businesspeople,” while “highly vetted ‘neutral’ Palestinian administrators” occupy the lower administrative positions.

The plan describes Gaza reconstruction as a “commercially driven authority, led by business professionals and tasked with generating investable projects with real financial returns”. Previous reporting linked Blair’s institute to proposals for transforming Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” featuring resorts and manufacturing zones, with mentions of relocating up to 500,000 Palestinians.

Various analysts, both Arab and non-Arab, have expressed concern that the plan is designed to sideline any form of Palestinian governance, in favor of international bodies brought in to carry the load.

And with someone with Tony Blair’s record at the helm, one can understand these concerns only by reminding oneself of his previous tenure as the Middle East envoy of the “Quartet” between 2007 and 2015, a period during which he hardly did anything to stop the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements and nothing that might remotely achieve anything for of statehood for Palestine.

The structure Blair proposes: wealthy foreign decision-makers controlling Palestinian land and resources while Palestinians serve in subordinate administrative roles. This bears a resemblance to governance models from a century ago.

Whether this represents “investment” or simply foreign control with better branding is a question worth considering.

Here’s the conundrum facing Gaza’s Palestinians. Having endured devastating military operations, they now face “reconstruction” overseen by someone whose interventions have consistently produced what results, exactly?

If they accept the Blair plan, they get foreign control disguised as investment, with Palestinians in subordinate roles while “billionaires and businesspeople” make strategic decisions. If they reject it, they risk being portrayed as obstacles to peace and reconstruction, potentially losing access to funding and international support.

The Accountability Gap

Despite the Chilcot Inquiry findings about Britain’s role in the Iraq War, despite compensation paid to rendition victims, and despite documented intelligence manipulation, Blair has never faced legal consequences. Instead, he’s built a consulting empire worth hundreds of millions and has now been appointed to oversee Gaza’s future.

The British government has paid millions in compensation to torture victims without formally admitting responsibility. Blair himself has declined to comment on specifics regarding what he knew about torture programs and when.

This pattern raises questions about international accountability mechanisms. If the architect of the Iraq War faces no consequences, what message does that send about international law?

If involvement in rendition operations results in consultancy opportunities rather than prosecution, what does that suggest about deterrence?

The Accountability Question: The double standard regarding UN authority is worth examining.

The Destruction/Reconstruction Façade

But the pattern seems difficult to ignore. Now I think it’s logical to pose these questions, regardless of political affiliations or personal opinions about the various conflicts discussed here:

  • What exactly is Blair bringing to Gaza that couldn’t be provided by someone without his particular history?
  • Who benefits from his appointment to this role?
  • Does the international community have mechanisms for accountability, or do Western leaders operate under different rules?

Gaza’s Palestinians deserve better than to have their future determined by someone whose previous interventions left trails of destruction across multiple continents. Whether they’ll get better is another question entirely. The pattern has been consistent: promise reform, deliver foreign control, profit from reconstruction contracts, and move on before accountability arrives, or do not respond to it at all.

There’s no particular reason to expect Gaza will be different, unless something fundamental changes about how the international system operates instead of it trying to convince anybody with such a destruction/reconstruction façade, or what one might comfortably call “investment imperialism,” that is being imposed by genocidal force on Gaza.

But for this change to happen, “We the People” worldwide need to wake up and realize who should be in control.

Tamer Mansour is an Egyptian Independent Writer & Researcher.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Our goal should not be to defeat Russia, but to end the war,’ says Slovak PM Fico

By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | October 6, 2025

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has again denounced the European Union’s handling of the war in Ukraine, declaring that Slovakia’s goal is not Russia’s defeat but peace between “Slavs killing each other.”

Speaking during a televised discussion marking the 81st anniversary of the Battle of the Dukla Pass, Fico said that “the war could have ended three months after it started,” accusing Western powers of prolonging the conflict to fight Russia indirectly.

“War is no solution. If the EU had spent as much energy on peace as it does on supporting the war in Ukraine, the war could have ended long ago. I will never be a wartime prime minister,” Fico said, insisting that if Slovaks wanted such a leader, “they should elect someone else.”

The prime minister added that he would “never allow Slovakia to be dragged into any war adventure,” citing “no moral, historical, or legal reasons” for the country to become involved in the conflict.

“It is not our war,” he said. “It is a regional conflict with historical roots. Why should Slovakia talk about war now?”

Fico also dismissed recent EU discussions on creating an anti-drone defense wall along the bloc’s eastern flank. “Let the experts talk about it. What can a prime minister who has never fired a gun say about drone protection? That is an expert question,” he remarked.

He also confirmed that a new round of talks between the Slovak and Ukrainian governments would take place in Michalovce on Oct. 17.

Marking the wartime commemoration, Fico warned against what he described as historical amnesia, saying that Europe was “forbidding” celebrations of the end of World War II and dismantling Red Army monuments. “We have to talk about what the hell is happening today,” he said, condemning leaders who “speak so lightly about war” and “talk about defeating Russia” without recalling “the terrible suffering” of past generations.

Fico’s comments are in sharp contrast to those made last week by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who told the Warsaw Security Forum that the Ukraine war is “our war.” Tusk described it as “central to Europe’s security and values,” warning that “if we lose this war, the consequences will affect not only our generation but also the next generations in Poland, all of Europe, in the United States, everywhere in the world.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán swiftly rebuked Tusk, posting on X: “Dear Donald Tusk, you may think that you are at war with Russia, but Hungary is not. Neither is the European Union. You are playing a dangerous game with the lives and security of millions of Europeans.”

The divide highlights the deep fracture running through Central Europe’s response to the conflict. Orbán and Fico, both critical of EU sanctions and weapons deliveries, have positioned themselves as advocates for an immediate ceasefire and negotiations with Moscow.

They have also acquired a new ally over the weekend in Prague after Andrej Babiš’s ANO movement won national elections, leaving Tusk isolated within the Visegrád Group.

Babiš has pledged to withdraw from a Czech-led initiative to procure artillery shells for Ukraine and declared that Kyiv is “not ready” for EU membership. “We have to end the war first,” Babiš told a Ukrainian journalist. “Of course, we can cooperate with Ukraine. But you are not ready for the EU.”

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Leave a comment

Orban rejects Euro as EU ‘falling apart’

RT | October 6, 2025

Hungary will not adopt the euro as its currency, as the EU is “falling apart,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.

Bloc members are obliged to eventually join the Eurozone, with the exception of Denmark, which secured an opt-out. Seven of the 27 EU member states still use their national currencies.

In an interview with economic news site EconomX on Monday, Orban was asked whether he would move towards adopting the euro in Hungary.

“It will definitely not be on my agenda,” he replied.

“The European Union is in trouble, in the process of disintegration, it is currently falling apart,” he said.

Orban argued that, in light of this, he did not want to tie Hungary’s fate to the EU any further.

The Hungarian leader has been progressively more critical of the EU in recent years, clashing with its leadership over arms supplies to Ukraine, sanctions against Russia, and a shift towards militarization.

Orban has also vowed to veto Kiev’s EU bid, arguing that Ukrainian membership would destroy the bloc’s economy, and directly embroil it in a conflict with Russia.

EU leaders are increasingly pushing to fast-track Ukraine’s accession and want to finance more military aid, clearly showing that “the Brusselians want to go to war,” he wrote on X last week.

His position has led to tension with Kiev, exacerbated in recent months by Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy facilities that supply oil to landlocked Hungary.

Kiev and certain senior figures in the EU are conspiring to influence Hungarian domestic politics to put a pro-Ukrainian government in power, Orban claimed on Saturday.

His accusation echoed a report from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), published earlier this year.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen “is seriously studying regime change scenarios” in Hungary due to Orban’s overly “independent policy,” the spy agency claimed.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian drone targets nuclear plant inside Russia – operator

RT | October 7, 2025

A Ukrainian drone has targeted a nuclear power station in Russia’s Voronezh Region overnight, Rosenergoatom, a state-run company which operates the country’s nuclear power plants, has said.

The UAV hit a cooling tower of the sixth power-generating unit at the Novovoronezh NPP after being diverted by electronic warfare means, the company said in a statement on Telegram on Tuesday.

There was no damage or injuries as a result of the incident, the statement read. A dark mark was left in the spot where the drone struck the tower, it added.

The attack did not affect the operations of the station, with the radiation level on site remaining unchanged and corresponding to natural levels, Rosenergoatom said.

“This is yet another act of aggression by the Ukrainian military against the Russian nuclear power plants. Previously, it had attempted attacks against the main facilities of the Kursk and Smolensk Nuclear Power Plants,” the company stated.

October 7, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Nuclear Power, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »