Could Ukraine resort to terrorism against Russian and pro-Russian targets around the world?

By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 5, 2024
On April 26th, it was reported that the Russian embassy in Brazil had received a phone call informing of a bomb presence on the premises. The Military Police of the Federal District was activated and headed to the location to conduct searches.
After several hours of searching, no explosive device was found within or around the embassy. Nevertheless, even if the “alert” was false, the case warrants a deeper investigation, along with reflections on the risks surrounding Russians and “friends of Russia” abroad, given the current geopolitical climate.
In this specific case, despite no explosive device being found, it falls under Brazilian legislation on terrorism, as our laws also encompass the threat of an attack (and mere insinuation constitutes a threat). Hence, “terrorism” is established, regardless of the presence of an actual device at the embassy.
However, it would be imprudent to consider the matter “closed” for several reasons.
Firstly, attention is drawn to the degeneration of the Ukrainian state into a terrorist institutional apparatus, with its security services having been involved in numerous terrorist attacks inside and outside Ukraine.
Ukraine’s degeneration into normalizing terrorism as a state practice accompanies its inability to confront Russia through regular warfare methods. It is predicted that the degradation of the Ukrainian armed forces will be accompanied by a proportional increase in terrorism usage by its security apparatus. Everyone remembers the terrorist attacks that killed Daria Dugina, Vladlen Tatarsky, and the Crocus City Hall attack. Threats to various Russian public figures are constant.
But it is necessary to question whether Ukrainian terrorism (but not only Ukrainian) could extend beyond the Russian-Ukrainian borders and overflow into other nations. Consider, for example, the waves of Russophobia immediately stirred up after the start of the Russian special military operation.
This wave of Russophobia saw not only the cancellation of artistic and academic presentations linked to the Russian World but also physical attacks on some individuals in various countries. Needless to enumerate cases, it suffices to point out that even in Brazil, there were acts of vandalism against Russian Orthodox churches.
To this adds the presence of dozens of Brazilian mercenaries in Ukraine, fighting for Atlanticism. Some of these mercenaries are neo-Nazis, others are neoconservatives, many others are merely useful idiots deceived by unscrupulous influencers on social media. Recently, one of these mercenaries already returned to Brazil, named João Bercle (who, however, according to field information, was never on the front line), stated that Ukraine would “go after” Russians and “defenders of Russia” worldwide, insinuating the possibility of violence fomented, financed, and/or orchestrated from Kiev.
Furthermore, journalist Lucas Leiroz demonstrated in a thread on X that Brazilian President Lula was listed as a “target” on the infamous Myrotvorets website, an authentic “death list” indicating supposed “enemies of Ukraine” to be targeted through terrorist attacks or kidnappings. Many other foreign citizens have also been included on this list.
Well, personalizing the reflection, the author writing this article has indeed received death threats through anonymous accounts on the internet, including threats containing personal information and photos of family members.
Returning, therefore, to the bomb threat at the Russian embassy in Brazil, it is crucial to seriously consider the possibilities, paying attention to future risks.
In any case of such a threat, one must always consider the possibility of it being a troll or a madman or, in general, a person with no specific ideological or collective connections. But the fact that we are in such a geopolitically turbulent period forces us to also insist on other possibilities.
If the origin of the threat is not a troll, then the first suspicion could only fall on Ukrainian security services, such as the SBU and the SZRU, whose involvement in the aforementioned terrorist attacks is at least suspected.
It is notorious that the SBU operates in Brazil, infiltrating the Ukrainian-Brazilian community, which is relatively large, albeit discreet. Years ago, this author learned from a primary source that relatives of Brazilians who fought for the Donbass in Ukraine between 2014-2016 received death threats, with the primary suspicion at the time falling on the SBU.
In this sense, it is evident that the SBU would be the main suspect. And that directly or indirectly.
Indirectly, it is necessary to consider, first of all, Brazilian neo-Nazi groups, most of which have links with analogous organizations in Ukraine and even with the security sectors of that country, such as members of the Misanthropic Division Brazil, especially since some of these Brazilian neo-Nazis fought for the Ukrainian side in the past or went there for training, as reported by the Brazilian mainstream media several times.
The instrumentalization of members of these groups for terrorist attacks against Russian or pro-Russian targets in Brazil would not be particularly difficult. They would require little persuasion and encouragement.
Naturally, if we are still thinking about native Brazilians who could be instrumentalized for this type of terrorism, it would be necessary to observe those who have indeed been engaged in spreading widespread Russophobia and who see Russia as the embodiment of evil.
In this regard, the ferment of neoconservatism and ultraliberalism, proliferated over the last few years in Brazil, with its tendencies toward conspiracy theories, coupled with various behavioral disorders and the possibility of conscious or unconscious cooptation by some intelligence service, opens up the possibility of something in this direction.
Of course, in many of the suspected Ukrainian terrorist actions, some degree of contribution from Western intelligence agencies is suspected.
In this sense, and even considering threats to the President of Brazil, it would be essential to strengthen the counterintelligence work of Brazilian security agencies, as well as to monitor possible connections between neo-Nazi groups or extremist factions of neoconservatism with Ukraine or other intelligence services of NATO countries.
Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta speaks to Al Mayadeen on EU entry ban
Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2024
Doctor Ghassan Abu Sitta, a renowned Palestinian Plastic and Reconstructive surgeon, detailed to Al Mayadeen his experience in France’s Charles De Gaulle International Airport, where French authorities stopped and turned him back on Saturday.
Dr. Abu Sitta flew to France to speak at the French Senate at the invitation of the Ecologists Party (The Greens), however, he was stopped and interrogated after arriving at Charles De Gaulle airport, to be later put on a flight back home. French authorities told Abu Sitta that he was barred from entering EU member states after German authorities banned him from the Schengen Area.
The surgeon volunteered with Doctors Without Borders in the Gaza Strip, working in the besieged territories hospitals amid a blatant Israeli genocide, which he bore witness to.
He told Al Mayadeen that the main reason why French authorities denied him entry to the country was to deny him access to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The doctor was also scheduled to speak to authorities in the ICC, which is reportedly exploring issuing arrest warrants for Israeli war criminals, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In the interview, Abu Sitta underlined the political pressure that the ICC is being subjected to from the United States Congress, the Joe Biden administration, and the European governments abetting the Israeli regime’s war on Gaza.
In this context, the humanitarian said that a European political decision has been made, aiming to silence any witnesses of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. This policy comes in parallel with an Israeli decision to assassinate all other witnesses to the war crimes remaining in the Gaza Strip or held in detention, Abu Sitta explained.
Moreover, Abu Sitta pointed to collusion between Israeli and European officials, aimed at restricting the movement of witnesses to the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, specifically to international courts.
Israeli government shuts down broadcaster Al Jazeera
RT | May 5, 2024
The cabinet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has unanimously voted to halt the operations in Israel of Qatar-based broadcaster Al Jazeera, the government has said in a statement.
Israel has long accused Al Jazeera, which remains one of the few international news channels to have correspondents on the ground in Gaza, of showing bias against it and of cooperating with Hamas militants. The broadcaster has been denying the accusations.
Netanyahu took to X on Sunday to announce the development, writing that “the government headed by me unanimously decided: the incitement channel Al Jazeera will be closed in Israel.”
Shortly after that, Israel’s Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi said that he had signed the orders to restrict the broadcaster’s operations, which would be effective immediately.
The hardware “used to deliver the channel’s content,” including editing and routing equipment, cameras, laptops and some mobile phones, is going to be seized, Karhi wrote on X.
The Israeli government’s decision is in line with a law passed by the country’s parliament, the Knesset, in April, which allows for temporary closure in Israel of foreign broadcasters deemed a threat to national security during the conflict in Gaza. According to the legislation, the ban requires recertification every 45 days.
The head of Al Jazeera in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Walid Omary, insisted that the move by Netanyahu’s cabinet was “dangerous” and motivated solely by political considerations. The broadcaster’s legal team is preparing a response to the ban, Omary told Reuters.
Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Gaza, Hani Mahmoud, said that Palestinians are perceiving the shutdown of the news channel as “a desperate move to prevent fair coverage of what’s going on on the ground” in the enclave.
Al Jazeera has “documented the atrocities” and “acts that go against international human rights law,” Mahmoud claimed, adding that this was “something that did not really sit well with the Israeli government.”
The death toll from Israel’s ongoing airstrikes and ground offensive in Gaza has already reached 34,654 people, while 77,908 others have been wounded, according to the Palestinian enclave’s health ministry. The campaign was launched in response to the October 7 Hamas cross-border attack on Israel, in which at least 1,200 people were killed and 250 taken hostage.
IS BIRD FLU THE NEXT COVID?
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | May 2, 2024
As America faces an unlikely bird flu ‘outbreak’ in chickens and cows, many are speculating on when this rare illness will jump to humans. Jefferey Jaxen looked into the previous gain-of-function lab work on H5N1 funded by Tony Fauci and NIAID, and found something very interesting.
Head of Nonprofit With Ties to Wuhan Lab Should Face Criminal Investigation, House Committee Says
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | May 2, 2024
A House committee investigating the COVID-19 pandemic on Wednesday called for a criminal investigation into Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, and further investigation into failures in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant-funding procedures.
In a statement released after the hearing — accompanied by a 59-page report — the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic called for permanently terminating funding for EcoHealth Alliance, which has ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Both Republican and Democrat representatives explicitly called for defunding EcoHealth Alliance, which Daszak said receives about $16 million in government grants annually.
However, journalist Paul D. Thacker cautioned against allowing Daszak to become “the fall guy” — because the NIH and Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), aided Daszak “in this multi-year cover-up,” he said.
Thacker, who has extensively covered Daszak and other COVID-19 origins-related news, told The Defender the Democrats seemed more concerned during the hearing about EcoHealth’s paperwork and conflicts of interest than the core allegations of dangerous gain-of-function research.
“The American people deserve accountability, and Daszak should be prosecuted for helping to misdirect USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] funds to create the Global Virome Project,” Thacker said.
He pointed to a 2022 U.S. Right to Know investigation showing Daszak co-founded the Global Virome Project with then-director of USAID’s Emerging Pandemic Threats Program Dennis Carroll, who “siphoned taxpayer funds” to launch the project.
The Global Virome Project aims to collect more than 1 million viruses from wildlife for research to forecast future pandemics.
Thacker also noted the change in the Democrats’ messaging throughout the hearing, which was more critical of Daszak. “No great evidence came to light,” he said. “But something is going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about yet.”
The House report confirms many of the same allegations laid out in “The Wuhan Cover-Up,” by Children’s Health Defense founder and chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The book was published in 2021.
Dems admit SARS-CoV-2 may have come from a lab
Daszak appeared before the committee to answer questions about his organization’s ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and allegations of conducting risky coronavirus research.
Committee members pressed him on claims that EcoHealth was conducting gain-of-function research, failed to report on experiments showing excessive viral growth and repeatedly missed deadlines for progress reports.
Led by Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) and Ranking Member Paul Ruiz (D-Calif.), the subcommittee also examined the circumstances surrounding EcoHealth’s NIH grant termination in 2020, and the ongoing dispute over access to virus samples collected at the Wuhan lab.
In his opening statement, Wenstrup said Daszak “comes across as disingenuous” when using “highly technical definitions in order to assert that a certain project really isn’t gain-of-function.”
Acknowledging EcoHealth’s failure to comply with grant-reporting requirements, Ruiz said Daszak’s actions “draw into question whether [he] sought to deliberately mislead regulators at NIH and NIAID.”
Daszak faced tough questioning from members on both sides of the aisle about his organization’s transparency and handling of taxpayer funds, biosafety standards at the Wuhan lab, efforts to downplay the role of Chinese scientists in his proposals, and communications with government officials through private emails.
Maintaining a composed and technical demeanor throughout, Daszak frequently cited government regulations, grant terms and scientific evidence to defend EcoHealth’s actions.
However, at times Daszak appeared evasive or uncertain when challenged on specific details. Many subcommittee members expressed skepticism about his forthrightness.
In a noteworthy departure from previous hearings, Democrats admitted that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could have come from a lab, although several underscored the lack of definitive evidence for the lab-leak theory.
“I’m hoping someday that we are going to get to the bottom of the truth of this,” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) said at the hearing. “I don’t know that we ever are because I’m hearing totally opposite information from reliable sources.”
Substack author Maryam Henein, noting the extensive documentation and testimony already gathered by the subcommittee and its failure to get to the bottom of COVID-19 origins, asked, “So, are all these hearings and reports for optics?”
Dispute over gain-of-function research definition
A central focus of the hearing was whether EcoHealth was conducting gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab.
According to the subcommittee’s May 1 interim staff report, this research violated the terms of NIH grant R01AI110964 awarded to EcoHealth in 2014 for its five-year study, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”
Majority Counsel Mitch Benzine pointed out that NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak, Ph.D., and coronavirus expert Ralph Baric, Ph.D., testified that the experiments described in EcoHealth’s year 5 progress qualified as gain-of-function research.
This contradicts claims Daszak made in November 2023 during a transcribed interview before the subcommittee.
Daszak disputed the allegation, citing a letter from NIH stating that the work was not subject to gain-of-function regulations. “I tend to go with the regulatory authority on this, which is NIH,” he said.
The subcommittee’s interim report states that the definition of gain-of-function research on the NIH website was “unceremoniously removed … the same day the EcoHealth experiment was reported to Congress.”
The report alleges this change occurred before Fauci testified before the U.S. Senate claiming NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research and that Fauci therefore “misled the public” about funding such research at the Wuhan lab.
Public concerns about the research resulted in NIH reviewing EcoHealth’s grant, which it eventually suspended on April 24, 2020, the report states.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) questioned “NIAID’s approval and oversight of risky experiments involving potential pandemic pathogens,” calling the oversight “lax,” “a farce” and “grossly negligent.”
Congress will “have to put some adults in place to independently review proposed gain-of-function research” that federal agencies want to fund, Griffith said.
Daszak conceded that the Wuhan lab could have been conducting gain-of-function research on human coronaviruses without his knowledge.
He also emphasized that EcoHealth’s 15 years of work in China “provided direct public health benefits to the American people.”
“The viruses that we identified in bats in China were used by U.S. labs throughout the COVID pandemic and continue to be used to test drugs, vaccines and therapies that saved countless lives,” Daszak said.
Daszak: ‘Zero evidence’ virus emerged from a lab
The debate over the origins of COVID-19 was a central point of contention throughout the hearing.
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) asked Daszak whether U.S. intelligence agencies “suspected something fishy was going on at the Wuhan lab” — including bioweapons manufacturing — before the pandemic.
“Well, that’s really for the intelligence community to answer,” Daszak said, claiming that only two agencies had “low to moderate confidence” of a lab-leak origin.
Daszak repeatedly stated that the available evidence strongly points to a natural zoonotic spillover. “There is zero evidence that it emerged from a lab.”
When Lesko cited a 2021 U.S. Department of State fact sheet alleging the Wuhan lab collaborated with the Chinese military on secret projects, Daszak denied knowing anything about a military connection to the lab.
Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) questioned Daszak’s past statements dismissing the lab-leak origins as a “conspiracy theory,” noting this contradicted Daszak’s current testimony acknowledging the possibility.
Democratic Chief Counsel Giancarlo Pellegrini also interrogated Daszak on the issue, citing the following statement he and other scientists made in The Lancet in 2020: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”
Daszak defended the comments, arguing the claims at the time were that the virus had HIV inserts and snake DNA and that it was bioengineered.
“Those are pure conspiracy theories,” he said. “There is no evidence at all for them. And they’re based on myth and legend.”
Under repeated questioning about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, Daszak doubled down on his claim, telling Comer, “The evidence that this came from a natural spillover is huge and growing every week.”
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) probed Daszak over EcoHealth’s DEFUSE proposal — developed with Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., of the Wuhan lab, and presented to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) in 2018 — and its planned “experiments to introduce furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.”
She said the altered furin cleavage site is an attribute of SARS-CoV-2 and suggested some of Daszak’s actions were “intended to mislead DARPA about the extent of Wuhan’s involvement.”
Daszak countered that the proposal was never accepted or funded and that he was transparent about his relationship with the Wuhan lab in his prior discussions with DARPA.
EcoHealth failed to report on coronavirus-infected mice
The subcommittee report stated that EcoHealth failed to report an experiment at the Wuhan lab that showed the chimeric virus had enhanced growth compared to the control, violating NIH grant terms.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) questioned Daszak about EcoHealth’s year 5 progress report, which describes an experiment where mice infected with a chimeric coronavirus WIV1-SHC014 had a much lower survival rate (25%) compared to mice infected with just the WIV1 virus (71.4%).
Daszak argued the NIH rules did not apply to bat coronaviruses. “It was not considered of any risk to human health because they’ve never been shown to infect people,” he said.
Pellegrini pressed Daszak on the lack of the control virus data in EcoHealth’s year 4 grant report, which made it impossible to verify compliance with NIH’s rule for reporting a significantly increased level of virulence.
“We did the experiment, reported it back,” Daszak said. “Nobody came back to us and said, ‘This is highly concerning,’ because it wasn’t. The results were unremarkable.”
Daszak argued the experimental results showed “normal variations within a small group of mice.”
“I also want to remind the committee, these are SARS-CoV-related bat viruses,” Daszak said. “They’re not known to be infectious to people. They’re nothing to do with COVID-19.”
Daszak blamed late report on NIH website lockout
The subcommittee report found that EcoHealth submitted the NIH grant year 5 progress report nearly two years late, in August 2021, despite the report being due on September 28, 2019.
Daszak claimed his staff attempted to submit the report on time but the NIH system “locked us out.” However, an NIH investigation found no evidence to corroborate Daszak’s excuse, Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) said.
Ross grilled Daszak, challenging his claim that EcoHealth staff only made phone calls and noting EcoHealth’s typical pattern of communicating with NIH by email.
Daszak acknowledged there was no email on the issue, only phone calls from his staff that could not be verified, but promised to look again for any evidence of email communications concerning the lockout.
‘You didn’t tell me the truth’
EcoHealth’s failure to submit the report on time may have been due to ulterior motives, Griffith argued.
He pointed out discrepancies between the May 2020 draft of the year 5 report — the one EcoHealth claimed to have attempted to upload in 2019 — and the report submitted to NIH in August 2021.
In the 2020 version, EcoHealth claimed that bat coronavirus spillover in Southeast Asia and South China is a rare event, whereas the later report stated that “spillovers infected potentially a million people each year,” Griffith said.
“Rare or up to a million?” Griffith asked, telling Daszak that in his November 2023 closed-door testimony, he claimed there were no significant differences between the two versions of the report.
“You changed perhaps one of the most important findings — the likelihood of bat coronavirus spillover into humans,” Griffith said. “There’s no new data. There’s no new paper cited. Just a complete 180 reversal on the conclusion.”
Griffith told Daszak he assumed “Dr. Fauci or others at NIAID” pressured him to change the conclusion “to satisfy NIAD or others in the scientific community or to cover potential liability.”
Daszak responded that it was possible that EcoHealth conducted further scientific research after the initial draft, resulting in a revised conclusion.
Griffith pushed back, telling Daszak, “You didn’t tell me the truth” in the November interview.
Citing his experience in the criminal courts, Griffith said, “If you were my client, I would tell you that ‘That dog won’t hunt’ and the judge ain’t gonna believe that.”
Subcommittee posts key takeaways after hearing
In its statement released after the hearing, the subcommittee shared the following takeaways:
- EcoHealth Alliance used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China.
- EcoHealth Alliance violated its NIH grant terms and conditions by failing to report a potentially dangerous gain-of-function experiment conducted at the WIV.
- EcoHealth Alliance also violated its NIH grant terms and conditions by failing to submit a required research update report — which included details about its gain-of-function work at the WIV — until nearly TWO YEARS after the NIH deadline.
- The Trump Administration identified serious concerns with EcoHealth Alliance’s funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and instructed NIH to fix the problem. Then, NIH terminated EcoHealth’s grant. Without the intervention of the Trump Administration, EcoHealth may have been allowed to continue its dangerous research.
- NIH is currently violating the terms of the WIV’s formal debarment by funding EcoHealth Alliance’s research.
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Israel’s Plan for Postwar Gaza Ignores Will of Palestinians
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 04.05.2024
Israeli government officials have been quietly discussing a scheme to rule Gaza once the war is over, according to the New York Times.
Citing individuals familiar with the talks, the newspaper wrote that Israel appears to be ready to share oversight of the strip with a number of Arab countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as well as with the US.
Under the plan, the coalition of nations would govern the strip for about 7-10 years and then allow Palestinians residing in Gaza to vote on whether to become subordinate to the united Palestinian administration. The Israeli military would maintain its presence in Gaza in the meantime, as per the proposal. The NYT emphasized that Tel Aviv would agree to the scenario in exchange for normalization of relations with Riyadh.
According to the newspaper, Arab officials and analysts have largely denounced the plan since it does not contain provisions opening the door to legalizing the Palestine state.
“I don’t see the possibility for this plan to become a reality,” Dr. Mehmet Rakipoglu, assistant professor at Mardin Artuklu University and researcher at the Dimensions for Strategic Studies London-based think tank, told Sputnik. “Even if it’s implemented, I don’t see any concrete solution for the problem, because the problem is all about the US and Israel.”
Rakipoglu argued that the proposal directly contradicts a two state solution, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1947 and then upheld by the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995. The expert noted that the peace solution formulated by King Abdullah in 2002 and endorsed by the Arab League in 2002, 2007 and 2017 appears unacceptable to Tel Aviv.
The Abdullah plan envisaged a full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights and the establishment of a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem in exchange for normalization of relations between Israel and Arab nations.
“Netanyahu has no intention not only to end the [Gaza] war but also they don’t have any intention to withdraw,” Rakipoglu said.
Eyal Pinko, an Israeli military expert, is similarly skeptical about the proposal described by the NYT. According to Pinko, Washington is interested in finding a quick solution ahead of the US presidential elections in November. According to the expert, the challenge lies in the impossibility of reaching a swift resolution due to the conflicting interests of various state and non-state actors regarding the future of the Gaza Strip.
Similarly, Palestinians residing in Gaza are unlikely to accept the plan: almost 85% of the Gaza population supports Hamas and doesn’t want the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern the strip, according to the military expert.
What’s more, most Israeli politicians would have preferred to stay out of Gaza and not solve this tricky dilemma. Per Pinko, just a small group of conservative hardliners in the Israeli government want to maintain total control of the strip in a bid to overhaul it and eradicate Hamas.
“The majority of Israeli public opinion – from the right, from the center, from the left, – the majority of the Israeli people want to stay out of Gaza like it was in the last 17 years. Not going back over there. Not to put any kind of civilian authority over there. Nobody wants it, really. We understand this is like a hornet nest.”
Even though Arab states want to normalize with Israel to ensure regional stability, they cannot do this without solving the Palestine dilemma first, Rakipoglu highlighted. The only way to start untying the Gordian knot is to bring Iran, Russia, Turkiye and Qatar along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to the negotiating table in order to work out a balanced solution, according to the analyst.
“Hamas has announced that four countries must be at the negotiation table: one of them is Turkiye, the second one is Russia, as well as Qatar and Egypt. Without bringing these countries to the negotiation table, Hamas and other resistance movements will not accept any plan. It will only empower the anger for Hamas to be against the Western countries,” the analyst concluded.
Israel gives extremist settler ‘absolute’ control of occupied West Bank
The Cradle | May 3, 2024
Brigadier General Avi Bluth, an extremist religious settler, has been appointed to the position of Central Command commander of the Israeli army, Israeli media reported on 2 May.
Bluth has previously served as commander of the Army’s Judea and Samaria Division and as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Military Secretary.
According to Muhammad Shehada of Euro Med Human Rights, Bluth will now have absolute powers over the West Bank, including the ability to demolish homes and conduct army raids.
Bluth contributed to pogroms against Palestinians in the towns of Huwara and Burqa by standing by as Jewish settlers lynched civilians and burned and destroyed homes, shops, and vehicles.
He also played a role in incorporating extremists from a religious settler group called the Hilltop Youth into units of the Israeli army.
Bluth pushed for Operation Break the Wave in 2022, in which the army killed 149 Palestinians in the West Bank and abducted 2000 others in a series of raids, and Operation Bayit Vagan in July 2023, in which the army carried out a massive assault on Jenin, killing 12 Palestinians and leaving widespread destruction in its wake.
Bluth is a signatory to the army’s 2015 policy change, which loosened the conditions for using live fire against Palestinians throwing stones and carrying out ramming operations.
Shehada adds that Bluth has links to the Religious Zionism Party led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, which is committed to stealing and annexing Palestinian land in the West Bank.
Bluth was raised in Neve Tzuf, an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank. He earned a BS in philosophy, economy, and political science from Hebrew University and an MA in strategic thinking from the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Sweden rules out international Nord Stream probe
RT | May 4, 2024
There is no need for an international investigation into the explosions on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natural gas pipelines, Sweden’s Foreign Ministry has told RIA Novosti news agency.
Last week, China’s deputy envoy to the UN, Geng Shuang, called for a probe into the September 2022 blasts that ruptured the pipelines, which were built to deliver Russian gas to Germany and the rest of Europe. Countries should work together on an investigation “to bring the perpetrators to justice in order to prevent the reoccurrence of similar incidents,” Geng said.
When asked about Beijing’s proposal by RIA Novosti on Friday, the Swedish Foreign Ministry insisted that “there is no need for an international investigation. It’s going to achieve nothing.”
“An investigation into the incidents was carried out by the Swedish authorities in accordance with the fundamental principles of independence, impartiality and the rule of law. Other national investigations are still ongoing,” the ministry stated.
Sweden conducted its own probe as the explosions on the Nord Stream pipelines occurred in the country’s exclusive economic zone. Germany and Denmark carried out separate inquiries. However, in February, the Swedish and Danish investigations were aborted. Stockholm said it had come to the conclusion that the case did not fall under Swedish jurisdiction, while Copenhagen concluded that “there was deliberate sabotage” of the pipelines, but found insufficient grounds to pursue criminal proceedings.
Russia is carrying out its own investigation into the Nord Stream blasts despite the refusal of Western nations to cooperate. Prosecutor General Igor Krasnov said earlier that Moscow had sent more than a dozen requests for legal assistance to Germany, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden, but only received a single formal reply from Copenhagen.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials suggested previously that the pipelines were targeted by the US or on Washington’s behalf.
Pandemic Officials are “Disappointed in Themselves”, per the New York Times
By Igor Chudov | May 3, 2024
An article in the New York Times is titled “Thousands Believe Covid Vaccines Harmed Them. Is Anyone Listening?” (no paywall)
The author, Apoorva Mandavilli, was correctly described by Vinay Prasad as the worst science reporter. She states her surprise about “thousands” who believe that Covid vaccines harmed them. While we know that number to be an understatement, it is interesting how the New York Times recognizes them after years of stonewalling.
But in a recent interview, Dr. Janet Woodcock, a longtime leader of the Food and Drug Administration, who retired in February, said she believed that some recipients had experienced uncommon but “serious” and “life-changing” reactions beyond those described by federal agencies.
“I feel bad for those people,” said Dr. Woodcock, who became the F.D.A.’s acting commissioner in January 2021 as the vaccines were rolling out. “I believe their suffering should be acknowledged, that they have real problems, and they should be taken seriously.”
FDA’s Dr. Woodcock is disappointed in herself:
“I’m disappointed in myself,” she added. “I did a lot of things I feel very good about, but this is one of the few things I feel I just didn’t bring it home.”
The article discusses thousands of people gaslit by vaccine promoters and their doctors, who were intimidated not to report vaccine injuries:
Similar sentiments were echoed in interviews, conducted over more than a year, with 30 people who said they had been harmed by Covid shots. They described a variety of symptoms following vaccination, some neurological, some autoimmune, some cardiovascular.
All said they had been turned away by physicians, told their symptoms were psychosomatic, or labeled anti-vaccine by family and friends — despite the fact that they supported vaccines.
Even some key vaccine promoters report vaccine injuries, which they could not report anywhere:
Dr. Gregory Poland, 68, editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, said that a loud whooshing sound in his ears had accompanied every moment since his first shot, but that his entreaties to colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to explore the phenomenon, tinnitus, had led nowhere.
He received polite responses to his many emails, but “I just don’t get any sense of movement,” he said.
The federal officials in charge of setting the policy still refuse to believe these reports:
Federal health officials say they do not believe that the Covid vaccines caused the illnesses described by patients like Mr. Barcavage, Dr. Zimmerman and Ms. France. The vaccines may cause transient reactions, such as swelling, fatigue and fever, according to the C.D.C., but the agency has documented only four serious but rare side effects.
The excuse that these officials give for ignoring vaccine harms is that they were fighting misinformation :
The rise of the anti-vaccine movement has made it difficult for scientists, in and out of government, to candidly address potential side effects, some experts said. Much of the narrative on the purported dangers of Covid vaccines is patently false, or at least exaggerated, cooked up by savvy anti-vaccine campaigns.
Questions about Covid vaccine safety are core to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. Citing debunked theories about altered DNA, Florida’s surgeon general has called for a halt to Covid vaccination in the state.
“The sheer nature of misinformation, the scale of misinformation, is staggering, and anything will be twisted to make it seem like it’s not just a devastating side effect but proof of a massive cover-up,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University.
So, get this please, the massive coverup was necessary to debunk ‘“misinformation” about the existence of a massive coverup. I hope it makes sense to you, my dear reader!
They finally note miscarriages caused by COVID vaccines:
Among the hundreds of millions of Americans who were immunized for Covid, some number would have had heart attacks or strokes anyway. Some women would have miscarried. How to distinguish those caused by the vaccine from those that are coincidences? The only way to resolve the question is intense research.
Another way to get the alarm signal of miscarriages is to ask, why does the Moderna vaccine cause 42% more miscarriages, compared to the Pfizer vaccine.
Why Now?
Are we observing a paradoxical awakening of honesty among federal officials and vaccine researchers? Have Apoorva Mandavilli and her employer finally decided to come clean about Covid vaccines?
Did these dishonest people suddenly straighten their ways, after being paid millions in research grants, CDC vaccine promotion fees paid to the media, etc? As much as I hope people can improve, I doubt that explanation.
The most likely explanation is that:
- Most vaccine-injured people are Democrats
- Facing a tough election in 2020, the Democratic party is afraid that the victims of vaccines that their party promoted and that disproportionally affected their core voters, might divert their votes and vote for an anti-vax Democrat, Robert Kennedy.
That might explain a puzzling turnaround in reporting vaccine injury in major newspapers such as the New York Times.
Legal experts debunk Israeli, US claims challenging ICC jurisdiction
Anadolu Agency | May 3, 2024
For days now, there is growing speculation that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is poised to issue arrest warrants against top Israeli officials for the ongoing war on Gaza.
Most of the hype has been fuelled by Israel itself, first with regular reports by Israeli news outlets about increasing apprehension among the top brass, followed by direct statements from Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, attacking the ICC and urging his Western allies to pressure the Court.
Another tactic employed by Israel and its supporters, particularly the US, has been to question the ICC’s power and jurisdiction to act against Israeli officials.
Spokespersons for the White House and US State Department have explicitly conveyed that the US does not believe the ICC has jurisdiction to move against Israel, specifically because Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the international treaty that forms the basis of the ICC.
Legal scholars, however, have refuted these assertions, stressing that Israel not recognising the ICC or not being a signatory to the Rome Statute does not have any impact on the Court’s powers.
The ICC has been leading an investigation since 2021 into potential war crimes committed by Israel and Palestinian groups dating back to 2014. The probe has grown to include ongoing attacks in the war in Gaza.
“Palestine is a state party to the ICC, and the ICC has accepted that it has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem,” Gerhard Kemp, a professor of criminal law at the University of the West of England Bristol Law School, told Anadolu.
The ICC also has jurisdiction over crimes committed by Palestinian nationals outside the Territory of Palestine, for example in Israel on 7 October, 2023, he said.
“The short answer is that there is not much that Israel can do to challenge the ICC jurisdiction over the alleged crimes committed in Palestine,” he explained.
Another legal expert, Mark Kersten, asserted that the ICC is able to “very clearly, logically and legally exercise jurisdiction in this case.”
The ICC has territorial jurisdiction on Palestine, which it understands as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, he said.
First, this means it has jurisdiction over any crimes committed by citizens of Palestine, so it has the power to act against Hamas members for the 7 October attacks, even though most of it happened on the territory of a non-state party, Israel, he said.
“Second, it has jurisdiction over any crimes committed on the Territory of Palestine … which means it has jurisdiction over any Israeli authorities who have committed mass atrocities, international crimes in Gaza or the West Bank,” explained Kersten, assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley in Canada.
‘Attempts to interfere, undermine and threaten ICC’
In the current situation, Kersten said the ICC is facing immense pressure from various countries, including Israel and the US.
“There’s definitely ongoing political pressure … I think pressure is probably too soft of a term. I have no doubt that various states are effectively threatening the ICC with certain consequences,” he said.
“There are definitely ongoing attempts to interfere, undermine and threaten the ICC. It is up to the ICC Prosecutor and, indeed, to a certain extent the judges, to withstand that.”
On Friday, Prosecutor Karim Khan’s office issued a sharply worded statement asserting that “all attempts to impede, intimidate or improperly influence (ICC) officials must cease immediately.”
“Such threats, even when not acted upon, may also constitute an offence against the administration of justice under Article 70 of the Rome Statute,” read the statement, without mentioning any cases or countries.
Kersten pointed out that pressure tactics are “nothing new” for the ICC, with both the US and Israel having previously threatened the Court.
The administration of ex-President Donald Trump even “issued sanctions against the Prosecutor and certain other ICC staff, as well as threatening to sanction their families,” he recalled.
“We have seen US policymakers and lawmakers say the same, that they would support literally sanctioning the only independent permanent international criminal tribunal in the world,” Kersten added.
What happens if warrants are issued?
According to the swirling reports, the Israeli leaders who could soon be facing ICC warrants include Netanyahu, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and Israeli military chief, Herzi Halevi.
If warrants are issued, all 124 countries that are state parties to the ICC are obligated to act.
“If an arrest warrant is issued against Netanyahu, he cannot legally step onto the territory of Germany or the UK or Canada,” said Kersten.
Being ICC member states, these countries will be obligated under both their own laws and also international law “to arrest and surrender Netanyahu to the ICC”, he said.
Non-state parties, however, do not have that obligation, he added.
On a potential timeline, Kersten said the ICC has often released “some of its most important and most significant decisions … at around 4 p.m. Hague time on a Friday, when the media isn’t really covering these issues.”
As for the possible basis of the warrant, he said it could be “about the issues of starvation or the denial of aid to Gaza,” adding that these are points “the Prosecutor has spoken about repeatedly, especially since 7 October.”
Kersten also believes that any warrant against Netanyahu would be “unsealed” and publicly announced, citing past examples of warrants against Russian President, Vladimir Putin, or Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi.
However, there have been instances in the past where ICC judges have accepted the Prosecutor’s request to issue sealed arrest warrants, he said.
These can then be unsealed in “a moment of vulnerability for the accused, for example, during travel to a member state of the ICC,” he added.
“Then, all of a sudden, that state has the obligation to catch the accused and surrender them to the ICC, in this massive kind of surprise moment,” said Kersten.
For someone as high-profile as Netanyahu, the expert reiterated that he does not believe a “sealed arrest warrant” is likely.
“It would be diplomatically inappropriate to issue a sealed arrest warrant for the head of a government … or a defence minister,” he said.
Complementarity challenge
While Israel has no standing when it comes to questioning the ICC’s jurisdiction, the one thing it can do is challenge the admissibility of any case in which warrants are issued on the basis of complementarity, according to Kemp, the Bristol Law School professor.
“This is because the ICC has complementary jurisdiction, meaning the ICC can only try a case if a national criminal justice system with jurisdiction over the matter is either unwilling or unable to try the case,” he said.
When Israeli nationals are accused of war crimes in Gaza, if Israel can show that its own courts will prosecute them “in a genuine prosecution and not a sham trial, then the ICC will stand back and will let Israel proceed with the case”, he explained.
“Of course, the ICC will evaluate the situation with reference to all the available facts,” Kemp added.


If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .