US criminal charges against Hamas prompt concerns for Gaza ceasefire talks

Yahya Sinwar, Palestinian leader of Hamas in Gaza Strip in Gaza City, Gaza on December 14, 2022. [Ali Jadallah/Anadolu Agency]
MEMO | September 4, 2024
In a move that has sparked concerns over its potential to disrupt ongoing ceasefire negotiations, the US has filed criminal charges against six Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, for their involvement in the 7 October attack on Israel. The indictments were announced by the US Department of Justice.
The charges include the alleged killing of American citizens and “conspiracy to finance terrorism”. However, analysts note that the action is largely symbolic, as some of those named in the indictment are already believed to be dead.
“Yahya Sinwar and the other senior leaders of Hamas are charged today with orchestrating this terrorist organisation’s decades-long campaign of mass violence and terror, including on 7 October,” said US Attorney General Merrick Garland. “The defendants are responsible for financing and directing a decades-long campaign to murder American citizens and endanger the security of the United States.”
Of the six defendants mentioned, three are already dead. Those still alive are Sinwar, who is believed to be in Gaza; Khaled Meshaal, who is based in Doha and heads the group’s diaspora office; and Ali Baraka, a senior Hamas official based in Lebanon.
The charges, which were filed in February but only made public on Tuesday, cover a range of alleged attacks by Hamas over several decades. At least 43 American citizens were reportedly killed in the October attack. Garland did not disclose details regarding how they died or whether any of the 43 Americans are among the dozens of civilians killed by Israeli forces under the so-called Hannibal Directive.
The controversial policy, also known as the Hannibal Protocol, essentially authorises the use of maximum force to prevent the capture of Israeli soldiers and citizens, even at the risk of harming or killing the soldiers and citizens themselves.
Garland also made no mention of the right of Palestinians to resist foreign occupation let alone a foreign occupation that is also illegal. In July, the highest legal body in the world, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ruled that Israel’s occupation is unlawful. In its determination the ICJ further affirmed that both Gaza and the West Bank are under illegal occupation, which means that armed resistance against Israel is permissible under international law, provided it is conducted in accordance with the rules of engagement established by international humanitarian law.
Critics argue that the timing of Washington’s announcement could complicate ongoing efforts to broker a ceasefire and secure the release of hostages. Professor Yossi Mekelberg, an associate fellow at the UK think tank Chatham House, told the BBC that the charges could affect Sinwar’s mindset, stating, “I don’t think this will be encouraging him to show flexibility.”
The situation was complicated further by Israel’s assassination of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh at the end of July. Haniyeh was the key negotiator for the movement. The political murder took place in Tehran at a critical juncture in the negotiations, and has been criticised widely for derailing the peace process. Many observers argue that Haniyeh’s assassination has impeded negotiations significantly, setting back progress towards a ceasefire and hostage release.
Speaking to Associated Press, however, an unnamed US official attempted to downplay concerns about the impact on negotiations, saying that, “There is no reason to believe this will affect the ongoing talks.” However, the cumulative effect of these actions on the ceasefire process remains uncertain.
The effectiveness of these charges is questionable. Nevertheless, the US Justice Department maintains that they send a strong message to Hamas and its supporters.
Biden to take ‘law enforcement action’ against RT – CNN
RT | September 4, 2024
The administration of US President Joe Biden is planning to accuse Russia of meddling in this year’s presidential election, and will announce “law enforcement action” against those supposedly responsible, CNN reported on Wednesday. RT will be the prime target of this action, the network stated.
The White House will accuse Russia on Wednesday of “a sustained effort to influence the 2024 US elections” by using “Kremlin-run media” to spread so-called “disinformation,” CNN reported, citing US government sources.
Alongside a public condemnation from the White House, the US Department of Justice will announce “law enforcement action targeting the covert Russian campaign,” the network said.
RT is “a major focus of the US announcement,” CNN added, noting that “US officials see the Russian outlet as a key piece of Kremlin propaganda efforts.”
“Dear CNN,” RT’s press office responded following Wednesday’s article. “We certainly have a response. Actually, we have several, but we couldn’t decide on one (we even thought of running an office poll), so here they are:
1. Ha!
2. Hahahaha!
3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
4. 2016 called and it wants its clichés back
5. Three things are certain in life: death, taxes and RT’s interference in the US elections
6. We gotta earn our Kremlin paycheck somehow
7. Somewhere, Secretary Clinton is sad that it’s not because of her
SINCERELY,
RT Press Office”
Democrats like Biden have accused Russia of interfering in the last two presidential elections. During the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, US intelligence agencies repeatedly claimed that Moscow was deploying hackers and using “information warfare” to swing the vote in favor of Donald Trump. These allegations, coupled with claims that Trump had colluded with Moscow to win the election, formed the basis for a two-year investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, but were ultimately found to be baseless.
In 2020, more than 50 “former intelligence officials” published a letter claiming that files on Hunter Biden’s laptop – which implicated the Biden family in multiple foreign corruption schemes – were fabricated by Russia. The laptop’s contents have since been proven genuine.
Throughout the past decade, American officials have repeatedly accused RT of spreading “disinformation” – a term that these officials rarely define. Back in 2017, the Department of Justice forced RT America to register as a foreign agent, after a host of US intelligence agencies claimed that RT had helped to elect Trump by publishing “negative coverage” of Clinton and criticizing the US’ “corrupt political establishment.”
RT America ceased operations in 2022 after the network was dropped by its US distributors in response to the Ukraine conflict.
Despite their claims of “Russian interference” in US elections being repeatedly proven to be without foundation, American spies have stuck to them. Earlier this summer, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in Washington alleged that the Kremlin had mounted a “whole-of-government” effort to turn the American public against Biden and his fellow Democrats.
This accusation paved the way for the FBI to raid the homes of Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and RT contributor, and Dimitri K. Simes, a Soviet-born US political pundit who hosts a show on domestic Russian television. Ritter described the raid as an attempt to intimidate “anyone who goes against official [US] policies and particularly against the deep state.”
Danish Justice Minister Under Fire for Pushing Encryption Ban While Using It
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 31, 2024
The unprecedented case of the attack on Telegram via the arrest of Pavel Durov – and the nature of the charges against him – has clearly emboldened not only the lovers of censorship (such as the EU) but also the enemies of encryption (the EU).
Encryption itself has long been in the crosshairs in the bloc, but also in various individual countries in Europe individually, and others around the world. This push to undermine encryption – despite it being the key component of security, and privacy online – is habitually justified as necessary for law enforcement to do its job.
Now EU member Denmark is trying to come for end-to-end encryption, and not only Telegram, but also Signal, WhatsApp, and others. In this particular instance, Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard’s preferred course of action would be to just block these apps (perhaps as a stopgap measure) rather than taking the much longer path of building encryption backdoors.
Judging by reports in the Danish press, Hummelgaard wants to use this moment to further increase pressure on encrypted services, unsurprisingly giving “fighting crime” as the reason.
And while Hummelgaard considers such services as “safe havens” for criminals (it’s the same as saying states are safe havens for criminals because criminals operate in them), a large number of Danish MPs use encrypted apps – according to an investigative report in frihedsbrevet.dk, at least 70. (The country’s parliament has 179 seats).
To make matters even more absurd, Hummelgaard was (or still is) one of them.
And now those perplexed by his idea to block encrypted messengers are calling for him to “lead by example” and make his own messages publicly available – if that is, private communications are an evil that justifies resorting to blocking apps.
Reports quote Danish Reddit users making this suggestion, with one sarcastically noting that this shouldn’t be a problem – “surely he has nothing to hide, and therefore nothing to fear?”
The push around the world to get encrypted apps to “cooperate” by allowing the authorities to expand mass online surveillance to them as well, is defended by those sympathetic toward such policies as the need for “transparency” and “accountability.”
Kamala and the Deadly Perils of Sham Idealism
By Jim Bovard | The Libertarian Institute | August 26, 2024
As the presidential race enters the final stretch, politicians are recycling the usual cons to make people believe this election will be different. At last week’s Democratic National Convention, sham idealism had a starring role, accompanied by ritual denunciations of cynicism.
But idealism has a worse record in Washington than a New Jersey senator. “Idealism is going to save the world,” President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed shortly after World War I left much of Europe in ruins and paved the way for communist and Nazi takeovers. Wilson’s blather provoked H.L. Mencken to declare that Americans were tired “of a steady diet of white protestations and black acts… they sicken of an idealism that is oblique, confusing, dishonest, and ferocious.”
The same verdict could characterize today’s political rogues. On the closing night of the convention, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg promised that “we will choose a better politics, a politics that calls us to our better selves.” And how can Americans know they are fulfilling their “better selves”? By swallowing without caviling any hogwash proclaimed by their rulers in Washington.
Kamala Harris is being touted for bringing idealism back into fashion after the supposedly tawdry Trump era. But we heard the same song-and-dance with Barack Obama.
Obama declared that America’s “ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake” in his first inaugural address. But one of Obama’s most shocking legacies was his claim of a prerogative to kill U.S. citizens labeled as terrorist suspects without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked individuals to legally object. Obama’s lawyers even refused to disclose the standards used for designating Americans for death. Drone strikes increased tenfold under Obama, and he personally chose who would be killed at weekly “Terror Tuesday” White House meetings which featured PowerPoint parades of potential targets.
Year by year, Obama’s lies and abuses of power corroded the idealism that helped him capture the presidency. As a presidential candidate, he promised “no more illegal wiretaps”; as president, he vastly expanded the National Security Agency’s illegal seizures of Americans’ emails and other records. He promised transparency but gutted the Freedom of Information Act and prosecuted twice as many Americans for Espionage Act violations than all the presidents combined since Woodrow Wilson. He perennially denounced “extremism” at the same time his administration partnered with Saudi Arabia to send weapons to terrorist groups that were slaughtering Syrian civilians in a failed attempt to topple the regime of Bashar Assad. Obama helped establish an impunity democracy in which rulers pay no price for their misdeeds. As The New York Times noted after the 2016 election, the Obama administration fought in court to preserve the legality of defunct Bush administration practices such as torture and detaining Americans arrested at home as “enemy combatants.”
When Donald Trump won the 2016 election, idealism was temporarily roadkill along the political highway. After Trump was defeated in November 2020, the media scrambled to portray Joe Biden as a born-again idealist and to put the federal government and Washington back on a pedestal. A Washington Post headline proclaimed, “Washington’s aristocracy hopes a Biden presidency will make schmoozing great again.” The Post quickly changed its initial headline to “Washington’s Establishment” but “aristocracy” remained in the body of the article, which assured readers that “the classic friendly-rivals dinner party will be back, likely bigger than ever.” That same aristocracy hoped that idealism would provide the magic words to make the peasantry again defer to their superiors.
But Biden’s idealism was difficult to distinguish from his rage at anyone who resisted his power. Rather than a new Camelot, Biden’s reign vindicated historian Henry Adams’ assertion that politics “has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.”
Regardless, the same media outlets that slapped a halo over Biden’s head are now hustling to saint Kamala Harris. Amazingly, the prime evidence of her idealism is the fact that she was a prosecutor. And since prosecutors claim to work “for the people,” her record of wrongful prosecutions, tormenting parents of truant children, and detaining convicts after their sentence ended (California needed extra firefighters) is automatically expunged.
Idealism long since surpassed patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel. Idealistic appeals were used by Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon to vindicate the Vietnam War, by President Bill Clinton to sanctify the bombing of Serbia, and by President George W. Bush to dignify the devastation of Iraq. The mainstream media is almost always willing to help presidents shroud foreign carnage with pompous claptrap. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius declared in late 2003 that Bush’s war on Iraq “may be the most idealistic war fought in modern times.”
Idealism encourages citizens to view politics as a faith-based activity, transforming politicians from hucksters to saviors. The issue is not what government did in the past—the issue is how we must do better in the future. Politicians’ pious piffle is supposed to radically reduce the risk of subsequent perfidy.
Soviet Union dictator Vladimir Lenin used the term “useful idiots” to describe foreign sympathizers who dutifully repeated Soviet propaganda. Nowadays, we have “useful idealists”—pundits and others who mindlessly praise politicians as if they were more trustworthy than other serial perjurers.
The more deference that idealists receive, the more deceitful idealism becomes. Ideals become character witnesses for the politician who tout them. No matter how often a politician has been caught trashing facts, he is still credible on idealism. One freshly-flourished ideal expunges a decade of perfidy. The media exalts: “He has seen the light! He invoked an ideal!”
In Washington, idealism is an incantation that expunges all past warnings about political power. Nowadays, idealism is often positive thinking about growing servitude. Americans cannot afford to venerate any more Idealists-in-Chief hungry to seize new power or start new wars. Any doctrine that begins by idealizing government will end by idealizing subjugation.
EU Rejects Legitimacy of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – Foreign Policy Chief Borrell
Sputnik – 30.08.2024
The European Union rejects the legitimacy of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said.
“We cannot accept the legitimacy of Maduro as the elected president. He will remain president de facto, but we deny democratic legitimacy based on results that cannot be verified,” Euronews quoted Borrell as saying after an informal foreign ministerial meeting in Brussels.
Presidential elections in Venezuela were held on July 28. The next day the National Electoral Council declared Nicolas Maduro president-elect for 2025-2031. On July 29, protests started in Venezuela, protesters clashing with the police. Over 2,000 people were detained. Violent unrest in Venezuela lasted one day after the elections, after which the government restored control over the situation on the streets.
US and European lawmakers in charge of foreign affairs matters issued a joint statement claiming opposition leader Edmundo Gonzalez won Venezuela’s presidential election and vowing to hold Maduro accountable if he refuses to relinquish power. Moscow said the Venezuelan opposition must admit defeat in the elections. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned third countries against supporting attempts to destabilize the situation inside Venezuela.
Do We Finally Have a Peace Ticket?
By Ron Paul | August 26, 2024
Just as the Harris/Walz campaign was looking for a boost from the content-free Democratic National Convention last week, real drama broke out that pulled the country’s attention back toward Republican candidate Donald Trump. Rumors had been swirling for days that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. might suspend his independent run for the White House and endorse Donald Trump and on Friday he did just that.
In his powerful speech explaining the decision, RFK, Jr. made it clear that suspending his run was difficult, as was leaving a Democratic Party that has been almost synonymous with the name “Kennedy” for many decades. On both issues RFK, Jr. explained that he was guided by principles and values over party orientation and the fluff that has increasingly come to characterize American electoral politics.
It seems the more “polarized” much of American society becomes over which political party they support, the more the rest of us continue to see less and less difference between the two when it comes to actual policy. Both parties support the warfare/welfare state. Both pursue policies leading to poverty and war instead of peace and prosperity. Both are deluded into believing that the Federal Reserve can effectively manage the economy while we amass unimaginable levels of debt.
Americans are seeking authenticity and politicians who put principles above political parties and that is exactly what RFK, Jr. did last Friday. In his speech at the Trump rally, RFK served up severe criticisms of the Democrats for their embrace of endless war.
He said: “Judging by the bellicose, belligerent speech last night in Chicago, we can assume that President Harris will be an enthusiastic advocate for this and other neocon military adventures. President Trump says he will reopen negotiations with President Putin and end the war overnight as soon as he becomes President. This alone would justify my support for his campaign.”
It was a well-aimed blow at the Biden/Harris Administration, which pretends to be seeking peace while pouring gasoline on the numerous conflicts overseas.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed in her speech to the DNC that Vice President Harris is “working tirelessly” toward a ceasefire in Gaza literally as the Biden/Harris Administration announced another huge shipment of bombs to be used by the Israeli military to kill more Palestinians.
What can we hope for in RFK, Jr.’s bold move? For one, we should hope that coming out in favor of principles instead of hollow party identification can reduce the power of political parties altogether. Already in the Republican Party we are seeing a “new guard” emerge that is ready to break with the tired neocon stranglehold on the party.
So does RFK Jr.’s endorsement of Trump on principles rather than parties mean that we finally have a “peace ticket” to support? The short answer is “no,” we don’t have a peace ticket. Many of us who hoped that the first Trump presidency would be that peace ticket were disappointed to see the likes of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo litter the Administration. There is always the chance of a repeat of these mistakes. And neither Trump nor RFK seem reliably in favor of an end to the slaughter in Gaza.
So no, this is not a “peace ticket.” But at least with what we have seen this past week with RFK and Trump, we get the feeling that peace is on the menu. It’s a start.
Democracy kaput: Germans want peace with Russia, but their rulers only answer to Washington and Kiev

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | August 27, 2024
Since the beginning of the Ukraine Crisis in 2013/14, German governments, first under former chancellor Angela Merkel, then under her pathetic successor Olaf Scholz, have totally failed to help find a solution through compromise. This is no minor matter, and history won’t look kindly on Germany. Representing a traditionally significant if declining and now self-diminishing power in Europe, Berlin could have made a difference – quite conceivably one that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
Yet things are what they are. Initially, under the thoroughly opportunistic yet usually intelligent Merkel, this German failure was mostly due to subservience to the US but practiced in Berlin’s then signature style of evasive shiftiness. Yes, Merkel helped Kiev sabotage the 2015 Minsk II agreement, which could have avoided large-scale war between Russia and Ukraine. But she did that on the sly and only admitted it retrospectively, when criticized for having been “soft” on Russia. “No, I wasn’t!” she, in essence retorted, “I did my part and lied like a street grifter!” What can one say? Ideas of personal dignity differ across cultures.
Under her successor, the merely opportunistic Scholz, Berlin’s approaches have reverted to a certain elementary simplicity. The so-called “Zeitenwende” (epochal turn) he announced two years ago with traditional German modesty means that his coalition government has obeyed Washington in an unprecedentedly self-harming manner. Accepting sabotage of vital infrastructure – Nord Stream – and the systematic demolishing of the German economy by America’s beggar-thy-vassal policy, Scholz has grinned submissively, while not just sacrificing national interests but taking a flamethrower to them.
At the same time – and with a certain consistency one may also observe in committed masochists – this government of death wish loyalty has also ruined Germany’s relationship with Russia with Teutonic furor and thoroughness. All to pander to a Ukrainian regime that now stands accused of blowing up Nord Stream. That accusation makes no sense. Kiev loves to do its worst, true. But it could not have done it without the US. And yet the accusation is the new party line handed down via the Wall Street Journal. It serves as yet another test of how much public humiliation Berlin will take. Answer: there’s no limit.
But Berlin is not Germany. A government so bizarrely out of touch with its own country and its interests is unlikely to represent its citizens well. For some of its members that is even a point of pride. Foreign minister and geometry expert Annalena “360 degrees” Baerbock has long declared that she doesn’t care what her voters want but only about what the Zelensky regime demands. Baerbock, then, must have been positively delighted by the results of a recent and solid opinion poll.
Conducted by the topnotch INSA pollster, the new poll proves that many Germans do not see foreign policy – especially with respect to Russia and Ukraine – the way their current, immensely unpopular and massively failing (as even the Economist admits) rulers do. Consider some highlights: Asked if they are in favor or against peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, 68% of respondents were in favor.
And 65% consider it a “good” or “very good” idea to offer Moscow a quid pro quo, in which Russia would agree to a ceasefire and negotiations, while the West would stop supplying Ukraine with weapons. It’s another matter that Moscow would be unlikely to accept such a deal; those times are over. But Germans outside the Berlin elite clearly prefer winding down the war in lieu of the forever-war scenario that NATO and EU officially promote.
A clear plurality of respondents, 46%, believe that their government has failed to engage in enough diplomacy to protect Germany from the risk of war. Only 26% feel that Berlin has done enough. Yet there is no duty more elementary for rulers than doing everything possible to protect citizens from the threat of war. They cannot always succeed. But those widely seen as not having tried hard enough lose their legitimacy. That much we have known, at the latest since English political philosopher and arch-realist Thomas Hobbes published his “Leviathan” in the seventeenth century.
Legitimacy may sound abstract. Let’s talk about elections then, especially as three important regional elections are coming up. In the länder (states) of Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg, all in Germany’s East, the Berlin coalition parties are staring at serious, even devastating losses to be inflicted by two surging newcomers, the very rightwing AfD and the leftwing yet culturally conservative BSW, named after its leader Sarah Wagenknecht.
Could the decline of the coalition parties have something to do with their resolute detachment from many voters’ wishes and fears over foreign policy? Absolutely. Asked in the INSA poll if a party’s demanding or failing to demand peace negotiations for the Russia-Ukraine War is a decisive factor in casting their vote, 43% of respondents answered in the affirmative. The same share said “no.” But leaving almost half the electorate with a strong sense that you don’t care about what they care about – especially in matters of life and death, i.e. war and peace – is never a winning strategy.
It is true that the question focused specifically on an election at the federal level; that is, for Germany as a whole. Regional politics, you might be tempted to think, has different priorities. You’d be so wrong, though. For one thing, Germans love to use their many regional elections as a way to punish the federal government. Voters do not make a neat separation between voting locally and dishing out the pain centrally. On the contrary.
Second, the results of regional elections, therefore, constantly affect Berlin politics, at this point right into the sick heart of a coalition that is terminal already. Third, regional elections in what used to be East Germany before the West German takeover in 1990 are even more neuralgic, because as a rule, voters there tend to be especially skeptical about Berlin’s by now abject subservience to the US and self-defeating if neo-traditional Russophobia.
Germany’s current mainstream media, think tanks, and academic cadres – such as conformist historians Jan Behrends and Ilko-Sascha Kowalczuk – love to caricature, belittle, and patronize those Germans in the East of the country as in essence backward and brainwashed by Russians. (By the way, if you think that sounds weirdly familiar, that’s how Ukraine got its local civil war going in 2014.) Yet the Soviets/Russians haven’t had a say in eastern Germany for over a third of a century now. While Washington, of course, has maintained its propaganda grip. Maybe the proud domestic kulturträger (culture bearers) of NATO “value” Germany, and who love to look down on their eastern compatriots, should face their own lack of intellectual, political, and ethical independence instead. Where the fear of freedom cripples thought (while boosting careers), a little Kantian reliance on one’s own judgment might help.
In any case, belittling Germans in the East will make them only more determined, and rightly so, to vote their probably freer minds. And what freer minds in Germany see is a government that serves not their country but the US and Ukraine. That is a recipe for richly deserved defeat.
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.
Durov arrest shows ‘upside-down’ West – Serbian leader
RT | August 26, 2024
Charges against Telegram founder Pavel Durov in France show that the West has abandoned the values it championed just a few years ago, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has said.
The 39-year-old Russian was detained by French authorities on Saturday, after arriving in Paris from Azerbaijan by private jet. Durov also has the passports of France, the UAE and St. Kitts and Nevis.
Speaking on a newscast on Monday evening, Vucic said that Durov’s case was “interesting” and compared him to the persecution of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
“Back in 2018, when Russia put some mild legal pressure on him, some 26 groups from the West signed a petition to the Russian state to stop violating his freedom. Fast forward five or six years, and it’s perfectly normal [for them] to have him arrested and want to shut down Telegram in the West,” Vucic said.
“Everything has gone topsy-turvy, reality itself has been changed to fit their interests.”
France on Monday revealed the laundry list of preliminary charges against Durov, accusing the Telegram mogul of “facilitating” alleged illegal activities on his platform – ranging from drug dealing and money laundering to child pornography – by refusing to cooperate with French investigators going after an unnamed third party.
President Emmanuel Macron has defended the arrest, insisting that charges against Durov were “in no way a political decision.”
X owner Elon Musk, American journalist Tucker Carlson and Silicon Valley investor David Sacks have denounced Durov’s arrest as an attack on the freedom of speech.
Snowden, a whistleblower who revealed the extent of NSA spying on Americans and foreign leaders back in 2012, has accused France of holding Durov “hostage” in order to access private communications on Telegram.
Vucic brought up Durov’s situation in the context of the US and the EU criticizing Serbia for allegedly persecuting political opposition. According to the Serbian president, the EU routinely beats up and arrests protesters by the hundreds, while Belgrade is far more tolerant of outright riots.
“It’s all upside-down!” Vucic said. “When you allow the greatest of liberties, you’re a dictator. The fewer freedoms exist, the more they speak about them.”
Why Ukraine is being blamed for Nord Stream
The ‘official’ investigation was always a sham
By Malcom Kyeyune | Unherd | August 21, 2024
To understand the truth about the Nord Stream pipeline, one needs to master a certain form of “Kremlinology”. Everything about it is designed to obfuscate, every strand shrouded in prevarication and deceit.
From the start, the investigation was a textbook cover-up. The Swedish government rushed to secure evidence, citing their putative rights under international law, consciously boxing out any sort of independent, UN-backed inspection. Of course, after gathering all the evidence, the Swedish authorities studiously did exactly nothing, only to then belatedly admit that it actually had no legal right to monopolise the information in the first place.
The Germans, for their part, were also supremely uninterested in figuring out who pulled off the worst act of industrial sabotage in living memory against their country. In fact, over the course of a year-long non-investigation, we’ve mostly been treated to leaks and off-the-record statements indicating that nobody really wants to know who blew up the pipeline. The rationale here is bluntly obvious: it would be awfully inconvenient if Germany, and the West, learned the true answer.
Thus, the recent revelation that the true mastermind behind the ongoing deindustrialisation of Germany was none other than a Ukrainian by the name of “Volodymyr Z.” must have come as an unwelcome surprise. For not only is the idea that the authorities have suddenly cracked open the Nord Stream case not credible in the slightest, but the sloppy way in which the entire country of Ukraine is now being fingered is likely not an accident. Indeed, at the same time as the ghost of Nord Stream has risen from the grave, the German government announced its plans to halve its budget for Ukraine aid: whatever is already in the pipeline will be sent over, but no new grants of equipment are forthcoming. The German government is hunkering down for increased austerity, and so it is cutting Ukraine loose.
“The German government is hunkering down for increased austerity, and so it is cutting Ukraine loose.”
Germany, of course, is hardly alone. Even if there were enough money to go around, Europe is increasingly not just deindustrialising but demilitarising. Its stores of ammunition and vehicles are increasingly empty, and the idea of military rearmament — that is, creating entirely new military factories and supply chains — at a time when factories are closing down across the continent due to energy shortages and lack of funding is a non-starter. Neither France, the United Kingdom nor even the United States are in a position to maintain the flow of arms to Ukraine. This is a particular concern inside Washington DC, where planners are now trying to juggle the prospect of managing three theatres of war at the same time — in Ukraine, the Middle East and the Pacific — even though US military production is arguably insufficient to comfortably handle one.
And so, in an effort to save face in this impossible situation, Ukraine is now being held solely responsible for doing something it either did not do at all, or only did with the permission, knowledge, and/or support of the broader West. This speaks to the adolescent dynamic that now governs Western foreign policy in a multipolar world: when our impotence is revealed, find someone to blame.
The war in Ukraine, after all, was already supposed to be won, and Russia was supposed to be a rickety gas station incapable of matching the West either economically or militarily. Yet here we are: our own economies are deindustrialising, our military factories have proven completely incapable of handling the strain of a real conflict, and the Americans themselves are now openly admitting that the Russian military remains in a significantly stronger position. Meanwhile, Germany’s economic model is broken, and as its economy falls, it will drag many countries such as Sweden with it, given how dependent they are on exporting to German industrial firms.
10 years ago, during the 2014 Maidan protests, the realist John Mearsheimer caused a lot of controversy when he began warning that the collective West was leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and that our actions would lead to the destruction of the country. Well, here we are. At present, our only saving grace is the continuing offensive in Kursk — a bold offensive that will surely be remembered as a symptom of Ukraine’s increasing desperation.
Indeed, a far better guide of things to come can be found in the fingering of “Volodymyr Z.” as the true culprit behind the Nord Stream sabotage. Here, rather than accept responsibility for the fact that Ukraine was goaded into a war it could not win — mainly because the West vastly overestimated its own ability to fight a real war over the long haul — European geopolitical discourse will take a sharp turn towards a peculiar sort of victim-blaming. No doubt it will be “discovered” that parts of Ukraine’s military consisted of very unsavoury characters waving around Nazi Germany-style emblems, just as it will be “discovered” that journalists have been persecuted by oligarchs and criminals in Kyiv, or that money given by the West has been stolen, and that arms sent have been sold for profit to criminal cartels around the world.
All of these developments will duly be “discovered” by a Western political class that will completely refuse to accept any responsibility for them. Far easier, it seems, to calm one’s nerves with a distorting myth: it’s the Ukrainians’ fault that their country is destroyed; our choices had nothing to do with it; and besides, they were bad people who tricked us!
Iran dismisses ‘unreasonable’ joint statement by Australia, New Zealand
Press TV – August 21, 2024
Iran has dismissed a joint statement by Australia and New Zealand calling on the Islamic Republic not to retaliate the recent crimes of Israel.
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Nasser Kana’ani said on Wednesday that such a move once again demonstrates the double standards these countries employ when it comes to fundamental human rights, international law, and regional developments.
Kana’ani said the “unreasonable request” in the joint statement undermines Iran’s inherent right to punish the attacker and deter future attacks.
The Iranian official was referring to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the political bureau chief of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, in Tehran on July 31.
“In a situation where the United Nations Security Council, due to the unconditional support of the United States for the Zionist regime, could not even issue a statement condemning the terrorist act of the regime in assassinating Haniyeh … the unreasonable request of Australia and New Zealand means ignoring Iran’s inherent right to punish the aggressor and create deterrence against Israel’s adventures.”
In the joint statement, Australia and New Zealand expressed “grave concern about the prospect of further escalation across the region” and called on Iran to “refrain from further destabilizing actions in the Middle East, and cease its ongoing threats of a military attack against Israel.”
Kana’ani said the statement is a real example of turning a blind eye to the facts and misleading global public opinion. He said the main source of threat to regional and international peace and security is the “racist Zionist regime,” which enjoys broad Western support.
He said the crimes of the Israeli regime in Palestine and the region are taking on new dimensions every day, and now the regional stability is under grave threat due to the criminal behavior of the Zionist regime, which violates the United Nations Charter and international law.
“The approach of Australia and New Zealand in selectively choosing international norms not only does not help reduce tensions in the region but also encourages the rogue Israeli regime and its destabilizing actions in the region.”
Democratic Party platform lacks call for US arms embargo on Israel
Press TV – August 20, 2024
The US Democratic Party has unveiled its party platform ahead of the 2024 presidential race, laying out 92 pages of policy priorities with no mention of halting weapons sales to Israel amid the regime’s genocidal war in the besieged Gaza Strip.
The platform which was approved by delegates at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago a day earlier lacks a call for curbing arms sales to Israel despite a demand by pro-Palestinian demonstrators for an arms embargo on the occupying regime in the US city.
The platform, rather, announces that the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached with Israel under former President Barack Obama “is ironclad”. The memorandum which runs until 2028 gives Israel $3.8bn in US military aid each year.
The platform also lists examples of US President Joe Biden’s unwavering support for Israel’s war on Gaza, including the sending of arms shipments and providing a diplomatic shield for Israel at the United Nations during votes for a ceasefire.
The latest development comes a week after Biden’s administration approved more than $20 billion in weapons sales to Israel.
The new US military aid comes despite claims by Washington that it is supporting a ceasefire in Gaza where Israel has been waging a genocidal war since early October last year.
Israel launched the war on Gaza on October 7 after the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas waged the surprise Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the occupying entity in retaliation for its intensified atrocities against the Palestinian people.
Since then, the United States has supplied the Tel Aviv regime with more than 10,000 tons of military equipment and used its veto power against all United Nations Security Council resolutions that called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
The occupying regime has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, since the start of the barbaric campaign of death, destruction and genocide. And more than 1.7 million people have been internally displaced.
Israel’s creation and exploitation of Palestinian human shields
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | August 17, 2024
How many times have Israeli officials justified massacring Palestinian civilians because Hamas uses them as human shields? Israeli media has now reported the opposite – the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) using Palestinian civilians as human shields in areas slated for incursion. “It is better that they explode and not the soldiers,” an Israeli soldier was told by an IDF commander. According to testimonies given to Haaretz by soldiers, senior IDF staff are aware of the practice.
In Israeli narratives of Palestinian human shields, the context is completely stripped away. There is no mention of the fact that Gaza is blockaded, that people have no way out and that a densely populated strip of land is home to both civilians and the resistance movement, including their weapons. Israel using the term “human shields” to describe Hamas’s limitations in terms of resistance in Gaza is not only misleading, but also completely wrong. It is Israeli colonial violence that has created Palestinian human shields.
After creating Palestinian human shields, Israel found a way to use them. First, to build its narrative justifying each aggression against Gaza. In the genocide, Israel used Palestinian human shields to save the lives of soldiers tasked with killing Palestinians in Gaza.
While Israel’s colonial narrative deems Hamas a terror group, it is interesting to note how the Israeli media specified that the human shields used by the IDF “are not terror suspects”. The phrase itself speaks volumes about Israel’s genocidal intent and action in Gaza – every Palestinian is a target, not just Hamas. Palestinian civilians, Israeli media reported: “Are detained specifically to be sent into buildings and tunnels that troops believe may be booby-trapped.” Briefly, the IDF will explore any avenue to kill Palestinians in one way or another, and human shields make for convenient collateral damage for Israel, which doesn’t even need to justify its atrocities, not even in genocide, thanks to the impunity the international community bestowed upon the settler-colonial entity.
“These are just reports at this point,” US State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel stated in reply to reporters’ questions about Israel using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Yet the Haaretz report quotes Israeli soldiers confirming the IDF’s knowledge, which points to a practice legitimised by Israeli military officials.
Patel, however, found it pertinent to mention the Israeli propaganda, which states Hamas uses civilian infrastructure to operate from, as well as using civilians as human shields. “That is not hyperbole,” he added. There has never been greater hyperbole than Israel’s colonial narratives unless we are speaking about the US that disseminates hyperbole as truth.
Just a day prior to Haaretz’s report, Ynet News ran an article justifying Israel’s killing of civilians taking shelter in schools by blaming Hamas for using the premises and, therefore, civilians as human shields, quoting IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari. “Israel views civilian casualties as a tragedy, while Hamas sees them as a strategy,” Hagari stated.
Israel’s use of Palestinian human shields as part of its military strategy clearly contradicts Hagari’s words and Netanyahu’s narrative. The only tragedy for Israel is the exposure of its crimes. Although with allies such as the US, which constructs its own definitions of what constitutes truth and hyperbole, tragedy is quickly exploited for PR opportunities, while Palestinian civilians – human shields created by Israel – decay in the genocide the world has learnt to accept.

