Announcement: Purges and Counter-Narratives
By Ron Unz • Unz Review • October 9, 2019
I doubt that any event in human history has been as thoroughly discussed and documented as the Second World War, the gigantic global struggle that ended three generations ago and shaped our modern world. Elements of that conflict have probably been the subject of hundreds of thousands of books over the decades along with countless articles in newspapers and magazines, and they still pervade our electronic media on a daily basis. Moreover, the story told by nearly all of these authors seems generally consistent, thereby appearing to constitute a very solid fabric of historical reality.
Yet there exists strong evidence that this factual consistency is more apparent than real, with those writers who substantially deviate from the accepted framework having long been denied distribution via mainstream channels of information. The growth of the Internet over the last two decades began bringing disturbing anomalies to my attention, and I gradually recognized this broader problem, which became the basis of my American Pravda articles published over the last few years.
As I described in one of my articles, as early as 1940 some of America’s most prominent and highly-regarded journalists and academics were purged from public life because they maintained their intellectual integrity while most of their peer-group bent to the prevailing ideological winds. When those who dispute a particular view of events quickly disappear from all public discussions, this may naturally intimidate the remainder, while any subsequent consistency becomes a synthetic artifact of selection-bias. And since the vast majority of later writers learn their histories within this sharply-restricted framework, the false reality they absorb gradually becomes self-perpetuating over time.
Many of the individuals cast out by the media for their discordant views had once stood at the pinnacle of public influence, and their thoughtful writings often continued long after their national audiences had been eliminated. Taken together, their works provide a perspective radically different from that of our official histories.
Over the last two years, many of my articles have used these sources to reconstruct what may be a more accurate history of the Second World War, and I recently drew upon my findings to publish American Pravda: Understanding World War II. This article is intended to provide a reasonably compact but comprehensive counter-narrative to our official histories of the central event of the twentieth century. Even 20,000 words of text hardly seems excessive when it seeks to challenge and rebut so many tens of millions of pages written on the other side.
The early response to this very long piece has certainly been quite heartening. In just over two weeks it has attracted more readership than almost any of our other website articles have accumulated over the last six months, while also provoking well over 200,000 words of commentary, much of it quite detailed and thoughtful.
Historical analysis is not entirely an intellectual exercise since it may often shed an important light on present-day events of great importance. Once we begin to accept that there is considerable evidence that the history of the twentieth century believed by nearly all Americans may be in serious error and perhaps actually inverted, we naturally become far more willing to question our ongoing official narratives on important foreign and domestic policy matters. Moreover, the past media purges of dissenting academics and journalists allows us to more easily recognize the exact same developments taking place today, sometimes with very grave consequences.
Consider the case of Stephen F. Cohen. With an academic career at Princeton and New York University that stretches back for more than a half-century, Prof. Cohen certainly ranks as one of our most eminent Russia scholars, and his presence had loomed very large throughout the Reagan Era and afterward, with his Sovieticus column being a regular mid-1980s feature of The Nation magazine, America’s left-liberal flagship publication.
Yet with the Cold War against Russia now recently revived in perhaps an even more dangerous and destructive form by his former liberal Democratic Party allies, his views seem almost nowhere to be found in the mainstream media organs that shape the reality of our ruling policy-elites. Instead, the ignorant journalists who function as our unofficial gatekeepers have crudely castigated him as one of Putin’s “American Dupes.”
In recent years, his regular appearances on the John Batchelor Show of WABC radio have represented one of his few remaining public platforms, and I’m very pleased to have recently made arrangements to republish all of these hundreds of broadcasts on our website, together with their brief descriptive summaries and several of Prof. Cohen’s other articles from this same period, thereby making this important material conveniently available to an additional audience at a very dangerous time. With Russiagate having finally collapsed only to be succeeded by Ukrainegate, I would particularly recommend his February interview entitled “How the Russiagate Investigation Is Sovietizing American Politics.”
Along with providing a helpful new distribution channel for such an eminent academic scholar, we have begun doing the same for Whitney Webb of MintPress News, whose remarkable investigative work has begun attracting a great deal of attention over the last year, breaking important new ground in the Jeffrey Epstein case and other controversial matters. Her long, copiously-reported articles have revealed important facts regularly excluded from the mainstream media, setting a new standard of courageous journalism.
The New Yorker’s Partisan Attempt to Refute Its Claim of Partisan Disinformation on Biden and Ukraine
By Joe Lauria | Consortium News | October 8, 2019
The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer has gained a reputation as one of the best reporters in Washington, but in her latest piece on Ukraine and former Vice President Joe Biden, Mayer has succumbed to the partisan mania ripping apart this city and much of the country.
There is little subtlety in her argument, as evidenced by the title of the piece: “The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine.” Rather than taking an impartial, non-partisan view—needed now more than ever in journalism—Mayer neglects evidence that would have produced a more nuanced report on this increasingly volatile story.
Such an achievement required the suppression of a seasoned reporter’s natural curiosity. Maybe the other side has evidence worth examining too.
Mayer is not alone in dismissing serious questions about Biden as merely “a repeatedly discredited conspiracy theory involving Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s work in Ukraine.” In doing so, Mayer has joined an unthinking media consensus protecting Biden and the media’s own interests to save itself from the shame of having pushed the now discredited conspiracy theory of Trump’s collusion with Russia. With the Trump Justice Department digging into the origins of that fiasco it was the perfect time to preempt its findings with a trumped up impeachment scandal. The last thing the intelligence agencies and their compliant media need are revelations about how they together duped the country.
Mayer, who distinguished herself on many stories, including a defense of the wrongly accused National Security Agency senior executive Tom Drake—an actual whistleblower—reduced herself to the journalists’ herd that gave Russiagate credence, and in the process undermined scores of media reputations.
Instead of owning up to it, Mayer writes that the media was manipulated in 2016, not by Democrats or intelligence officials, but by Republican partisans. She produces a line about Ukrainegate that would more credibly describe media accomplices in Russiagate: “News organizations continue to be just as susceptible to manipulation by political partisans pushing complicated and hard-to-check foreign narratives as they were in 2016.”
Mayer’s unwillingness to see the corruption of both major parties is stunning.
She writes: “Anyone trying to track the Ukrainian conspiracy stories that were eventually embraced by President Trump is likely to get mired in the same echo chamber of right-wing news purveyors that misinformed voters in 2016” (except that in 2016 it was an echo chamber aligned with Democrats).
Mayer only blames Republicans who were largely on the defensive during Russiagate. Her exoneration of Democrats then and now for misinforming voters, extends to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of an uranium deal with Russia, after which, Mayer reports, “more than two million dollars in contributions” came to “the Clinton Foundation from the businessmen behind the deal.” She says Clinton is in the clear because other U.S. agencies also approved the deal and the amount of uranium was “negligible.” It was all just a conservative plot, Mayer tells us.
The Biggest Omissions
Mayer attributes the origins of Biden’s appearance of conflict of interest in Ukraine solely to a disinformation campaign run by a shadowy group set up by Donald Trump’s former chief strategist, the right wing activist, Steve Bannon.
This is intended to put a nail in the story at its origins, portraying it as just a nutty conservative conspiracy, and thus no one needs to be concerned about significant evidence that followed. “For nearly two years, conservative operatives have been trying to weaponize the Ukraine-based story that has led Trump to the brink of impeachment,” Mayer wrote.
She takes at face value Bannon’s braggadocio about his so-called Government Accountability Initiative being “key” and the “predicate” to the Biden-Ukraine story, allowing her to easily dismiss an array of facts, including a public admission of corruption by Biden himself, as merely an “unethically seeming morass.”
Of all the evidence missing from Mayer’s piece, perhaps the most important is the opening act of this Washington drama: the U.S.-backed coup that overthrew an elected Ukrainian government in 2014. Without that evidence it is impossible to understand the context of the nauseating Biden/Ukraine impeachment story. She is not alone in this either. The entire elite liberal media and Fox News won’t mention it in a bipartisan cover-up of rapacious American foreign policy.
The press usually takes 25 years, after the declassification of documents, to admit the United States routinely breaks international law by overthrowing sovereign governments, and not in the name of spreading democracy, but in the interests of capital and geo-strategy. That was the case with Ukraine in 2014.
Hunter and Joe Biden at Obama’s 2009 inaugural parade
Can you imagine if the Trump administration finally succeeds in overthrowing the Venezuelan government and a couple of months later Vice President Mike Pence’s son (who wasn’t kicked out of the Navy for drug use) lands a spot on the board of a privatized Venezuelan national oil company?
That is exactly what happened with Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine.
And then imagine that the U.S.-installed government of Juan Guaidó begins an investigation into corruption at the oil company and wants to question Pence’s son. So Pence flies to Caracas and tells Guaidó he won’t get a $1 billion U.S. credit line until the prosecutor is fired. Six hours later the prosecutor begins cleaning out his desk and Pence later brags about it in an open forum at the Council on Foreign Relations.
That is exactly what Biden did in Ukraine.
The fired Venezuelan prosecutor then gives an affidavit under oath that Pence had him fired because he was investigating his son’s company and that the U.S. had taken over the country’s prosecutor’s office.
That is exactly what the Ukrainian prosecutor testified.
But none of these facts are in Mayer’s story. In the face of the affidavit and Biden’s open admission on video, she still somehow calls these “baseless tales claiming that Biden corruptly intervened on behalf of his son’s Ukrainian business interests.”
Instead Mayer attacks the reporter who revealed most of them, John Solomon of The Hill. A partisan reporter attacking another partisan reporter is what passes for journalism these days. Being non-partisan—a requirement to practice serious journalism—means looking past the politics of a reporter or a news outlet, and even overlooking their partisan motivation, if they present documented evidence. The motive is irrelevant if the evidence is substantiated.
There was no such evidence in the Russiagate farce, but that never stopped partisans in the Democratic media. The same lack of skepticism has accepted now two CIA officials as “whistleblowers” without questioning their motives, while showing no interest in real whistleblowers who challenge the Establishment on behalf of the nation.
If the Department of Justice and its investigation into the origins of Russiagate is serious and reveals wrongdoing by intelligence officials and by extension by the media, the best move those officials and journalists can make is to go on offense as their best defense. It also gives them another crack at Trump after failing with Russiagate. And Trump gave them the opening to do it.
Trump’s Blunder
Trump’s mistake was to get personally involved in the investigations into the origins of Russiagate and the Bidens. By mentioning both in a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, he broke the wall that should exist between the White House and the Justice Department. Though there was no clear quid-pro-quo, Trump hinted that he would release military aid to Ukraine in exchange for the investigations. If Trump did that it is the routine corrupt way the U.S. carries out foreign policy, as Biden openly admitted.
Trump compounded his problems by publicly calling for China to investigate Hunter Biden’s dealings in that country. By getting personally involved, instead of leaving it up to the DOJ to investigate his possible challenger in next year’s presidential election, Trump allowed his enemies in intelligence and the media to portray his conversation as an impeachable offense.
Every move the DOJ or Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, makes in investigating Russiagate or the Bidens’ corruption, including legitimately asking foreign governments for assistance, is now tainted as political because of Trump’s unwise intervention. He threw a lifeline to intelligence officers and journalists like Mayer, who will continue to make the most of it even if it means turning their backs on their professional commitments.
The Apocalyptic Death Cult We Should Ridicule Out Of Existence
By Brendan O’Neill – Spiked – 07/10/19
Yesterday, in London, I witnessed an eerie, chilling sight: I saw a death cult holding a ceremony in public.
The men and women gathered outside King’s Cross station and formed a circle. They swayed and chanted. They preached about End Times. ‘What will you do when the world gets hot, what, what?’, they intoned, conjuring up images of the hellfire they believe will shortly consume mankind. They sang hymns to their god – science. ‘We’ve got all the science / All that we need / To change the world / Hallelujah’, they sang, rocking side to side as they did so.
They demanded repentance. ‘Buy less, fly less, fry less’, said one placard. Catholics only demand the non-consumption of meat on Fridays, as an act of penance to mark the day of Christ’s death. This new religion demands an end to meat-consumption entirely, as penance for mankind’s sins of growth and progress.
And like all death cultists, they handed out leaflets that contained within them ‘THE TRUTH’. The leaflets foretell floods and fire: ‘We are in trouble. Sea levels are rising… Africa and the Amazon are on fire.’ The only word that was missing was locusts. They can’t be far behind these other ghastly visitations to sinful mankind.
And if you question their TRUTH? Then, like those heretics who were hauled before The Inquisition 500 years ago, you will be denounced as a denier. A denier of their revelations, a denier of their visions. ‘Denial is not a policy’, their placards decreed. Spotting me filming their spooky, apocalyptic ceremony, one of the attendees waved that placard in my face. A warning from the cult to a corrupted outsider.
This was, of course, Extinction Rebellion. Let us no longer beat around the bush about these people. This is an upper-middle-class death cult.
This is a millenarian movement that might speak of science, but which is driven by sheer irrationalism. By fear, moral exhaustion and misanthropy. This is the deflated, self-loathing bourgeoisie coming together to project their own psycho-social hang-ups on to society at large. They must be criticised and ridiculed out of existence.
Yesterday’s gathering, like so many other Extinction Rebellion gatherings, was middle-aged and middle-class. The commuters heading in and out of King’s Cross looked upon them with bemusement. ‘Oh, it’s those Extinction freaks’, I heard one young man say. It had the feel of Hampstead and the Home Counties descending on a busy London spot to proselytise the cult of eco-alarmism to the brainwashed, commuting plebs.
It was a gathering to mark Extinction Rebellion’s week of disruption. The group is asking people in London and other cities around the world to ‘take two weeks off work’ and join the revolt against the ‘climate and ecological crisis’. You can tell who they’re trying to appeal to. Working-class people and the poor of New Delhi, Mumbai and Cape Town – some of the cities in which Extinction Rebellion will be causing disruption – of course cannot afford to take two weeks off work. But then, these protests aren’t for those people. In fact, they’re against those people.
Extinction Rebellion is a reactionary, regressive and elitist movement whose aim is to impose the most disturbing form of austerity imaginable on people across the world. One of the great ironies of ‘progressive’ politics today is that people of a leftist persuasion will say it is borderline fascism if the Tory government closes down a library in Wolverhampton, but then they will cheer this eco-death cult when it demands a virtual halt to economic growth with not a single thought for the devastating, immiserating and outright lethal impact such a course of action would have on the working and struggling peoples of the world.
Extinction Rebellion says mankind is doomed if we do not cut carbon emissions to Net Zero by 2025. That’s six years’ time. Think about it: they want us to halt a vast array of human activity that produces carbon. All that Australian digging for coal; all those Chinese factories employing millions of people and producing billions of things used by people around the world; all those jobs in the UK in the fossil-fuel industries; all those coal-fired power stations; all that flying; all that driving… cut it all back, rein it in, stop it. And the people who rely on these things for their work and their food and their warmth? Screw them. They’re only humans. Horrible, destructive, stupid humans. … continue
Investigation: Joseph Mifsud
The_War_Economy – July 29, 2019
Joseph Mifsud, born in 1960, is a bit of a mystery, in the sense that he has numerous connections to organisations such as the European Union, you can find him in multiple locations, but the moment he was connected to the Spygate scenario, everybody just knew him as the Russian who tried to hire George Papadopoulos for nefarious reasons. Even though he is Maltese.
“I am a member of the European Council On Foreign Relations. And you know which is the only Foundation I am a member of? The Clinton Foundation. Between you and me, my thinking is left-leaning. But I predicted Trump’s victory as well as Brexit. Everyone of us wants peace. If the Governments don’t talk to each other, we citizens must keep talking.” — Joseph Mifsud
At unknown points,
Mifsud studied at the University of Malta, which he graduated from in 1982 with a bachelor’s degree in education. Mifsud also graduated from the University of Padua with a degree in pedagogy in 1989, and then in 1995, Mifsud also graduated from Queens University with a master’s degree in philosophy.
Mifsud later studied at the University of Reading, where he earned his doctorate. Mifsud also became fluent in Maltese, French, Italian, Arabic and English, and has knowledge of Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Slovenian.
In January 1994, Mifsud published the paper “Partners for Change: The Malta experience”.
From 1996 to 1998, Mifsud served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta, and also served as Malta’s representative to the Council of Europe in Education and at Unesco.
In 1997, Mifsud was appointed as the Head of the Department of Education at the University of Malta.
At some point, Mifsud was a member of the Senate. Towards the late 1990s, Mifsud encountered Manual Delia.
Mifsud has also served as an adviser to the European Union, the European Union Parliament, the Parliament of Malta, organisations in Italy, Spain, Africa, and the Commonwealth Law Bulletin.
On May 1, 2004, Malta officially joined the European Union. Around this time, Mifsud was placed in charge of establishing the European Programmes Unit, and also helped during the negotiations of Malta’s entry into the organisation.
In 2006, Mifsud taught a summer class with Katerina Galanaki, which was attended by Matthew Caruana Galizia, the son of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
From October 1, 2006 to August 30, 2007, Mifsud served as the Head of the Private Secretariat for Dr. Michael Frendo.
On November 15, 2007, Mifsud received a letter from the University of Malta, as an audit done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers suggested that he had mismanaged funds during his time teaching.
The next month, in December 2007, Mifsud left his position at the University of Malta.
On April 9, 2008, the Bank of Valetta won an order and garnished Mifsud’s wages.
On June 9, 2008, the Paris Summit established EMUNI and Euro-Mediterranean higher education.
In November 2008, Mifsud was elected as the first President of the Euro-Mediterranean University (EMUNI) in Slovenia by European and Mediterranean, Rectors and Presidents of Universities. During this time, Mifsud also helped pioneer the Euro-Mediterranean Professional School.
On November 26, 2008, the University’s General Assembly meeting was held in Barcelona, Spain, where 115 members from 32 states adopted the Universidy statute and elected the institutional bodies.
In February 2009, EMUNI University officially became a legal entity in Slovenia.
By April 2009, Mifsud was the representative of Malta on the board of the Bologna Follow-up Group, the Erasmus Mundus Committee and the Tempus Committee, Malta’s Socrates Sub-Committee For Higher- Education and the “Joint Research Center” of the European Commission.
On April 22, 2009, Ian Mundell published the article “Bridging the Mediterranean” in Politico, which featured an interview with Mifsud.
Between June 21–22, 2009, Mifusd and Strobe Talbott attended “G8 and Beyond”, which was convened by the Brookings Institution, Aspen, Club de Madrid and Link Campus.
On June 30, 2009, Mifsud attended the “Seminar On Higher Education In Europe”, hosted by the Foundation For European Progressive Studies.
Mifsud would later leave his position as the President of the Euro-Mediterranean University.
Mifsud may be one of the founders — alongside Giovanni D’Angelo and Giuseppe Picone — of the Mesauro Foundation.
On March 24, 2010, Mifsud attended the “Workshop Multi-Level Governance of Intercultural Dialogue” hosted by the Università di Padova.
On June 14, 2010, Mifsud gave the opening address at the 2nd EMUNI Research Souk — the Euro-Mediterranean Student Research Multi-Conference — hosted by the EMUNI University.
On June 29, 2010, Mifsud met with Secretary General of the Union for the Mediterranean Ahmad Masa’deh at the Headquarters of the Secretairat in the Palacio Real de Pedralbes in Barcelona, Spain.
Between October 20–23, 2010, Mifsud attended the EUA Annual Conference in Palermo, Italy, where he held talks with representatives of EMUNI partner institutions.
On October 24, 2010, Mifsud participated as part of the round table session on Teaching and Learning Diplomacy as part of the Rome Diplomatic Festival, which was attended by others including Nabil Ayad.
Between December 11–13, 2011, Mifsud attended the 4th Global UN Alliance of Civilizations Forum in Doha.
In 2012, Mifsud became the Director of the London Academy of Diplomacy, which is affiliated with Scotland’s University of Stirling, as he left the Euro-Mediterranean University. The same year, the London Academy of Diplomacy received the award “Diplomat of the Year” from Diplomat Magazine. At some point during this, Mifsud also joined the Leading Board for the Albanian Diplomatic Academy.
Simona Mangiante was also introduced to Mifsud during this time by Gianni Pittella while she worked in Brussels as an attorney specialised in child abduction cases.
“I always saw Mifsud with Pittella.” — Simona Mangiante
At the same, Simona worked for Mairead McGuinness and Roberta Angelilli, and she worked as an administrator to the Home Affairs Committee under Martin Schulz.
The London Academy of Diplomacy has a total of 36 faculty members, which includes former diplomats. In September and January each year, students are accepted, with the total usually amounting to 150 new students. The London Academy of Diplomacy is also open to organising visits to the Houses of Parliament, the Commonwealth Secretariat, numerous organisations in London, the Hague, the European Parliament, NATO, the European Union Headquarters and the United Nations.
In the summer of 2012, the London Academy of Diplomacy established cooperation with the Faculty of Global Processes of Moscow State University.
In October 2012, Mifsud met with Enzo Scotti — the President of Link University — Professor Nabil Ayad, Professor Claire Smith and numerous Italian Generals for a training programme on international security, which was arranged by Link Campus University and the London Academy of Diplomacy in Rome, Italy.
In 2012, Mifsud attended Globalistics 2013 at Moscow University, where he suggested that Moscow University join a project to reform Link Campus University in Rome.
In March 2013, Mifsud owed roughly EUR 39,000.00 to the EMUNI University in Slovenia for expenses claimed during his tenure.
On April 3, 2013, Mifsud and Thomas Childs attended the Global Economic Forum: Best Practices in Trade and Investment Promotion in London, which was hosted by the International Business & Diplomatic Exchange (IBDE).
On May 15, 2013, Inverhold Ltd. was founded by Dr. Stephan Roh in London, England.
Between June 11–13, 2013, Mifsud and Nabil Ayad attended the “Global, Regional and National Actors in the Governace of the Atom: A Focus on Europe and the Middle East” international conference at the Academy of Global Governance in Florence, Italy. They presided over a simulation exercise, which was assisted by visiting professor of the London Academy of Diplomacy, Sameh Aoul Enein.
On July 2, 2013, His Excellency Dr. Sultan Al Jaber visited the London Academy of Diplomacy to discuss cooperation between the organisation and the United Arab Emirates, which was attended by Mifsud, Nabil Ayad and Riad Nourallah.
In August 2013, Mifsud received an honorary professorship from the University of East Anglia.
In 2014, the Rome Academy of Diplomacy was founded, and Mifsud played a vital role to its development. Dr. Stephan Roh also became a visiting lecturer at the London Academy of Diplomacy, and bought Link Campus University. In return, Mifsud became a consultant at Roh’s legal firm.
Also in 2014, a Russian intern named Natalia Kutepova-Jamrom visited his office after having worked in the Russian Government as a legislative aide, and she later introduced Mifsud to numerous Russian diplomats and scholars, and secured an invitation to the Valdai Discussion Club.
In January 2014, the University of East Anglia ended their arrangement to validate London Academy of Diplomacy degree courses, with the arrangement then transferred to the University of Stirling.
Between April 24–2015, 2014, Mifsud attended the Global University Summit in Moscow, Russia.
On May 29, 2014, Mifsud met with Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko at the Residence, where Mifsud presented his views on the aftermath of the Global University Summit, and discussed UK-Russia relations.
In mid-November 2014, Mifsud visited Washington, DC, where he attended a lecture at the American University on “Diplomacy and Development in a Global Environment”, which was sponsored by Australia’s Program On International Organizations, Law and Diplomacy. During this time, Mifsud spoke with The Washington Diplomat’s Larry Luxner.
On December 8, 2014, Larry Luxner published the article Maltese Official Raises Profile Of U.K. Diplomacy Academy” in The Washington Diplomat.
On February 23, 2015, Mifsud and Falah Mustafa gave a lecture at the London Academy of Diplomacy about the Islamic State and the future of Kurdistan and Iraq.
On March 12, 2015, the London Academy of Diplomacy hosted the panel “Diplomacy and Social Media”, which was attended by Mifsud, Christian Sys, Sir George Reid and Dr. Martyn Bond.
On April 30, 2015, Euripides Evriviades hosted the conversation “Cyprus, the EU and the Eastern Mediterranean” at the London Academy of Diplomacy, which was introduced by Mifsud.
Between September 8–10, 2015, the XXV Economic Forum was hosted in Krynica-Zdrój, Poland, which was attended by Mifsud on the third day.
On September 11, 2015, Mifsud attended the Senate of the Republic in Piazza della Minerva, Rome, with others including Vincenzo Scotti and Gianni Pittella.
In late October 2015, Mifsud proposed to Anna at a restaurant which overlooked the Kremlin in Moscow during Anna’s sister’s birthday.
On December 8, 2015, Ben Carson announced his foreign policy adviser team, which included both George Birnbaum and George Papadopoulos.
In 2016, Simona’s contract came to an end. As such, Pissetti suggested employment with Mifsud in London, which led to Mifsud offering her a job at the London Centre of International Law Practice, located at Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Simona was promised £2,500.00 per month from a colleague of Mifsud.
On January 29, 2016, Mifsud sent an e-mail to Anna, where he requested the engagement ring and assorted items to be returned to his Rome or United Kingdom address due to Anna cheating on him.
On March 6, 2016, George Papadopoulos learned that he would become a foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign.
Between March 8–9, 2016, Mifsud attended the World Summit On Uncontrolled Migration at the Adelaide Convention Centre in South Australia.
On March 10, 2016, Mifsud hosted a breakfast on behalf of Access European Universities in Adelaide, Australia.
On March 14, 2016, in Italy, Mifsud met with George Papadopoulos, and although initially distant in the conversation, Mifsud became more interested when he learned that Papadopoulos had joined the Trump campaign.
On March 21, 2016, Donald Trump visited the The Washington Post’s headquarters, where he introduced his foreign policy team — including Papadopoulos — to the editorial board.
A few days later, on March 24, 2016, Olga Polonskaya (neé Vinogradova) met and discussed with Mifsud the possibility of an internship. Shortly after this, Papadopoulos met with both Mifsud and Polonskaya, who Mifsud introduced as President Vladimir Putin’s niece, at a café in London. Mifsud also offered to introduce Papadopoulos to the Russian Ambassador in London, Alexander Yakovenko.
“Mifsud underlines that he and Papadopoulos met three or four times overall. ‘He came here in Italy, in Rome, with seven other experts of international relations working for the London Centre of International Law Practice. We were dining and, if I remember well, he announced that we would join Trump’s electoral campaign team. After that, we kept in touch via email or when we subsequently met in person. But, let’s be clear: the Russians didn’t ask me to meet Papadopoulos. Mr. Papadopoulos asked me for contacts in several areas: I proposed someone in the Arabian Gulf, then in Latin America, a hot issue for Trump after his remarks on the wall at the border with Mexico, then in Russia and the European Council. They chose Russia as they were interested in sanctions against Moscow, NATO, Ukraine and a more stable relationship with Russia. A topic very sensitive also for the Russians.’” — Repubblica
After the meeting, Polonskaya texted her brother, Sergei Vinogradov, about the meeting, as she had understood half of the conversation. The text message read: “Because my English was bad”.
Elsewhere, Papadopoulos sent an e-mail to seven members of the Trump campaign in an attempt to arrange a meeting between the campaign and the Russians, with the title of the e-mail being “Meeting with Russian Leadership — Including Putin”, which also discussed his meeting with Mifsud. The proposal was dismissed by the campaign, with concerns raised by Sam Clovis and Charles Kubic.
On March 31, 2016, Papadopoulos attended a national security meeting in Washington, DC with the foreign policy advisers of the Trump campaign and Trump himself. As he introduced himself, he mentioned connections which may assist in arranging a meeting between Trump and President Putin.
Around April 2016, Mifsud was hired on a part-time basis at the University of Stirling.
On April 10, 2016, Papadopoulos sent an e-mail to Polonskaya.
The next day, on April 11, 2016, Polonskaya responded to Papadopoulos’s e-mail, where she suggested she would help build relations between the United States and Russia, which led to a discussion between Papadopoulos, Polonskaya and Mifsud about arranging a foreign policy trip to Russia.
JOSEPH MIFSUD: “This is already been agreed. I am flying to Moscow on the 18th for a Valdai meeting, plus other meetings at the Duma.”
OLGA POLONSKAYA: “I have already alerted my personal links to our conversation and your request… As mentioned we are all very excited by the possibility of a good relationship with Mr. Trump. The Russian Federation would love to welcome him once his candidature would be officially announced.” — The Indictment of George Papadopoulos
On April 13, 2016, Mifsud and Sir George Reid hosted a public talk titled “Controlled or uncontrolled migration — a fortress EU or a global response?” at the University of Stirling.
On April 18, 2016, Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos via e-mail to Ivan Timofeev. Timofeev then said he had connections to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This led to numerous Skype conversations between both Papadopoulos and Timofeev.
“At some point, he started asking whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Trump and Putin ‘or some other high-ranking Russian politicians.’ Our conversations made it clear that George was not well acquainted with the Russian foreign political landscape. You obviously can’t just go and set up a meeting with the president, for instance. Things just aren’t done that way.” — Ivan Timofeev, August 21, 2017
On April 19, 2016, Mifsud attended a discussion at the Valdai Club, moderated by Ivan Timofeev, with other attendees including Stephan Roh and Igor Tomberg.
On April 22, 2016, Timofeev e-mailed Papadopoulos and thanked him for their talk, and suggested that they meet in either London or Moscow — Papadopoulos suggested a meeting in London between the two of them and Mifsud.
On April 25, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailed Stephen Miller, where he again pushed for the idea of a meeting between Trump and President Putin.
On April 26, 2016, Mifsud and Papadopoulos met with each other again at a hotel in London, where Mifsud mentioned that he had returned from Moscow and a meeting with Russian Government officials, during which he learned of the existence of dirt on Hillary Clinton held by the Russians.
“They have dirt on her.”
“The Russians had emails of Clinton.”
“They have thousands of emails.” — The Indictment of George Papadopoulos“Roh claims that Mifsud has done nothing wrong and was set up — and denies having ever told Papadopoulos the Russians had dirt on Clinton.” — BuzzFeed News
“Ok. But what about the emails stolen from Mrs. Clinton? ‘The dirty job’ offered to Papadopoulos? ‘I don’t know. I strongly deny any discussion of mine about secrets concerning Hillary Clinton. I swear it on my daughter. I don’t know anyone belonging to the Russian government: the only Russian I know is Ivan Timofeev, director of the think tank ‘Russian International Affairs Council’. Which is based at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. ‘But this is meaningless’, Mifsud says.” — Repubblica
On April 27, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailed both Miller and a high-ranking official separately at the Trump campaign, where he again pushed for a trip to Moscow.
On April 30, 2016, Papadopoulos sent an e-mail to Mifsud and thanked him for his assistance in potentially arranging a meeting between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.
On May 4, 2016, Timofeev sent an e-mail to both Papadopoulos and Mifsud, where he said the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs were open to cooperation, and that Papadopoulos should meet with the North America Desk when he is next in Moscow. Papadopoulos then forwarded the e-mail chain to the high-ranking campaign official for guidance.
On May 5, 2016, Papadopoulos had a phone call with Clovis, and then forwarded the same e-mail chain to him.
On May 13, 2016, Mifsud e-mailed Papadopoulos with an update on their recent conversations.
“We will continue to liaise through you with the Russian counterparts in terms of what is needed for a high level meeting of Mr. Trump with the Russian Federation.” — Joseph Mifsud
The next day, on May 14, 2016, Papadopolous e-mailed the high-ranking campaign official and said that the Russian Government was open to hosting Trump in Russia.
On May 21, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailed another high-ranking Trump campaign official, which had the subject line “Request from Russia to meet Mr. Trump”, which included the May 4, 2016 e-mail chain.
Between May 21–23, 2016, Mifsud attended the 16th Doha Forum in Qatar, where he represented the London Academy of Diplomacy. The event was also attended by Tobias Ellwood, MP.
On June 1, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailed the high-ranking Trump campaign official, who then redirected him to the campaign supervisor. Papadopoulos then e-mailed the campaign supervisor about the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs seeking a meeting with Trump, and whether or not he should ignore it.
On June 19, 2016, Papadopoulos e-mailed the high-ranking Trump campaign official again, as Timofeev had suggested to him that a campaign representative could go to Moscow instead to attend the meetings instead of Trump himself.
On June 28, 2016, Mifsud and Soros were two of the signatories of “‘The world will not stop’: a statement from leading Europeans” released by the European Council On Foreign Relations, which was about the Brexit vote.
In July 2016, Mifsud lost his honorary professorship from the University of East Anglia.
On July 21, 2016, Mifsud attended the graduation of students from the London Academy of Diplomacy.
On August 15, 2016, the campaign supervisor sent an e-mail to Papadopoulos and said that he and another foreign policy adviser should visit Moscow and accept the trip offer from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In September 2016, Simona started to work at the London Centre of International Law Practice, where she received a LinkedIn message from George Papadopoulos, who liked her photograph and noted that they have connections to the same place of employment, followed by an attempt to arrange a meeting with her, which fell through.
In late October 2016, Simona sent an e-mail to Mifsud, where she complained about her employment and how she had been ‘working for nothing’ as she was paying rent on her flat in South Kensington using savings.
On October 27, 2016, Mifsud attended the “International Law and the Territorial Gains and Losses of Non-State Armed Groups in Africa and the Middle East” discussion at Gray’s Inn, which was hosted by the London Centre of International Law Practice.
On October 29, 2016, at 01:30 A.M., Mifsud responded to Simona from his Stirling University e-mail address in Italian from London, having returned from Moscow.
“Dear Simona,
I hope you are fine… I was in Moscow… Now I’m in London. Can we meet in person? I’m here until Tuesday night.
A hug.
J” — The Guardian
On October 31, 2016, Mifsud left London.
In November 2016, Simona quit her position at the London Centre of International Law Practice, having received zero pay. Her work iPhone stopped working afterwards.
On November 14, 2016, Mifsud, Stephan Roh and Nagi Idris attended the “Military Coup Attempt In Turkey and Its Reflections Worldwide” conference, which was hosted by EURAS at Istanbul Aydin University.
In late 2016, Mifsud disappeared from a venture between Link Campus University and Moscow State University.
In 2017, Mifsud remained in touch with Yury Sayamov.
On January 27, 2017, George was interviewed by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where he was asked about his interactions with Mifsud.
At the start of February 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation found Mifsud in Washington, DC.
Between February 8–11, 2017, Mifsud attended Global Ties’ Unity In Community national meeting at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, a non-profit organisation with a working relationship with the United States Department of State.
On February 11, 2017, Mifsud sent an e-mail about his conversations with Papadopoulos to agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and then left Washington, DC.
On February 16, 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed Papadopoulos again, this time with Papadopoulos’s counsel present. Papadopoulos offered to cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The next day, on February 17, 2017, Papadopoulos deleted his Facebook account, and then recreated a brand new version of it.
On February 23, 2017, Papadopoulos also changed his contact number.
In March 2017, George and Simona met each other in New York, where they started to date each other.
On March 20, 2017, Mifsud sent a text to Anna to inform her that he would chair a meeting in Saudi Arabia on international security.
The next day, on March 21, 2017, Mifsud sent a photograph to Anna of buildings in Saudi Arabia which showed the flags of the United States and Saudi Arabia.
In April 2017, the London Academy of Diplomacy seemingly closed down.
“Today, there is no sign of the London Academy of Diplomacy on Middlesex Street in London. Phone numbers for the organisation that can be found online do not work and websites lead to error messages. A receptionist at the address said the organisation left the premises six months ago.” — Carole Cadwalladr, The Guardian, October 31, 2017
In early April 2017, Mifsud and Anna met with each other in Kiev, Ukraine, where Mifsud informed Anna that he had been questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
In May 2017, Mifsud started to work as a full-time professional teaching fellow in the politics department at the University of Stirling.
Between May 8–9, 2017, Mifsud attended the G7 International Forum about “Globalization, Inclusion and Sustainability In a Global Century” in Rome, Italy, hosted by Link University Campus and Fondazione Economia Tor Vergata.
On May 12, 2017, Mifsud, Dr. Roh, Vladimir Likhachev and Timofeev held a presentation on the international report “GLOBAL ENERGY 2015–2016”, which was hosted by the Russian International Affairs Council.
The day after, on May 13, 2017, Mifsud and Anna texted each other, where Mifsud accused her of cheating on him after Anna discovered that she was pregnant.
On May 14, 2017, Mifsud and Anna continued to text each other, where Mifsud had moved to celebrate Anna’s pregnancy.
After May 18, 2017, Timofeev was stopped at an airport in the United States by Team Mueller, where he was questioned about his interactions with Papadopoulos.
On May 21, 2017, Mifsud and Secretary Ashton Carter attended the Riyadh Forum On Countering Extremism and Fighting Terrorism in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Between June 26–27, 2017, Mifsud and George Soros attended the annual council meeting for the European Council On Foreign Affairs in Berlin, Germany.
On July 10, 2017, Mifsud met with Ernest Chernukhin, a representative of the Russian Embassy in London.
On July 27, 2017, Papadopoulos was arrested at Dulles International Airport upon his arrival.
In August 2017, Mifsud e-mailed The Washington Post and stated that he had no contact or history with the Russian Government.
On August 21, 2017, Timofeev was interviewed by Gazeta about his involvement with the 2016 presidential election.
Around the start of September 2017, Polonskaya contacted Prasenjit Kumar Singh after they had met at Link Campus University, where she requested for the two of them to meet. Singh and Polonskaya then met to discuss the translation of Singh’s website for the London Executive School from English into Russian, which Polonskaya then proceeded to do.
On September 29, 2017, Mifsud and Anna texted each other about Anna’s pregnancy and Mifsud’s failing health and triple bypass.
In October 2017, BuzzFeed News contacted Anna in Kiev, Ukraine, but she refused to discuss her relationship with Mifsud.
On October 5, 2017, George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty for lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At the same time, Simona Mangiante received a visit from an agent of Team Mueller while at George’s family home in Chicago, where he served a subpoena signed by Aaron Zelinsky. Later, she visited the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Chicago Field Office, which led to a 2-and-a-half hour interrogation by the agent that served the subpoena and a female agent.
“Among other things she would not discuss with the Guardian, the FBI was interested in her relationship with Papadopoulos. Was it genuine? ‘They asked: ‘Do you love him?’ I replied: ‘yes’. They replied: ‘He [Papadopoulos] is lucky’.’” — The Guardian
On October 19, 2017, Mifsud attended a fundraising dinner in Reading West, which was also attended by Alok Sharma and Boris Johnson, who was a guest speaker at the event. During this time, Mifsud met with both Sharma and Johnson, as Mifsud had planned to speak with Johnson about Brexit. Mifsud when then photographed with Johnson and Prasenjit Kumar Singh.
On October 27, 2017, Mifsud and Anna texted each other about Mifsud’s failing health.
On October 30, 2017, Rosalind S. Helderman and Carol D. Leonnig — with contributions from Tom Hamburger — published the article “Trump campaign adviser admitted to lying about Russian contacts” in The Washington Post.
On October 31, 2017, Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Claire Phipps and Kevin Rawlinson published the article “Joseph Mifsud: more questions than answers about mystery professor linked to Russia” in The Guardian. Anna also texted Mifsud and informed him that Alberto Nardelli had reached out to her to discuss her relationship with him.
ANNA: “Hello” 14:25
ANNA: “Someone from London journalist asks about you.” 14:26
JOSEPH MIFSUD: “Do not reply please” 15:23
ANNA: “so you do not get sick? and you were in Rome 2 days ago?” 16:58 — BuzzFeed News
The same day, Robert Mendick, Alec Luhn and Ben Riley-Smith published the article “Revealed: London professor at centre of Trump-Russia collusion inquiry says: ‘I have clear conscience’” in The Telegraph.
In November 2017, Mifsud disappeared from the public eye.
On November 1, 2017, Paolo G. Brera published the article “Russiagate, mystery professor Joseph Mifsud speaks out: ‘Dirt on Hillary Clinton? Nonsense’” in Repubblica.
On November 2, 2017, Mifsud stopped arriving at Link Campus University in Rome, having taken the advice of a colleague, Vincenzo Scotti, to relocate elsewhere in Italy.
On November 4, 2017, Carole Cadwalladr and Michael Savage published the article “Boris Johnson in spotlight as questions raised over Russian influence on UK” in The Guardian.
On November 9, 2017, Ali Watkins — with contributions from Josh Meyer and Naomi O’Leary — published the article “Mysterious Putin ‘niece’ has a name” in Politico.
On November 10, 2017, Sharon LaFraniere, David D. Kirkpatrick, Andrew Higgins and Michael Schwirtz — with contributions from Iliana Magra and Matt Apuzzo — published the article “A London Meeting of an Unlikely Group: How a Trump Adviser Came to Learn of Clinton ‘Dirt’” in The New York Times.
The same day, Tim Lister and Nic Robertson — with contributions from Frederick Pleitgen, Mary Ilyushina and Carol Jordan — published the article “Academic at heart of Clinton ‘dirt’ claim vanishes, leaving trail of questions” in CNN.
On November 11, 2017, Carole Cadwalladr published the article “Boris Johnson met ‘London professor’ linked to FBI’s Russia investigation” in The Guardian.
On November 23, 2017, Mifsud resigned from his position at the University of Stirling.
On January 1, 2018, Alberto Nardelli published the article “The Bio Of The Professor At The Center Of The Trump-Russia Probe Has DIsappeared From His University’s Website” in BuzzFeed News.
In October 2018, Dr. Roh sent a photograph of Mifsud, taken on May 21, 2018, to BuzzFeed News and The Associated Press, among many other organisations.
On November 12, 2018, Dr. Roh sent an e-mail to BuzzFeed News, where he informed the organisation that they were attempting to arrange a testimonial in front of the United States Senate for Mifsud.
On November 13, 2018, Alberto Nardelli published the article “Joseph Mifsud Wants To Testify Before The Senate, A Lawyer Claims” in BuzzFeed News.
In early 2018, Timofeev met with reporters from CNN in his Moscow office, where they discussed Papadopoulos and Mifsud’s meetings, and his own communications with Papadopoulos.
In January 2018, Simona met with Luke Harding and Stephanie Kirchgaessner of The Guardian, where they interviewed her about her visit from Team Mueller in October 2017.
On January 18, 2018, Luke Harding and Stephanie Kirchgaessner published the article “The boss, the boyfriend and the FBI: the Italian woman in the eye of the Trump-Russia inquiry” in The Guardian.
On February 10, 2018, the editorial board for Agrigento Notizie published the article “‘Unjustified compensation and damage to revenue’, sued ex presidents of the Cupa for trial”, which discussion Italy’s Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Auditors suing Giuseppe Vella, Mifsud and Maria Immordino, with a court hearing scheduled for July 11, 2018.
On February 27, 2018, Alberto Nardelli published the article “The Professor At The Center Of The Trump-Russia Probe Boasted To His Girlfriend In Ukraine That He Was Friends With Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov” in BuzzFeed News.
On March 2, 2018, Alberto Nardelli published the article “Even Italian Prosecutors Can’t Find The Professor At The Center Of The Trump-Russia Probe” in BuzzFeed News.
On March 21, 2018, John Sweeney and Innes Bowen published the article “Joseph Mifsud: The mystery professor behind Trump Russia inquiry” in BBC News.
On April 18, 2018, Dr. Roh and Thierry Pastor released the book “The Faking of Russia-Gate: The Papadopoulos Case”.
On April 23, 2018, Inverhold Ltd.’s name was changed to The No Vichok Ltd. by Dr. Roh.
On May 21, 2018, Dr. Roh took a photograph of Mifsud in Roh’s office in Zurich, Switzerland using an iPhone.
On June 7, 2018, Marshall Cohen — with contributions from Mary Ilyushina and Tim Lister — published the article “‘Unprofessional’ Papadopoulos couldn’t deliver on promises, his Russian contact says” in CNN.
In August 2018, a reporter from The Associated Press visited Malta in an attempt to track down information about Mifsud and his whereabouts.
On August 13, 2018, a reporter from The Associated Press visited the home of Mifsud’s wife, Janet, who retreated into her home upon realising that the reporter was from the media.
On August 14, 2018, Janet sent an e-mail to the reporter from The Associated Press, where she stated that she had nothing to comment about.
On September 19, 2018, Janet filed for divorce from Mifsud.
On October 22, 2018, Raphael Satter — with contributions from Angela Charlton and Chris Mangion — published the article “Malta academic in Trump probe has history of vanishing acts” in The Associated Press.
On Racism and ‘Wild Beasts’: Why Israel besieges Palestinians
![A segment of the Israeli Seperation Wall sean near Abu Dis, in the occupied West Bank on 15th April 2016 [file photo]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/images/article_images/middle-east/israel-apartheid-seperation-wall-dome-of-the-rock-background-abu-dis.jpg?resize=600%2C350&quality=75&strip=all&ssl=1)
A segment of the Israeli Seperation Wall near Abu Dis, in the occupied West Bank on 15th April 2016.
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 7, 2019
The Israeli Apartheid Wall, which is being built largely on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, once more underscores the ugliness of military occupation. As such, it truly epitomises the nature of Israeli apartheid and also delineates the siege-driven, isolationist mentality that dominates the ruling-class thinking in Israel.
Even years before the establishment of the state of Israel over the ruins of the Palestinian homeland in May 1948, Zionist communities in Palestine perfected the stratagem of besiegement, isolating themselves behind massive walls while blockading Palestinians, the native inhabitants of the land, in every way possible.
Throughout the Nakba – the catastrophic ethnic cleansing and destruction of Palestine in 1947-48 – Israel used this military theory in abundance. Neighbourhoods, villages and entire towns would be besieged for days, weeks or months, while being bombarded from all directions before their residents were finally pushed out. None of these ethnically-cleansed Palestinian communities, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, were ever allowed to return to their homes.
In fact, besiegement and isolation remain at the core of the Israeli military strategy to date.
No other place, however endured the brutality of the seemingly never-ending siege like the Gaza Strip. Gaza, that small region of 365 square kilometres, has been under various stages of besiegement and blockade since 1948.
The most hermetic stages of this perpetual siege began some time in 2006 and intensified in the summer of the following year. Three factors make the latest siege on Gaza particularly horrific: its long duration, the lack of any serious respite for besieged Gazans and, most importantly, the fact that it has been interrupted by massive Israeli wars that killed and wounded thousands of Palestinians. With much of Gaza’s infrastructure destroyed or dilapidated, the Israeli blockade on the Strip has proved to be the most savage and deadliest of all sieges.
On 30 September, Israel’s Channel 12 reported that nearly 70 per cent of an underground barrier east of Gaza is now complete. An estimated 1,400 Israeli and foreign workers are reportedly taking part in building the barrier, which when finished, will extend to reach 60 kilometres in length.
Considering the layers of walls, fences, trenches and no-go military zones, the additional underground wall around Gaza seems frivolous. Is it possible that Israeli leaders truly believe that Gaza is not isolated enough?
In actuality, the latest wall will likely satisfy a psychological, not a practical objective, as it gives the Israeli army and southern settlements a temporary sense of safety, while once more hailing Israeli leaders as the protectors of a defenceless and exposed nation.
Oddly, while scores of young Gazans continue to be killed at the fence separating Gaza from Israel while protesting the Israeli siege on the Strip, it is the Israelis who claim to be targeted, unsafe and victimised.
The newest wall, once it is officially launched with massive fanfare, will still make no difference. It will not upgrade the status of the Gaza siege in any way, nor will it alter the collective fear that has been thoroughly instilled in ordinary Israelis.
For Gazans, wall or no wall, the siege will remain intact.
Israeli wall architects may argue that the latest wall will deter Palestinians from digging tunnels as well as preventing resistance fighters from circumventing the siege via the sea – since part of this underground barrier will also extend into the Mediterranean Sea.
However, there is no proof that walls or fences, over ground or underground barriers have prevented Palestinians from retaliating against Israeli attacks. If the Israeli logic holds any truth, Palestinian resistance would have dissipated or folded decades ago as the Israeli siege mentality was put into practice from the very start of the Israeli war on the Palestinian people.
Israel receives $3.8 billion in US funding every year, in addition to hundreds of millions in loans and other financial giveaways which are mostly used to fortify Israel’s so-called security. To no avail. Palestinians, impoverished and incarcerated in Bantustan-like structures and open-air prisons, continue with their resistance unhindered.
It is clear that the Israeli security model has failed. In fact, that model never had a chance of success in the first place. The additional Israeli wall around Gaza and the hundreds of other walls and fences that are yet to be built are only meant to feed the collective illusion among Israelis and their leaders that the answer to their problem does not lie in ending the apartheid regime, military occupation and siege, but in adding more layers of “security”.
“At the end of the day as I see it, there will be a fence like this one surrounding Israel in its entirety. We will surround the entire state of Israel with a fence, a barrier,” Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said on 9 February 2016 during a visit of the construction site of the barrier around Gaza.
Netanyahu added: “In our neighborhood, we need to protect ourselves from wild beasts.”
While such language and behaviour reflect the deeply-rooted racist mentality at work in Israel, they also underscore the dehumanized way in which Israel sees Palestinians. Since “wild beasts” are not human, they can be killed en masse, besieged and ethnically cleansed in their millions without an iota of regret or remorse.
The problem then is not that of “security” or so-called “terrorism”. Not that of Hamas, or any other group, secular or Islamist. It is not that of Gaza’s March of Return or of children approaching the fences around Gaza. The problem is the entrenched Israeli racist mentality that perceives Palestinian natives as sub-humans and as “wild beasts” to be exterminated or forever besieged.
Featured Video
Tales of American POWs in Vietnam
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
US Also Destroyed Iraqi Water Supply During First Gulf War
International Humanitarian Law prohibits the attack, destruction, or rendering useless of objects indispensable to civilian survival.
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | June 10, 2026
… During the first Gulf War, the United States “deliberately bombed Iraq’s water system,” Thomas J. Nagy, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in September, 2001. The Bush administration, “with malice aforethought,” “destroyed, removed, or rendered useless” Iraq’s ‘drinking water installations and supplies’… They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA’s own words, ‘fully degrade’ Iraq’s water sources.”
Nagy found declassified documents at the website of the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses that detailed the effort to degrade Iraq’s water supply and commit a serious violation of humanitarian law. The documents included “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerability,” “Disease Information,” “Disease Outbreaks in Iraq,” “Medical Problems in Iraq,” “Status of Disease at Refugee Camps,” “Health Conditions in Iraq,” and “Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities.”
Then Representative Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia (subsequently removed from Congress), referred to the Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities document, and said, “Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations.” … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Palestinian factions submit response to mediators, reject disarmament proposal
- US ‘limited war’ strategy against Iran deepens its strategic quagmire as Tehran’s deterrence grows
- Arab Powers Mull Regional Security Alliance – Jordan’s Ex-Minister
- A New Economic Front: Yemen’s Entrance to Regional War against US-Israeli Alliance
- Will Trump Break JFK’s Agreement on Cuba?
- Settlers, sanctions and impunity
- Christian village in occupied West Bank goes up in flames after large-scale attack by Israeli settlers
- Iran, Russia, China reject IAEA resolution as politically driven
- Nuking Iran: Why Israel and the US gain nothing from crossing the ultimate red line
- Iranian missiles pierced US defense systems, hit 70% of targets: Fars
- If Americans Knew
- Piro Inc Promotes Israel Government Ad Agency’s push to sway US Public Opinion: 2 Articles
- Israel has US on the brink of war with Iran, stirs up chaos around the world – Daily Update
- Welcome to the 60th Year of Israel’s Occupation of the West Bank
- In south Lebanon, as in Gaza, Israeli drones use the sound of crying children to lure civilians
- Israel’s ethnic cleansing of West Bank Bedouin and herding communities
- Israel has no mercy on Christian communities in West Bank, Lebanon: 2 Articles
- “No Exit”: Israel is killing Gaza patients with delays – Daily Update
- Netanyahu Isn’t ‘Defying’ Trump Any More Than He Ever ‘Defied’ Biden
- Those who championed free speech in the UK and US now wage war on it. And here’s why: Palestine
- ‘Instead of trying to control the whole world’, pro-Israel advocates can control AI, AJC told
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
Aletho News 