Catastrophic Massacre – Outcomes of Injecting Babies – Dr. Jessica Rose
CHD.TV | July 8, 2022
References
SARS-CoV-2 Infection of Human Ovarian Cells: A Potential Negative Impact on Female Fertility
Ukraine – global hotbed for mercenaries and terrorists
By Drago Bosnic | July 12, 2022
Western mercenaries are often considered the mainstay of all foreign personnel fighting for the Kiev regime. However, although they’re the ones with the most media exposure, the truth is, there are mercenaries from all around the world fighting for the regime. And although international law outlaws mercenaries, the ones fighting in Ukraine aren’t just “regular soldiers of fortune”, but also international terrorists previously operating in the Middle East and Africa. Even before Russia intervened, information on Islamic terrorists fighting for the Kiev regime was already common knowledge.
Already in late February, Syrian intelligence services intercepted information that the Turks were recruiting troops among the terrorist formations under their control to go fight in Ukraine. According to the information made public at the time, Turks formed and armed at least seven groups of about 100 terrorists in each, which included members of terrorist groups such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya and the Islamic Party of Turkestan.
A few weeks later, Iraqi Shia group “Ashab al-Kahf” reported that “military advisors” from the countries of the “anti-ISIS” coalition, namely Lithuania, Italy, Germany and the UK, arrived in Iraq to recruit mercenaries for the Kiev regime forces. Two US bases, Ain el-Assad (Iraq) and Al-Tanf (Syria), were used as headquarters for this operation. Residents from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Turkey, Tunisia, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, etc. were given a chance to fight “for democracy”, with priority given to specialists in large-scale urban combat.
On March 8, the Syrian Ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad announced the threat of “flooding Ukraine with mercenaries and turning it into a big European Idlib.” In early July, he announced the transfer of ISIS terrorists from Idlib to Ukraine, an operation carried out jointly by Turkey, the US and its client states. Earlier, in May, Sergey Ivanov, head of the Press Bureau of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, spoke about the transfer of ISIS soldiers to Ukraine by the Americans. In mid-April, Spokesman of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Igor Konashenkov, stated that at that time and since the beginning of Russia’s intervention, at least 200 Turkish-backed terrorists had arrived in Ukraine. This issue further ruined the already murky reputation of the Kiev regime, as its units were now composed of both Neo-Nazi and Islamic terrorist troops.
It’s pretty clear why the Kiev regime is trying to recruit anyone at this point. Simply put, the motivation of regular Ukrainians to fight for the regime is dwindling, as their forces are suffering heavy casualties, reaching the scale of 10:1, and not in their favor. This is almost perfectly consistent with the scale of artillery supremacy of the Russian forces, which is also 10:1. Just how desperate the Kiev regime is to recruit troops for the “Donbass meat grinder” can be seen in the fact that Ukrainian men are now openly being abducted and pushed to the frontlines. Recently, in Transcarpathia, Ukraine’s westernmost region, police were seen going to recreation centers, including public pools, trying to drag men out of the water and send them to military units.
And this doesn’t only apply to Ukrainian citizens, but also to foreigners residing in Ukraine, including college students. At the start of Russia’s special military operation, when foreigners were being evacuated, including African ex-pat students, some were denied access to trains and buses, while others were told they would be conscripted to the Kiev regime forces. An ABC News journalist interviewed a Congolese national who managed to escape this fate and who said: “We were told: ‘We will give you weapons, and you will fight for Ukraine!’ I say: ‘Eh? Will we fight for Ukraine? We are not Ukrainians. We are black. How can we fight for Ukraine?!'”
On the other hand, there were also mercenaries from some African countries, such as Nigeria, who stated they wanted to fight for the Kiev regime. The regime promised to pay for “their services” and additional funds were sent to the Ukrainian embassy in Nigeria. However, in addition to evidence of military experience, Ukrainian diplomats demanded mercenaries pay $1000 for a visa and a flight ticket, promising a monthly salary of $3,300 dollars, although they previously promised twice as much. At the same time, this is also considered a way for many to use the conflict as an excuse to reach Europe.
What is certainly clear from all this chaos is that the political West seeks to dispose of terrorists and also use them against Russian forces in this war to the last Ukrainian. In addition, Washington DC and London are profiting from all this in the long-term, as mainland Europe is bearing the brunt of the costs and consequences of their proxy war against Russia. Many of the mercenaries and terrorists fighting for the Kiev regime will certainly end up being Europe’s problem, provided they survive the conflict. As already noted, the Kiev regime, for its part, will accept anyone willing to fight in its suicidal confrontation with Russia.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Ukraine frees warlord sentenced for torture

Samizdat | July 12, 2022
Ruslan Onishchenko, former commander of the notorious Ukrainian Tornado battalion, whose fighters were convicted of torturing people in Donbass, has reportedly been released from jail and may join the fight against Russia.
Ukraine began selectively releasing inmates who want to serve on the frontline shortly after Moscow attacked the neighboring state in late February.
The now-disbanded Tornado unit was formed in 2014 to fight for Kiev during the conflict in Donbass. Despite the unit’s designation as a volunteer police battalion, former felons were allowed to become members. Onishchenko had three prior convictions before joining the unit.
In 2017, a Kiev court sentenced Onishchenko to 11 years in prison for kidnapping and torture. Several of his fellow fighters also received jail sentences for kidnapping, torture, rape, and looting.
On Monday, Roksolana Khmara, the wife of former MP Stepan Khmara, wrote on Facebook that Onishchenko was released under the guarantees of her and her husband.
Khmara posted a photo of Onishchenko in a Kiev courtroom, while claiming his sentence had been politically motivated.
Newspaper ‘KP v Ukraine’ said that Onishchenko had asked to be allowed to join the fight against Russia.
According to the paper, Onishchenko’s original sentence had been commuted in accordance with a 2015 law that says one day spent in pre-trial detention counts as two days in jail. However, the former commander remained behind bars while awaiting trial for a 2018 prison riot.
“Nearly all of the battalion’s members are now back on the frontline, fighting in various units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” Viktor Pandzhakidze, the ex-spokesman for Tornado, told the paper.
17 killed, injured in Saudi attack on Yemen’s Sa’ada Province
Press TV – July 11, 2022
The Saudi-led coalition has once again broken the terms of a United Nations-mediated truce, killing and injuring as many as 17 people in a cross-border attack on the impoverished country.
The casualties were caused on Sunday after Saudi forces opened fire on a border area in Yemen’s Sa’ada Province, which lies to Yemen’s extreme northwest, a security source told Yemen’s official Saba Net news agency.
Most of the wounded, who have been transferred to a hospital in the city of Razih in the western part of the province, are in a life-threatening condition, the source said.
Elsewhere in the province, the coalition targeted the Shada’a District, killing one person and injuring seven others.
Saudi Arabia launched the devastating war on Yemen in March 2015 in collaboration with its Arab allies and with arms and logistical support from the United States and other Western states.
The objective was to reinstall the Riyadh-friendly regime of former president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and crush Yemen’s Ansarullah popular resistance movement, which has been running state affairs in the absence of a functional government in Yemen.
While the Saudi-led coalition has failed to meet any of its objectives, the war has killed hundreds of thousands of Yemenis and spawned the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
The UN-brokered truce between the coalition and Ansarullah, which came into effect in April, was extended for another two months on June 2.
As part of the ceasefire, commercial flights have resumed from Sana’a International Airport to Amman and Cairo, while oil tankers have been able to dock at the port city of al-Hudaydah.
The elusive truce has provided a rare let-up in the Saudi-led coalition’s attacks on the Arab country, even though the coalition has been accused of a series of ceasefire violations.
Also on Sunday, the Yemeni National Salvation Government’s health ministry said a total of 31 people had been killed and 356 others injured as a result of the invaders’ violations of the make-or-break ceasefire.
Russia calls out American goal in arming Ukraine
Samizdat | July 9, 2022
The US government is aiming to protract the armed conflict in Ukraine for as long as possible, and it is for this purpose that Washington is providing Kiev with four more HIMARS units, the Russian embassy in Washington claimed on Friday.
The diplomatic mission’s statement went on to suggest that the planned delivery of additional multiple launch systems is intended to make up for growing casualties among Ukrainian forces.
It dismissed the Pentagon’s claim that such weapons are being used by Kiev for defensive purposes.
The Ukrainian military and “nationalist groups are deploying US-supplied weapons to destroy cities of Donbass,” the statement insisted.
The Russian diplomats claimed that the “Ukrainian Armed Forces are constantly deliberately targeting residential areas of Donetsk,” including parts of the city where there are no Russian troops. As a result of this, “civilians are dying,” according to the embassy.
“The goal of the Russian Federation is to put an end to the terror of the Kiev regime,” the embassy proclaimed, adding that “Washington with its actions is not bringing peace closer, but on the contrary, is encouraging the Ukrainian authorities to commit new blood crimes.”
Earlier on Friday, a senior Pentagon official revealed that the “White House will be announcing” a new round of military aid for Ukraine, which would include, among other things, four high-mobility artillery rocket systems, HIMARS, and additional ammunition for those units.
The US Department of Defense official stressed that these weapons are “especially important and effective in assisting Ukraine and coping with the Russian artillery battle in the Donbass.”
When asked by a journalist about the total number of HIMARS units that Ukraine would have after receiving the new four ones, the Pentagon representative said Kiev would have 12 such systems at its disposal.
They went on to rebut Russia’s claims that its forces had managed to destroy some of the HIMARS units Washington had previously supplied.
“That is not correct,” the unnamed DoD official insisted, adding that the “Ukrainians have those systems and are making use of them.”
He also revealed that the $400 million package would include 1,000 rounds of 155 millimeter high-precision artillery ammunition.
Ukraine Crisis Highlights Concerns About Whether OPCW Still Has Any Global Relevance, Observers Say
Samizdat | July 6, 2022
The executive council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) kicked off its hundredth session at The Hague on Tuesday. Last month, the global watchdog assured that it was “monitoring the situation” in Ukraine closely as far as the potential use of chemical weapons is concerned.
The OPCW’s lack of a coherent, objective and fair-minded response to recent crises centered around Syria and Russia demonstrates its politicization and domination by Western interests, and the longer the watchdog stays out of Ukraine, the better, former diplomats, geopolitical observers, and international legal experts have told Sputnik.
“In Ukraine the OPCW has fortunately not been pressed into action. This, I suspect, is because the US is satisfied with the situation as it is, with no need for the US itself to be drawn in, as would no doubt be the case if a chemical attack was fabricated,” Peter Ford, Britain’s former ambassador to Syria, said.
The veteran diplomat, who warned the British government against the folly of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and stressed that Western powers’ campaign to topple the Syrian government in the 2010s could open a “Pandora’s box” of endless crises, said the Syria case demonstrated clearly that the OPCW is no longer an independent, impartial agency.
“The Syria crisis proved without a shadow of a doubt that the Western powers have bent the OPCW to their own will, destroying in the process the organization’s credibility, probably irretrievably. This is a tragedy for world peace,” Ford stressed, referring to documented OPCW efforts to censor and smear agency whistleblowers who revealed that the watchdog’s report on the April 2018 chemical attack in Douma, Syria was doctored to implicate the Assad government.
In Ukraine, Ford fears, the international community can now only depend on “self-interested restraint on the part of the Pentagon in controlling its proxies rather than the deterrent power of a genuinely impartial international watchdog.”
Chemical Weapons Danger in Ukraine
Since the escalation of the crisis in Ukraine in February, Russia has sent the OPCW and its technical secretariat over two dozen notes warning of possible staged provocations by Ukrainian forces or radical nationalists involving chemical weapons. Last month, the agency assured the international community that it was “closely monitoring the situation in Ukraine” for chemical weapons use.
On Wednesday, Russian military indicated that it had information on plans by Kiev to stage a provocation in the Donetsk People’s Republic using chlorine gas to accuse Moscow on indiscriminate attacks targeting chemically hazardous objects.
Alessandro Bruno, a Toronto-based geopolitical analyst and political observer at Lombardi Letter, says that while the OPCW’s official mission and goals are “certainly worth pursuing,” the problem is the watchdog’s control by Western interests seeking to obfuscate the truth and objectivity in favor of politicized objectives.
“They seem to have targeted only specific sides in specific wars to suit specific aims, which typically are those of Western powers. There have been many efforts to manipulate these organizations by the dominant powers, particularly in the West,” Bruno said.
The scholar recalled instances of claims by the US and its allies about Russia’s use of chemical weapons, from the allegation that Russia poisoned pro-Western Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko in the mid-2000s, to the 2018 Novichok scandal in Britain, which “many thoughtful journalists have debunked,” to the Alexei Navalny “poisoning” saga of 2020, which doctors treating the opposition vlogger have debunked.
“Yet the accusations of chemical weapons that Russia used have persisted, even though they defied all logic. That’s the biggest issue with these organizations. They must be more neutral. Their headquarters must be in more neutral locations, because the fact that many of these organizations operate from Western capitals makes them more prone to Western media misinformation,” Bruno said.
The geopolitical analyst still fears that the West could use the pretext of ‘Russian chemical weapons use’ in Ukraine “to get more directly involved into the conflict and potentially trigger a much wider physical war.”
“So far, I think, some of the powers came to understand that making an accusation like that in this conflict would be riskier than the accusations they made in Syria and Iraq, Navalny and Yushchenko and so on, that this would have much bigger implications, that this would blow back against the West,” Bruno stressed.
Tool of US Interests
Christopher C. Black, an international criminal and human rights lawyer with 20 years of experience covering war crimes and international relations, echoed Bruno’s sentiments about the OPCW’s noble stated aims and their stark contrast with the body’s actual history, which “shows that [the watchdog] acts to serve the interests of the United States and its NATO and other allies.”
“We saw strong evidence of this when the USA tried to get rid of the Director General Jose Bustani of Brazil in 2002, when the United States was preparing its invasion of Iraq and John Bolton went to The Hague and threatened his family if he did not resign,” Black recalled, pointing to Bustani’s 2018 interview with The Intercept in which the former OPCW chief detailed the threats made against his children living in the United States.
“In August 2020, it was revealed through leaks from Austrian government sources that the OPCW and British claims that Novichok had been found in the blood of the Skripals allegedly poisoned in the UK were false, that in fact no such agent had been found in their blood at all. But the findings were suppressed and a false report issued to back the UK claims,” the lawyer added. “Similar results were seen regarding the alleged poisoning of Mr. Navalny. We can quickly understand what goes on behind the scenes at the OPCW,” Black said.
Black finds it unlikely that the chemical weapons watchdog will change “without a change in the balance of power in the world,” which is taking place, but whose effects on international organizations will be slow to appear.
In Ukraine, the lawyer fears, “We cannot expect any objective consideration of Kiev regime or NATO claims of Russia using chemical weapons in Ukraine for the reasons stated above, despite the fact that Russia has not used them, does not use them and will not use them. To the contrary we have a situation in which Kiev and NATO forces keep making false claims while themselves preparing chemical weapons attacks to be staged as false flag attacks to be blamed on Russia and when Russia asks the OPCW to investigate this, Russia is met with silence,” he said.
How OPCW Can Regain Credibility
Dr. Alfred De Zayas, a lawyer, writer and former independent expert on international order with the United Nations, similarly doubts the OPCW’s ability to reform in its current itteration, saying the agency “has long been instrumentalized to pursue the geopolitical interests of Western powers.”
The international legal expert is confident that agencies like the OPCW, the International Criminal Court and the Human Rights Council can regain their credibility by demonstrating impartiality. “This is possible if the BRICS countries become more vocal and more visible on the international scene. There is no reason why African, Asian and Latin American countries should dance to the tune of the ‘Washington consensus’,” De Zayas stressed.
In Ukraine, the OPCW’s assurance about “monitoring the situation” carries only a “purely propagandistic value,” and is “intended to charge and convict Russia even before there is any evidence of violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention,” the observer believes.
“If the OPCW investigates not only potential Russian war crimes, but also expands its investigation to potential chemical weapons violations and war crimes by Ukrainian forces and by foreign mercenaries, including US, UK, French, Georgian and others, then the OPCW might regain some credibility. That, however, would be ‘out of character’. It is not unlike the ICC, which in the eyes of many observers in the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Switzerland – has lost its little credibility and will have no authority unless and until it indicts Western politicians and bureaucrats including Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Victoria Nuland, Barack Obama (the king of the drones), Donald Trump, Nikolas Sarkozy, etc.,” De Zayas concluded.
Brazilian mercenaries die in Ukraine

By Lucas Leiroz | July 6, 2022
Two Brazilians were killed in Ukraine in the first week of July after a Russian drone operation in Kharkiv. In all, three Brazilian mercenaries have died in Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian special military operation on February 24th. In the South American country, the mainstrem media has a strong pro-Western ideological orientation, which is why it encourages “volunteers” to go to Eastern Europe. In their speech, the media outlets claim that it is “easy” to fight against Russians because Kiev is supposedly “winning” the conflict. However, upon arriving in Ukraine, the foreign mercenaries are faced with a different and much harsher reality.
Between the night of July 1 and the morning of July 2 Brazilian mercenaries Douglas Rodrigues Búrigo and Thalita do Valle died after a Russian attack in Khakiv. Douglas was a former soldier of the Brazilian Army and had been fighting in Ukraine since May. Thalita was a model, lawyer, and professional sniper, who had previously worked as a military volunteer and propaganda agent for the Kurdish women’s battalions in the Middle East. Apparently, she died of asphyxiation while trying to flee her accommodation in the face of a drone attack, while Douglas was reportedly hit by shrapnel from mortar shells on the outside.
In June, another Brazilian had already died in Ukraine. André Hack Bahi was fatally shot during Russian bombing raids in Severodonetsk. Bahi was a former fighter in the French Legion and had already participated in some missions in Africa, but he was not able to survive the intense reality of the fighting in Ukraine. It is also necessary to mention that not all the dead have been properly identified yet, which leads one to believe that there may be more Brazilians among the dead in Ukraine, since there is ample participation of mercenaries from the South American country in the region.
There is still no official report by the authorities indicating the precise number of Brazilian citizens who are fighting for Kiev’s side in the conflict, but the number is certainly greater than what was expected from a neutral country with good relations with Russia. Even Brazilian parliamentarians fought in favor of Kiev, such as former deputy Artur do Val, who had a quick and scandalous performance in Ukraine, where he committed acts of sexual harassment against Ukrainian women. It is also known that over the last eight years several Brazilians have tried to join the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary troops to fight in Donbass, having been rejected due to the anti-Latin racism of these groups. Now these same militants are finding their way into the Ukrainian positions due to Kiev’s policy of accepting all foreign volunteers.
But it is absolutely impossible to analyze the situation without criticizing the destabilizing role that the Brazilian local media has played in its coverage of the events in Ukraine. Pro-Western media outlets report the conflict fallaciously, pointing to a non-existent “Ukrainian victory” and “ease” in fighting Moscow’s forces, portraying voluntary combat as a kind of “hunting safari” against Russians. Obviously, when the “volunteers” (almost all of them being paid private soldiers linked to mercenary companies) arrive on the battlefield, they are faced with situations very different from those reported by the journalists who encourage volunteering.
Agencies also have tried to publicize an image of “heroism” when talking about Brazilians fighting in Ukraine, ignoring important issues, such as the fact that they are cooperating with neo-Nazi militants and supporting a government that practices genocidal policies against the Russian population. Since the beginning of the Russian operation, Brazilian media agencies and Brazilian branches of foreign agencies have praised the “heroism” of the mercenaries who would be “helping to fight the invasion”, which also serves as propaganda and incentive for volunteering.
Brazilian media is not acting alone, but following the agenda imposed by the great world media agencies, which have increasingly bet on the narrative of “Ukrainian victory” as a way to raise the morale of the troops and justify the irresponsible military aid that the Western countries are sending to Kiev.
Private security companies hired to help Kiev are the ones that profit most from the propagation of this fallacious narrative among the public opinion, as they manage to convince an increasing number of volunteers to go and fight in Ukraine. In fact, some of these volunteers are not designated for direct combat but remain in safe places taking photos and videos to publish on the internet, reproducing propaganda to encourage more men to go – always trying to convince that combats are “easy” and “safe”, so that more people enlist in the mercenary companies. The result is that of the deluded enlisted men only a few are directed to propaganda, while others die on the battlefield.
Obviously, for Western countries and for private companies, investing in this type of propaganda is strategic and profitable, but not for Brazil. As a member of the BRICS, not participating in anti-Russia sanctions and being Moscow’s partner in several areas, the Brazilian government should act more incisively to monitor the destabilizing role that its media agencies are playing, seeking to prevent foreign narratives from taking Brazilians to die on the battlefield. Furthermore, it is not at all beneficial to Brasilia’s international image that the country is known for having a large number of citizens volunteering to fight alongside neo-Nazi battalions.
It is important to remember that mercenaries and “volunteers are not considered prisoners of war, but common criminals, which means that Brazilian citizens can be tried by courts in the liberated parts of Ukraine if they are captured. This type of situation will certainly generate diplomatic discomfort and, as Brazil and Russia are members of the BRICS, this is not a favorable condition for either side.
The best thing for the Brazilian government to do is to ban its citizens from volunteering in wars that do not concern the national interest of Brazil.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
15 years of failed experiments: Myths and facts about the Israeli siege on Gaza
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | July 5, 2022
Fifteen years have passed since Israel imposed a total siege on the Gaza Strip, subjecting nearly two million Palestinians to one of the longest and most cruel politically-motivated blockades in history. Back then, the Israeli government justified its siege as the only way to protect Israel from Palestinian “terrorism and rocket attacks”. This is the occupation state’s official line to this day, and yet not many Israelis — certainly not in government, the media or even ordinary people — would argue that Israel today is safer than it was prior to June 2007.
It is widely understood that Israel imposed the siege as a response to the Hamas takeover of the Strip, following a brief, violent confrontation between the movement, which is the current de facto government in Gaza, and its main political rival Fatah, which dominates the Palestinian Authority in the occupied West Bank. However, the isolation of Gaza was planned years before the Hamas-Fatah clash, or even the legislative election victory of Hamas in January 2006.
In fact, the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was determined to redeploy Israeli forces out of Gaza long before these dates, making the siege possible. Culminating in the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in August-September 2005, the plan was proposed by Sharon in 2003, approved by his government in 2004 and finally adopted by the Knesset in February 2005.
The “disengagement” was an Israeli tactic intended to remove a few thousand illegal Jewish settlers from occupied Gaza — to go to other illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank — while redeploying the Israeli army from crowded population centres in the Gaza Strip to the nominal border areas. This was the actual start of the Gaza siege.
The above assertion was even clear to James Wolfensohn, who was appointed by the Middle East Quartet as the Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. In 2010, he reached a similar conclusion: “Gaza had been effectively sealed off from the outside world since the Israeli disengagement… and the humanitarian and economic consequences for the Palestinian population were profound.”
The ultimate motive behind the “disengagement” was not Israel’s security, or even to starve the Palestinians in Gaza as a form of collective punishment. The latter was a natural outcome of a much more sinister political plot, as communicated by Sharon’s own senior advisor at the time, Dov Weisglass. In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in October 2004, Weisglass put it plainly: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.” How? “When you freeze [the peace] process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.”
Not only was this Israel’s ultimate motive behind the disengagement and subsequent siege of Gaza, but also, according to the seasoned Israeli politician, it was all done “with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of [the US] Congress.” The US president at the time was none other than George W. Bush.
All of this took place before Palestine’s legislative election, Hamas’s victory and the Hamas-Fatah clash. The latter merely served as a convenient justification for what had already been discussed, “ratified” by Washington and implemented.
For Israel, the siege was a political ploy which acquired additional meaning and value as time passed. In response to the accusation that Israel was starving Palestinians in Gaza, Weisglass was very quick to reply: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
What was then understood as a facetious, albeit thoughtless statement, turned out to be actual Israeli policy, as revealed in a 2008 report which was made available in 2012. Thanks to the Israeli human rights organization Gisha, the “redlines [for] food consumption in the Gaza Strip” — composed by the Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories — were made known. It emerged that Israel was calculating the minimum number of calories necessary to keep Gaza’s population alive, a number that is “adjusted to culture and experience” in the Strip.
The rest is history. Gaza’s suffering is absolute, with 98 per cent of the Strip’s water undrinkable; hospitals lacking essential supplies and life-saving medications; and movement in and out of the territory more or less prohibited, with relatively few minor exceptions.
Even so, Israel has failed miserably, with none of its objectives achieved. Tel Aviv hoped that the “disengagement” would compel the international community to redefine the legal status of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Despite pressure from Washington, that never happened. Gaza remains part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories as defined in international law.
Furthermore, Israel’s September 2007 designation of Gaza as an “enemy entity” and a “hostile territory” changed little, apart from allowing the Israeli government to carry out several devastating wars against the Palestinians in the enclave, starting in late 2008.
None of these wars have served a long-term Israeli strategy successfully. Instead, Gaza continues to fight back on a much larger scale than ever before, frustrating the calculations of Israeli leaders, a fact which became clear in the befuddled, disturbing language to which they resorted. During one of the deadliest Israeli wars on Gaza, in July 2014, right-wing Knesset member Ayelet Shaked wrote on Facebook that the war was “not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority.” Instead, according to Shaked, who a year later became Israel’s Minister of Justice, this was “a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people.”
In the final analysis, the governments of Sharon, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Olmert, Benjamin Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett all failed to isolate Gaza from the greater Palestinian body; break the will of the Palestinians in the Strip; or ensure Israeli security at the expense of the Palestinians.
Moreover, Israel has fallen victim to its own hubris. While prolonging the siege will achieve no short or long-term strategic value, lifting the siege, from Israel’s viewpoint, would be tantamount to an admission of defeat, and could empower Palestinians in the West Bank to emulate the Gaza model. This lack of certainty further accentuates the political crisis and lack of strategic vision that has defined all Israeli governments for nearly two decades.
Israel’s political experiment in Gaza has backfired, inevitably so. The only way out is for the siege of Gaza to be lifted completely. Not eased; lifted. Completely. And this time, for good.









