Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The lobby is milking the Bondi Beach attack to silence critics of Israel’s genocide

By Jonathan Cook | December 15, 2025

I, for one, am struggling to stomach the spew of hypocrisy from pro-Israel groups like the Community Security Trust and its policy director, Dave Rich, in the wake of Sunday’s Bondi Beach attack.

Establishment media, on the other hand, appear to have a bottomless appetite for efforts by Israel apologists to exploit the genuine fear and grief of the Jewish community to advance a political agenda – one designed to silence criticism of Israel over its two-year slaughter and maiming of Palestinian children in Gaza.

Predictably, the supposedly liberal Guardian once again gave Rich a prominent slot in its comment pages, this time to spin the attack in Sydney into a demand for silencing opposition to Israel’s genocide.

Here are extracts from Rich’s piece in italics, followed by my observations. His all-too-obvious double standards and his glaring misdirection ploys should have disqualified this piece from publication. But the British media simply can’t get enough of this kind of bilge.

Rich: “The mobile phone footage of two gunmen calmly taking aim at families enjoying a Hanukah party is utterly chilling. It takes a special kind of dehumanisation, an ideology of pure hatred and self-righteous conviction, to do that.”

If Rich is so troubled by issues of dehumanisation, why has he remained so steadfastly mute about the long and utterly chilling dehumanisation of Palestinians by Israel and by its lobby groups, including his own organisation? Remember, Israeli leaders called the Palestinians “human animals”. It is decades of that kind of dehumanisation that laid the ground for Israel’s genocide. It is precisely because of such dehumanisation that the live-streamed horrors of the past two years made barely any impact on the Israeli public or on opinion among Israel’s supporters.

The truth is it is Rich and his fellow pro-Israel lobbyists who are the ones in the grip of an “ideology of pure hatred” – one that chooses to excuse the mass murder of children when they are Palestinian, blown to pieces and starved for months on end by the very state he identifies with.

Rich: “The whole basis of western liberal democracy, the belief in shared values within a diverse society, is endangered by these attacks.”

No, it’s not the Bondi Beach attack that has endangered “western liberal democracy”. That was irreversibly hollowed out when western leaders chose to actively collude in Israel’s genocide and defy the rulings of the world’s most respected legal institutions, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Western liberal democracy was hollowed out when these leaders chose to side with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and prioritise his exterminationist agenda over the rule of law.

Rich: “Some people react as if this terrorism is akin to a natural disaster or unforeseen tragedy: blind hatred with no cause or purpose, and therefore no deeper explanation needed. But terrorism does not emerge from a vacuum. It is merely the most violent, lethal expression of a set of attitudes and beliefs that are much more widely held than just by those who wield the gun or the knife.”

How true! Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it is the weapon of the weak, and it feeds off a festering hatred that derives from having one’s community abused and a parallel, suffocating feeling of powerlessness to stop it. That doesn’t justify the Bondi Beach attack, but it does provide us with the “deeper explanation” Rich claims to be searching for.

But even before we read on, we know where he wants to take this.

Rich: “When it comes to antisemitic terror, the ideas that some take as justification for murder are popularised and normalised through the language of much of the anti-Israel movement that has marched up and down our city streets and through our university campuses these past two years.”

And sure enough, there it is. The “antisemites”, according to Rich and the rest of the pro-Israel lobby, are British families marching though their towns and cities to protest a genocide in which the British govermment is actively colluding. They are the criminals, not Israel’s genocide machine.

The “antisemites”, Rich wants you to believe, are those incensed by witnessing Israel slaughter children day after day for more than two years; those incensed at seeing Israel bomb the hospitals needed to treat those children; those incensed at hearing Israel and its supporters deny what we have all seen happening with our own eyes; and those incensed that our governments have not only failed to stop this horror show but have actively demonised their own populations for highlighting their complicity in these crimes.

Rich: “After rapper Bobby Vylan, one half of the group Bob Vylan, chanted “Death, death to the IDF” during a set at the Glastonbury festival in June, it became the rallying cry of anti-Israel protesters everywhere. It got Bob Vylan invited to the Irish parliament and Bobby Vylan on to Louis Theroux’s podcast. Far from a call for death putting the rapper beyond the pale, it made him a celebrity.”

It takes extraordinary chutzpah to exploit the blood spilled in Sydney by special pleading for an Israeli army that is recognised by all major human rights groups, the United Nations, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and the International Criminal Court to have been routinely committing crimes against humanity in Gaza over the past two years.

If Dave Rich and the Community Security Trust are really so concerned about the dangers faced by Jews because of the many documented, and unpunished, crimes committed by the Israeli army, then maybe he should dedicate a little space to distancing himself and his organisation from that military rather than denying its criminality at every opportunity.

Rich: “Is there a connection between this embrace of a call for death in the name of Palestinian rights, and people inflicting actual death apparently in the name of the same cause? As soon as you ask the question, the answer seems obvious.”

Both sides can play this game. Is there a connection between the embrace of calls for genocide in the name of Jewish supremacy, and Israeli soldiers inflicting actual death in the name of that cause? Remember Israel’s head of the military said he would deny the people of Gaza food, water and fuel, supposedly in “self-defence”, and that’s exactly what Israel did. Remember Netanyahu himself described the people of Gaza as “Amalek”, a people condemned to genocide by God, and genocide is exactly what Israel did.

Indeed, as soon as you ask the question, the answer seems obvious. But in the case of Gaza, the death toll is many thousands of times greater than anything inflicted by two twisted gunmen in Sydney.

Rich: “The devastation in Gaza is real and lots of people involved in pro-Palestinian activism do not support antisemitic violence against Jews, whether in Britain or Australia. But like it or not, it seems this movement has generated and sustained a political culture in which violence is both conceivable and enacted.”

Even were this true, it cannot compare to the political culture generated by Rich and his pro-Israel lobbyists. That political culture has not only made violence against Palestinians conceivable but a daily reality for them decade after decade. It is years of dedicated work by the Israel lobby that has ensured the mass murder of Palestinians is viewed by governments, the media and parts of the Jewish community as entirely legitimate.

Rich: “This is now a global emergency of antisemitism, and it is the consequence of two years of turning a blind eye, taking the easy path and ignoring the warnings. Make no mistake: alongside the grief and the defiance, Jews are angry. And they have every right to be.”

No, that is not the global emergency. The real emergency is a rampant anti-Palestinian racism that has utterly normalised genocide and been given institutional support across the West. It is anti-Palestinian racism, not “antisemitism”, that is the consequence of “two years of turning a blind eye, taking the easy path and ignoring the warnings”. Make no mistake: alongside the grief and the defiance, people with a conscience are angry at the two-year genocide endorsed by our governments. And they have every right to be.

December 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran Army says Australia’s designation of IRGC serves US-Israeli interests

Press TV – November 30, 2025

The General Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces has strongly condemned Australia’s “unwise decision” to label the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) as a “state sponsor of terrorism.”

In a statement on Sunday, the Armed Forces said the unwise decision by the “dependent” Australian government against the IRGC is in line with the sinister goals of the arrogant system, led by the terrorist United States.

It added that the move aims to serve the terrorist Israeli regime’s interests in the continuation of oppression and crimes and has no meaning other than “baseless and spiteful” claims under the pressure of the US and Israel.

According to the statement, the move demonstrates a lack of proper understanding of international and global realities.

The Army, however, emphasized that such moves will strengthen the will of the heroic Iranian nation to boost its defense prowess and will result in nothing but greater support of Iranians and the free nations across the world for the Armed Forces, especially the powerful and anti-terrorism IRGC.

The Australian government listed the IRGC as a “state sponsor of terrorism” on Thursday over baseless accusations that the elite force had orchestrated attacks against Australia’s Jewish community.

In a statement released on Thursday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the decision.

“The political move by the Australian government is a dangerous and criminal precedent, designed under the influence of the Zionist regime to divert public attention from the genocide in Gaza,” the ministry said.

November 30, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

4 Shocking Ties Between Rubio, Lobbyists, and Hernández Narcotics Indictment

teleSUR | November 29, 2025

WASHINGTON — The recent announcement by former U.S. President Donald Trump that he will grant a “full and complete pardon” to Juan Orlando Hernández, the former Honduran president currently serving a U.S. federal sentence for drug trafficking, has reignited scrutiny over a long-documented web of political and financial connections linking Hernández, Republican lobbying powerhouse BGR Group, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Far from an isolated act of clemency, Trump’s pledge appears deeply entangled with a system of influence-peddling that has shaped U.S. policy toward Central America for years. At the center stands Rubio—a figure who, as a Florida senator, once publicly praised Hernández for “taking on drug traffickers,” even as evidence mounted that the Honduran leader was personally profiting from the very cartels he claimed to fight.

Now, with Rubio overseeing U.S. diplomacy from the State Department, critics warn that the Rubio Hernández lobbying scandal reveals how foreign actors can exploit the U.S. lobbying system to buy legitimacy, evade justice, and ultimately secure political favors—including presidential pardons.

The BGR Group Connection: How Hernández Bought Influence in Washington

In early 2020, as his legal situation began to collapse—following the life sentence of his brother, Tony Hernández, for trafficking tons of cocaine into the U.S.—Juan Orlando Hernández signed a $660,000 contract with BGR Group, a Washington-based lobbying firm founded by former Republican Governor Haley Barbour.

The goal was clear: rehabilitate Hernández’s image in the U.S. capital as a “trusted ally” and “anti-narcotics partner,” despite mounting evidence that he had accepted millions in bribes from cartels to fund his presidential campaigns.

According to a detailed investigation by VICE News, BGR Group went to work immediately:

  • It contacted 11 congressional staffers, three of whom had previously worked directly for Marco Rubio.
  • It distributed press releases portraying Hernández as a bulwark against organized crime.
  • It arranged meetings with U.S. officials to reinforce the narrative of Honduras as a cooperative security partner.

All this occurred while U.S. prosecutors were building their case against Hernández himself—culminating in his 2024 conviction for conspiring to import over 500 tons of cocaine into the United States.

Critically, BGR Group was not just any firm—it was a major Republican donor network with deep ties to Rubio’s political career. Records show the firm hosted fundraising events for Rubio’s 2010 and 2016 Senate campaigns, as well as his short-lived 2016 presidential bid.

This means that the same lobbying apparatus paid by a convicted narco-president helped finance the rise of the man now shaping U.S. policy toward Latin America.

Explore FEC records on BGR’s political contributions to Rubio (Federal Election Commission)

Trump’s Pardon as Political Payback—Not Justice

Trump’s announcement—made via Truth Social on Friday—comes amid his open support for Nasry “Tito” Asfura, Hernández’s political protégé and the National Party’s 2025 presidential candidate in Honduras. Trump has explicitly tied future U.S. aid to Asfura’s victory, signaling that Washington’s backing is conditional on political alignment.

In this context, the pardon of Hernández appears less like mercy and more like a strategic signal: loyalty to U.S. Republican interests—even when demonstrated through illicit means—will be rewarded.

Hernández, after all, was once Washington’s favorite Central American strongman. He allowed the U.S. to maintain military bases in Honduras, cracked down on migrant caravans, and supported U.S. regional agendas—all while allegedly running a state-sponsored drug enterprise.

Now, with Rubio at the State Department and Trump eyeing a 2028 comeback, the Rubio Hernández lobbying scandal underscores a troubling reality: foreign leaders can launder their reputations through U.S. lobbying firms, gain access to top policymakers, and ultimately escape accountability—even after federal conviction.

As one Latin American diplomat put it: “This isn’t diplomacy. It’s transactional impunity.”

Geopolitical Context: Undermining Rule of Law in the Americas

The fallout from the Rubio Hernández lobbying scandal extends far beyond bilateral relations. It strikes at the credibility of the entire U.S. “war on drugs” and its claims of promoting democracy and rule of law in Latin America.

If a president convicted of trafficking cocaine can secure a presidential pardon through backroom lobbying and partisan loyalty, what message does that send to reformers in Guatemala, El Salvador, or Colombia?

Moreover, it deepens regional distrust of U.S. intentions. For years, progressive governments in the region have argued that Washington prioritizes compliance over justice—backing authoritarian but cooperative leaders while condemning leftist governments for lesser offenses. The Hernández case validates that critique.

Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have long denounced this “selective morality” in U.S. foreign policy. Now, even centrist allies are questioning whether the U.S. system can be gamed by those with enough money and the right lobbyists.

In a hemisphere increasingly seeking multipolar partnerships, such scandals fuel the narrative that U.S. democracy is for sale—and that sovereignty is secondary to political convenience.

November 29, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | 1 Comment

The biggest fish caught in China’s “debt trap”

The US is the “victim” as the largest recipient of Chinese official credits and loans

By Hua Bin | November 27, 2025

An Indian by the name of Brahma Chellaney, employed by Center of Policy Research based in New Delhi and funded by US State Department, coined the term “debt trap” to demonize Chinese loans for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) across developing countries.

It’s clear, just by the origin of the term, that it was a smear job by a dimwit sour grape. His argument has since been roundly debunked by researchers and analysts from John Hopkins, Harvard, and the Chatham House. None of them can be described as trolls for China.

For example, research by the New York-based Rhodium Group and John Hopkins University has shown no instance of China seizing strategic assets due to debt defaults, a core claim by Chellaney and the “debt trap” advocates.

Studies done by London-based Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs), a very anti-China outfit by its track record, contrast China’s debt management with that of Western bondholders and institutions.

Their analyses demonstrate China has shown far greater willingness to provide debt rescheduling and relief, while Western lenders such as the World Bank and IMF are quick to resort to legal measures.

Western loans also often come with conditionalities that negatively affect a country’s economic productivity – such as deregulation and privatization.

Ironically, while India sounds the alarm on “debt trap”, the country itself is the largest recipient of loans from the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a financial institution funded primarily by China.

Of course, the Indians are presumably so “smart” that they are immune to any “debt trap”. Their lenders and creditors are the ones who need to worry about being “trapped”.

Very predictably, such a discredited lie is not too low for most Western governments to adopt as the holy script since it fits their geopolitical narrative.

And the term has become a regular in the official lexicon of western governments and media.

A recent study on Chinese official lending done by the College of William and Mary (W&M) in Virginia, the second oldest university in the US, is very telling and goes to show the disparity of Western claims and empirical evidence on the ground.

The AidData research lab at W&M found that China is the largest creditor nation in the world and its global lending since the turn of the century has been “vastly” larger than previously understood, with loans and grants increasingly going to developed countries.

The US is by far the largest recipient – nearly US$202 billion of the US$2.2 trillion disbursed by China’s “official sector” between 2000 and 2023 went to projects in the US.

Note the data excludes China’s purchase of US Treasury bonds.

“Our data demonstrate that the US – a high-income country – is the single largest recipient of official sector credit from China. This finding is both unexpected and counterintuitive,” wrote researchers of the study released earlier this month.

“This is an extraordinary discovery, given that the US has spent the better part of the last decade warning other countries of the dangers of accumulating significant debt exposure to China, and accusing China of practicing “debt trap” diplomacy,” said Brad Parks, AidData’s executive director.

The study, compiled over 36 months using more than 246,000 sources, covered a wide range of Chinese official lenders, including state policy banks, state-owned commercial banks, state-owned companies, state-owned funds, and the central bank.

Some of the Chinese lending in the US involved the construction of “critical infrastructure”, helping to bankroll the construction of major liquefied natural gas pipelines in Rio Grande, Port Arthur and Freeport, the Dakota Access oil pipeline, an electric power transmission line feeding New York City, data centres in Virginia, and airport terminals in New York and California, among other projects.

Official Chinese lenders also financed the merger and acquisition of hi-tech companies in the US and provided liquidity support – via working capital and revolving credit facilities – to a wide array of Fortune 500 companies.

The research lab described most Chinese loans to the US “are guided by the pursuit of profit rather than the pursuit of geopolitical or geoeconomic advantage”.

While China is well known for lending to Global South countries via BRI, the report found that 10 of the 20 largest destinations between 2000 and 2023 were high-income countries, including the UK, Singapore, Germany and Switzerland.

Russia was the second largest recipient after the US, with a cumulative US$171.78 billion in loans and grants over the period, followed by Australia with a total of US$130 billion.

According to AidData, China’s total overseas lending portfolio is two to four times larger than previously published estimates, making China the world’s biggest official creditor by a large margin.

Its lending portfolio has evolved significantly over time – in 2000, 88% of China’s lending went to low-income countries; by 2023, financing going to developed countries rose to 76%.

China had approved loans and grants for more than 30,000 “projects and activities” worldwide between 2000 and 2023. A total of 9,764 of those projects and activities were in high-income countries.

The AidData report claims China offers debt, equity and grants in “flexible, innovative and complementary ways to advance its geostrategic and commercial interests”.

China is increasingly seen as an “international creditor of first – and last – resort”, according to the report summary.

The disconnect between the Western propaganda and the reality on the ground is revealing – the hypocrisy of calling Chinese lending “debt trap” while engaging in a feeding frenzy in a trough of Chinese money.

Western governments and media’s twisted narratives about China live on a hotbed of cynicism and stupidity.

For such narratives to be believed, one of two things must be true – either the readers are so cynical they are willing to swallow patently false narratives to feed their bigotry, or the readers are so dumb that they don’t possess basic faculty for critical thinking.

This reminds one of other similarly ludicrous talking points. For example, Western pundits regularly claim China’s domestic economy precarious because of persistent “deflation”.

While it’s true that prices have been stable or falling slightly in the last 2 – 3 years, how is it a bad thing for consumers?

Why should consumers welcome “rising prices” – as the wide-spread inflation in much of the West?

Shouldn’t prices of goods fall when manufacturing scale and efficiency improve and companies compete for consumers in an open marketplace?

Why are high corporate profit margins as a result of higher prices a good thing for consumers?

In China, average real household income growth in 2024 was 5.4%, 0.2% higher than the nominal growth rate 5.2% due to lower prices. Isn’t this better than negative real income growth in most Western countries?

In China, the effective interest rate for 30-year mortgage is 3.1% on average, and 2.65% for first time buyers. Isn’t this better than paying 6 to 9% as in other countries?

You have to be a real retard or cynically shut down any critical thinking to believe in the garbage from the lying media.

And it’s more than the media. A prime source of such garbage comes from “elected leaders”.

Ted Cruz, the 3-time US Senator from Texas, wrote in a recent op-ed that Chinese AI dominance would mean “state-run surveillance and coercion”, while an American win would guarantee a technology anchored by “liberty, human dignity, and the rule of law”.

If this self-serving propaganda comes from someone with a modicum of credibility, it might carry some weight. But coming from Ted Cruz, one of the most despised men in his home country the US, the irony is overwhelming.

This is Ted Cruz talking. The same Ted Cruz, christened “lyin’ Ted” by the Donald, who became Trump’s most loyal lapdog three months after Trump insulted his wife’s looks (whom Cruz claimed as “the love of my life”) and hinted his father helped kill JFK.

This is the same Ted Cruz who was voted as “the most unlikeable person” by former classmates (including his college roommate) and fellow Republican colleagues.

The same Ted Cruz who fled to a Ritz in Cancun when his voters were frozen to death during the Texas freeze in ’21.

John McCain, late warmonger par excellence and Cruz’s fellow senator, was quoted saying: “if you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the senate, and the trial is in the senate, nobody would convict you”.

Even Lindsey Graham, who is a worthy contestant as the most despicable human with Cruz, said “if you shot Ted Cruz, it would be a hung jury”.

For this Ted Cruz, who failed to defend the honor of his own wife and father, to take the moral highroad and defend “human dignity” is the equivalent of a two-peso prostitute to lecture on chastity and virtue.

So, the question is – are those vile creatures like Cruz and Graham going to save the US from China’s “debt trap”?

November 27, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

The Beat of the War Drums

By Craig Murray | November 20, 2025

In fascist lockstep, the entire British media, broadcast and print, corporate and state, is leading with a Ministry of Defence press release about a “Russian spy ship” inside “British waters”.

No British media appears to have been able to speak to anybody who knows the first thing about the Law of the Sea.

Here are the facts:

The Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 miles from the coastal baselines. The Continental Shelf can extend still further, as a fact of geology, not an imposed maximum.

On the Continental Shelf the coastal state is entitled to the mineral resources. In the Exclusive Economic Zone the coastal state is entitled to the fisheries and mineral resources.

For purposes of navigation, both the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone are part of the High Seas. There is freedom of navigation on the High Seas. Foreign ships, including foreign military ships, may come and go as they please. Nor is there any ban on “spying” – exactly as there is no restriction on spying from satellites.

The Territorial Waters of a state extend out to just twelve miles. These are subject to the internal legislation of the coastal state. There is freedom for foreign vessels, including military vessels, to pass through them but only subject to the rule of “innocent passage” – which specifically rules out spying and reconnaissance. In the territorial sea, vessels have to be genuinely just passing through on their way somewhere, otherwise they may need coastal state permission for their activity.

The Exclusive Economic Zone is subject to the rules of the coastal state only in relation to the reserved economic activities to which the state is entitled. Scientific research is specifically free for all states within the Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Russian ship Yantar has been just outside the UK territorial waters. It is therefore under “freedom of navigation” and not under “innocent passage”. It is free to do scientific research.

I don’t doubt it is really gathering intelligence on military, energy and communications facilities. That is what states do. The UK does it to Russia all the time, on the Black Sea, the Barents Sea, the Baltic, and elsewhere. Not to mention 24/7 satellite surveillance.

It is perfectly legal for the Yantar to do this. Personally I wish the entire world would stop such activity, but to blame the Russians given the massive levels of surveillance and encirclement they suffer from NATO assets is simply ludicrous.

Not to mention the ultimate hypocrisy that the UK has been flying intelligence missions over Gaza every single day and feeding targeting information to aid the Gaza genocide.

The UK’s allies blew up Russia’s Nord Stream pipeline. The UK is now accusing the Yantar precisely of scouting this same kind of attack – which we endorsed when the pipeline was Russian.

For example HMS Sutherland, accompanied by Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring, and two other NATO warships penetrated 160 miles into Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone and lingered 40 miles from Russia’s Severomorsk naval base. There was no pretence they were doing anything other than gathering intelligence and sounding out defences.

In armed forces media the UK boasted it was an assertion of freedom of navigation. Yet we harass the Russian vessel equally on the High Seas for exercising its freedom of navigation.

That was also perfectly legal. The idea that the same activity is worthy when we do it, but a pretext for war if the Russians do it, is so childish as to be beyond ridicule. But there is not one single mainstream journalist willing to call it out.

As this photo of HMS Somerset illegally threatening the Yantar on the High Seas shows, forcing it into dangerous moves, the aggression is not from the Russians. That British jets illegally buzzing the Yantar have been met with lasers designed to disrupt attacks. That is not the Russian aggression John Healy claims. The nonsense about dazzling pilots’ eyes is sheer invention.

Unless the plane is extremely, extremely low or a very long way away it is a physical impossibility to shine a laser into a pilot’s eyes in a modern warplane, from below in a ship. The pilot won’t be looking at the ship out of the window, but will be looking at his screens and the image from the cameras under the plane. These might be disrupted by the lasers – and a perfectly valid and sensible defensive measure that is too.

This is the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Imagine it in the skies way above you and look at its body, particularly the front end – how would you get line of sight on the pilot? You couldn’t. Lasers only go in straight lines.

Most sinister of all is the universal state control of media that gets every single mainstream outlet booming out the propaganda narrative, all entirely without question.

This war talk is of course the normal refuge of extremely unpopular governments. But it is part of a wider tightening of the grip of the military-industrial complex on the state. Starmer is committed to increasing military expenditure by tens of billions of pounds a year, while imposing austerity on the rest of the economy. In Scotland, we are told that the closure of major industrial sites like Grangemouth and Mossmorran will be compensated by opening new weapons factories.

Beating ploughshares into swords.

The rise of domestic racism and authoritarianism is accompanied by the increase in militarism and the desire to portray Russia and China as enemy states with whom we are already in a state of proto-war. The state has a mainstream media which is showing itself willing to pump out even the most thin propaganda to this end with no interrogation whatsoever.

Western democracy has already died. Not everybody has yet noticed.

November 25, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Tata Group’s ties with Israel: How Indian capital fuels occupation and genocide

By Ranjan Solomon | MEMO | November 6, 2025

The mask of modernity

For over a century, the Tata Group has been celebrated as the conscience of Indian capitalism — a family of companies that fused profit with philanthropy, progress with ethics. To millions of Indians, “Tata” evokes trust: a brand woven into the very narrative of modern India. Yet behind this carefully cultivated image of virtue lies a darker reality – one that now links Tata directly to the Israeli war machine devastating Gaza.

A new report released by the U.S.-based South Asian collective Salam, titled “Architects of Occupation: The Tata Group, Indian Capital, and the India–Israel Alliance,” alleges that Tata is “at the heart” of the India–Israel military partnership and is “fundamentally embedded in the architecture of occupation, surveillance, and dispossession.” TRT World’s coverage of the report further details how the conglomerate’s various subsidiaries feed directly into Israel’s military-industrial complex.

The findings: A web of complicity

The report identifies several subsidiaries of the Tata Group as active participants in Israel’s defence and security ecosystem.

Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL), one of India’s largest private defence manufacturers, has long-standing partnerships with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). Together, they manufacture key components for the Barak-8 surface-to-air missile system, which forms the backbone of Israel’s naval defence and is used in strikes on Gaza. TASL also produces aerostructures for F-16 fighter jets and fuselages for Apache attack helicopters, both extensively deployed by the Israeli Air Force.

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), another Tata subsidiary, is alleged to provide the chassis for MDT David light armoured vehicles used by Israeli forces in West Bank patrols and urban crowd-suppression.

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), the IT giant, is reportedly involved in building digital infrastructure for Israel’s governmental and financial sectors, including participation in Project Nimbus — the controversial cloud-computing contract co-run by Google and Amazon that facilitates Israeli state surveillance.

The Salam report argues that these are not isolated commercial arrangements but part of a systemic integration of Indian capital within Israel’s “occupation economy.”

Tata’s public sponsorship of global events, such as the New York City Marathon, is described as “sports-washing” — a means of masking its participation in war profiteering behind gestures of global modernity and social responsibility. Despite repeated inquiries, Tata Group has not issued a public response to the allegations.

From state to corporation: The India–Israel nexus

Tata’s complicity does not exist in a vacuum. It is the corporate mirror of a larger state transformation in India’s foreign and defence policy.

Since the 1990s, and more assertively under Narendra Modi, India has shifted from quiet engagement with Israel to a full-blown strategic partnership. India is now the largest buyer of Israeli arms, accounting for roughly 40–45 per cent of Israel’s defence exports.

Joint ventures proliferate:

  • The Barak-8 missile project, co-developed by DRDO and IAI, is assembled in part at Tata facilities.
  • India’s purchase of Heron drones, Phalcon AWACS systems, and Spike anti-tank missiles are products of the same industrial network that sustains Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
  • Several of these systems are used by India in Kashmir, linking one occupation to another — and revealing a disturbing symmetry between the surveillance of Palestinians and Kashmiris.

In this geopolitical alignment, Hindutva nationalism and Zionism converge on the ideological front. Both justify domination through a rhetoric of “security” and “counter-terrorism.” Both normalise militarism as a form of patriotism. And both have turned their societies into laboratories of digital surveillance and ethno-religious control.

Thus, the Tata Group’s partnerships are not merely commercial. They are the economic expression of a shared political project — where corporate capital, state power, and ideology intertwine.

Corporate complicity and ethical evasion

Tata is hardly alone. Global corporations have long buttressed the Israeli state’s apparatus of control. Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar, and now Google and Amazon have all been accused of enabling occupation and surveillance. What makes Tata’s case particularly striking is its moral posture.

A company that invokes Gandhi and philanthropy in its advertising now profits from an economy of death. Its own code of conduct commits it to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which prohibit participation in human-rights violations. Yet there is no visible accountability mechanism — no disclosure of its defence revenues, no public audit of ethical compliance, and no internal oversight on the human impact of its contracts.

The Salam report calls this “ethical evasion through corporate nationalism”: the idea that Indian companies can deflect scrutiny by invoking patriotism and “Make in India” rhetoric. This is a convenient cover for profiteering from war.

Silence and complicity in India

Mainstream Indian media have barely reported on the Tata revelations. Nor has the Indian government shown any interest in investigating them. On the contrary, officials continue to trumpet the India–Israel “strategic embrace” as a model of technological progress.

Civil society, too, has grown hesitant. Decades ago, India was a vocal defender of the Palestinian cause. Today, solidarity has been replaced by silence, fear, and a dangerous normalization of genocide. Universities that once hosted discussions on occupation now avoid the subject. Protesters risk arrest under draconian laws.

The corporate capture of conscience mirrors a broader moral collapse in public life.

What accountability looks like

International law is clear: any company knowingly supplying equipment or services that enable war crimes may be complicit in those crimes. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Guiding Principles both outline corporate responsibilities in situations of armed conflict.

Tata’s alleged manufacturing of components for weapons used in Gaza should therefore be subject to independent investigation. Investors, trade unions, and consumers have the right — and duty — to demand transparency.

There are precedents: in the 1980s, global campaigns pressured companies to divest from apartheid South Africa. A similar moral movement must emerge against those profiteering from Israeli apartheid. The boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign is one such call, and Indian civil society should not remain absent from it.

When conscience is outsourced

Tata’s silence in the face of genocide is not just a corporate failure; it reflects the hollowness of India’s moral claim to be the land of Gandhi. What remains of that heritage when its flagship corporation contributes to the machinery of ethnic cleansing?

As Gaza’s children starve and entire families are buried under rubble, the Tata empire continues to sell technology to the state that kills them — while its advertisements preach compassion and “building a better tomorrow.”

No nation can claim moral leadership while its corporations build profit from the blood of the oppressed. The time for polite silence is over. India must confront what it has become — and reclaim the humanity it once pledged to the world.

November 6, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO chief urges West to prepare for long-term confrontation with Russia

RT | November 6, 2025

NATO member-states must boost military production to be ready for a prolonged standoff with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, which are challenging the “global rules,” the bloc’s secretary-general, Mark Rutte, has said.

Speaking to Western defense contractors at the NATO-Industry Forum in Bucharest on Thursday, Rutte told the bloc’s arms makers that “there is more cash on the table and even more will flow” amid NATO’s rearmament push.

Moscow has rejected claims it harbors any aggressive intentions towards the US-led military bloc, saying such allegations are being used by politicians in the US and EU to scare the populations and justify huge increases in military spending. Russia also believes that NATO’s deepening involvement in Ukraine was instrumental in escalating the conflict in 2022.

Rutte labeled the fighting between Moscow and Kiev a “threat” to the bloc and he claimed that “the danger posed by Russia will not end when this war does. For the foreseeable future, Russia will remain a destabilizing force in Europe and the world.”

“And Russia is not alone in its efforts to undermine the global rules. As you know, it is working with China, with North Korea, with Iran, and others. They are increasing their defense industrial collaboration to unprecedented levels. They are preparing for long-term confrontation,” the secretary-general said.

He noted the pledge by NATO members to hike military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, but claimed that “cash alone cannot provide security. We need the capabilities. We need the equipment, real firepower, and of course… the most advanced tech.” This would require the bloc’s defense industry “increasing production and shortening delivery times,” Rutte stressed.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova reacted to Rutte’s comments by asking him to clarify what “global rules” he was talking about and publish their “full list” on NATO’s website.

Moscow, Beijing, and the rest of “the global majority, have always declared their commitment to international law, while NATO has repeatedly violated this law with its aggressive actions and illegitimate coalitions: the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, the bombing of Yugoslavia, and so on,” Zakharova wrote on Telegram.

November 6, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Norbert Bolz: ‘The EU has become a monster’

Those who fight against Brussels ‘are not anti-Europeans, but good Europeans’

Weltwoche | October 19, 2025

The European Union has become a “monster” that is increasingly undermining freedom and democracy—this is the criticism leveled by media scholar Norbert Bolz in an opinion piece for the newspaper Die Welt. He argues that the EU is no longer a community of free states, but a centralized “machine that constantly produces regulations and prohibitions,” which follows a “script” reminiscent of Kafka and Orwell.

Bolz, a professor emeritus and one of Germany’s most prominent conservative intellectuals, sees the original idea of a peaceful and economically united Europe as having been perverted. What began with free trade and freedom of movement has been replaced by bureaucratization, a lack of transparency, and authoritarian tendencies. As a concrete example, he cites the Digital Services Act and the planned chat surveillance: “This is about the methods of a totalitarian surveillance state that reads private communications and thus destroys privacy and freedom of expression.”

At the center of his criticism is EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. For Bolz, she embodies the “cold German face of a failed Europe.” He finds it particularly outrageous that she refuses to disclose the text messages she exchanged with the Pfizer CEO during the coronavirus pandemic.

Furthermore, he states that the EU lacks democratic legitimacy. “There is no separation of powers and no democracy,” writes Bolz. He contends that Brussels serves as a lever to push through nationally unpopular measures—for example, in the name of climate protection and corporate social responsibility. This practice enables left-wing and green parties, in particular, to circumvent the political will of their own populations.

According to Bolz, those who rebel against this development are not anti-Europeans, but good Europeans.

November 2, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

New Hungarian play shows key Orbán ally locked in box and beaten to death

By Liz Heflin | Remix News | October 29, 2025

A new play in Budapest, written and directed by Béla Pintér, shows a character being put in a box and beaten to death.

As graphic and perhaps unappealing as that may be for many theater-goers, there is an even bigger problem with “Kabuki”: Everyone agrees the character is made up to look like Maria Schmidt, a major ally of Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán and director of a few institutions, namely, the 20th Century Institute, the 21st Century Institute, and the House of Terror Museum.

As the opposition-friendly portal 444 wrote: “But then everything gets really rough when the Fidesz oligarch, Schanda (!) Vera, who looks like Mária Schmidt, asks the poet to be their party’s candidate. The man (…) reluctantly admits that he is unable to run, as he finds the way the government party is treating the martyred (Russian opposition leader) Alexei Navalny so outrageous. The woman is completely upset about this, as she doesn’t think Navalny is worth anything and believes that Russia has free elections, unlike the West.”

The portal continues, stating that “the woman annoys him so much” that he “throws her into a large box and beats her to death with a stick.”

One commentary in Mandiner hit home as to the boundaries being crossed “in the name of art.”

“Béla Pintér’s latest play, in which the beating of the director of the House of Terror Museum is played out on stage, is not art: it is at once hate speech, political incitement, and moral corruption. The play doesn’t make you think, it doesn’t invite dialogue – it just hits you. Both literally and figuratively.

“For someone to dramatize the death of a living, public figure and elevate it to a theatrical experience is not a brave gesture, but a tasteless, inhumane provocation,” wrote Katalin Szily, a member of Fidesz’s coalition partner, KDNP.

“Béla Pintér and his company have now abused this responsibility. This is not satire, not social criticism, but cold cynicism and intellectual vandalism. And the viewer, who watches and applauds, unwittingly becomes part of this ritual of hatred,” she continued.

“Where is the line? Where do we draw the line? Tomorrow, maybe they’ll stage the execution of politicians and journalists and applaud?”

Szily also poignantly asks, “Where, oh where, are the voices in the name female solidarity?”

Author Gabor Bokor also wrote: “Béla Pintér is an important figure in the Hungarian theater world, a pioneer of alternative stage plays, with which he has gained many fans.”

“We can think whatever we want about Mária Schmidt’s statements, we can criticize her in a play, this is part of artistic freedom, but I beg you: Kill her?” he asks.

October 29, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

Germany on the Geopolitical Stage of the Global South: Between Media Image and Real Capacities

By Ramiz Khodzhatov – New Eastern Outlook – October 21, 2025

The attempts of Friedrich Merz’s government to “relaunch” Germany’s role as a global political actor in the Global South without revising its conceptual foundations risk leaving the country stranded on the margins of international diplomacy – caught between formal participation and substantive isolation.

The Gaza Summit and the New Security Architecture

On October 13, 2025, under the auspices of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, a peace summit on Gaza took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The event, co-chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump, gathered representatives from over twenty nations to observe and validate the signing of the first phase of the American initiative for conflict resolution. Egypt and the United States, alongside Qatar and Turkey, acted as the principal mediators of the emerging architecture of multilateral diplomacy. Serving both as brokers of the ceasefire and as the de jure guarantors of the “Declaration on Lasting Peace and Prosperity,” they oversaw a framework that encompassed bilateral agreements on the release of hostages and prisoners, coordination of humanitarian aid, and a detailed roadmap for demilitarization and post-conflict reconstruction of Gaza’s infrastructure.

A wave of criticism followed the paradoxical absence of the conflict’s key parties, the Israeli cabinet and Hamas. At the same time, attention focused on the participation of several unorthodox players in the Middle Eastern geopolitical arena, notably the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The German presence drew disproportionate attention due to an evident dissonance between its media portrayal and its actual diplomatic standing. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, standing to the side of the main participants, appeared frozen in an uneasy, almost constrained posture, smiling politely yet refraining from engaging any of the leaders. The image quickly spread through German and international media, sparking debate. This scene became emblematic of Berlin’s uncertain role within the emerging security architecture. The question arises: what position does Germany seek to claim, and why, despite shifting geopolitical realities and the lessons of history, it risks remaining a “paper player,” bereft of real influence or credibility across the Global South and the Middle East?

From “Feminist Foreign Policy” to the Merz Plan

To understand Germany’s current trajectory, one must revisit the recent phase of its foreign policy. Under Chancellor Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, diplomacy was anchored in the doctrine of so-called “feminist foreign policy,” framed as a flagship direction of global engagement. Yet in practice, this approach revealed its conceptual inadequacy. Its normative and universalist foundations clashed with the political cultures and socio-cultural frameworks of the Global South. Gender and humanitarian rhetoric, imported indiscriminately into conflict zones, failed to take root, particularly when juxtaposed with Western double standards evident in the humanitarian catastrophe of Gaza.

Another blow to Berlin’s image came from its insistence on the “green agenda” as an alternative to traditional energy models. Amid a domestic energy crisis, this stance not only weakened Germany’s position in international negotiations but also eroded its reputation as a reliable and autonomous economic actor. To many states of the Global South, German initiatives in climate and energy diplomacy appeared declarative and unsupported by functional mechanisms.

Against this backdrop, Russia’s advocacy of “multipolarity” gained increasing traction, widely perceived as an attractive alternative to the neo-colonial logic of the West. Moscow succeeded in institutionalizing this discourse through frameworks such as BRICS, which evolved into both an economic and symbolic vehicle of a new international subjectivity. Germany and its European partners failed to propose an equivalent model, thereby cementing their peripheral status in dialogue with the Global South.

The Old–New Architecture of Irrelevance

Despite its declining relevance, Berlin continues to undertake institutional steps aimed at restoring its international agency. Notable measures include expanding humanitarian assistance, covering medical support and the establishment of temporary camps for displaced persons—participating in prospective Palestinian self-governance structures, co-organizing an international conference on Gaza’s reconstruction, and devising instruments for monitoring and coordinating humanitarian aid. Germany aspires to act not merely as a donor but as a mediator, presenting itself simultaneously as a humanitarian and political broker.

However, these ambitions collide with structural constraints. Key mechanisms for monitoring, hostage exchange, and aid distribution depend on the consent of regional actors who, tellingly, were absent from the summit. Germany’s declarative and instrumental efforts to secure influence falter against the realities of local political culture, where situational alliances, pragmatism, and realpolitik shape diplomacy far more than normative idealism. Berlin still relies on a logic of moral universalism inherited from previous decades, cloaked in new labels and narratives yet perpetuating the same disconnect between ambition and capability.

This pattern mirrors the systemic flaws observed during Baerbock’s “feminist foreign policy.” The persistent refusal to engage with regional geopolitical realities produces a gap between Germany’s ambitions and its actual leverage. The now-famous image from Sharm el-Sheikh thus becomes a visual metaphor for deeper structural dysfunction: the fragmentation of the Western course, wherein the American line retains strategic dominance while Europe’s voice fades amid inconsistency and moral self-contradiction.

The declarative support for Israel expressed by the Merz cabinet within the Middle East peace process has triggered a crisis of trust toward Germany as a would-be neutral actor. Rooted in the concept of Staatsräson and the moral logic of historical atonement, this stance increasingly contradicts the disposition of public opinion. Recent YouGov data reveal that 62% of Germans consider Israel’s actions in Gaza an act of genocide, a view shared across party lines, including 60% of supporters of Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc. Over two-thirds of the population now hold a negative view of Israel, while sympathizers account for only 19%. Support for Palestinian recognition has climbed to 44%. This gap between domestic consensus and foreign policy undermines the legitimacy of Germany’s global agency and weakens its credibility as an impartial mediator.

Internationally, the erosion of trust is even more pronounced. Since 2023, Germany has increasingly been seen across the Global South and the Middle East as a partisan ally that has abandoned neutrality for rigid pro-Israeli alignment. Decisions such as boosting arms supplies to Tel Aviv and abstaining from U.N. ceasefire resolutions are widely interpreted in Arab and African contexts as emblematic of Western double standards. Meanwhile, as several EU states, including Spain, Ireland, and Norway, have recognized Palestine, Germany finds itself isolated even within Europe. This loss of trust is quantifiable: Arab Barometer surveys show Germany’s favorable rating in the Middle East has plunged from 70% to 35% over just two years.

The position intended to affirm moral leadership has, paradoxically, curtailed Berlin’s diplomatic efficacy. Bereft of real leverage, Germany remains a participant without presence – a formally engaged yet substantively excluded actor on the geopolitical stage of the Global South.

Friedrich Merz’s attempt to “reboot” German foreign policy reveals a structural impasse: institutional innovations without conceptual transformation cannot yield genuine agency. Without a fundamental rethinking of its diplomatic worldview, Germany risks remaining on the periphery of international affairs, caught between symbolic involvement and strategic irrelevance. The image from Sharm el-Sheikh may thus endure as more than a fleeting moment of awkwardness, it embodies Berlin’s broader crisis of orientation in an increasingly multipolar world.

Ramiz Khodzhatov – political scientist, international observer, expert in geopolitics, international security and Russian-German relations

October 21, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iranian strike hit secret Israeli-US military bunker beneath Tel Aviv tower: Report

Press TV | October 14, 2025

An investigation by The Grayzone has revealed that Iran’s June 13 missile strike on Tel Aviv directly hit a secret underground military command center jointly operated by Israel and the United States, buried beneath a luxury apartment complex in the heart of the city.

According to geolocation analysis, leaked emails, and public records, the bunker, known as “Site 81”, is located underneath the Da Vinci Towers, a high-end residential and office complex built over what was once a ministry compound.

The facility reportedly serves as a command and control node for Israeli military intelligence, with US Army engineers having overseen its construction over a decade ago.

When Iranian missiles struck multiple locations across north Tel Aviv in June, Israeli authorities immediately sealed off the impact zone and prevented journalists from filming.

Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst was among those forced away by police near the HaKirya compound and the Azrieli Center.

Hours later, Iranian state media announced that military and intelligence targets had been precisely hit in retaliation for earlier Israeli strikes on Iranian soil.

The Grayzone report links the Da Vinci complex to a 2013 US Army Corps of Engineers project that expanded “Site 81” into a 6,000-square-meter electromagnetically shielded intelligence facility.

A photo from the US Army study was geolocated to the site using surrounding landmarks such as the Kannarit (Canarit) Air Force towers, located just meters away.

The site is less than 100 meters from a children’s playground and a community center, raising concerns that Israel embedded a sensitive military installation within a densely populated area, effectively using civilians as human shields, a practice Israel has long accused Palestinians of engaging in.

Satellite imagery of the area remains blurred on Google and Yandex Maps, with no street-view access, suggesting ongoing censorship of strategic sites inside Tel Aviv.

Leaked correspondence obtained by The Grayzone between former NATO Commander James Stavridis and former Israeli military chief Gabi Ashkenazi confirms that the bunker served as a command and control hub for Israel’s military network.

In the 2015 exchange, Stavridis mentioned a US company, ThinkLogical, which had “won a big contract out at Site 81 with the IDF.”

The Da Vinci complex and its surrounding towers were financed by a web of Israeli-American investors and firms with close ties to the Israeli security establishment, including Check Point Technologies and AI21 Labs, the latter founded by veterans of Israel’s Unit 8200, the military’s elite signals intelligence corps.

France 24’s analysis of post-strike coverage highlighted Israeli censorship, with Haaretz delaying reports on the Da Vinci hit by two weeks despite circulating images.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 1 Comment

The pirates of Israeli supremacy: The West’s favorite rogue state has done it again

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | October 2, 2025

The long-expected if perfectly criminal has happened again: Israel’s navy has intercepted the Gaza-bound Sumud Flotilla by force, stopping almost 50 boats and, in effect, kidnapping hundreds of their crews and passengers.

In terms of law – which, of course, are never really applied in practice to Israel – everything is exceedingly clear: The Sumud Flotilla was a volunteer operation to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza which has been subjected to Israeli genocide for now almost two years. Israel had a clear obligation to let that aid pass.

But then what to expect from the world’s most aggressive rogue state that is not “only” committing genocide, but also waging regional wars of aggression and running terrorist assassination campaigns in the face of the global public? And Israel has a well-established track-record of this kind of piracy, of course, having stopped several attempts to bring aid by sea since 2010, sometimes with casualties among the humanitarian activists.

Stopping the Sumud Flotilla wasn’t merely criminal but criminal in every regard lawyers can imagine, a typical Israeli super-whopper of legal nihilism: Israel attacked the flotilla ships in international waters where it has no jurisdiction. Even if the ships had gotten closer to the Gaza coast, they would, by the way, still not have been inside any Israeli territorial waters because there are no such waters off Gaza, over which Israel has no sovereignty as clearly confirmed by the International Court of Justice last year. What you find off the coast of Gaza, as a matter of fact, are Palestinian territorial waters.

The blockade of Gaza, which has lasted not “merely” for the duration of the current high-intensity genocide-ethnic cleansing campaign but for close to two decades now, is illegal. Because the blockade has been in place for so long, Israel is simply lying – surprise, surprise – when arguing it is a short-term measure covered by the San Remo rules, which summarize “International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.” And even if those rules applied, under them as well Israel would have to let humanitarian aid through.

Finally, as Israel has attacked ships and citizens belonging to over 40 countries, Israel has committed aggression under international law against all of them and, less obvious but a fact, also crimes under each of these countries’ domestic laws, because they apply on those ships.

So far for the law, but then again, Israel is de facto outside and above the law. That much we have known for a long time. Indeed, Israel could not exist without constantly breaking international law and getting away with it. For Israel, lawlessness and impunity are not luxuries but vital necessities.

The reason why it has been able to exist in this manner is well-known, too: It is protected by the West and, in particular, the US. The latter is Israel’s single worst co-perpetrator, facilitating its crimes like no other state on Earth. Soon, for instance, the recent war of aggression waged by America and Israel together against Iran will probably be followed by a second, even worse assault.

In this regard, what has happened to the Sumud Flotilla has been a test: Clearly, recent moves by various Western governments, including the UK, France, and Australia to “recognize” – in an extremely dishonest manner – a Palestinian state and add some cautious rhetorical criticism of Israel make no difference to their absolute deference in practice to both Israel and its backers in the US.

What seemed like a glimmer of hope for a moment, the appearance of warships from various nations to apparently escort the humanitarian flotilla, has turned into just another humiliation: the escort abandoned their charges well in time to allow Israel a free hand.

The same Western leaders responsible for this cowardly retreat cannot stop waffling about the need not to “reward the aggressor,” when dialing up the war hysteria against Russia, as they have been doing mightily again recently, from mystery drones to declaring unconstitutional states of “not-peace” to chatter of states of emergency.

What about, for once, not rewarding the genocider for a change? But that’s hard, isn’t it? Once all Western governments are accomplices of Israel.

The Sumud Flotilla will not have been the last attempt to break both Israel’s genocidal blockade and its aura of impunity. There is hope, because even in NATO-EU Europe and the US ever more people understand what Israel really is and what it really does: a settler-colonial apartheid state that won’t stop committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Israel’s systematic campaigns of propaganda and information war are escalating in response, as the case of TikTok has just demonstrated. But even Israel and its American friends cannot reverse history and an experience that the whole world has made. The Gaza Genocide is a fact already. It will not be forgotten. The resistance to Israel will never end.

Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

October 5, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Progressive Hypocrite, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries