Mike Benz, is a former State Department official with responsibilities in formulating and negotiating US foreign policy on international communications and information technology matters. Mr. Benz founded FFO as a civil society institution building on his experience in the role of championing digital freedom around the world in the public sector.
We spoke about the power of the deep state, CIA in Ukraine, Rigged elections and How The US Deep State Infiltrated World Governments. PLUS much more…
On Thursday, multiple media outlets reported on secret meetings between Iranian and US officials with Omani officials acting as a conduit. According to the reports, the US asked Iran to instruct the Yemeni Houthis to stop their blockade in the Red Sea.
However, Iran has made it very clear that they will not negotiate on behalf of their allies, Dr. Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a professor of English literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran, told Sputnik’s The Critical Hour on Thursday.
“It’s obvious that the Iranians are not going to negotiate on behalf of Yemen,” Marandi explained, pointing to when Saudi Arabia and Iran were negotiating to reestablish diplomatic relations. “There were years of negotiations to reestablish ties. The sticking point was that the Saudis wanted Iran to negotiate on behalf of Yemen because [Saudi Arabia was] at war with Yemen… and the Iranians insisted that they [would] not negotiate on their behalf… ultimately, the Saudis removed that precondition.”
Marandi insisted that contrary to media reports, “No negotiations between Iran and the United States took place [regarding Houthi attacks in the Red Sea] because the Iranians would not accept such negotiations.”
To stop the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, the US simply has to stop supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Marandi argued. “[The Houthis] have said from the very beginning when the genocide in Gaza began that they will block shipping to Israel, to Israeli ports, in order to put pressure on the regime to stop the genocide and they said they will do it in accordance with the Genocide Convention,” Marandi explained. “They are actually working within the framework of international law and their position is a deeply moral position… Yemen has said repeatedly that if the genocide stops, their actions in the Red Sea will stop.”
Meanwhile, the US and its “sidekick, the British” are working to help the Israeli genocide, including by killing Yemeni citizens, Marandi said.
However, that has caused problems for those countries who were added to Yemen’s blockade list in response. “[The US and UK] created a problem for themselves,” he explained.
“In this upside-down world that we live in today, the United States is attacking Yemen in order to help the Israeli regime continue with genocide unimpeded.”
The reverberations of that decision and the US insisting that shipping companies go around Africa instead of through the Red Sea, is hurting more than just the US and its allies. “What the Americans want to do, is they want to make this a crisis, a global economic problem,” Marandi said. “They want everyone to suffer so that they can gain leverage and put pressure on Yemen to end the blockade… for the sake of Israel and for the sake of the Israeli genocide, they’re willing to make everyone suffer.”
In the summer of 2022 I had the privilege of having dinner with Professor Robert Clancy—a leading Australian clinical immunologist and a pioneer in the field of mucosal immunology, with 260 publications on the subject.
He explained to me precisely why COVID-19 shots—designed to induce the production of antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in the blood—cannot prevent infection by or transmission of the virus. The trouble, he explained, is that SARS-CoV-2 replicates rapidly in the nasal mucosa and transmits to other people days before it makes it down into the gas exchange region of the lungs and encounters blood antibodies.
This, he further explained, had long been understood about respiratory viruses such as those that cause the common cold and influenza, and this same quality was quickly ascertained about SARS-CoV-2.
Thus, from the outset, it was clear that the COVID-19 vaccines would NOT prevent infection by or transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This reality completely nullified any rationale for vaccine mandates.
non-systemic respiratory viruses such as influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and RSV tend to have significantly shorter incubation periods and rapid courses of viral replication. They replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue, without causing viremia, and do not significantly encounter the systemic immune system or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which take at least 5–7 days to mature, usually well after the peak of viral replication and onward transmission to others. ….
Taking all of these factors into account, it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines. This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so? This is a major challenge for future vaccine development, and overcoming it is critical as we work to develop “next-generation” vaccines.
In other words, in November 2022, Dr. Fauci and his colleagues published a paper in which they demonstrated their clear understanding of what Professor Clancy told me at dinner three months earlier—namely, the COVID-19 vaccines cannot “effectively control” SARS-CoV-2. The initial, much publicized claim that they would prevent infection and transmission was a bald-faced lie.
While Israel’s unsubstantiated claims of rape on 7 October have dominated western media headlines, credible documented cases of rape against Palestinians and Israeli-on-Israeli sexual assault have received far less attention.
Israel’s scourge of sexual violence and rape incidents did not originate five months ago – its roots go deeper and farther back than that, and there is a crucial context essential for understanding the country’s domestic environment of abuse.
Israel’s massive sexual violence problem
On 8 February, Haaretz brought to light a harrowing revelation: 116 separate files detailing instances of sexual assault and domestic violence against women and minors among Israelis ‘displaced’ from their illegal settlements due to the ongoing military conflicts with Gaza and Lebanon.
The cases surfaced during a special Knesset committee on the Status of Women and Gender Equality, where “committee chair MK Pnina Tamano-Shata [National Unity Party] chastised police representatives for failing to collect accurate data from each hotel regarding violence and sexual attacks.”
Although there were disputes over a lack of complete data, disturbing incidents were highlighted, including a case of pedophilia involving a 23-year-old establishing a “relationship with a 13-year-old girl, both living in the same hotel” and a rape committed after a man followed a woman to her room. It also noted that elevators were places of particular vulnerability for sexual assault and violence.
Sexual harassment and violence are nothing new among Israel’s armed forces. According to a Haaretz report, “a third of female conscripts in the military had suffered sexual harassment at least once in the previous year [2022].”
Haaretz noted that most victims avoid reporting what happened to them and that “70 percent of those young women who did report what happened to them stated that their report was not handled at all, or not handled sufficiently.”
In 2020, the Israeli army’s sexual violence crisis was recognized after only 31 indictments were filed out of 1,542 sexual assault complaints registered within the military establishment.
That’s a stunning indictment of the ‘world’s most moral army.’ And it isn’t just Israel’s war establishment afflicted with the rape bug.
Rape, normalized in Israel
In addition to being a regional hub for human trafficking and a haven for pedophiles, Israel consistently ranks the highest in West Asia for documented cases of rape and sexual assaults.
In 2020, protests erupted across Israel after 30 men gang-raped an intoxicated 16-year-old girl, which prompted Ilana Weizman, of the Israeli women’s rights group HaStickeriot, to disclose that a shocking one in five Israeli women was raped during her lifetime, with 260 cases reported every day.
In March 2021, a series of gang rapes against minors, with the youngest victim being just 10-years-old, sparked widespread concern in Israel over the prevalence of sexual assault. APCCI said that the rate of violent sexual offenses in Israel was 10 percent higher than the average for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, labeling it as an “epidemic.” A Knesset report from the same year revealed that nearly half of the sexual abuse cases between 2019 and 2020 involved underage girls.
Back in 2016, activists from Jewish Community Watch warned that Israel was becoming a “safe haven for pedophiles,” noting that sexual offenders were using the Israeli Law of Return, which allows any Jew to claim citizenship and live in occupied Palestine. Years later, in 2020, CBS News released a report entitled ‘How Jewish American pedophiles hide from justice in Israel,’ which demonstrated how wanted individuals were walking free in Israel, leaving behind a spate of unresolved criminal cases.
To add insult to injury, Hebrew media reported that 92 percent of civil rape investigations were closed without charges in Israel.
According to the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel (ARCCI), despite the country’s ‘good laws’ on sexual assault, inadequate enforcement of these laws means that people use “legal tricks” to avoid retribution for assaults, with many assailants avoiding prosecution. In short, “people are not afraid to hurt. There is no fear or retribution.”
Occasionally, in high-profile cases of rape and sexual assault, the Israeli judicial system has been known to act, as evidenced by the conviction of former Israeli president Moshe Katsav in 2010 for raping an aide and sexually harassing two other women.
However, Katsav’s release after serving just five years of a seven-year sentence ignited a debate on the early release of sex offenders. In 2022, APCCI reported that 75 percent of sexual offenders in Israel are released before completing their full sentence.
Israel, weaponizing rape against Palestinians
From the time of Israel’s founding, rape has been extensively documented in its use as a weapon of war against Palestinians. In a 2022 documentary named after the Israeli massacre in the Palestinian village of Tantura, horrific admissions of rape committed by the Alexandroni Brigade were acknowledged for the first time on camera.
There are also various other reported cases of rape from that period: at least three rapes, one committed against a 14-year-old Palestinian girl, that occurred during the Safsaf massacre in October of 1948.
Because rape and other forms of sexual violence are often difficult to prove conclusively, it is essential to note that early Zionists also weaponized the threat of sexual violence, especially surrounding the massacre of Deir Yassin in 1948.
As documented by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” stories of explicit gendered atrocities were deliberately spread to encourage residents of other villages to flee. In a recent series of interviews conducted with two Nakba survivors, both revealed that they fled their villages specifically due to the rape atrocities in the village of Deir Yassin.
Today, that same attitude of sexualizing vulnerable Palestinians is apparent in the countless snuff films published widely on social media with the approval of the Israeli military, featuring male Israeli soldiers going through the underwear drawers of Palestinian women and even mockingly wearing their lingerie.
This, coupled with what a UN panel of experts recently said were “credible allegations” of sexual assault against Palestinian women by Israeli soldiers operating in Gaza, indicate a clear pattern of gendered violence taking place in the war.
At least two cases of rape, along with numerous cases of sexual humiliation and threats of rape, have also been recorded. Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, has noted that “We might not know for a long time what the actual number of victims are.”
Systematic sexual humiliation
In 2002, during the Second Intifada, Israeli occupation soldiers took control of Palestinian TV networks in the West Bank city of Ramallah to broadcast pornography on several channels. Knowing that Palestinian society is a socially conservative one, it is clear that this was done with the intent of humiliation.
A prominent case of recent sexual humiliation in the West Bank occurred just last year near the city of Al-Khalil (Hebron) and was investigated in a joint Haaretz-B’Tselem report. On 10 July, between 25–30 Israeli soldiers burst into the Ajluni family’s home, forcing five Palestinian women to strip naked at gunpoint and threatening to unleash army attack dogs on them.
One woman named Amal was taken into a private room with her children and forced to take off her clothes. The report states: “the children also had to witness their mother being ordered to turn around while naked as she sobbed over the humiliation. About 10 minutes later she and the children were taken out of the room pale and trembling.”
While it is not possible to note every single case of sexual violence perpetrated against Palestinian women by Israeli forces, it is well documented that female prisoners have been subjected to some of the worst forms of it.
During the Second Intifada, there were countless allegations of sexual violence against women and girls in Israeli military detention, a trend which Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reports is again on the rise. The rights group said that the Palestinian female detainees recently released in the Hamas–Israel prisoner exchange were subjected to “threats of rape” and “were humiliatingly strip-searched several times” after their violent arrests.
An interrogator came in and asked me in English what I thought about what Hamas did. He swore at me and called me a ‘whore.’ He said there were 20 soldiers in the room and that they would rape me like Hamas–ISIS raped Jewish women in southern Israel. He kept swearing at me and threatening me and my family. Then, a female soldier came and took me to another room with more female soldiers, who told me: ‘Welcome to hell.’ They sat me in a chair and started laughing at me and calling me ‘whore’ again and again.
Speaking to the media following her release from Israeli detention late last year, Baraah Abo Ramouz said the following about the “devastating” conditions faced by female Palestinian prisoners:
They are being constantly beaten. They’re being sexually assaulted. They are being raped. I’m not exaggerating. The prisoners are being raped.
In 2022, the Shin Bet dropped a case of sexual assault against a Palestinian woman detained in 2015 over “lack of evidence.” This is despite the fact that a doctor and female soldiers had admitted to inappropriately touching the woman’s private parts, while the company commander in control admitted to giving the order. The victim’s filed appeal states:
In a situation in which there is no dispute that acts that constitute rape and sodomy were committed, [in which] there is sufficient evidence, and when no one is punished, it’s outrageous and unbearable.
According to former US State Department official Josh Paul, after he and his colleagues received credible evidence that Israeli forces had raped a 14-year-old Palestinian boy in Al-Moskibiyya detention center, Israel raided the offices of the human rights group that passed the information on to the State Department, later declaring it a terrorist organization.
False narratives fueling war crimes
While the Israeli government pushes the story that Hamas implemented a pre-planned systematic rape campaign on 7 October, for which there has been no independent investigation or evidence produced, documented cases of sexual violence are undermined and ignored.
The mere fact that Israel’s notorious ZAKA rescue service relied upon heavily for testimonies of rape on 7 October, was founded by serial rapist Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, nicknamed the ‘Haredi Jeffrey Epstein,’ is telling.
The wholly unsubstantiated rape claims of the Israeli government – widely amplified and parroted by western media – are impossible to take seriously when a known propaganda outfit like ZAKA is the source.
The UN Office of the Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict recently released a report after its Special Representative Pramila Patten completed an eight-day trip requested by the Israeli government.
The report on sexual violenceallegations was produced by a team of nine UN experts and had no investigative mandate. Yet statements from it made headlines in western media, suggesting that the UN had confirmed Israel’s narrative, although the report in no way substantiated it.
In the case of sexual violence allegations made about Kibbutz Be’eri, from where the majority of the allegations emerged, there was no evidence found. Two cases were debunked by the UN team as having been “unfounded.”
In one, widely cited as proof of rape, a woman was found separated from her family with her underwear pulled down. The UN team said that the “crime scene had been altered by a bomb squad, and the bodies moved.”
The UN report also noted that the interrogations of alleged participants in Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Israeli intelligence agencies were not considered as evidence, another major blow to Israel’s body of claims.
In Kibbutz Kfar Aza, where the report concluded “the recurring pattern of female victims found undressed, 18 bound, and shot – indicates that sexual violence, including potential sexualized torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, may have occurred,” it also notes that “verification of sexual violence against these victims was not possible at this point.”
Given that the UN team found that Israelis had altered other crime scenes, an independent investigation would be needed to confirm that the crime scenes weren’t equally compromised.
The human cost of Israel’s lies
It should also be noted that the recent New York Times scandal – where its investigation into sexual violence on 7 October was directly discredited by the family members of a woman they tried to claim was raped – dealt a massive blow to the credibility of Israel’s narrative.
During Primila Patten’s press conference, in which she addressed the findings of her UN mission, she admitted that they had not interviewed any victims and did not find a systematic campaign of sexual violence, nor was the team able to attribute sexual violence to any specific Palestinian resistance group.
Amidst the recurrent circulation of unverified claims lacking independent investigation, these graphic and unsubstantiated allegations fuel widespread sexual violence against vulnerable Palestinians.
Israel, grappling with its own internal sexual assault issues, has a troubling history of utilizing gender-based violence within its military jurisdiction. The disproportionate lack of attention towards the ongoing atrocities perpetrated by the occupation state illustrates a clear double standard perpetuated by western mainstream media.
In early 2023, three Australian health professionals who had all been ‘struck off’ for speaking out against their government’s pandemic response, decided they must speak up for medical ethics and freedom of debate. They met and set up the Cape Byron Lighthouse declaration. The declaration’s four aims would have been uncontroversial only a few years ago:
All silencing and censorship by bureaucrats and regulators, including of experienced practitioners and scientists, must stop. There must be respect for every individual’s right to freedom of opinion and expression.
The right to ‘informed’ consent must be upheld – and must include being fully informed of relevant risks, as well as any benefits (proven or presumed).
Mandates and other forms of medical coercion are unethical – and must cease. Bodily autonomy is the inalienable right of every individual – and must be respected.
There is an urgent need for transparency and reform in science and medicine and to halt the increasing globalisation of public health. We demand the restoration of voice and decision power to individual practitioners – and to those they serve.
A year later, they reached out to HART and other groups to start making this a world-wide campaign. Three HART members, Drs Clare Craig, Liz Evans and Ros Jones are now so-called ‘Lighthouse Keepers’, alongside Drs Sam White and Anne McCluskey. The aim is for the public to nominate citizens in all walks of life who are prepared to speak out against censorship in all its forms. We do not necessarily all share the same views even on covid-19, let alone on other topics – it would be a dull life if we did! But we all share the belief that human interaction and discourse is vital to any society’s wellbeing.
Ros Neelon-Cook, one of the three founder members, has recently been interviewed by John Campbell – see COVID Psychological Manipulation: Unpacked. She very clearly covers the problem of fear interrupting critical thinking, as covered many times in various HART articles.
We encourage HART readers to sign. And please nominate people from around the world to act as lighthouse keepers for their area. Change is in the air.
The curtain opened. In front of a dismayed world, a staging of genocide is taking place under the supervision, assistance and protection of the world hegemon.
No water, no food, no medicine, no fuel, no electricity! We are fighting the human beast. The whole nation is responsible, no one is innocent. Burn completely, no hope left. Destroy Gaza now! Now! Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948. Wipe them out, their families, their mothers and their children. These animals are no longer allowed to live.
It is Amalek, calling the Leader – a nation that stood in the way of the Jews during their emigration from Egypt. Now go and slay Amalek; like a sledgehammer you will destroy everything that belongs to him. You will not spare him, but you will kill man and woman, young man and infant, bull and sheep, camel and donkey, Jehovah commands King Samuel (1S 15,3). You will wipe out the memory of Amalek under heaven, do not forget it! (Deuteronomy 25:19)
This is the framework in which Israel’s campaign against Gaza begins in October. If we leave aside the immediate consequences – dead, human suffering, destroyed earth, the long-term consequence will be a fundamental break in the paradigms and clichés of the Western world. In their smug self-righteousness, Netanyahu and the Zionist politicians do not realize what a Pandora’s box they have opened.
Genocide
To avoid misunderstandings: genocide, according to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such:
killing members of such a group;
causing grievous bodily harm or mental disorder to members of such group;
the intentional placing of any group in such living conditions as to bring about its total or partial physical destruction;
measures aimed at preventing the birth of children in such a group;
forcibly transferring children from one group to another.
The International Court of Justice must review the evidence and hear the parties and witnesses before rendering and reasoning judgment. A non-participating observer does not have to wait. If he sees someone kill another, he doesn’t have to wait for an investigation, an accusation, an indictment, a retrial, witnesses, evidence, and a verdict to know that he is committing a crime.
At the same time, it must be remembered that the Convention was adopted in December 1948. Earlier cases may fulfill its factual essence, but – unlike the current one – they cannot be retroactively judged on its basis.
The term genocide is already terrifying because of its weight, most people – incorrectly – understand it in the spirit of the Old Testament as the complete extermination of the entire target group. However, this was never achieved – that is why the formulation was completely or partially destroyed. A somewhat milder synonym is ethnic cleansing , more accurately describing the goal: removing the target group from the given territory. By persuasion, coercion, terror, banishment, killing, whatever.
Historical examples and comparisons are provided. The first genocide of Palestinians – Nakba in Arabic (النكبة, catastrophe, despair) – took place after the declaration of the State of Israel in May 1948. Three quarters of a million Arabs expelled, 532 Arab towns and villages razed to the ground, an estimated 15,000 dead – also thanks to arms supplied by Czechoslovakia – is the trauma from which Palestinian identity is derived. It differs from the current genocide primarily in that it took place covertly. Israel has so far tried to cover up its tracks and denied that it ever happened. It is only now that they suddenly claim it as a model worthy of repetition and exceding.
In many ways, the genocide in Gaza resembles the post-war genocide of the Sudeten Germans: the size of the target group (2.3 or 3.2 million respectively), the intensity (around 25,000 dead in three months), the justification (revenge for an armed attack against the state, or for its destruction and occupation), collective punishment affecting mainly the innocent, rhetoric (Gallant: human beast, Beneš: human monster ), great power cover (USA, USSR), hidden personal motivation of the leaders (Netayahu’s avoidance of trial and prison, Beneš’s post-war presidency) , the intention of the booty (Palestinian land and natural gas fields, German possessions), the strategy (killing as a means of forcing them to leave) and the mass support of the population.
One difference is in the design. In the Czech case, the killing was not an officially announced program, but to a large extent the honest handiwork of ordinary citizens, so to speak. Two years later, it became the subject of an investigation. In the case of Gaza, the official program is officially announced and is carried out by a professional army killing industrially by the hundreds with bombs from above; honest manual labor is left only to the West Bank settlers. Another difference is in the outcome: Czechoslovakia was more successful in that Stalin secured the additional approval of the Potsdam Conference and the killing could end.
Genocide, however, primarily evokes reminiscences of the Nazi genocide of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs. It differs from the current one in several ways, not only in the monstrous number of victims.
Above all, it was perpetrated covertly and in secret, even shyly, in front of its own population. German politicians did not publicly shout out their targets, German soldiers did not boast of photos of torture and murder in the media, small children did not joyfully sing ” we will kill them all” on German radio , and there is no evidence that the Leader himself gave the order for it. Being shot or gassed was – if such a word can be used – more humane than the slow death of those buried under the rubble, from injuries, diseases and the unavailability of medical care, from starvation. The strategy was also the opposite: initially the Jews were forced to emigrate by coercion and repression, physical liquidation came only when there was nowhere else to go. It was only on the eastern front that it was justified by the fight against terrorists (guerrillas) and acquired a character similar to Gaza.
Most of all, the events in Gaza are reminiscent of the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto in the spring of 1943. Hundreds of thousands of Jews crowded into three square kilometers, in a hopeless situation, decided to fight desperately to the last man. They built a network of underground passages and bunkers, collected a meager arsenal of weapons, attacked police and SS units and forced them to retreat from the ghetto. A similarly brutal retaliation followed, artillery bombardment, flamethrowers, burning of houses block by block, flooding of underground passages, indiscriminate murder. Within a month, the ghetto was practically razed to the ground, 13,000 of its inhabitants perished and 50,000 of the survivors were deported to concentration camps.
The elimination of the inhabitants of Gaza by starvation may remind us of the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1932-33. However, it is wrongly labeled as genocide, there is a lack of definition of the target group and the intention of its destruction. Contrary to the Ukrainian narrative, it was not targeted against a specific ethnicity, and the motivation was not ethnic cleansing and looting, but the export of wheat despite a disastrous crop failure.
However, the most extensive genocide in history is the genocide of the indigenous population of both Americas. In South America in the 16th century is the spoils of gold and silver of Indian empires, in North America in the 19th century, territories of Indian tribes.
Gaza and Ukraine
If the war outcome of the Maidan putsch has already shaken many established clichés, after the massacres in Gaza there is practically nothing left of them.
Just a few months ago, the Russian annexation of Crimea and the Donbas republics was presented as the ultimate violation of international law, while the annexations – without referendums – of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, were generously overlooked. Today, in the face of undisguised expansionism and the intended annexation of all of Palestine, Israel’s borders have become the most pressing issue in international politics.
Just a few months ago, the Russian bombing of civilian infrastructure was considered a war crime – regardless of the fact that they were mostly targets of military importance and regardless of the war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan. Compared to the interruption of water, food, medicine, and energy supplies to the world’s largest concentration camp, with the systematic bombing of housing estates, hospitals, schools, universities, mosques, power plants, waterworks, and bakeries, this seems like the grossest hypocrisy today.
Just a few months ago, the media was filled with reports of Russian attacks against the civilian population – regardless of the fact that the ratio of thousands of civilian dead to hundreds of thousands of military dead is an unprecedented low in the history of world warfare. They disappeared. President Herzog abolished the distinction between civilians and terrorists. Compared to three times more civilian casualties in four months than in two years of the Ukrainian war, with hundreds of women and children killed per alleged terrorist, it is better not to mention Russian crimes.
The topic of the Ukrainian war did not disappear from the media only because of the failed offensive and the inevitable defeat of the West. First of all, they have run out of topics to disavow Russia – any accusations of any crimes only underline their multiple validity for Israel. There is a war between two armies going on in Ukraine, which at least the Russian side is conducting with maximum consideration for the civilian population. There is no war in Gaza, but a military massacre of the civilian population.
A certain similarity can be seen at most in the characters of Zelensky and Netanyahu. Both have dragged their country into wars they cannot win and whose outcome threatens the very existence of their states. Both of them have already been written off as politicians, and prolonging the war at any cost for them means postponing not only the end of their careers, but above all the post-war reckoning.
A similarity can also be seen in the likely future fate of both countries given their unwavering irrational belief in ultimate victory. For both, common sense would see ending the fighting, opening diplomatic negotiations, coming to terms with the loss of some territory, and accepting new neighbors – New Russia and Palestine – as the last realistic chance before destruction. For both of them, such an idea is absolutely unacceptable, so they have no choice but to enjoy their pride until the bitter end.
Gaza and Western Democracy
Just a few months ago, the cliché of the struggle of our Western democracy against a foreign (Russian) dictatorship, the struggle of Good against Evil, was prevalent. If we descend from the heights of transcendent metaphysics back to earth, we find that the highest imaginable Evil is crimes of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide. After several months of massacres, it is clear that their perpetrators are not strangers, but ourselves – whether Israel, which we rightfully count among ours, or the entire collective West, which actively supports or at least passively tolerates it. Even countries like the Czech Republic and Austria, which might be expected to show particular restraint in the matter of genocide, vote at the UN General Assembly – as the only EU members – to continue the genocide.
Just a few months ago, Israel was being touted as the only democracy in the Middle East—regardless of the fact that Western democracy itself had long since been emptied by oligarchy, totalitarian propaganda, censorship, and repression. If Ukrainian neo-Nazism could still be trivialized and silenced in the media, in the perspective of Israeli apartheid, the Nuremberg Laws, the denial of human rights and the right to life to the inferior non-Jewish population – Muslims as well as Christians – the content of the term Israeli democracy suddenly overlaps with Nazi ideology.
The West – this is Europe including its branches, the USA and Israel. Today it could be more aptly described as a caste of Israeli-American oligarchs who have colonized it for their own purposes. Unreserved support for Israeli genocide may appear to us as an incomprehensible anomaly in view of traditional European values - the UN Charter and international law, peace and conflict prevention, resolution of disputes through action and not force, immutability of borders through violence, democracy, freedom, equality and human rights, social market economy , social security, elimination of poverty, human life as the highest value. It is as if in twenty years Europe has turned into the exact opposite of what shaped its identity at the end of the century and what citizens voted for in referenda.
Only in a longer-term perspective will we discover that the period of humanism in the second half of the 20th century was an anomaly, that it was only a temporary reaction to the trauma of two world wars. Since its birth in the 9th century, Europe has been the most aggressive, predatory and cruel civilization in history. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the Conquista, slavery, the East India Company, colonialism, pogroms, world wars, the Holocaust – these are not anomalies, they are a continuous European tradition. It was only from the 19th century that the European USA took over the initiative from it, and from the second half of the 20th century, the European Ashkenazis took over new territories and genocided their population.
Let’s also note that the conquests of previous empires were generally motivated by the expansion of the territory and its resources, including – or mainly – its inhabitants. After these, loyalty to the new ruler and tribute were required, but they were usually left with extensive autonomy. Violently subverting their social structures, religion, culture would be counterproductive – it would only reduce their economic contribution. Only the USA, Nazi Germany, Israel and (let’s not forget) Czechoslovakia are conquering exclusive Lebensraum for themselves , a living space , which, of course, must first be cleared of its current inhabitants .
For a Western reader, these remarks are probably heresy of the coarsest grain. Outside the circle of Western civilization – that is, in seven-eighths of the human world – this is the basic perspective in which the West is seen and judged. The genocide in Gaza and its Western support only confirms it. The continued clamor for democracy, human rights, rule-based order can only further discredit the West. Respect and authority are gained by countries that are able to stand up to it and whose tradition is not burdened by conquests, colonialism and subversion, especially Russia, China, Iran.
Thus, Gaza gave another powerful impulse to the ongoing process of global polarization. In perspective, one can expect accelerated consolidation of the rising Global South in the new structures of BRICS+, SCO, EAEU and further decline in the influence, isolation and disintegration of the West. Desperate efforts following the example of Zelensky and Netanyahu, which cannot be avoided at all costs, can easily turn into a global nuclear conflict in Ukraine, the Middle East or the South China Sea.
Gaza and Israel
I still remember the enthusiasm and admiration for Israel at the time of the Six-Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973. With the Lebanon War and the massacre of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatil in 1982, sympathy began to quickly disappear – Israel must be like a rabid dog, declared Moshe Dayan, and so he began to appear. I remember the statement of an Israeli politician at the time after some other scandal in the sense that there will be an uproar about it for a few weeks and then it will be forgotten again. I think that’s how Israeli politicians have imagined it to this day. For a society whose thinkers have contributed a great deal to the knowledge of the human psyche, one can only marvel at such a level of ignorance.
It doesn’t work that way. The scream subsides, but the mental image is burdened with another negative emotion. They accumulate over a long period of time, even if they do not outwardly manifest themselves in shouting. The initial sympathy gradually turns into its opposite – we have all experienced such a process many times. Extremely negative events, such as an ongoing genocide, eliminate the remnants of latent sympathy for good.
Regardless of the current berserk mode of bloody unity, it is going on under the surface in Israel as well. The previous wave of resistance against Netanyahu’s attempt to introduce a dictatorship sensitized a critical view of one’s own history and its meaning. The campaign in Gaza pulled out of the hole of oblivion the circumstances of the establishment of the state, including the hitherto carefully concealed Nakba, terror, massacres such as Tantura, Deir Yassin and others. The process of coming to terms with its own history is just beginning in Israel, but the question is whether it will have enough opportunity and time to do so, whether the fanatical Deuteronomists, who understand the Torah literally as Jehovah’s order to kill others, will not expel all critical citizens from the land before the inventory.
It is said that states are maintained by the political forces by which and from which they were created, stated Masaryk. With a genocide that has no parallels in modern history in terms of its obviousness and cruelty, Israel has burned all bridges behind it. The return of the rabid dog to the international community is hardly imaginable. All that remains is to run forward: completing the purge in Gaza, extending it to the West Bank, eliminating Hezbollah and occupying Lebanon, attacking Iran.
But Israel does not have the means to do so. Even in the campaign in Gaza, it is completely dependent on weapons, ammunition, financial, intelligence and, in the future, military assistance from the USA and its veto in the Security Council.
But even the control of the US by the Israeli lobby is not a sustainable state. There, too, criticism of America’s participation in Israeli massacres is gaining unprecedented strength, not least in the Jewish community itself and the state administration. Nor can the US afford to become a permanently isolated outcast of the world, as the latest UN vote suggests. So far, American politicians are dependent on electoral votes, and they are rapidly polarizing under the reality of Gaza.
Despite the fact that the US is not even in a position to effectively intervene militarily in a volatile region without causing an uncontrollable explosion. An attack on Iran, in which the myopic sees its own perpetrator, would immediately result in a devastating storm on Israel and on forty American bases and the navy, caught in a regional trap, and the disruption of the vital oil trade by closing the Strait of Hormuz. A full invasion of Iran is hindered by the lack of financial, military and human resources, the reaction of the American population, Iran’s alliance with Russia and China, and practically zero chance of final victory.
The US can only watch helplessly at the tenacious resistance of Hamas, the binding of a large part of the IDF in the north by Hezbollah, the Houthi sanctions against Israeli shipping and even the attack – quite possibly under a false flag – on a base in Jordan with three dead. The toothless retaliatory bombing of Shiite terrorists is PR for the public and voters, but apart from the further consolidation of the Arab Axis of Resistance and the intensification of demands for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Syria, it has no real effect.
The future of Israel cannot be predicted. The only thing that is certain is that it will not exist in its current form for a long time. Several possible directions of development can only be imagined very broadly.
The first is the escalation that is currently looming: Israel will deliberately continue to drive Palestinians from Gaza into Egypt’s Sinai, domestic pressure will force Egypt to armed border protection, Hezbollah to intensify attacks from the north, Israel to attack Lebanon and other actors, including USA, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and various Muslim militias, to actively participate in the wider and regional conflict. Israel’s chances of surviving it are more than doubtful. Unless the fighting escalates into a devastating World War III, what is left of Israel will certainly be far from what it is today.
Another is what is referred to as the two-state solution: Israel within the 1967 borders and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. In addition to Israel’s radical rejection, which perhaps sufficient pressure from the world could eventually break, similar to South African apartheid in the 1980s, the biggest problem is the dense network of settlements built by the most fanatical Zionist extremists in the Palestinian territories. An attempt to subject them to Palestinian state jurisdiction would most likely lead to protracted civil war and Israeli-sponsored terrorism with the prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian war and again a latent escalation into a wider regional conflict.
The third option is Palestine/Israel from the river to the sea, i.e. the only state entity within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Paradoxically, the Palestinians and Benjamin Netanyahu subscribe to it, but with different ideas: Israel is Erez Israel, the only Jewish state gradually eliminating the share of its racially inferior fellow citizens. The Palestinian idea is a democratic state of equal citizens, where, of course, the Palestinian majority would have a decisive weight. If there is a real regional war, this is probably the most likely outcome.
The fourth possible variant is a gradual dampening of the current conflict without further major dramatic reversals, but not a return to business as usual. The balance of power has irreversibly changed. Israel has lost both its nimbus of invincibility and the unconditional support of the West, which is also itself in a phase of decay. On the contrary, with its role as a common enemy, it consolidated the Islamic identity and self-confidence of Islam as, alongside the USA, China and Russia, another powerful pole in a multipolar world. Israel’s only chance of survival could be accommodation in the Islamic environment, but it has already burned all bridges for that.
Gaza and the Jews
Israel is a Jewish state.
If we were to take his self-declaration seriously, then the worst imaginable crimes against humanity up to genocide are committed by Jews. And if we were to follow the conclusions of its president, none of them is innocent.
I am afraid that many people already perceive it this way, not only in Islamic countries and in the Global South. As if Israel wanted to confirm all the centuries-old European anti-Jewish prejudices.
But it’s like all stereotypes: the differences within each group are greater than the differences between the groups. The most die-hard Zionists claim to be Jewish just as much as their staunchest opponents.
Jews are probably the most heterogeneous identity in the world. Those we meet in the West are generally Ashkenazi, culturally descended from Central Europeans who escaped Christianization by conversion to Judaism in the ninth century, much like the Iberian Sephardim, descended from those who escaped Islamization two hundred years earlier. The Jewish religion was chosen for the Turkic Khasars in the eighth century by King Bulan. The Jews – in the continuity of the ancient Hebrews – lived in part on the territory of Palestine even before the Ashkenazi invasion, in part merged with the Palestinian Arabs and in part lived in peace in the surrounding countries, mostly Islamic since the seventh century, from where they were forced to emigrate to Israel after 1948 as Mizrahim.
Over the centuries, however, they mixed with the local population and with Jews from other areas; the Central European Ashkenazis, for example, seamlessly follow the Eastern European Khazars. Seeing them as a biological race is misleading for several reasons. On the one hand, genetics has definitively disproved the idea of race, and on the other hand, the derivation of biological origin in the horizons of millennia is a pure myth. Thousands of years ago, we each had one trillion ancestors. We are all multiple descendants of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Muhammad, Confucius, Genghis Khan, the ancestor of Bohemia and Charlemagne. What unites Jews of various origins, languages and cultures is the mystique of their own uniqueness, the mystique of belonging to Jehovah’s chosen nation. Including secular Ashkenazim.
But not all Ashkenazim are Zionists. Zionism is the concept of the Jewish people formulated in 1896 by Theodor Herzel, demanding their own state in Argentina or Palestine. In the following year, the first Zionist Congress was held – incidentally, at the same time as the founding of the Czech National Social Party and the Bund, the party of the Russian Jewish proletariat, three concepts that authoritatively determined the following century. The Zionist colonization of Palestine begins especially after the adoption of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, in which Britain supports the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine – as a European enclave to control the Suez Canal.
It was clear from the beginning that the territory could only be acquired at the expense of its existing inhabitants. All the initial declarations about the peaceful coexistence of two equal nations – from Herzel to Žabotinsky – were hypocrisy in a situation where one group forcibly occupies the territory of another. Of course the native Arabs, Jews and Christians had to defend their land and property, of course the European colonization of Palestine – like all others – could only be accomplished by power, money, violence, weapons and terror.
Brutality, however, is nothing remarkable about the Ashkenazi colonization of Palestine, European colonizations from the New World through Africa to the Far East were similarly brutal. Its anachronism is remarkable. The European colonial system peaks at the end of the 19th century and ends no later than the Second World War, when the colonization of Palestine is just beginning. In addition to the British interest in controlling the Suez Canal, the main motive for European support is helplessness over hundreds of thousands of Jews freed from concentration camps, in which feelings of complicity for their suffering are mixed with resentment for their repatriation. Sacrificing the Palestinians as compensation for the victims of European genocide pushes the problem aside, away from Europe.
The status of victims of eternal anti-Semitism, pogroms and the Holocaust, together with the trauma of European guilt, gives Israel and European Jews a de facto nimbus of exceptionalism – and impunity; it morally – and often legislatively – excludes any discussion and criticism a priori. Let us note its Ashkenazi origin: it is based on an exclusive European experience. There was no persecution of Jews (Gypsies, Gentiles, heretics, witches…) anywhere else, especially not in Islamic countries, nor elsewhere in Asia, America, or even in the European USA and Canada. And let’s add that the identity of the victim is always an aggressive identity.
Now the Ashkenazi Zionists are forcibly implanting their victim identity into the Islamic world, where Muslims, Jews and Christians have lived together in mutual respect and tolerance. With European arrogance, they also transfer their battle cry of eternal anti-Semitism to the Muslims who are resisting the occupation of their country, launch a hateful anti-Islamic campaign in the Christian West, and manipulate the US into military interventions against its Islamic rivals. It is a suicidal strategy: an alliance with Christian Europe, persecuting the Jews for millennia, against Islam, providing them with a safe home for millennia.
However, the genocide in Gaza is also shaking the European alliance and the protective walls of European historical myths and taboos. Never again holocaust! But which one, the one committed against the Jews, or the one committed by the Jews? The most powerful Ashkenazi weapon is losing its force after seventy years, on the contrary, a critical revision can be expected. In time, the criminalization of Holocaust denial will either have to be extended to genocide denial in general or be abandoned – after all, this is a question for historians and lawyers, not politicians.
Also, the impact of the second Ashkenazi weapon, anti-Semitism, suffered from inflationary use already before October 2023. However, it does not have much of a chance to convince that it is a worse crime than genocide. With Gaza, the question of what its users actually mean by Semitism becomes even more pressing. If he means robbery, terror, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and genocide, perhaps we are all anti-Semites.
Israel’s barbarism also re-examines the age-old problem of Jewish identity: what is it? Is it a biological race according to Torah, Halachah, Nuremberg Laws and Israeli Laws? Religion in the sense of Maimonides, Hasids, Haredim, Jews in Islamic countries and proselytes? Secular nationality according to Herzl, Weismann and the early Zionists? Cultural tradition – but which one, Saba Kadisha of Damascus, Moses Mendessohn of Germany, Ba’al Shem Tova of Poland? A caste superior to the rest of the world according to Ovad Yosef, Schlomo Aviner, Israel Ariel?
Since October, over half a million Jews who had somewhere to go have left Israel. This is almost as many as the number of Palestinians expelled during the Nakba of 1948. The outlook for others is all the more bleak because Israel has burned all the bridges behind it. There is nowhere left to go to.
Once a punishable offense by the online censors, the CDC is now telling people to treat COVID just like the flu. Meanwhile, a 9th booster has been added with the 10th on the way.
Last week it happened that God and the United States Treasury managed to underwrite a record issue of Israel Government bonds to continue the war against the Arabs in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq – and Iran if necessary.
The war financing comprised $2 billion of five-year bonds, and $3 billion each of 10 and 30-year bonds.
The US Treasury guarantees bond holders that if Israel defaults on repayment of its obligations, the US will pay instead. Notwithstanding this, the Israelis were obliged to offer an extra 1.35%, 1.45%, and 1.75% more in interest over the going rate for US Treasury bonds for the same length of term.
The Reuters news agency headline on March 6 celebrated “Israel sells record $8 billion in bonds despite Oct 7 attacks, downgrade”. The propaganda agency based in New York quoted Israel’s Accountant-General as claiming the bond placement “results showed an “unprecedented expression of confidence in Israel’s economy by the world’s largest international investors”.*
In fact, according to well-informed bond trade sources in Europe, with the higher interest rates the market has just demanded from the Israelis, the spread between the Israel bonds and US Treasuries has never been wider, and the worse this spread will become for Israel. This is a vote of no-confidence from the market which the Israelis, the Americans, and their media are trying to keep secret.
The longer the war is protracted, the more obvious the costs of Israel Defence Forces’ (IDF) failure will become – and the deeper the negative bond sentiment will grow. By converting secrecy into money, the market is signalling that it has begun to turn against Israel – and profit at Israel’s expense.
Also unprecedented is the secrecy in which the “expression of confidence” has been managed by the US, French, and German banks acting as managers of the Israeli bond issue; and of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has had regulatory oversight of the process. The debt financing has been reported as a “private placement”; this has removed the requirement that the Israelis produce a public prospectus explaining how they think their war – plausibly genocide, according to the International Court of Justice in its ruling of January 26, 2024 – is going, and how long the IDF claim it will last.
This does not remove the legal requirement on the two US banks engaged in marketing the bonds to US investors, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, to submit a formal application for SEC approval of what is called a letter of consent. However, asked to confirm the contents of the letter of consent application for the sale of the Israeli bonds, and its official approval, the SEC has refused to give any answer.
Goldman Sachs was asked the same questions. The bank also refuses to say.
Last October the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, David Solomon,* issued a personal letter to the bank’s employees claiming the Hamas operation was a “violation of fundamental human values”: Solomon then proposed a $2 million gift of bank funds “to organizations providing critical support and humanitarian relief in Israel”; plus additional bank money, three bank dollars for every one contributed by bank staff making donations under $25, and one for one if the staff contribution was over $25. Asked how much money has been raised for Solomon’s gift to the Israelis, the bank is refusing to reply.
In other words, Israel’s public genocide is a private secret among Americans who are paying for it, and among US government officials responsible for regulating the scheme according to US law.
According to well-informed bond traders, this deal-making is worth in fees to the dealmakers, led by Goldman Sachs, about $100 million.
The following week, the downgrade by the Moody’s rating agency confirmed the inflection in market sentiment against Israel, with worse to come.
A month ago, Bloomberg’s Israeli reporter Galit Altstein was assigned the job of printing all the material he could find promoting the sale of the bonds. The headline of his report implied that Israel would be able to finance its war despite the Moody’s downgrade and the longer-term risks in the small print of the Moody’s report.
According to Bloomberg, about $58 billion in new debt would be issued this year, up by a third from the prewar year. About 80% of that total is usually raised in the domestic Israeli market; but if Israeli investors lack the funds or are fleeing to safe havens for their money, a much larger percentage of the issue will have to be raised from international investors, most of them in the US. This, conceded Bloomberg’s Israeli informants, would require “private placements, which are typically bought by a few investors at most. Those have been arranged by banks such as Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank.”
“Domestic issuance in the first two months of this year,” Altstein reported for Bloomberg, “is projected to total the equivalent of more than $9 billion, a 350 percent rise from the same period last year… The cost of insuring against an Israeli default — as measured by credit default swaps — is now higher than that for lower-rated sovereigns such as Mexico and Indonesia, indicating some investors are nervous.”
Israeli financial media reporting indicates that the $8 billion in bond sales completed this month were entirely placed outside Israel.
In the money markets, nervousness fetches a rising price; in the case of Israel’s genocide bonds the only way to keep that price rise secret is through private placements. They are operations run by banks like Goldman Sachs which avoid the requirements of issuing a prospectus; obtaining a credit rating from a ratings agency which evaluates the prospectus claims; and making a market with semi-public meetings with investors and answering their questions. What Goldman Sachs does instead, according to those familiar with the bank’s operations, is to “dump the issue in state or institutional pension funds which can be counted on to hold the issue until maturity, and ask no questions.”
But even passive pension fund managers have their fiduciary limits: Israel’s war began to trigger withdrawals from both Israeli state and corporate bonds by Norwegian pension funds last November; by Danish pension funds after the genocide ruling by the ICJ in January.
An index tracking ten Israeli corporate bonds for the banking, telecommunication, pharmaceutical, and real estate sectors, shows market demand for Israeli debt issues fell in the first month of the war, but then began recovering above the pre-war levels.
By opting for private placement, the Israelis, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America agreed to avoid having to issue prospectus claims about the war against the Arabs which, if truthful, might reveal how false Israeli government claims about the war have been so far; and if false, would create a legal liability for the Israelis and the banks to being charged with a Section 17(a) fraud.
In the US Securities Act, which the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforces, Section 17(a) “makes it unlawful to ‘employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud’, ‘obtain money or property’ by using material misstatements or omissions, or to ‘engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.’ This provision is closely tracked by Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, which is used more widely by investors suing for fraud.”
The ICJ ruling against Israel in January has not stopped or even paused the IDF operations in Gaza, the West Bank, or on the northern front with Lebanon. However, the court has established a benchmark for “material misstatements and omissions” in what the Israel bond marketeers can say without running into Section 17(a) fraud litigation. This makes Israel’s war financing riskier and a bond prospectus impossible; it also makes the interest rate cost to the Israelis more expensive. For Goldman Sachs and the other banks engaged, that has meant more profit with higher fees.
Asked what the market was thinking about the private placement of the Israeli paper, a veteran European trader refused to reply. Other traders in Switzerland answered in generalities until Israel’s bonds were mentioned; then there was stonewalling. “It’s certain there’s an omerta,” a trade source commented. “The Israeli finance ministry has claimed the bond offer drew 400 investors from 36 countries making bids totalling $38 billion. But there is no mention of how the bonds were actually allocated. I suspect there were many token offers and only a few selected buyers got most of the issues.”
The Israeli financial source Globesclaims “demand for the issue was led by first-rate strategic investors such as pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds, and institutions that have been holding Israeli securities for many years.”
A bond trade source at an international institution points out that “when issuing a bond, the lead manager charges a fee. The net proceeds are going to be obviously less. The question is how much is Goldman Sachs charging in fees? This is usually stated in a prospectus but we don’t have that in the Israeli case. If the issue is difficult to place, the lead manager will contract with other banks to share the burden. They will then use a portion of the fees to make a market for the issued instruments and stabilize the pricing. Again this should be disclosed.”
In the results given by Israeli officials to Reuters on March 6, it was reported that Israel sold $2 billion of five-year bonds, and $3 billion each of 10 and 30-year bonds. “This is unusual,” the trade source comments. “If you need to restructure your economy you would expect most of the costs will be upfront, with payback from the higher efficiencies or higher profits reimbursing the borrowed funds later. This should not take ten or thirty years, so another calculation is in play.”
He believes the Israel government’s calculation is that the war on the military front is going to get worse, and the economic war for longer than can be acknowledged publicly. “So they are trying to lock in as much money for the long term as they can now, leaving less to pay back in the short term. They say they are aiming to raise $58 billion over this year, but we are already three months in — they have $50 billion still to go. At this rate of timing and at this pricing, they won’t make it.”
“As for the fees charged by a lead manager for an $8 billion debt issue, these can vary depending on several factors including the complexity of the issuance, prevailing market conditions, and negotiation between the government and the lead manager. Typically, lead managers charge a percentage fee based on the size of the offering, often from 0.5% to 2% of the total amount raised. Therefore, for an $8 billion issue, lead manager fees could range from $40 million to $160 million. However, these figures are indicative and could vary based on the specific terms of the deal.”
“I speculate that the fees will be around $100 million. The princes at Goldman Sachs are being rewarded handsomely. We will have to wait and see if they will regret it. The buyers should also be asking the fee question. If there is no answer, then these Israel bonds are not being bought or placed based on financial reasoning. It’s political, ideological, religious.”*
The SEC last published an Israel bond prospectus in June 2018. The amount of the placement is not recorded.
The US Government was identified as the guarantor of the debt paper. “The amount of guarantees that may be issued to Israel under the loan guarantee program may be reduced by an amount equal to the amount extended or estimated to have been extended by Israel for activities that the President of the United States determines are inconsistent with the objectives and understandings reached between the United States and Israel regarding the implementation of the loan guarantee program. Under the program, the United States issues guarantees with respect to all payments of principal and interest on certain bonds issued by Israel. The proceeds of the guaranteed loans may be used to refinance existing debt. Under the $9 billion loan guarantee program, between September 2003 and November 2004 Israel issued guaranteed notes totaling $4.1 billion face value. Israel has not issued any notes under the loan guarantee program since November 2004, and up to $3.8 billion of U.S. loan guarantees (subject to the reductions described above) remains available.”
There has never been a determination by the President that the guarantees should be suspended because of “activities… inconsistent with the objectives and understandings reached between the United States and Israel”. For the Biden Administration, genocide is not an “inconsistent activity”.
The map accompanying the 2018 prospectus shows the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights as subject “to agreements between the State of Israel (the “State” or “Israel”) and the Palestinian Liberation Organization”. The Golan Heights are legally Syrian territory, and there is no agreement. Gaza is marked separately without explanation – and without an agreement with the Hamas administration of Gaza. According to the document, before the date of the prospectus, Israeli military operations against Hamas in Gaza “did not materially affect the Israeli economy.” To claim this now is not only propaganda, it would be a material misstatement — in SEC terminology, a Section 17(a) fraud.
During the marketing of the $8 billion in bonds, there were highly confidential briefings for selected investors. According to Globes, “prior to the offering, Israel’s Accountant General Yali Rothenberg and his team led rounds of extensive meetings in Europe and the US.”
US bond trading sources believe it likely that Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, the two US banks identified as placing the bonds in the US market, sought to protect themselves from what Rothenberg and his Israeli officials said at these meetings, and from later reaction by bond buyers if the war goes longer and much worse for Israel than they were led to believe. A letter of consent seeking approval from the SEC is protective cover from Section 17(a) fraud liability in the absence of SEC review and approval of a prospectus.
Scott Schneider is head of public affairs and press spokesman at the SEC. He speaks for Gary Gensler, chairman of the SEC since 2021.* The SEC was asked by email whether “the widely publicized Israeli government bonds to be issued this year on a private placement basis are subject to SEC supervision to the extent of requiring a formal application for consent to the issues.” He was also asked to say what letters of consent have been approved by the SEC in relation to earlier Israeli issues.
Left to right, Yali Rothenburg, Israel’s Accountant General; Gary Gensler, SEC Chairman; Scott Schneider, SEC press spokesman.
There was no reply to the email, and no reply when the questions were repeated by telephone to the SEC press office in Washington.
When clarification of the letter of consent issue was then requested from Goldman Sachs, the press spokesman in New York, Jen Blackhall, promised a response, but none there came. The stonewalling by Goldman Sachs has also extended to the patsy question asked – how much in charity funds have been donated to Israel on CEO Solomon’s request to his staff last October.
Bond traders in London, Europe, and the US consulted for this story believe that the most reliable indicator that the money markets have begun to turn against Israel can be found in the spread between the interest rates (or yield-to-maturity**) of Israel’s bond issues compared with US Treasuries. For more details, click to read.
COMPARISON OF THE SPREAD BETWEEN 10-YEAR ISRAEL & US BONDS, MARCH 11, 2023-MARCH 11, 2024
The positive-negative spread between Israel’s 10-year government bond yield and the United States’ 10-year Treasury yield indicates when Israel’s yield is lower or higher than that of the US Treasury at that particular point in time.
The source, Worldgovernmentbonds.com, explains: “In the case of government bonds, the yield spread also means credit spread. These countries usually differ regarding credit quality. A positive spread means that the percentage yearly return of one bond over another is higher. For example, if one bond is yielding 5% and another is yielding 3%, the spread is 2%, or 200 basis points (bp).”
What remains unclear is whether the private-placement Israel bonds are included in the charting; if they are excluded, this is an attempt to keep the political and military meaning of the spread from becoming obvious outside the bond market.
The international bond trade source explains: “Until the war, Israel was able to finance itself at a lower cost than the US government, if you look at the 10-year bond spread in basis points [percentage points] between them. Then at the start of the war the situation reverses itself. Israeli bonds lose their advantage. The Israeli government is now having to pay a premium in interest rate over US Treasuries in order to secure buyers. Last week’s reports show that Israel is committing to pay 135 basis points over comparable 5-year US Treasuries, 145 basis points over 10-year Treasuries and 175 basis points over US 30-year bonds. For comparison, US 5-year bonds currently yield 4.15%, 10-year Treasuries are at 4.16%, and 30-year notes yield 4.30%.”
“Note that the chart is lagging behind the new $8 billion placement, and has not yet registered the widening of the spread against Israel. This is because the chart is based on all bonds which have a residual maturity of ten years, so it is showing an average. This average indicated that Israel’s 10- year residual maturity bonds were trading at a positive spread of 4.9 basis points (100 basis points = one percent) to the US equivalents. Worldgovernmentbonds.com does not provide a listing of the issues included in its calculations, but future charting can be expected to reveal the latest private placements will accelerate the widening of the spread. With $50 billion more in private placements still to go, the cost to the Israelis will become higher than ever before – and the spread will be pushed wider. That is if the private placements are included in the charting.”
“The outcome of the latest Israel government bond issue is nothing for them to cheer about. The previously favourable spread compared to their US Government guarantor has evaporated and now reversed itself. The same goes for the loss of money market confidence in Israel.”
[*] When an international court of law determines that a religious organization like the state of Israel is plausibly genocidal, it is relevant to note the religious affiliations of organizations which may be assisting in the genocide with money or propaganda. For example, the Reuters executive responsible for ethics and standards is Alix Freedman, who is Jewish. The SEC Chairman since 2021 is Gary Gensler, who is Jewish. The Goldman Sachs chief executive David Solomon is Jewish.
[**] The yield to maturity (YTM) of a government bond is a measure indicating the total return investors can expect to receive if they hold the bond until it matures, taking into account its current market price, the coupon payments, and the time remaining until maturity. For more details, click to read.
The United States Imperial Government (USIG) claims to be keeping the peace, underwriting the liberal, rules-based international order and safeguarding the global security architecture. This is not true. What the USIG is actually doing is killing people, helping get lots of people killed, and assisting foreign states as they commit corporate suicide. Israel’s ongoing, “plausibly genocidal” slaughter in Gaza and the West Bank is the latest example of this.
The United States is an empire and empire is murder-suicide. Since 9/11, U.S. soldiers have directly killed more than 400,000 civilians and indirectly contributed to the deaths of more than four million civilians. Meanwhile, more soldiers who served in the U.S. government’s Global War On Terror have committed suicide than have been killed in combat. Four times more.
The American People have not escaped suffering as the USIG and its empire have dished out catastrophic devastation in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Mali. The cost of living has exploded. Our infrastructure is in shambles. Public trust in government has collapsed. The military’s “recruitment landscape” is in free fall. And things are so bad at home the government has found a new job: attacking “tent cities” filled with “under-sheltered” people. Murder-suicide.
Then there are the vassal or “client” states. In the propaganda, the empire defends these states from…whatever. But in reality, it helps these states murder people all while creating the conditions for these states to kill themselves. This has been demonstrated recently in Afghanistan (state committed suicide), Ukraine (state is trying to commit suicide) and Israel (state is thinking about committing suicide).
In October, 2001, the USIG invaded Afghanistan and smashed the Taliban-controlled state. In its place was installed a new state with a new military, which Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton describes:
“The new regime was also largely a coalition government of ethnic minorities, the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras, being leveraged against the 40 percent plurality Pashtuns, dominant in the east and south of the country where the Taliban are from.”
This coalition regime could not exist without billions of U.S. dollars in its coffers, U.S. boots on the ground, and U.S. air power in the sky. As predicted by Horton, as soon as U.S. forces began their withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Afghan state (along with its military) immediately killed itself. The Taliban resurrected their state which the U.S. had smashed almost twenty years earlier.
In February 2014, the USIG backed a violent, neo-Nazi led coup in Ukraine. Instead of smashing the entire state, the coup overthrew President Viktor Yanukovych’s administration. Unlike Afghanistan’s anti-Taliban government in a box, the Ukrainian government under new management was capable of existing without a massive U.S. military presence. It was not, however, capable of winning a war with Russia. It took eight years, but the USIG managed to provoke a war with Russia.
Ukraine has been defeated but the imperial wizards in DC refuse to admit this truth and seek peace. There could have been a peace deal two years ago, when it was still fashionable for Americans to fly the Ukrainian flag outside their front doors, but the USIG crushed it. The Ukrainian state is bleeding out and continuing the war at this point puts the entire Ukrainian nation at risk. Russia could seize all of Ukraine and downgrade it from sovereign nation to a Russian aircraft carrier.
Israel has been fortunate to never have its state murdered or regime changed by the USIG. Quite the opposite; Israel has intervened in USIG affairs to a shocking extent. The Israel lobby wields massive influence in Washington DC, so much so that President Joe Biden is risking his re-election chances by refusing to stop producing Israel’s “plausibly genocidal” mass killing spree in Gaza.
This gleeful and live streamed spree of sadism has not been good for Israel. Its state is provoking the global community to view it as a deranged pariah, including the great powers of Russia and China. Even within America, the people want a ceasefire. We want it to stop.
Meanwhile, Israeli society is cracking. Approximately 200,000 Israelis have been displaced from their homes in the south and north of the country. The IDF has suffered thousands of casualties, the economy is destabilized, and fear has blanketed the land.
And now Israel is planning an invasion of southern Lebanon. Such an invasion would be a hoped for but unexpected gift to Hamas. Experts such as Col. Douglas Macgregor, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Lt. Col Daniel Davis, Alastair Crooke, John Mearsheimer and Robert Pape have all warned against the invasion. They have argued that Israel risks catastrophic fallout from such a move, from mass causalities to provoking a regional war and even suffering strategic defeat.
Israel supporters seem confident in its security state, despite its massive failure on October 7. Tel Aviv appears to be operating with the assurance that the U.S. military will step in with strike packages and boots on the ground if and when needed. And yes, DC will let American cities die while it views Israel as too big to fail.
But the empire is beset by incompetence and anyone who paid attention to the self-immolation of the Afghan state and the slow suicide of the Ukrainian state knows this isn’t going to end well.
Over 7,000 copies sold so far. Not only that, the book is now being circulated among staff in TWO different U.S. Senators office: Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
Two years ago, in December 2021, Russia formulated its security interests in separate letters to NATO’s Secretary General Stoltenberg and to US President Biden in no uncertain terms. The West’s reaction: no response! There is much to suggest that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could have been prevented if the West had negotiated and ruled out the country’s membership of NATO, writes Dr Ensel.
OLDENBURG, Germany | 18 January 2024 (IDN) — Western reporting about the war in Ukraine has many remarkable blank spots about the events that led to the war. Hardly anybody in the West knows that Boris Yeltsin, who was otherwise very close to the West, threatened back in March 1997 the then US President Bill Clinton that if Ukraine joined NATO, it would cross a red line for Russia. This was at the time of NATO’s first eastward expansion and long before Vladimir Putin came to power. It shows that Western plans for NATO expansion into Ukraine dated back to the 1990’s and that Russia had vehemently opposed this for just as long.
The Minsk II agreement was, with the obvious acquiescence of the West, never implemented by the Ukrainian government. The constitutional reforms agreed on in Minsk to provide the Donetsk and Luhansk regions with a special status (like the South Tyrol solution) were ignored by the end of 2015. At the end of 2022, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed what ‘evil tongues’ had long suspected: The two Minsk Agreements were only to gain time to get the Ukrainian army in shape. Later, France’s former President François Hollande and Ukraine’s former President Petro Poroshenko confirmed this.
It is also little known in the West that in 2021—long before the Russian invasion—Ukraine intensified its attacks against rebel positions in Donetsk with Turkish Bayraktar TB2 combat drones that had “proven their worth in the Karabakh War 2020”. It was also negotiating with Turkey a license to produce them in Ukraine.
Virtually unknown among the Western public is also the fact that since mid-1990, the US armed forces conducted annual military manoeuvres with Ukrainian troops inside the territory of western Ukraine under the code name “Rapid Trident” (formerly named “Peace Shield”). The last US-Ukrainian manoeuvres took place in September -October 2021, together with forces from Bulgaria, Canada, Georgia, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Jordan, Moldova, Pakistan, and Poland. Since 1997, US naval manoeuvres code-named “Sea Breeze” have regularly taken place off the coast of Ukraine in the Black Sea. In the summer of 2021, these naval manoeuvres involved naval forces from 32 countries.
What would have been the reaction of the West if Russia, together with soldiers from Belarus, Serbia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and other countries, had conducted regular military exercises in Mexico and held annual naval maneuvers in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida?
Who knows that on March 24, 2021—exactly eleven months before the Russian invasion—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed Decree No. 117 for a “Strategy for the de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol”? It aimed to prepare all necessary military measures to “end the temporary occupation” of Crimea and the Donbas.
On August 30, 2021, the USA and Ukraine signed a treaty on military cooperation and, on November 10, 2021, concluded a treaty on “Strategic Partnership”. This treaty stated, among other things: “The United States intends to support Ukraine’s efforts to counter Russia’s armed aggression, including through the maintenance of sanctions and the application of other relevant measures, pending the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.” Had the Ukraine, with US encouragement, prepared for war just months before Russia attacked?
And this was not all:
All this took place on the background of other activities that Russia must have seen as existential threats to its security. In 1999 and 2004, NATO expansion brought it directly to the Russian border when 14 Eastern European countries joined the military organization.
By 2001, the US Government under Bush Jr. began dismantling virtually all arms reduction treaties and confidence-building measures with Russia: In 2001, it cancelled the A-CFE Agreement on the Disarmament of Armed Forces and Weapons Systems in Europe and the ABM Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems; in 2019, it allowed the phasing out of INF Treaty prohibiting the production and deployment of land-based missiles and cruise missiles with a range of between 500 and 5.500 kilometres and in 2020 it cancelled the Open Skies Treaty, which was intended to create a ‘glasnost’ for both sides in the sense of confidence-building measures through overflight rights. In 2023, Russia responded by suspending the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last remaining treaty limiting U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. The US had never ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
NATO conducted its own wars of aggression, ignoring the UN Charter. In 1999, it attacked illegally the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and was forced to hand control of Kosovo, formally an autonomous province of Yugoslavia, to NATO forces. In 2003, the US attacked Iraq under false pretext and without a UN mandate. In 2011, it attacked Libya, also under false pretext, ignoring the limitations set in the UN mandate. In a highly “creative” interpretation of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, it began to station NATO troops in countries bordering Russia in 2016. In 2016, the US Aegis Ashore Site became operational in Romania, and in 2023, the US Aegis Ashore Site in Poland became operational. They are all directed against Russia and designed to undermine Russia’s ability to respond to any nuclear attack.
What Russia proposed to NATO and the USA…
On December 17, 2021, Russia sent NATO and the USA a draft treaty to establish legally binding security guarantees for both sides. Are the proposals so absurd and unrealistic as claimed by the US and other NATO states? Was the West justified in ignoring Russia’s security concerns and in taking the position that “Ukraine’s NATO membership is not up for negotiations”? Had NATO fulfilled its obligation under the UN Charter to negotiate any conflict to find a diplomatic solution as and when it arises to prevent war?
In summary, the draft treaty addressed to NATO contained the following proposals:
Both sides should confirm not to regard each other as adversaries;
Return to the principles of “equal and indivisible security” (Paris Charter);
Renunciation of the use and threat of force;
Refraining from creating situations that one side could regard as a threat to its national security;
Restraint in military planning and exercises to avoid “dangerous brinkmanship”, especially in the Baltic Sea region and in the Black Sea;
Revitalization of the NATO-Russia Council and other bilateral and multilateral discussion formats;
Transparency in military exercises and manoeuvres;
Establishment of hotlines for emergency contacts (revitalization of the “red telephone”);
Withdrawal of Western armed forces and weapons systems to the level prior to NATO’s first eastward expansion;
No deployment of land-based short- and medium-range missiles in areas from which they could attack the territory of the other party;
No further expansion of NATO (in particular not to include Ukraine);
NATO to refrain from military activities on the territory of Ukraine and other states in Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia;
Establishment of a largely demilitarized corridor between NATO and Russia.
In summary, the draft treaty addressed to the USA also contained the following proposals:
Reaffirmation of the declaration that nuclear war can have no victor and that every effort must be made to avert this danger;
Renunciation of measures aimed at preparing for war against the other side on the territory of third countries;
Renunciation by the USA of establishing military bases and bilateral military cooperation in and with the states of the post-Soviet space that are not NATO members;
Both sides refrain from stationing armed forces and weapons systems outside their territories, which the other side might regard as a threat to its national security;
Refraining from flights of heavy bombers and the presence of surface combatants in regions from which they could strike targets in the territory of the other Party;
Refraining from stationing nuclear weapons outside its own territory and returning such weapons systems, and destroying the corresponding infrastructure to third countries;
There is no training of personnel in the use of nuclear weapons and no military exercises for their use in countries that do not possess them.
As always, the devil is in the details, and all proposals would have required intensive scrutiny by security policy and diplomatic experts. Moreover, the ‘package demands’ and the ultimate tone of the two letters were highly undiplomatic. Nonetheless, NATO and the USA should have taken the two proposed draft agreements seriously as a clear formulation of Russian security interests, examined them carefully and used them as a basis for negotiations aimed at significantly improving the security situation of all signatory states by finding a negotiated solution to the security concerns of Russia and Ukraine. This would have probably prevented the war, saved the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of mostly young men, and left Ukraine as a sovereign state intact.
… and how NATO responded
On January 7, 2022, an extraordinary digital conference call among all 30 NATO foreign ministers took place to work out a common NATO position on how to react to the Russian proposals. NATO’s response was disappointing: They decided not to negotiate any of the core issues raised by Russia.
At the subsequent press conference, Secretary General Stoltenberg—like US President Biden later—responded in the usual fashion: NATO would continue to support Ukraine and Georgia; and that every country, regardless of its size and the concern of its neighbours, had the right to choose its own alliances. However, by claiming that every member of the OSCE, regardless of its neighbours, has the right to become a NATO member, Stoltenberg and Biden contradicted the spirit of the 1990 OSCE “Charter of Paris” for a New Europe and the Istanbul Document of the 1999 OSCE Summit with its stated principles: “Each participating State has an equal right to security… They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”
Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, the former and well-informed ARD correspondent in Moscow, responding to such a claim, said the necessary things about the alleged general right to NATO membership: “All states have the right to apply to NATO for membership. But NATO has every right in the world to reject applicants if overriding political considerations speak against it!”
Adding further to the tensions, Stoltenberg took this opportunity to call on Finland and Sweden to join NATO blatantly—“the partners with whom we are working more and more closely. NATO’s door remains open!”
Six weeks later, Russia launched its military intervention into Ukraine.
Dr. Leo Ensel (“Look at the other side!”) is a conflict researcher and intercultural trainer focusing on the post-Soviet space and Central/Eastern Europe. He has published about “Fear and Nuclear Armament”, the social psychology of German reunification and studies on images of Germany in the post-Soviet space. In the new West-East conflict, his main concern is overcoming false narratives, de-escalation and the reconstruction of trust. The author attaches great importance to his independence. He feels exclusively committed to the topics mentioned and not to any national narrative.
Del sits down with one of Anthony Fauci’s biggest adversaries, Senator Rand Paul. Hear how his perspective as a physician and politician led to holding Fauci to the fire on his cover-up of gain-of-function research, his push for draconian lockdowns, and refusal to accept the strength of natural immunity against COVID. His new book, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up, reads as a forensic investigation, chronicling the disastrous failure of government and public health during the pandemic.
“Far from being an anomaly, Epstein was one of several men who, over the past century, have engaged in sexual blackmail activities designed to obtain damaging information (i.e., “intelligence”) on powerful individuals with the goal of controlling their activities and securing their compliance.”[1]
Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Ghislaine Maxwell is locked away in prison, and the thought-makers of our world seem keen to let the more explosive parts of the scandal dissipate from the public consciousness. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, Epstein and Maxwell were little more than well-connected socialites who ran a sex-trafficking ring for the rich and the powerful, and the focus has shifted instead to the criminal and civil cases seeking to achieve redress for the victims of sexual abuse.
On occasion some newspaper articles will mention the hidden cameras littered across Epstein’s properties, others the reams of CDs and hard drives found within them during the FBI raids. Altogether missing from the Netflix documentaries (Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich [2020] and Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich [2022]) or the articles that spend their time narrowly focusing on the links between Epstein and Bill Gates, is the acknowledgement of the true nature of Epstein himself and the ultimate purpose of this sex-trafficking of minors — a sexual blackmail operation.
Not everyone is cowardly enough to let these controversial aspects lie untouched, as the newly released two-volume book One Nation Under Blackmail by independent reporter Whitney Webb seeks to blow wide open this media-enforced blackout. Utilizing primarily open-source information (that is, publicly accessible information such as books, newspapers articles and government reports),[2] Webb’s book delves into the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein and his deep ties to Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence. … 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.
Aletho News
Aletho News 