Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was deeply frustrated by Israel’s behaviour, which he saw as “blowing up” the American foreign policy and “humiliation” of the US, declassified British documents reveal.
The documents, unearthed by MEMO in the British National Archives, also indicate that US President Gerald Ford shared Kissinger’s “outrage” over Israel’s approach to negotiations with Arab states.
Kissinger criticised Israel’s strategy of “giving with one hand and taking away with the other” and condemned Israelis’ total “unrealism” and “lack of understanding the Arabs”.
In January 1974, Kissinger brokered the first Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement in just eight days. By May, he had successfully mediated a similar deal between Syria and Israel. In early 1975, he resumed efforts, alongside his deputy, Joseph Sisco, to negotiate a second Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement as a prelude to broader peace talks. However, negotiations collapsed in late March.
On his way back to the US, Kissinger met with his British counterpart James Callaghan at London airport, where he blamed Israel for the breakdown of the talks. According to meeting records, Kissinger stated that Israelis “had locked themselves into a more inflexible position than they need have done”. He understood that Israel “seemed intended” to be inflexible from the outset of his mission.
Kissinger described Israeli negotiators as “hopelessly confused” about the military and political aspects of their demand for a formal non-belligerency statement from Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. He noted that Israel insisted on both military assurances and political concessions, although the main purpose of the negotiations was to reach a deal on non-engagement of forces. He described this confusion as “a Talmudic wrangle”, adding that the Israelis “had shown a total lack of realism”. When the Israelis asked him whether their demands were not unreasonable, he replied they were “disastrous”.
Kissinger’s step-by-step diplomatic strategy aimed at gradually resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict, but he warned that if this process stalled, “things would start going rapidly against Israel”. He expressed frustration over Israel’s “extraordinary lack of understanding” of both Arabs and the wider international scene”.
Before negotiations broke down, Ford attempted to push Israel to change its position. Kissinger informed Callaghan that the US president had sent a message to Israel containing “some very stern language” warning that the Israelis “couldn’t expect the Americans to go on financing a stalemate”.
Following the failure of Kissinger’s mediation, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Yigal Allon blamed Egypt for “hardening of attitude” which he alleged “manifested itself only in the concluding phase”.
In a message to British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary Callaghan, Allon asserted that Egyptians were prepared to concede to Israel “far less than might have been assumed before the talks began” while the Israelis “went substantially beyond that maximum” to which they “had initially considered it possible” for them to go.
He insisted that at every stage of the negotiation the Israelis showed themselves “ready to move closer towards the Egyptian position but without response on their side.”
Kissinger, however, dismissed Allon’s version of events as “weird” and “almost wholly fictitious,” calling Israel’s supposed concessions “an outright lie.”
In late March 1975, Kissinger told British Ambassador in Washington Peter Ramsbotham that there had “never at any times had there been any real movement” on Israel’s side. “What they gave with one hand, they took away with the other,” he said.
During negotiations, Israel presented six key demands, which Kissinger called “conditions”, including an Egyptian pledge of non-belligerency, end to propaganda against Israel in the Egyptian media, allowing Israeli cargos through the Suez Canal using ships of a third country, allowing overflights in Sinai, an end to the economic boycott and an end to actions against Israel in the international forum.
Kissinger revealed that Sadat had not only shown willingness to meet these demands but also offered additional concessions. These included allowing some Israeli crew members on third-party ships passing through the Suez Canal, preventing paramilitary activities, giving Israel private assurances on maritime passage through the Bab El-Mandeb Strait, and establishing a joint Israeli-Egyptian commission under UN supervision to resolve future disputes. Sisco, who accompanied Kissinger in the meeting with the British ambassador, said these concessions “had come as a surprise”.
While Sadat could not agree to a formal non-belligerency statement, he offered a compromise pledging not to use force during the disengagement period. This pledge, Kissinger explained, was not only “to be signed by the Egyptian military and diplomatic personnel” but there would be a provision that the pledge “would remain in force until suspended by some other agreement”. He described these as “substantial concessions” to Israel, and advised the British that it was “totally wrong” for the Israelis to say the Egyptians hadn’t made any real concessions.
However, Israel rejected Sadat’s offer and continued to insist on a formal non-belligerency agreement, prompting Kissinger to “blow up” and tell them “they couldn’t get this”.
Kissinger informed the British of a heated exchange between Sadat and Egyptian Defence Minister, General Abdel Ghani El-Gamasy, on more concessions Sadat was prepared to concede with regard to the control of strategic passes and oilfields in Sinai. The US minister confirmed that the concessions “brought an explosion” from El-Gamassy, who expressed “vehement objections”. But these objections “were brushed aside by Sadat as had his other objections earlier in the negotiations”.
Despite Sadat’s willingness to compromise, negotiations collapsed due to Israeli obstinacy. Upon learning of the breakdown, Ford “immediately” sent a letter “in a very strong language” to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Kissinger, who showed the British ambassador a copy of the letter, noted that he had “never seen President Ford so outraged.” The president felt “personally betrayed” by Israel’s conduct. To emphasise the gravity of the situation, Kissinger arranged for a prominent American Jewish leader to meet Ford. After the meeting, Kissinger remarked that the man had emerged “a shaken man.”
Kissinger also made it clear to the British government that “all along, there was an Arab willingness to negotiate,” but Israel responded only with “intransigence.” He cited King Hussein of Jordan’s stance on the Allon”s plan as an example of Arab flexibility. Contrary to public statements, Hussein had privately told the U.S. that he “was prepared to accept half of the plan” and “half of the West Bank”.
The plan, which was presented by Allon, the then Israeli minister of labour, in July 1967 and was amended over years, aimed at Judaisation of the Palestinian territory especially the West Bank. It would enable Israel to annex most of the Jordan Valley, from the river to the eastern slopes of the West Bank hill ridge, East Jerusalem, and the Etzion bloc of settlements. At the same time, the heavily populated areas of the West Bank, together with a corridor that included Jericho, would be offered to Jordan.
Meanwhile, in a meeting with Kissinger, Saudi King Faisal expressed his belief that Israel “shouldn’t remain in the occupied areas” he expressed his “support” to the US efforts to “reach a solution in the Middle East”.
Kissinger lamented that Israel’s actions had “destroyed this support.”
Although Kissinger stressed that it was not in the US interest to be “publicly critical” of Israel, he believed that the Israelis “had to learn to be flexible and not believe that because of their friendly links with various governments, they could always count on support regardless of their behavior.” When British Ambassador Ramsbotham asked whether the Israeli behaviour could have any backlash inside the US, Kissinger said that “it wouldn’t be difficult for the Administration to generate a wave of indignation in the US against Israel”. But, the Americans “would not do so”, he added
Kissinger also stressed that the Israelis “had to realise that they could not blow up the US foreign policy, humiliate the United States in the Arab eyes”. The Ford Administration “felt more and more outraged” by what happened, in a reference to the Israeli behaviour that led to failure of the negotiations.
After the collapse of negotiations, Callaghan considered visiting the Middle East. Kissinger advised him to caution Israel that it “had tried the US patience too far”. He also advised that “it was very important not to give the impression to the Israelis that the British government were sympathetic with the position they had got themselves”.
Kissinger believed that if Callaghan had any new proposals, it would probably be “a mistake at this time for him to put them forward himself”. He asked for any suggestions to be “offered to him in private”.
Despite the impasse, negotiations resumed a few months later, leading to the signing of the Sinai II Agreement on 4 September 1975, in Geneva. The accord allowed Egypt to recover parts of Sinai occupied since 1967. While Sadat saw the deal as strengthening ties with the West, it strained Egypt’s relations with the Arab States, particularly with Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Dr. Salman H. Abu-Sitta, a Palestinian academic, is renowned for his extensive work documenting Palestine’s land and people, as well as developing a practical return plan for Palestinian refugees. He founded the Palestine Land Society (PLS), accredited by the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), and established the Palestine Land Studies Center at the American University of Beirut (AUB), housing over 40 years of his research.
Author of more than 400 articles and several landmark atlases — including the Atlas of Palestine 1948 and the Atlas of Palestine 1871-1877 — he has also created a series of poster maps related to Al Nakba. His memoir, Mapping My Return, offers a personal account of Al Nakba in southern Palestine. A former member of the Palestine National Council, Abu-Sitta has participated in numerous international forums on Palestinian rights and delivered a notable address, A Palestinian Address to Balfour, at the University of Edinburgh in 2022.
Abu-Sitta spoke to JURIST’s Senior Editor for Long Form Content, Pitasanna Shanmugathas, about his childhood in Palestine before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 on his land, how he and his family survived the Nakba, his family’s current situation in Gaza, and his detailed proposal for implementing the Palestinian Right of Return.
Pitasanna Shanmugathas: Dr. Abu-Sitta, you were born in Palestine in 1937, in the Beersheba district. Could you describe what life in Palestine was like during your childhood, before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948?
Dr. Salman Abu-Sitta: I was born in 1937 in al-Ma’in Abu-Sitta, a 6,000-hectare area in the Beersheba district that my family had owned for over 200 years. Al-Ma’in, named after my family, was part of a vibrant agricultural community. We cultivated wheat, barley, grapes, figs, and almonds, and raised sheep, camels, and cattle. My father built a school in 1920, a flour mill, with four silos for our wheat and barley, reflecting our self-sufficient and prosperous ways of life. Education was highly valued in my family — my father built the first school in 1920 at his expense, by the 1930s, my brothers were pursuing high school in Jerusalem and by 1944, four of them were in university in Cairo.
Palestine at that time was a land of established communities, rich culture, and resilience. However, British policies under the Mandate, such as facilitating Jewish immigration and land acquisition, began to destabilize the country. My father and relatives resisted, fighting the British in World War I, including at the Suez Canal, and later during the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. My brother led the Revolt in the Beersheba district, where we expelled British forces for a year and even established a local government.
This resilience was met with brutal suppression by the British, who bombed Palestinian villages and supported the growing Zionist movement. By 1948, the situation reached a devastating climax. On May 14, 1948, the Zionist militia Haganah attacked our land with 24 armored vehicles, burning our homes, destroying the school my father built, and expelling us from al-Ma’in. That day, coinciding with the declaration of the state of Israel, marked the beginning of my life as a refugee — a status I have endured for over 28,000 days.
I never saw a Jew in my life before. I never knew who they were. As a child, I could not comprehend how strangers could come from distant lands to take what was ours, displacing a people with over 4,000 years of recorded history. This tragedy shaped my life’s mission: to document and preserve Palestinian history and advocate for our right of return. I’ve published several works, including the Atlas of Palestine and the Return Journey Atlas, which chronicle our land’s transformation and provide a blueprint for reclaiming it.
Our history and connection to the land remain deeply ingrained in my identity and my work, as I strive to ensure that the world recognizes the truth of what happened and the injustice that Palestinians continue to seek.
Shanmugathas: Talk about what was Israel’s purpose behind the Nakba.
Abu-Sitta: The Nakba was a deliberate effort to erase all traces of Palestinian existence. Even the roads that connected al-Ma’in to other towns like Beersheba, Gaza, and Rafah were obliterated and replaced with new roads designed to serve the settlers. It was as though they sought to rewrite the geography itself, erasing not just our physical presence but also our history. My family, along with thousands of others, was forced to seek refuge in the Gaza Strip. I was just 10 years old, witnessing the complete destruction of my home and community — a trauma that shaped my identity and my lifelong commitment to documenting and preserving our history.
After finding refuge in the Gaza Strip, not yet Israeli-occupied, my family’s priority was survival and education. My father sent me to Cairo, where my older brothers were already studying. I completed my schooling there and earned a degree in civil engineering. Later, I pursued a PhD in civil engineering at University College London, which shaped my career as a professor and later as an international engineer. Yet, no matter how far my journey took me, I was haunted by questions about what happened to al-Ma’in after we were forced to leave.
When I began investigating, I discovered that settlers had built four kibbutzim on our land — Nirim, Ein Hashlosha, Nir Oz, and Magen. These weren’t organic communities but part of a military strategy. The kibbutzim were constructed on elevated points for strategic advantage and surrounded by trenches, barbed wire, and fortifications. Their goal was clear: to prevent us, the refugees, from returning. They knew that we were just a kilometer away in the Gaza Strip and would always dream of going home.
This militarized transformation of our land starkly contrasted with the organic way our community had developed over centuries. Where our lives had been intertwined with the natural landscape — fields, orchards, and wells — the kibbutzim were built with cold, calculated precision. Aerial photos from the 1950s to the 1970s show how the destruction of our homes and the construction of settlements unfolded step by step. The settlers built huts first, then fortifications, and eventually brought Jewish immigrants from Europe and other places to inhabit them.
Shanmugathas: You mentioned that as a result of the Nakba you and your family became refugees in the Gaza Strip. Do you currently have family in Gaza, and if so, how have they been affected by Israel’s assault on Gaza following the October 7 attacks?
Abu-Sitta: Yes, most of my family still lives in Gaza, and their suffering is indescribable. The ongoing assault on Gaza has turned life into an unimaginable horror. Communication with them is almost impossible — telephones are often down, and when I do manage to speak to someone, the news is always devastating. For instance, in Khan Yunis, their homes have been completely destroyed, leaving them with no choice but to flee to Al Mawasi, a coastal area. There, they are living in makeshift tents, exposed to the elements. The tents are drenched in water from the rain, and with the harsh winter temperatures, the situation has become life-threatening. Seven children have already frozen to death from the cold. Now eight.
Sending them any form of aid is nearly impossible. Banks have been destroyed, making money transfers unfeasible. Even if money could reach them, it would do little, as basic necessities are unavailable or exorbitantly expensive. For example, a kilogram of tomatoes now costs 10 to 20 times its normal price. The scale of suffering is unimaginable. Some 200,000 people in Gaza — 10% of its population — have been killed or injured. To put that into perspective, that would be the equivalent to 34 million Americans being affected in a similar manner.
This is a genocide happening in real-time, visible to the world through the screens of our phones and televisions. It’s not a distant historical event — it’s unfolding now. UN agencies like UNICEF and OCHA have documented the atrocities extensively. The evidence is undeniable. Yet, despite this, the world remains paralyzed. Over 160 member states of the United Nations have called for a ceasefire, but their efforts have been vetoed multiple times by the United States. The U.S., in turn, provides Israel with the bombs, financial resources, and political cover necessary to sustain this assault.
As a historian and someone deeply familiar with global injustices, I find it astonishing that such atrocities can occur with the world watching and yet so little action being taken. No one can claim ignorance. Those who speak out — students, activists, and scholars — are silenced, often with severe repercussions. The question now is how individuals and nations will respond, knowing what is happening and understanding the consequences of inaction.
Shanmugathas: To our readers at JURIST who might be unaware, could you explain the concept of the Palestinian right of return?
Abu-Sitta: The concept of the right of return is, first and foremost, a universal and inalienable right for everyone. You may recall that on December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations. Article 13 states that everyone has the right to leave their country and to return to it.
The very next day, on December 11, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly passed the famous Resolution 194, which affirmed that refugees must be allowed to return. This resolution contained three key elements:
First, refugees must be allowed to return to their homes
Second, they must receive relief until this happens.
Third, mechanisms must be created to facilitate their return.
Israel refused to allow the refugees to return but permitted relief efforts, as it was their responsibility to provide for the refugees they had displaced. However, Israel soon abdicated this responsibility, which was then transferred to the United Nations and managed by the United Nations Reliefs and Works Agency (UNRWA). Now, not only does Israel refuse to implement the right of return, but it is also attempting to dismantle UNRWA altogether.
The third element in resolution 194 was the establishment of UNCCP to plan the return of the refugees. It is still in existence but Israel does not allow its action.
Since its passage, Resolution 194 has been reaffirmed by the United Nations 135 times, making it one of the most repeatedly endorsed resolutions in UN history. This repeated affirmation effectively elevates it to the status of customary international law. No other resolution in UN history has been reaffirmed as frequently as this one.
People often ask whether the right of return is both legal and feasible. To address this, I conducted a study to demonstrate how it could be practically implemented.
Shanmugathas: Yes, and I want to get into the specifics of your proposal for the right of return. Before doing so, how would you respond to the argument that the Palestinian right of return is not binding under international law? Critics often claim that UN General Assembly Resolution 194 is merely a recommendation without legally binding force, as only UN Security Council Resolutions have binding authority.
Abu-Sitta: That argument is incorrect for two reasons. First, the right of return is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an inalienable right. While it is true that UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, this case is an exception because Resolution 194 has been reaffirmed by the United Nations 135 times. This repeated affirmation has elevated it to the status of customary international law.
No other resolution in the history of the United Nations has been reaffirmed so frequently. Legal experts, such as John Quigley and Mallison, have extensively argued that Resolution 194 has transcended the usual limitation of General Assembly resolutions and now constitutes customary international law. Moreover, it is important to note that Resolution 194 did not create the right of return; it simply reaffirmed this inalienable right.
Second, it is contrary to the principles of justice to argue otherwise. You cannot justify bringing people via smuggler ships, arming them with foreign support, allowing them to dispossess, kill, and displace an existing population, and then claim that such actions are acceptable. This defies both legal and moral standards.
Shanmugathas: You gained international attention for formulating a proposal to implement the Palestinian right of return without displacing Israel’s existing population. When did you first release this proposal, and how would the right of return work in practice?
Abu-Sitta: I think I first presented this proposal in 1998 at a conference in London. The essence of my proposal is that Palestinians can return to their homeland without displacing the Israeli population. Many of my European friends, who support the Palestinian cause, argue that the return of Palestinians would lead to displacement of Jews who now live there. They suggest that if Palestinians return, it will create a “Jewish Nakba,” forcing Jews to leave and return to Europe. I challenge this reasoning, as it is both morally and legally flawed.
This argument suggests that we, the displaced Palestinians, have fewer rights to our land than the foreign settlers who arrived with military support, committed atrocities, and took our land. To me, this is not only a racist argument, but an illegal one. The logic is akin to saying that if a burglar enters your home, kills half your family, forces you into a shed, and claims your house as his own, the argument would be that the burglar has the right to remain simply because he has been there for some time. This reasoning is utterly unjustifiable.
Even if we take this argument at face value, the situation is far simpler than many believe. I’ve collaborated with institutions like Forensic Architecture at Goldsmiths College, using aerial photographs, maps, and historical records to trace the process of destruction and rebuilding. What struck me most in my research was the emptiness of the land. In my research, I found that 88% of Israel’s Jewish population resides in only 12% of the land, specifically in three major areas: Tel Aviv, Haifa, and West Jerusalem. The rest of the land is either militarized or occupied by kibbutzim, which were deliberately planted not as organic farming communities, but as fortified military outposts designed to keep Palestinian refugees from returning. These settlements were surrounded by trenches, barbed wire, and machine guns, particularly near Gaza, West Jerusalem, and the Lebanese border. The land outside of these concentrated areas is largely uninhabited, which presents a clear opportunity for the return of Palestinians without displacing anyone.
Despite the portrayal of densely populated Israeli settlements, vast stretches of former Palestinian land are nearly uninhabited. The reality is that most of the land is not occupied in the way people might think.
The key to implementing the right of return lies in the legal status of the land. No Israeli living in what is now called Israel has a title deed to the land they occupy. All the land in Israel is controlled by the Israel Land Administration (ILA), which holds the land of all Palestinian refugees and leases it out to kibbutzim and settlements. These settlers are not landowners — they are renters, leasing the land from the Israeli government, which acts as a landlord. But, for example, if the Israel Land Administration were transformed into the Palestinian Land Administration, Palestinians could return to their land, reclaiming what is legally theirs based on the documentation they hold.
In practical terms, the return of Palestinians could be achieved swiftly. I have mapped out the return routes for each refugee camp, detailing where each person originally came from in Palestine and how they can return. The distances are short — no more than 50 kilometers at most and in some cases, as little as 1 kilometer for those in Gaza. Refugees could easily walk home, and for others, buses could be arranged, with travel times of no longer than 40 minutes. This is not a complicated or far-off goal; the logistics are simple and feasible.
The real barrier to implementing this solution is not logistics, but the political factors that prevent its realization. The international community, particularly the United States and European powers, continues to block any meaningful action to secure the right of return. These countries provide military and political support to Israel, which prevents the United Nations and other international bodies from enforcing international law. The tragedy is that the solution is already clear, yet it is being blocked by powerful interests that prioritize political alliances over justice.
I would also like to point out that our case is actually simpler than many historical examples, such as the situation in Bosnia. When the Serbs attacked Bosnia and took over homes, the situation was far more difficult, as many people had settled into those homes, and there were complex issues of property rights and ownership. In contrast, the case of Palestine is much simpler. The majority of the land is either uninhabited or controlled by the Israeli government, and the rightful Palestinian owners still have legal documentation for their land.
The return of Palestinians to their homes could be done much more easily and quickly, and I am confident that it could be achieved within less than a month if the political will existed.
Shanmugathas: In your proposal, you divide Israel’s demography into three categories, Area A, Area B and Area C. Your proposal mentions that Area C would have a majority Palestinian population, Area B would be a mixed population, and Area A would remain predominantly Jewish. Currently, there are about 8 to 9 million displaced Palestinian refugees, while Israel’s Jewish population is approximately 7 million. Could you elaborate on the specifics of how these 9 million refugees would be allowed to return without significantly displacing Israel’s existing population?
Abu-Sitta: Drop the idea of A, B, C. I used that framework 15 years ago when it was a very approximate concept. Now, I approach it place by place, kilometer by kilometer. It is much, much simpler than that. The Israeli population occupies only 12% of the area currently called Israel. If you exclude open spaces, roads, and public areas, they actually live on just 2% to 2.5% of Israel, which itself constitutes 78% of historical Palestine.
We have no difficulty identifying where the 9 million displaced Palestinians live today and where they originally came from. Palestine is divided into 1,200 villages and cities, each with clearly defined land areas. We know exactly where the people from each village or city are, as these communities remain intact and connected. They can return to their specific lands without any issue.
The obstacles they would face fall into two groups: the first group is the Israeli army, which, in the future, should no longer exist. I envision — and hope — that the Israeli army will eventually be brought to the Hague, to the International Criminal Court, for its extensive war crimes. There isn’t a single member of the Israeli army who is free from such crimes.
Assuming the Israeli army is removed from the equation and held accountable at the Hague, the remaining obstacle is the kibbutzim. As I’ve explained the kibbutzim were established with the aim of holding refugee lands and preventing Palestinians from returning. If the kibbutz residents want to remain on a small portion of the land where their houses are located, I offer them the option to rent that space. However, they must return the rest of the land to its rightful owners. According to international law, this process would involve restitution and possibly compensation, principles that have been well established over the past 76 years.
It is not my duty to compensate settlers who have caused the disruption of Palestinian lives for 76 years. That duty falls to them — the perpetrators of these crimes. Restitution, whether material or non-material, is their responsibility. International law categorizes several types of restitution. Material restitution includes compensation for the use of land and property over time. The United Nations has already addressed this issue. There is a specific resolution, known as the Refugees’ Revenue Resolution, which obliges Israel to record the benefits it derived from refugee lands. This has already been documented, and we have the figures.
Non-material restitution, on the other hand, pertains to losses such as the deprivation of nationality, the destitution faced by refugees worldwide, the loss of identity, and the disruption of families. These elements are also well established under international law. Both forms of restitution — material and non-material — are essential for justice and the restoration of Palestinian rights.
Shanmugathas: In your proposal, you highlight the economic difficulties faced by the kibbutzim and the limited contribution of agriculture to Israel’s GDP. You suggest that the return of Palestinian refugees could help revitalize these areas and restore agricultural productivity. Could you elaborate on how this would work, how you envision the economic integration of Palestinian refugees into these areas, and how it would contribute economically?
Abu-Sitta: Most Palestinian refugees are rural people, as Palestine in 1948 was 70% rural and 30% urban. For thousands of years, these rural communities thrived and built a rich history. In contrast, Israelis who seized the land were reluctant farmers, resulting in agriculture contributing only 1% to Israel’s GDP.
Today, Israel’s economy relies heavily on technology, with 75% of its income derived from Silicon Valley industries that require minimal land — about 4 to 10 square kilometers could house all Israeli industry without impacting production. If necessary, they could even relocate their operations, perhaps to Cyprus.
The real issue lies with the kibbutzim, which control vast tracts of land and serve as extensions of the Israeli military. These lands are used for aggression, wars, and military camps, which would be unnecessary in the absence of conflict.
Another issue is water. Israel consumes 2,000 million cubic meters of water annually, three-quarters of which is stolen from Arab countries, including Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. Yet, despite diverting massive amounts of water, agriculture contributes just 1% to the GDP, an egregious misuse of resources.
This inefficient, artificial economy underscores that the right of return is entirely feasible. The obstacles are not logistical but political, driven by the same powers that repeatedly veto international efforts to address these injustices.
Shanmugathas: Your proposal implicitly advocates for a one-state solution, diverging from the longstanding international consensus of a two-state solution. Critics argue that the unconditional return of eight to nine million Palestinian refugees, as you propose, would result in Jews no longer being the majority in the Israeli state and thus is not practically feasible as Israel would perceive it as an existential threat to its survival. Academic Noam Chomsky once asserted that if Israel were ever put in a position where it was forced to accept the right of return, Israel would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to prevent it from happening. How do you respond to this?
Abu-Sitta: I know your good intentions, otherwise I would not answer this question. I will not justify a crime or ask the victim to accept it. The two-state solution is inherently flawed, and history proves this. Since 1948, dozens of so-called peace plans — designed by the West to legitimize Israel’s actions — have all failed. Why? Because they attempt to normalize the theft of Palestinian land.
What does a two-state solution mean? It means taking land from Palestinians and giving it to settlers from abroad. Imagine telling a Palestinian refugee to remain in a tent while someone from Poland, like Netanyahu, occupies their home and land. For example, Netanyahu lives in Caesarea, [a town in present-day Israel] originally home to the Bushnak family, to which my brother is married. Should my sister-in-law be expected to give up her ancestral home to someone who arrived from Poland?
The answer is clear: no one would accept this. The issue isn’t about coexistence but justice. If any Israeli or Zionist can justify this theft logically or legally, I would willingly concede my land. But they cannot. Justice demands the right of return and the restoration of stolen homes and land.
Shanmugathas: The Geneva Initiative, negotiated in 2003 by former Israeli Minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian Authority Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, presents a detailed two- state solution framework with specific attention to the refugee issue. The Geneva Initiative proposes an international commission to oversee implementation, including a valuation process for property claims using United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) and Custodian for Absentee Property records, with a dual-track system for small and large claims under strict timelines. Refugees must apply for property claims within two years and resolve them within five, with oversight from the UN, UNRWA, Arab host countries, and international donors.
The initiative offers five resettlement options: relocation to a Palestinian state, land swap areas, third-country resettlement, limited return to Israel, or remaining in host countries. By contrast, your proposal focuses on the direct physical return of refugees, emphasizing that 88% of Israel’s Jewish population resides on only 12% of the land. How would you respond to arguments that the Geneva Initiative’s compromise-based approach might be more feasible and politically viable with Israeli leaders and international stakeholders?
Abu-Sitta: The Geneva Initiative is just one of the dozens of so-called peace proposals that have all failed. Where is it now? In the dustbin of history. And where is Yasser Abed Rabbo, one of its architects? Politically irrelevant. These proposals fail because they are built on fundamental injustice, forcing victims to accept their victimhood while ignoring their rights. The Geneva Initiative is no different. It violates basic principles and prioritizes compromise over justice.
Shanmugathas: Many point to the absence of a strong, principled Palestinian leadership as a critical challenge to establishing a just solution to the conflict. The Palestinian Authority (PA) is often criticized for corruption and acting as an enforcer of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. There is division between political factions like Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Figures like Marwan Barghouti are seen by some as a potential incorruptible leader. What do you think needs to happen for Palestinians to have principled, effective leadership?
Abu-Sitta: This is a vital question to end on. As a Palestinian, I oppose the PA, which was essentially created by Israeli occupation forces to suppress its own people, akin to Quisling’s role during the Nazi occupation of Denmark. The PA has lost legitimacy, as its leadership has not been re-elected in over 15 years, and it functions as a Western-funded tool to stifle Palestinian resistance.
For decades, I have called for new elections for the Palestinian National Council, representing all 14 million Palestinians globally. Starting with Edward Said in 2000, we pushed for such elections in 2003, 2007, and at international conferences, including one I organized in 2017 in Istanbul with 6000 attendees. Despite our efforts, colonial powers and financial support for the PA have undermined these calls, ensuring a leadership that prioritizes external interests over the Palestinian people’s will.
Elections must be held, allowing Palestinians to freely choose their leaders. Whether it’s Marwan Barghouti, who has shown resilience and principle during his years in Israeli detention, or others, it’s the people’s choice. Personally, I prefer younger leaders—highly qualified, articulate, and in their 30s—who can bring fresh energy and lead for decades. These individuals, many of whom I know from Europe and Arab countries, are well-educated in law, politics, and global affairs.
While elders like me can offer guidance and share experience, it’s time for the next generation to lead.
The annual Munich Security Conference serves as a crucial forum where global leaders, policymakers and analysts converge to discuss pressing security and geopolitical issues. The 2025 iteration of the conference, themed around “Multipolarization,” represents a significant, albeit reluctant, recognition by the collective West that the era of American unipolarity has come to an end. The conference’s annual report openly acknowledges this shift, noting that power is now diffused among a greater number of actors, influencing key global issues in ways that unipolar decision-making cannot accommodate. This shift, while long predicted by some, has taken decades to be acknowledged within Western strategic thought.
In 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech that has since proven prophetic. He warned against the dangers of unipolarity, cautioning that a world where power is concentrated in the hands of a single global sovereign, namely the US, would lead to instability. He criticized the West’s tendency to impose rules on others while exempting itself from those same rules.
At the time, Western policymakers largely dismissed Putin’s warnings as revanchist rhetoric. The US and its allies, still intoxicated by the “sugar high” of post-Cold War unipolarity, assumed that their dominance would persist indefinitely. They expanded NATO, pursued military interventions in the Middle East and dismissed the concerns of rising powers like Russia and China. However, 18 years later, as the Munich Security Conference convenes once more, the world finds itself in a different reality.
The most telling sign that unipolarity is over is the rhetorical and strategic shift within American foreign policy. Rather than embracing a multilateral world order, underpinned by multilateral institutions and practices of diplomatic and inclusive consensus-building, Washington appears to be consolidating its influence through a conventional great-power lens – one that prioritizes spheres of influence.
Simultaneously, the US administration seeks an exit strategy from the war in Ukraine. Faced with mounting costs and diminishing strategic gains, Washington is recalibrating its position. The theme of the Munich Security Conference 2025 reflects this reality: The West is no longer in a position to dictate terms to the rest of the world, and it must now navigate a landscape where multiple centers of power shape global affairs.
While Washington’s response to multipolarity leans toward traditional power balancing, other actors have long envisioned a different kind of global order – one rooted in multilateralism, peaceful coexistence and economic interdependence. BRIC, for instance, has evolved into BRICS, incorporating South Africa and a handful of other full members.
The BRICS organization, alongside other initiatives such as the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and ASEAN-led regional frameworks, represents a multipolar order that prioritizes economic cooperation and security arrangements independent of Western hegemony. These initiatives draw on a diverse array of traditions and historical precedents. China’s advocacy for multipolarity is deeply rooted in its millennia-old governance principles, emphasizing the pursuit of harmony amid the presence of difference. The discourse also reflects principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, which emerged from the Bandung Conference in 1955, advocating for sovereignty and self-determination beyond Cold War bipolarity.
Furthermore, the idea of “indivisible security,” which found expression in the Helsinki Accords but was never truly operationalized in Western security architecture, is being revived in contemporary multipolar discourse. Putin has repeatedly emphasized that the security of one nation cannot come at the expense of another – a principle that challenges NATO’s expansionist logic and Western unilateral interventions.
The 2025 Munich Security Conference represents another step in the West’s reluctant confrontation with reality. The world is no longer unipolar. The conference’s theme, “Multipolarization,” signals an implicit acknowledgment that power is now distributed among multiple actors and that the West must adapt to this new environment.
Yet, the response from Western policymakers remains mixed. While some political figures acknowledge the shift, their rhetoric and policies indicate an attempt to retain influence through traditional great-power competition. European leaders are grasping for new bearings, as the risk of the US administration pulling out of Ukraine (and perhaps even Europe altogether) grows. In contrast, alternative models of multipolarity, articulated by Russia, China and the broader Global South, emphasize multilateralism, economic interdependence, and security arrangements that move beyond hegemonic frameworks.
The question now is whether the West will fully embrace this new reality or continue to resist it through strategies of containment and competition. This year’s Munich Security Conference may not offer definitive answers, but it marks a crucial moment in the ongoing transition from unipolarity to a multipolar world. What remains certain is that the era of American dominance, which shaped global affairs for over three decades, is now over. The future of international relations will be defined not by a single sovereign power, but by a complex and dynamic interplay of states, regions and institutions navigating the challenges and opportunities of a multipolar world.
The author is an adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology, senior fellow at Taihe Institute and former advisor to Kevin Rudd, former Australian prime minister. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
The speaker of Algeria’s lower house of parliament yesterday called on France to officially acknowledge its responsibility for “nuclear crimes” it committed during its colonial era in the North African country, Anadolu reported.
“We demand with one voice an official recognition from France of its full responsibility for these nuclear crimes,” Ibrahim Boughali, speaker of the People’s National Assembly, told an event commemorating France’s first nuclear test in Algeria on 13 February 1960.
Algeria cannot accept “a mere political acknowledgment, but an acknowledgement followed by a clear moral commitment” from France, he added.
France carried out its first nuclear test in 1960, named Blue Jerboa (Gerboise Bleue in French), in the Reggane desert of southern Algeria. Paris continued its nuclear tests on Algerian territory until 1966.
Boughali said that France had carried out 17 nuclear explosions in the area, leaving devastating effects that persist to this day.
The nuclear tests “were a dark chapter in [the French] colonial history that continues to cast its shadow, as its dangerous and destructive effects continue to affect the environment and humanity,” he added.
The Algerian speaker called for forcing France to compensate the victims of the nuclear tests and clean up nuclear waste in Algeria.
Diplomatic relations between Algeria and France remain volatile, particularly due to unresolved issues stemming from France’s colonisation of Algeria for 132 years (1830–1962). Paris has refused to fully address the historical grievances that continue to affect Algerian society.
In his article “Why They Raped, Pillaged, and Plundered,” Tom DiLorenzo reviews the evidence of war crimes in “General William Tecumseh Sherman’s famous ‘march to the sea’ at the end of the War to Prevent Southern Independence,” observing that: “The Lincoln cult – especially its hyper-warmongering neocon branch – has been holding conferences, celebrations, and commemorations [of the march to the sea] while continuing to rewrite history to suit its statist biases.” The dominant historical narratives admire Sherman’s “total war” policies as a corollary of their admiration for Lincoln’s war. Sherman’s war crimes are well-documented, and the aim of this article is not to revisit the evidence of his war crimes but to examine some of the justifications that are often advanced to exonerate Sherman.
The fact that burning civilian towns and homes is a war crime is well understood, and should be obvious to anyone familiar with what Walter Brian Cisco calls the “code of civilized warfare.” In his book, War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, Cisco explains:
Through the centuries, by common consent within what used to be called Christendom, there arose a code of civilized warfare. Though other issues are covered by that term, and despite lapses, it came to be understood that war would be confined to combatants… breaking the code on one side encourages violations by the other, multiplying hatred and bitterness that can only increase the likelihood and intensity of future wars.
Cisco reports that despite this “code of civilized warfare,” some principles of which had been enshrined in the Lieber Code, Sherman insisted that it was necessary to treat civilians in the South as combatants. Cisco explains:
Yet warring against noncombatants came to be the stated policy and deliberate practice of the United States in its subjugation of the Confederacy. Shelling and burning of cities, systematic destruction of entire districts, mass arrests, forced expulsions, wholesale plundering of personal property, even murder all became routine… Abraham Lincoln, the commander in chief with a reputation as micromanager, well knew what was going on and approved.
The Lincoln cult, far from regretting the horrors of that war, continues to view the burning of the South as worthy of celebration. The triumphalist view of Lincoln’s war is reflected in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in 2015, which argued that Sherman’s war crimes were intended “to widen the burden and pain of the war beyond just rebel soldiers to include the civilian supporters of the Confederacy, especially the common folk who filled the ranks of the rebel armies.”
That is depicted as a necessary price to pay to meet Lincoln’s goal of saving the Union: “the March to the Sea reveals the moral ambiguity of war and the extent to which Americans are willing to go when our national existence is at stake.” Sherman himself is exonerated: “the burning of the South Carolina capital was in reality a result of confusion, misjudgment and simple bad luck. It was, in sum, an accident of war.” This moral ambiguity presumes that the morality of war varies according to which side one supports—a blatantly vacuous morality.
Some triumphalists rationalize their celebration of Sherman’s crimes by arguing that war crimes are in some sense “worth it” to bring war to a swift conclusion. David Gordon traces the roots of the view that brutality helps to end war, a view held by people who believe a “humane” war would only drag on needlessly:
As I have already mentioned, the antiwar movement of that time wanted to end war, not make it more humane, and indeed Tolstoy was sometimes tempted to go further. In War and Peace, Prince Andrei suggests that soldiers in battle should act as ruthlessly as possible, for example killing enemy prisoners out of hand. Increasing the horror of war might make it more likely that people would end it. By no means was this view confined to fictional characters; Tolstoy himself was of this opinion, though he later withdrew it, and the great Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz spoke in similar terms. Moyn lists a number of examples, but one should be added as well: General William Sherman, who justified his tactics of wanton destruction with this same argument.
The argument that Sherman’s atrocities were necessary to end the war is also associated with the perception that if a war is just, and is fought for a “righteous cause,” or what is sometimes described as “the right side of history,” it follows that any atrocities committed to advance that cause are also just. Such theories appeal to those who believe the end always justifies the means. That is a convenient ruse deployed in the service of brutal regimes, but in any case, it must also be asked: what “righteous cause” was Sherman engaged in? As DiLorenzo observes, “The reason Lincoln gave for launching a military invasion of the South was to save the Union.” Saving the Union cannot be a righteous cause for wars of aggression. Wars of aggression are always wrong, as a just war is one fought in defense. As for apologists who argue that Sherman should not be blamed for the devastation caused to civilians by his own troops, because he did not specifically order them to pillage, rape, and murder, that too must be rejected. If this argument were accepted, there would be little way of ever holding army officers morally responsible for the outrages committed by their men.
Another version of the “end justifies the means” argument focuses on the abolition of slavery, arguing that the end of slavery is sufficient justification for not being too concerned about the war. This argument ignores the repeated insistence of both Lincoln and Sherman that they were not fighting for abolition of slavery. Both men were perfectly happy for slavery to continue, and only wanted to prevent secession of the Confederate States. Sherman’s views on the inferiority of black people were so well-known that no one could be under the illusion that he was fighting to promote black welfare. According to the New Georgia Encyclopedia:
During the Atlanta campaign of May-September 1864, General Sherman opposed Black enlistment with word and deed. An avowed white supremacist and a reluctant liberator at best, Sherman made no effort to conceal his contempt for African Americans or to disguise the racist dogma behind his opposition to Black soldiers. Such phrases as “niggers and vagabonds,” “niggers and bought recruits,” and “niggers and the refuse of the South” filled his personal letters. Anxious to employ Black workers as laborers, Sherman was determined that the forces under his command would remain exclusively white. On June 3, 1864, he issued Special Field Order No. 16 forbidding recruiting officers to enlist Black soldiers who were employed by the army in any capacity.
Some people argue that even though Sherman repeatedly defended slavery, we should treat that as irrelevant because all that matters is that slavery was, in fact, abolished. So what if Sherman was a “reluctant liberator at best”? Suffice it that liberation followed. They would argue that abolition by itself constitutes an ex post “righteous cause” for the war that can also be attributed to Lincoln and Sherman even though they did not endorse it—they see this as a welcome, albeit unintended, consequence of the war. This argument assumes that slavery would never have ended had the war not happened—an argument that is purely speculative, and makes no attempt to link the war causally to the ending of slavery. For example, it does not explain why other countries in the West were able to end slavery without waging deadly wars.
A final illustration of the abject moral failure of Sherman’s defenders comes from those who now simply ignore the entire war, treating Sherman’s crimes as inconsequential. The New York Times 1619 project, which aims to “reframe American history” as one shaped by slavery, pays scant attention to the reasons for the war or its conduct. Lincoln and Sherman play only a minor role as “white allies” in this version of revisionist history, which asserts that slaves emancipated themselves. Union soldiers are seen as allies of slaves, while Confederate soldiers are cast as enemies of slaves. In this cartoonish view of history, the process of reframing history “requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story.”
Accordingly, it is the activities of black Americans—rather than the Radical Republicans, Lincoln, or Sherman—that are presented as central to the emancipation story. The war is reframed as having been fought by hundreds of thousands of slaves freed from the rebel states by Lincoln’s Emancipation Declaration, who joined the Union army and fought to liberate their brethren still held captive. The justification given for this fictitious framing is that “by acknowledging this shameful history [of slavery], by trying hard to understand its powerful influence on the present, perhaps we can prepare ourselves for a more just future.” But no “just future” can be founded on fairy tales. A just future can only be built on the truth. As David Gordon puts it, “The 1619 Project wants to replace what actually happened with an ideological myth.”
This is one great and revealing movie – on the political corruption which led to the slaughter of UK herds! Shocking stuff – great job by UK Column, make sure to join up with them here: https://www.ukcolumn.org/
Detritus from Joe Biden’s administration doesn’t just amount to the obvious—inflation and deficit spending, regulations and wars. There’s also been a more subtle shift off of these failures, affecting who has power in our country and how they’ll use it in the future.
Nowhere is the shift less noticed or more definite than in the world of humanitarianism, which has been enriched these past three years by the previous administration’s proxy wars. Since 2022—when the Biden White House responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by neither escalating nor defusing but prolonging—a network of humanitarian non-profits has grown up around the conflict. This network has fed off the deaths of Ukrainians and the piling on of debt for future Americans through its operators’ deep contacts with the United States government and its outgrowths.
This network is worth investigating on its own. But with the advent of the second Trump Administration which is looking to wind down the war, its players appear to be pivoting from Ukraine to the Middle East: from ginning up funds for an endless proxy war to ginning them up for a repeat of the Global War on Terror.
Listed first of all these organizations isRazom, a Ukrainian-American non-profit active since 2014. Its president, Dora Chomiak, is a Princeton and Columbia graduate who served in the 1990s as a Director of Regional Media Programs for George Soros’ newly-founded Open Society Institute. Under Chomiak’s leadership, Razom has a spot at the World Economic Forum, a regular Soros haunt. It also has a strong presence at Bard College, a major accepter of Ukrainian refugees which recently received a $500 million endowment pledge from Soros, whose second wife directs the Bard Graduate Center.
Razom also has government and university contacts. Samantha Power, the outgoing director of USAID, the government agency responsible for foreign aid, has been a featured speaker at Razom-hosted events, and so has the U.S. State Department’s Special Representative for Ukraine’s Economic Recovery, Penny Pritzker. Columbia University, which has received extensive donations from Soros as well as tax exemptions from Washington, hosts regular pro-Ukrainian events at its Harriman Institute, where Chomiak serves on the board.
Another prominent member of UNCN’s network is Help Ukraine, founded by Brian Mefford, who also founded Wooden Horse Strategies, which by its own description is “a Kyiv-based consulting firm focusing on USAID and EU project development and evaluation, risk analysis, due diligence, political strategy and strategic communications” that “provides clients with both Ukraine and regional insight that achieves results for their projects, businesses and policy objectives.” In 2023, Wooden Horse Strategies was listed by Russian officials as under contract with Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center to help carry out “the United States’ military biological programs in Ukraine.”
This claim isn’t verifiable, but it is verifiable that Ukraine’s Science and Technology Center contracted with Wooden Horse Strategies to combat “disinformation” about the Ukrainian war effort. Mefford was also reliably identified as an attendee at a 2022 Washington summit on the conduct of the war sponsored by “private sector cyber security and intelligence operators and CIA venture capital firm In-Q-Tel,” which, according to its CEO, has seen over thirty of its portfolio companies “deplo[y]” their technologies “as part of Western efforts to support Ukraine.
These players, in other words, are not the Salvation Army. They’re highly plugged into government-funded universities and intelligence agencies as well as the U.S. Department of State. This positions them to be indirect or direct recipients not just of defense and university grants but of staggering amounts of formal humanitarian aid. “Since February 2022,” according to a Congressional Research report released on January 6, 2025, “Congress has appropriated more than $46 billion in emergency funds for accounts solely or partially managed by USAID to address the war in Ukraine” including for “humanitarian assistance.” This is on top of $65.9 billion in direct military assistance in the same period.
It’s not clear, as this report notes, where funds raised and spent this fast actually went. But almost surely some of them percolated directly or indirectly to the organizations which help make up the UNCN. Now, with the Trump administration opposed to further involvement in Ukraine, at least one of UNCN’s players appear to be mobilizing to get funding for a different foreign cause.
This player is Sarah Adams, Chief of Operations for UNCN from January 2022 to January 2024 and an institutional operator par excellence. At the start of her career, Adams worked for a pharmaceutical company with links to Pfizer and in the 2010s she was a CIA analyst abroad, including in Libya. She serves as a Program Analyst for the United States Department of the Air Force in Tampa.
Currently, though, on conservative podcasts like Shawn Ryan’s and Tudor Dixon’s on which she appears, Adams presents herself as a former CIA agent and whistleblower cut from MAGA’s mold: an ex-soldier sounding the alert on jihadi infiltrations. She makes the case for a unified global movement of pre-planned Al Qaeda “wave” attacks which represent a clear and present danger to the United States. Not surprisingly, in the wake of the January 1 terrorist attack in New Orleans, Adams’s supporters claimed validation for her—despite the fact that the attacker was an American-born resident of Texas and a Deloitte employee radicalized online.
Adams claims to be going up against Pentagon pushback when she makes her warnings, despite the fact that she’s employed by the Air Force, which is run from the Pentagon. But the Pentagon’s history of firing employees who dissent, among them decorated Space Force Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, renders this claim extremely dubious. Journalist Max Blumenthal has pointed out other inconsistencies as well. Not only are “Adams’ sources [for her claims] unnamed,” they’re also uncited outside of her constant references to “we.” In only the first fifteen minutes of her appearance on The Shawn Ryan Show, Adams cites “open source” information, i.e. information from publicly available sources or that she got “on the ground”; doesn’t link to those sources (outside of a terrorist training video); and then makes broad claims. One is that Al Qaeda activities in Europe are a planned operation for revenge against America for its interfering in the Middle East. Another is connecting threatened Al Qaeda attacks on America to the October 7 attack against Israel, implying that combating one means combating the other.
The way Adams phrases her warnings reinforces the confusion. She sounds either like she’s not confident in her own material, or that she’s patronizing her audience by talking down. “But it’s just, um, al Qaeda has all these waves of attacks planned, okay” is her way of describing a clear and present threat to Americans. About terrorist trainees: “Remember their life is they train all the time so if that’s all you’re doing all day long, I mean, you’re gonna get really competent at it and then they have different emotions behind it too and, you know, different beliefs, and the religion behind it too, which makes you more devout.” She calls a Pentagon communication to her a “nastygram.” She says (jokingly? not?) that Shawn Ryan’s head of production looks like a terrorist and that she “could have [his address] by the end of the day if I really wanted it.” This doesn’t sound like an experienced veteran delivering a serious warning. It sounds like a self-promoter with a strange side.
When it comes to questions about her analysis or sources, Adams is not tolerant. When I pushed back on X with “total respect” about whether the issue of the Taliban targeting a French Afghani in France was relevant, as Adams claimed, to “all of us,” she responded before blocking me:
One reason Adams may take this attitude is that engaging with American conservatives isn’t really what she wants to be doing; it’s a means to an end. One of her supporters explained to me on X: “Sarah’s focusing on raising attention with ‘the right’ (even though they typically lack nuance) because they’re still national security focused, while Left leaning westerners tend not to [be].” This ally, James Griffin, runs a website titled “Analytica Camillus.” It pairs broad sloganeering (“Morality in Ruthlessness”; “You may not be interested in war but war is interested in you”) with intricately plotted maps of counteroffensives in Ukraine.
All of this raises a question: if Muslim terror tactics have been such clear threats and created such humanitarian calamities, why did self-identified experts in war and humanitarianism like Adams and Griffin spend years focusing on Ukraine and only pivot to Islamism as a new Donald Trump presidency loomed? One answer is that these pivots—from the Russia threat to Muslim terror, from Kosovo to Iraq—have been happening for three decades, executed by the same connected institutional operators in the name of the same general principles applied to different situations based on which administration is in the White House.
These general principles are security and humanitarianism, a double rhetorical punch that has justified the foreign interventions that have created unprecedented non-and-for-profit boondoggles since the 1990s. Tellingly, Adams describes herself as 10% warlord, 90% humanitarian, or a warrior in the name of humanitarian ideals, and neither her pairing of war and human rights nor the profits that accrue from that pairing are new. An early beneficiary was George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations picked up in the Balkans where NATO left off, and who has been heavily invested in Ukrainian companies. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were also a boondoggle for non-profits as well as for business ventures to “build up” the region America had decimated by players like the Pritzker Family; one of whose members, Thomas Pritzker, set up North America Western Asia Holdings in partnership with a former undersecretary of Defense in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administration to pursue those opportunities in 2011.
A humanitarian-crusader thru-line also runs through the careers of government officials responsible for these crusades. Biden USAID director Samantha Power made her name in the 1990s with a Pulitzer Prize winning book urging American intervention in the name of human rights and later stage-managed the intervention in Libya, where Sarah Adams served as a CIA analyst. Biden’s Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a key backer of humanitarianism up to his last days in the State Department, had a father, another humanitarian, who was a key supporter of the NATO expansion off of our 1990s Balkans interventions which began our long cool down with Russia. Both Power and Blinken also advanced their career off of or in support of the Iraq War. This was the ultimate in humanitarian-security politics gone wrong. It was justified by links between Muslims (Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda) that later proved conflationary and that are uncomfortably similar to the links Sarah Adams is currently making between different Muslim groups.
Other prominent supporters of these policies like Aayan Hirsi Ali, operating out of non-profits inside government-funded universities, want Americans to take the same broad-brush approach to national security as Sarah Adams does. But they expand the threats even further, broadcasting a new humanitarian and security crusade against Marxism, Islamism, the Chinese Communist Party, and Vladimir Putin. Tellingly, Hirsi’s husband, Niall Ferguson, an institutionally-connected booster of American interventionism and humanitarianism since a dozen years before the Iraq War, has recently become a Trump supporter, self-professedly dancing at Mar-a-Lago not too long ago.
Arguably, these humanitarian-military crusades—the ones which fund people like Sarah Adams, Brian Mefford, and Dora Chomiak, and which open investment opportunities for the Pritzkers and George Soros—are the most durable beneficiaries of America’s post-Cold War deep state apparatus. Quietly since 1995 and loudly since 2001, there has literally not been a year when we weren’t engaged in one of these missions, empowering contractors and non-profits abroad while encouraging surveillance at home.
Today’s latest sales pitch for a new crusade by Ukraine War pushers is something believers in small government and individual liberties should push back against. Profits in the name of war-linked humanitarianism are suspect to begin with. But when they threaten our liberties and our finances, they’re anathema to American interests.
Is US taxpayer money fueling George Soros’ global influence? Let’s find out.
US conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation claimed in 2017 that George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) had been made “the main implementer of USAID’s aid” since at least 2009.
But the Soros-USAID collaboration began much earlier. A 1993 USAID document shows the agency signed an agreement with the Soros Foundations’ Management Training Program to train 30 “professionals” from Bulgaria, Estonia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a series of color revolutions shook Eastern Europe, with George Soros’ network of NGOs playing a central role in the unrest.
In 2003–2004, Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation partnered with USAID to support Ukraine’s ‘Orange Revolution’. Prior to that, the US spent $54.7 million in 2003 and $34.11 million in 2004 on “democracy programs” in Ukraine through various agencies, including USAID.
The US legal watchdog Judicial Watch revealed in April 2018 that USAID sponsored Soros’ globalist agenda in Guatemala. In total, OSF reportedly spent around $100 million fomenting unrest in Latin America between 2015 and 2018.
In October 2018, the watchdog obtained documents indicating that USAID partnered with Soros to fund radical left-wing activists in Albania. In 2016, USAID reportedly allocated $9 million to a campaign overseen by Soros’ East West Management Institute.
To illustrate the scale of funds managed by Soros-linked initiatives, in 2024, then-President Joe Biden requested nearly $30 billion for USAID in 2025.
President Trump has promised to “make a decision” on USAID’s future after getting rid of the “radical lunatics” running it after DOGE chief Elon Musk said it was time for the “criminal” agency “to die.” Russia banned Washington’s long-favored soft power tool in 2012. Here’s why.
Russia knew about the US Agency for International Development’s “criminal” nature long before Elon Musk’s epiphany.
USAID was expelled from the country after post-election street protests in Moscow verging on an attempted color revolution, with the agency accused of using its grant network to try to influence politics and civil society after the 2011-2012 Russian parliamentary and presidential elections.
USAID’s mission in Russia was narrowed to political influence operations in the 2000s, including funding for civil society groups like the Golos election watchdog, the Memorial and Moscow Helsinki Group rights organizations, and others.
These organizations engaged in increasingly sharp criticism of the Russian government prior to the US aid agency’s ouster, helping to radicalize a portion of the population toward more pro-Western opposition views through the popularization of their positions.
20 Years of ‘Democracy Promotion’
USAID first entered Russia in 1992, immediately after the USSR’s collapse, and spent nearly $3 bln over 20 years on ‘democracy, human rights and civil society promotion’ programs.
In reality, USAID’s work in the 90s was aimed at cheerleading the gutting of Russia’s social and economic system during the painful transition to a market economy, and meddling in politics in support of liberal, pro-West politicians against conservative, populist and neo-communist forces.
Nowhere was this more evident than during the 1993 constitutional crisis and the 1996 elections, which saw radical opposition to liberal reforms crushed and the voting rigged, with USAID-backed “independent media,” publishing houses and NGOs cheering on the processes.
The US amassed a literal journalistic empire during its stay in Russia. Up to the year 2000 alone, its National Press Institute held 2,300 briefings and seminars attended by over 57,000 journalists, provided training for 2,700 media specialists, management and consulting services for 84 newspapers, and support for other print, TV and internet media.
On the economic front, USAID provided “technical advisory services and material support” for the infamous voucher privatization scheme. This program cemented immense wealth transfers worth hundreds of billions of dollars from the state to private and foreign coffers.
In the 90s, USAID ambitiously outlined 14 “strategic objectives” for Russia, from fiscal, monetary, social service and energy reforms to US “joint ventures,” civil and legal training, environmental programs and even women’s reproductive health.
Political stabilization and the maturing of the modern post-Soviet Russian state ultimately sealed USAID’s fate.
But perhaps the greatest damage done by USAID to Russia has been in its backyard, where billions of dollars spent over the past 35 years helped to put neighbors on a path to NATO and EU membership, and literally rewrite history books to cast Russia as an enemy. Nowhere has this effort paid off more than in Ukraine.
Vaccinated children have a 170% higher chance of being diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children, according to a new peer-reviewed study.
The study also found that vaccinated children had a 212% greater likelihood of developing a range of other neurodevelopmental disorders, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), epilepsy/seizures, brain inflammation and tic and learning disorders.
According to the study, the childhood vaccination schedule is likely a significant contributor to the higher rate of autism and neurodevelopmental conditions in vaccinated children.
The study of 47,155 9-year-old children enrolled in the Florida Medicaid program since birth was published on Jan. 23 in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said the paper “is unignorable simply by the soundness of its methods.”
“The sheer hazards associated with severe childhood diseases is jaw-dropping,” Jablonowski said.
The paper’s authors — Anthony R. Mawson and Binu Jacob of the Mississippi-based Chalfont Research Institute — hypothesized that:
Childhood vaccination is associated with autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.
Increasing numbers of vaccinations lead to a higher risk of autism.
Vaccinated preterm babies are at greater risk of neurodevelopmental disorders than unvaccinated babies.
The study’s findings confirmed the authors’ hypotheses. Experts said the results of the study cast doubt on government claims that vaccines are not linked to autism.
“The vaccine propaganda campaigns operated by our regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and legacy media continue to claim that the link between vaccines and autism has been ‘debunked,’” said epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher. He said the findings of this study “completely dismantle” this narrative.
Jablonowski noted that the study was based solely on government data. He said:
“The government has had this data for decades, professing safety while simultaneously refusing to study safety. The facade of U.S. government public health is crumbling, revealing a culprit in chronic disease in this country: willful ignorance.”
The authors of the study noted that government-sponsored studies have not compared health outcomes in vaccinated versus completely unvaccinated children. Mawson and Jacob told The Defender they hope the government will initiate such studies.
Childhood vaccination schedule likely factor in increased autism diagnoses
The study found that, across all metrics, vaccinated children had a higher rate of neurodevelopmental disorders compared to those who remained unvaccinated. According to the findings:
The relative risk of developing a neurodevelopmental disorder grew as the number of doctor’s visits that included vaccinations increased. Children with just one vaccination visit were 1.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with autism compared to those who were unvaccinated.
Children with 11 or more vaccination visits were 340% more likely to be diagnosed with autism compared to unvaccinated children and 89% more likely to be diagnosed with autism compared to children with one vaccination visit.
Vaccinated children who were born preterm were 258% more likely to be diagnosed with at least one neurodevelopmental disorder, compared to children born preterm who remained unvaccinated. Nearly 40% of vaccinated preterm children were diagnosed with such a disorder, compared to 15.7% of those who were unvaccinated.
Vaccinated children were 419% more likely to be diagnosed with encephalopathy (brain inflammation), 525% more likely to develop tic disorders and 581% times more likely to have a learning disability, compared to unvaccinated children.
Among children born preterm who were subsequently vaccinated, the risk of brain inflammation and learning disabilities grew by 612% and 884%, respectively.
“While the connection between receipt of vaccines and autism has been of grave concern to many parents, this study makes it clear that even in the absence of an autism diagnosis, children’s brains are being damaged,” said biologist Christina Parks, Ph.D.
Autism prevalence has grown from 1 in 1,000 children in the 1990s to 1 in 36, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study’s authors noted this increase is commonly attributed to greater awareness of autism-related symptoms and higher exposure to toxic chemicals.
However, the authors said their results suggest the childhood vaccination schedule may also be a key factor behind the sharp increase in autism diagnoses.
“The geographically widespread increases in ASD [autism spectrum disorder] and ADHD suggests a role for an environmental factor to which virtually all children are exposed. One such factor is routine childhood vaccinations,” the study noted.
The authors cited figures showing that the number of vaccines included in the CDC’s latest U.S. childhood schedule increased nearly threefold compared to the 1983 vaccination schedule.
“Although vaccination is said to be safe and effective for the great majority of children, a legitimate question is whether the expanded schedule could be contributing in some way to rising rates of NDDs [neurodevelopmental disorders],” the study stated.
“Any planned additions to the childhood vaccination schedule should be delayed until research to determine the safety of its impact on children’s overall health is completed,” Mawson and Jacob said.
Results indicate childhood vaccination schedule ‘needs a complete overhaul’
According to the study, the impact of vaccination on children born preterm has not been sufficiently examined.
“The possibility of adverse effects of vaccination on preterm infants may have been obscured by the primary importance placed on vaccinations for preventing neonatal infections,” the study said.
A peer-reviewed study published earlier this month found that preterm infants who received their routine 2-month vaccinations had a 170% higher incidence of apnea compared to unvaccinated babies.
The study also noted that while studies have often attempted to connect rising autism rates to specific vaccines, there has been less research exploring a possible link between the cumulative childhood vaccination schedule and autism.
“A link between vaccination and ASD could be due to the cumulative impact of all preceding vaccinations rather than to a specific vaccine alone,” the study said. “ASD and other NDDs could be triggered by the last vaccination administered or by one or more of a series of vaccinations.”
“There is an urgent need for research to identify biological mechanisms and potential causal relationships between individual vaccines, combinations of vaccines, and other potential factors associated with neurodevelopmental disorders,” Mawson and Jacob said.
Hulscher said the study suggests that the current “CDC hyper-vaccination schedule needs a complete overhaul.” He added, “Not only is it likely contributing to the autism and chronic disease epidemics, but almost all of the vaccines were licensed without proper long-term, placebo-controlled trials.”
Parks said the study’s results reinforce the importance of parental choice.
“However, there were some findings that parents may find comforting,” Parks said. “While preterm infants are extremely vulnerable to encephalopathy and seizures, if parents chose not to vaccinate them, they were statistically no more likely to develop neurodevelopmental disorders than normal-term infants.”
According to a September 2024 CDC report, vaccination rates among children born in 2020 and 2021 were lower than those for children born in 2018 and 2019. Hulscher said that an increasing number of Americans are becoming aware of the risks of childhood vaccination.
“The American public is becoming increasingly aware of the real risks of vaccines,” Hulscher said. He attributed the growing mistrust to “the COVID-19 mRNA injection debacle that killed, injured, or permanently disabled millions of people.”
Hulscher said the study’s results “warrant further study by the new U.S. administration.”
By Dr. Elias Akleh* | Sabbah Report | May 24, 2010
A build up of heightened tension in the Middle East is escalating in the last few weeks. American and Israeli postures towards Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have become more threatening. Listening to speeches of political leaders one hears talks only about war not peace. Iranians and Israelis are continuously training hard for a possible showdown. Both sides are conducting extensive war games every month. This led Syrians to claim that Israel is preparing for a soon-to-come another war. The Jordanians also are warning that current stalemate of the peace process is an indication of a war breaking out this summer. The Russian President and his army chief hinted, a few months ago, that the US and Israel were planning for an attack on Iran.
Indeed Iran is, as it has been for last few years, the target of most of the threats and accusations of supporting terrorism. Escalating incitement against Iran the American Defense Department sent last month (April) to Congress a report on Iran’s military claiming Iran could develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US by 2015.
Ignoring the fact that N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are proven to have nuclear weapons while Iran does not, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose in her speech, to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference at the UN, to focus on Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions putting the whole world at risk as she put it. According to Clinton Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, rather than Israel’s more than 200 nuclear bombs, is destabilizing the Middle East. She called on the world’s nations to rally around US efforts to hold Iran, not other nuclear countries, to account.
The accusation that Usama Bin Laden is living comfortably in Iran had received a boost after the broadcast of a documentary called “Feathered Cocaine”. This echoed the June 2003 claims of the Italian newspaper Corre de la Sierra that Bin Laden was in Iran according to some intelligence report, and according to Richard Miniter’s book “Shadow War”. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Abu-Sitta: I think I first presented this proposal in 1998 at a conference in London. The essence of my proposal is that Palestinians can return to their homeland without displacing the Israeli population. Many of my European friends, who support the Palestinian cause, argue that the return of Palestinians would lead to displacement of Jews who now live there. They suggest that if Palestinians return, it will create a “Jewish Nakba,” forcing Jews to leave and return to Europe. I challenge this reasoning, as it is both morally and legally flawed.
Shanmugathas: In your proposal, you divide Israel’s demography into three categories, Area A, Area B and Area C. Your proposal mentions that Area C would have a majority Palestinian population, Area B would be a mixed population, and Area A would remain predominantly Jewish. Currently, there are about 8 to 9 million displaced Palestinian refugees, while Israel’s Jewish population is approximately 7 million. Could you elaborate on the specifics of how these 9 million refugees would be allowed to return without significantly displacing Israel’s existing population? 
Aletho News
Aletho News 