The Cradle | May 24, 2024
The Israeli army has been abducting injured Palestinian civilians from hospitals in Gaza and transporting them to a detention camp in the Negev, where they are shackled to beds and undergo major surgeries, often without painkillers, the Guardian reported on 24 May.
A whistleblower from the Sde Teiman detention camp told the Guardian some patients had come from hospitals in Gaza after being abducted by Israeli forces. “These were patients who had been captured by the Israeli army while being treated in Gaza hospitals and brought here. They had [missing] limbs and infected wounds. They were moaning in pain,” the source said.
The source described how the field hospital in the detention camp consisted of tents, including an emergency room where patients underwent surgery on a stretcher as there was no operating table.
The patients were handcuffed to the beds, made to wear diapers, and blindfolded.
In one case, a detainee’s hand had been amputated “because the wrists had become gangrenous due to handcuffing wounds.”
A second whistleblower who spoke with the Guardian said, “There were about 15 patients in total, they were all handcuffed and blindfolded. They were naked, wearing diapers and were covered by blankets. Most of them appeared to have obvious war injuries; some had undergone amputations, and others underwent major abdominal or chest surgery. They were practically naked except for a diaper.”
The source said he witnessed a patient undergoing painful medical procedures without any painkillers.
In the other section of the camp, the whistleblowers said up to 200 Palestinian detainees from Gaza are being held in cages under severe physical restrictions.
“The prisoners are detained in a sort of cages, all blindfolded and handcuffed,” the source said. “If someone speaks or moves, they are immediately silenced or they are forced to stand with their hands raised above their head and handcuffed for up to one hour.”
“If they are unable to keep their hands raised, the soldiers attach the handcuffs to the bars of the cage. Many of the detainees had infected wounds that were not being properly treated.”
The source claimed the Israeli military had no proof that detainees were members of Hamas. Some inmates repeatedly asked why they were there. According to the whistleblower, most were considered suspects, and some were released. “But they had not been formally charged. It was a kind of filtering camp, a provisional detention,” he said.
By Ibrahim Hewitt | MEMO | May 24, 2024
It was no surprise to see that Israel has reportedly threatened Ireland, Spain and Norway with “consequences” for planning to recognise the State of Palestine. Such a threat is straight from the classic Zionist playbook, as anyone who has been attacked physically or verbally for telling the truth about the colonial state’s occupation of Palestine can attest.
Indeed, you don’t even have to go that far to be the target of the pro-Israel lobby and its allies. Simply trying to provide humanitarian aid can be enough, as I can attest from personal experience. As a trustee and the chair of the Palestinian Relief and Development Fund, known as Interpal, from 1996 to 2020, I faced media allegations and personal insults from Zionist groups in the UK and abroad.
The charity itself was denounced by major media outlets as a supporter of Palestinian “terrorism” within the first two years of it being set up in 1994. Funds from Interpal, it was alleged, were used to “train suicide bombers”. It was a nonsensical allegation made, as all such claims were made, to divert our time and resources away from providing much-needed humanitarian aid to Palestinians in need in the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as in Jordan and Lebanon.
On one occasion, a major newspaper accused us of diverting “millions of dollars” to Hamas rather than development projects in occupied Palestine. Another newspaper alleged we had stolen $100m from Hamas. The charity’s average annual income at the time was less than £5 million. As I said, nonsensical.
Moreover, I smile inwardly when I hear allegations of anti-Semitism thrown at any and all individuals and organisations opposing Israel’s nefarious occupation. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz has said that Spain’s call to recognise Palestine, and liberate the land “from the river to the sea”, is “anti-Semitic”. The term has been weaponised to try to shut down any opposition to Israeli violations of international law.
However, when I was accused of being a “homophobic, anti-Semitic, terror activist” by members of the pro-Israel lobby, the words of a senior Metropolitan Police office were reassuring: “The absence of any police involvement is hugely significant.”
He had said this about the US designation of Interpal as a “global terrorist entity” in 2003, but it was equally applicable to allegations of illegal activity against me as an individual. The designation was imposed by the US with no due process, no investigation of the charity and no interaction with the trustees and staff. Israel provided a list of individuals and organisations to be “designated” to the White House, and George W Bush signed the order. We found out about this from the BBC website. That’s how it worked, and probably still works 20+ years later.
It’s all a ruse to shut down the conversation about the pernicious role of Zionism and the Zionist state in the world today, and the brutality of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. In the words of an anonymous US Treasury Official speaking to Interpal’s New York lawyer “off the record” years later, the designation of the charity was “political”, and had nothing to do with real or imagined violations of the law.
In other words, as is becoming more obvious to us all by the day, politicians in the West will do anything, no matter what the effect on the democracy that they claim to cherish and uphold, to protect the Zionist state of Israel. Many of these politicians have had their “loyalty” to the alien state bought by massive donations to their campaign funds; their own commitment to the democratic process, therefore, must be questioned.
It will be interesting to see if the “consequences” threatened by Israel force Ireland, Spain and Norway to change their minds about recognising the State of Palestine. I suspect not, because such a decision is generally made on genuine principles, not the power and wealth of lobby groups.
My hope is that the governments in Dublin, Madrid and Oslo will stick by their principles. This will not only encourage other states to recognise Palestine, but also give hope to the people taking to the streets in protest at Israel’s genocide that their voices are being heard as they call for a ceasefire, and that they too can treat Israeli threats with the contempt they deserve.
The Cradle | May 24, 2024
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Israel on 24 May to halt its military offensive in Rafah as part of the ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa earlier this year.
The top UN court said that the current situation entails further risks of “irreparable damage” to the rights of Palestinians in Gaza and that conditions have been met for new emergency measures.
“[Israel must] immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” ICJ President Nawaf Salam said.
He also ordered Tel Aviv to “maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance” and to “take effective measures to ensure the unimpeded access to the Gaza Strip of any commission of inquiry, fact-finding mission or other investigative body mandated by competent organs of the United Nations to investigate allegations of genocide.”
Moreover, the World Court ordered Israeli officials to “submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order.”
Following the ICJ session, Israeli media reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu will convene an emergency meeting later today, which will include Foreign Minister Israel Katz, war cabinet minister and opposition leader Benny Gantz, and the government’s judicial advisor.
Hamas also commented on the ruling, highlighting that Tel Aviv continues to commit “massacres” across the Gaza Strip and urged the court to issue an order for Israel to stop all its operations in the besieged enclave, not just in Rafah.
“What is happening in Jabalia and other governorates of the Strip is no less criminal and dangerous than what is happening in Rafah,” the Hamas statement reads.
“We call on the international community and the United Nations to pressure the occupation to immediately comply with this decision and to seriously and genuinely proceed in translating all UN resolutions that force the zionist occupation army to stop the genocide it has been committing against our people for more than seven months.”
For its part, South Africa welcomed Friday’s ruling and urged UN member states to back it.
“I believe it’s a much stronger, in terms of wording, set of provisional measures, very clear call for a cessation,” Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor told public broadcaster SABC.
The ruling comes as Israel’s now two-week bombing and ground offensive in Rafah has killed at least 171 people and displaced around one million Palestinians. Most had already been displaced by Israeli bombing and now face a further lack of shelter, food, water, and medicine.
South Africa made an urgent request in February for the court to consider whether Israel’s decision to launch an operation in Rafah “requires that the court uses its power to prevent further imminent breach of the rights of Palestinians in Gaza.”
The country had filed its case at the end of December, declaring that Israel was breaching obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention in its military campaign in Gaza.
On 26 January, the ICJ ordered that Israel take steps to prevent acts of genocide by its military in Gaza and punish incitements to genocide.
The court, however, stopped short of ordering a ceasefire. South Africa had been aiming for an ICJ order of an emergency halt to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. Any decision of the sort would need backing from the UN Security Council.
On 16 May, the ICJ held hearings to consider South Africa’s request for additional emergency measures to halt Israel’s ongoing operation in Rafah, resulting in Friday’s ruling.
Israel’s war on Gaza has killed over 35,000 Palestinians while razing much of the besieged enclave, including entire neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, farmland, and cemeteries.
Israel politicians and activists have repeatedly publicized their intent to destroy and ethnically cleanse Gaza to make way for future Jewish settlement.
The definition of online freedom has been depressingly constricted over the last thirty years
By Aaron Kheriaty, Debbie Lerman, Andrew Lowenthal, and Jeffrey Tucker | The American Mind | May 22, 2024
You have surely heard that your search results on Google (with 92 percent share of the search market) reflect not your curiosities and needs but someone or something else’s views on what you need to know. That’s hardly a secret.
And on Facebook, you are likely inundated by links to official sources to correct any errors you might carry in your head, as well as links to corrections to posts as made by any number of fact-checking organizations.
You have likely also heard of YouTube videos being taken down, apps deleted from stores, and accounts being canceled across a variety of platforms.
You might have even adjusted your behavior in light of all of this. It is part of the new culture of Internet engagement. The line you cannot cross is invisible. You are like a dog with an electric shock collar. You have to figure it out on your own, which means exercising caution when you post, pulling back on hard claims that might shock, paying attention to media culture to discern what is sayable and what is not, and generally trying to avoid controversy as best you can in order to earn the privilege of not being canceled.
Despite all the revelations regarding the Censorship Industrial Complex, and the wide involvement of government in these efforts, plus the resulting lawsuits that claim that this is all censorship, the walls are clearly closing in further by the day.
Users are growing accustomed to it, for fear of losing their accounts. For example, YouTube (which feeds 55 percent of all video content online) allows three strikes before your account is deleted permanently. One strike is devastating and two existential. You are frozen in place and forced to relinquish everything–including your ability to earn a living if your content is monetized–if you make one or two wrong moves.
No one needs to censor you at that point. You censor yourself.
It was not always this way. It was not even supposed to be this way.
It’s possible to trace the dramatic change from the past to present by following the trajectory of various Declarations that have been issued over the years. The tone was set at the dawn of the World Wide Web in 1996 by digital guru, Grateful Dead lyricist, and Harvard University fellow John Perry Barlow, who died in 2018.
Barlow’s Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, somewhat ironically written in Davos, Switzerland, is still hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that he founded. The manifesto waxes lyrical about the liberatory, open future of internet freedom:
Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.
And so on it went with a heady, expansive vision–tinged perhaps with a dash of sixties utopian anarchism–that shaped the ethos which drove the building of the Internet in the early days. It appeared to a whole generation of coders and content providers that a new world of freedom had been born that would shepherd in a new era of freedom more generally, with growing knowledge, human rights, creative freedom, and borderless connection of everyone to literature, facts, and truth emerging organically from a crowd-sourced process of engagement.
Nearly a decade and a half later, by 2012, that idea was fully embraced by the main architects of the emergent app economy and the explosion of smartphone use across the world. The result was the Declaration of Internet Freedom that went live in July of 2012 and garnered a great deal of press attention at the time. Signed by the EFF, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, and other liberty-focused organizations, it read:
To be sure, it was not quite as sweeping and visionary as the Barlow original but maintained the essence, putting free expression as the first principle with the lapidary phrase: “Don’t censor the Internet.” It might have stopped there, but given the existing threats coming from growing industrial cartels and the stored-data marketplace, it also pushed openness, innovation, and privacy as first principles.
Again, this outlook defined an era and elicited broad agreement. “Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress,” said Hillary Clinton in an endorsement of the freedom principle in 2010. The 2012 Declaration was neither right-wing nor left-wing. It encapsulated the core of what it meant to favor freedom on the Internet, exactly as the title suggests.
If you go to the site internetdeclaration.org now, your browser will not reveal any of its contents. The secure certificate is dead. If you bypass the warning, you will find yourself forbidden from accessing any of the contents. The tour through Archive.org shows that the last living presentation of the site was February 2018.
This occurred three years after Donald Trump publicly advocated that “in some places” we have to talk about “closing up the Internet.” He got his wish, but it came after him personally following his election in 2016. The very free speech about which he made fun turned out to be rather important to him and his cause.
Two years into the Trump presidency, precisely as the censorship industry started coalescing into full operation, the site of the Declaration site broke down and eventually disappeared.
Fast forward a decade from the writing of the Internet Declaration of Freedom. The year is 2022 and we had been through a rough two years of account takedowns, particularly against those who doubted the wisdom of lockdowns or vaccine mandates. The White House revealed on April 22, 2022 a Declaration for the Future of the Internet. It comes complete with a parchment-style presentation and a large capital letter in old-fashioned script. The word “freedom” is removed from the title and added only as a part of the word salad that follows in the text.
Signed by 60 nations, the new Declaration was released to great fanfare, including a White House press release. The signatory nations were all NATO-aligned while excluding others. The signatories are: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, the European Commission, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, North Macedonia, Palau, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Uruguay.
The core of the new declaration is very clear and represents a good encapsulation of the essence of the structures that govern content today: “The Internet should operate as a single, decentralized network of networks – with global reach and governed through the multistakeholder approach, whereby governments and relevant authorities partner with academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others.”
The term “stakeholder” (as in “stakeholder capitalism”) became popular in the nineties as distinct from “shareholder” meaning a partial owner. A stakeholder is not an owner or even a consumer but a party or institution with a strong interest in the outcome of the decision-making by the owners, whose rights might need to be overridden in the broader interests of everyone. In this way, the term came to describe an amorphous group of influential third parties that deserve a say in the management of institutions and systems. A “multistakeholder” approach is how civil society is brought inside the tent, with financing and seeming influence, and told that they matter as an incentive to woke-wash their outlooks and operations.
Using that linguistic fulcrum, part of the goal of the new Declaration is explicitly political: “Refrain from using the Internet to undermine the electoral infrastructure, elections and political processes, including through covert information manipulation campaigns.” From this admonition we can conclude that the new Internet is structured to discourage “manipulation campaigns” and even goes so far as to “foster greater social and digital inclusion within society, bolster resilience to disinformation and misinformation, and increase participation in democratic processes.”
Following the latest in censorship language, every form of top-down blockage and suppression is now justified in the name of fostering inclusion (that is, “DEI,” as in Diversity [three mentions], Equity [two mentions], and Inclusion [five mentions]) and stopping dis- and mis-information, language identical to that invoked by the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the rest of the industrial complex that operates to stop information spread.
This agency was created in the waning days of the Obama administration and approved by Congress in 2018, supposedly to protect our digital infrastructure against cyberattacks from computer viruses and nefarious foreign actors. But less than one year into its existence, CISA decided that our election infrastructure was part of our critical infrastructure (thereby asserting Federal control over elections, which are typically handled by the states). Furthermore, part of protecting our election infrastructure included protecting what CISA director Jen Easterly called our “cognitive infrastructure.”
Easterly, who formerly worked at Tailored Access Operations, a top secret cyber warfare unit at the National Security Agency, coined the queen of all Orwellian euphemisms: “cognitive infrastructure,” which refers to the thoughts inside your head. This is precisely what the government’s counter-disinformation apparatus, headed by people like Easterly, are attempting to control. True to this stated aim, CISA pivoted by 2020 to become the nerve center of the government’s censorship apparatus–the agency through which all government and “stakeholder” censorship demands are funneled to social media companies.
Now consider what we’ve learned about Wikipedia, which is owned by Wikimedia, the former CEO of which was Katherine Maher, now slated to be the head CEO of National Public Radio. She has been a consistent and public defender of censorship, even suggesting that the First Amendment is “the number one challenge.”
The co-founder of Wikipedia, Joseph Sanger, has said he suspects that she turned Wikipedia into an intelligence-operated platform. “We know that there is a lot of backchannel communication,” he said in an interview. “I think it has to be the case that the Wikimedia Foundation now, probably governments, probably the CIA, have accounts that they control, in which they actually exert their influence. And it’s fantastic, in a bad way, that she actually comes out against the system for being ‘free and open.’ When she says that she’s worked with government to shut down what they consider ‘misinformation,’ that, in itself, means that it’s no longer free and open.”
What happened to Wikipedia, which all search engines privilege among all results, has befallen nearly every prominent venue on the Internet. The Elon Musk takeover of Twitter has proven to be aberrant and highly costly in terms of advertising dollars, and hence elicits vast opposition from the venues that are on the other side. That his renamed platform X even exists at all seems to run contrary to every wish of the controlled and controlling establishment today.
We have traveled a very long way from the vision of John Perry Barlow in 1996, who imagined a cyberworld in which governments were not involved to one in which governments and their “multi stakeholder partners” are in charge of “a rules-based global digital economy.” In the course of this complete reversal, the Declaration of Internet Freedom became the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, with the word freedom consigned to little more than a passing reference.
The transition from one to the other was–like bankruptcy–gradual at first and then all at once. We’ve traveled rather quickly from “you [governments and corporate interests] are not welcome among us” to a “single, decentralized network of networks” managed by “governments and relevant authorities” including “academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others” to create a “rules-based digital economy.”
And that is the core of the Great Reset affecting the main tool by which today’s information channels have been colonized by the corporatist complex.
By John & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | May 21, 2024
The police state does not want citizens who know their rights.
Nor does the police state want citizens prepared to exercise those rights.
This year’s graduates are a prime example of this master class in compliance. Their time in college has been set against a backdrop of crackdowns, lockdowns and permacrises ranging from the government’s authoritarian COVID-19 tactics to its more recent militant response to campus protests.
Born in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, these young people have been raised without any expectation of privacy in a technologically-driven, mass surveillance state; educated in schools that teach conformity and compliance; saddled with a debt-ridden economy on the brink of implosion; made vulnerable by the blowback from a military empire constantly waging war against shadowy enemies; policed by government agents armed to the teeth ready and able to lock down the country at a moment’s notice; and forced to march in lockstep with a government that no longer exists to serve the people but which demands they be obedient slaves or suffer the consequences.
And now, when they should be empowered to take their rightful place in society as citizens who fully understand and exercise their right to speak truth to power, they are being censored, silenced and shut down.
Consider what happened recently in Charlottesville, Va., when riot police were called in to shut down campus protests at the University of Virginia staged by students and members of the community to express their opposition to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine.
As the local newspaper reported, “State police sporting tactical gear and riot shields moved in on the demonstrators, using pepper spray and sheer force to disperse the group and arrest the roughly 15 or so at the camp, where for days students, faculty and community members had sang songs, read poetry and painted signs in protest of Israel’s ongoing war in the Palestinian territory of Gaza.”
What a sad turn-about for an institution which was founded as an experiment in cultivating an informed citizenry by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, champion of the Bill of Rights, and the nation’s third president.
Unfortunately, the University of Virginia is not unique in its heavy-handed response to what have been largely peaceful anti-war protests. According to the Washington Post, more than 2300 people have been arrested for taking part in similar campus protests across the country.
These lessons in compliance, while expected, are what comes of challenging the police state.
Free speech can certainly not be considered “free” when expressive activities across the nation are being increasingly limited, restricted to so-called free speech zones, or altogether blocked.
Remember, the First Amendment gives every American the right to “petition his government for a redress of grievances.”
Along with the constitutional right to peacefully (and that means non-violently) assemble, the right to free speech allows us to challenge the government through protests and demonstrations and to attempt to change the world around us—for the better or the worse—through protests and counterprotests.
If citizens cannot stand out in the open and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window—pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.
After all, living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right, whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign.
That’s what the First Amendment is supposed to be about: it assures the citizenry of the right to express their concerns about their government to their government, in a time, place and manner best suited to ensuring that those concerns are heard.
Unfortunately, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials.
In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.
Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, extremist speech, etc.
Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say.
Yet if Americans are not able to peacefully assemble for expressive activity outside of the halls of government or on public roads on which government officials must pass, or on college campuses, the First Amendment has lost all meaning.
If we cannot stand peacefully outside of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties that we cherish as Americans.
And if we cannot proclaim our feelings about the government, no matter how controversial, on our clothing, or to passersby, or to the users of the world wide web, then the First Amendment really has become an exercise in futility.
The source of the protest shouldn’t matter. The politics of the protesters are immaterial.
To play politics with the First Amendment encourages a double standard that will see us all muzzled in the end.
The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is the final link in the police state chain.
If ever there were a time for us to stand up for the right to speak freely, even if it’s freedom for speech we hate, the time is now.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Palestinian Information Center – May 23, 2024
GAZA – The Israeli occupation forces (IOF) stormed Al-Awda Hospital in the northern Gaza Strip, forcing doctors and healthcare professionals to evacuate and detaining dozens on Thursday morning.
The IOF had besieged the medical facility in the Jabalia refugee camp for four days, blocking ambulances and all access for humanitarian groups. During the siege, Israeli tanks attacked the hospital multiple times with projectiles and machine guns.
Leaving their patients behind, a mass exodus of doctors, nurses and paramedics were ordered to walk westwards on foot to seek safety and shelter.
According to the Awda Health and Community Association, there are still 14 employees, 11 wounded civilians and two women taking care of children.
The Awda Association said that the administration of the hospital refused to evacuate the wounded unless there were ambulances to transport them.
In last December, the IOF had besieged the same hospital for 18 days, during which they bombed some of its floors and killed three of its medical employees.
No hospitals are currently operating in northern Gaza.
Al Mayadeen | May 22, 2024
A self-proclaimed soldier from “Israel’s” infamous Netzah Yehuda battalion has admitted that his unit killed 78-year-old Palestinian-American, Omar Asad, in January 2022, according to recordings obtained by The Grayzone.
However, after announcing plans to sanction the battalion, the Biden administration withdrew the decision without offering further explanation.
“Four of these units [Israeli units] have effectively remediated these violations, which is what we expect partners to do,” the US State Department claimed.
The fifth unit appears to be Netzah Yehuda, an all-male unit of Orthodox Jewish nationalists that operates exclusively in Ramallah of the occupied West Bank and is accused of crimes, including sexual assault and beating at least three older men to death while they were lying on the ground while in custody.
Netzah Yehuda soldiers detained Asad and left him outdoors in harsh conditions, bound and blindfolded until he died. Instead of punishment, all the soldiers got was a slap on the wrist, and compensation was paid to Asad’s family.
A report by Washington DC-based human rights organization, DAWN, found that at the time of the killing, the commander of the unit, Lt. Col. Mati Shevach, was promoted to Deputy Commander of the Kfir Brigade, which oversees the Netzah Yehuda formation.
Spokesperson Vedant Patel responded during an April 29 State Department press briefing to questions regarding why the administration had hesitated to sanction the battalion.
“This is an ongoing process,” Patel said, further claiming, “I’m not going to speak to it more specifically, but consistent with the memorandum of understanding that we have with the government of Israel, we are engaging with them, consulting with them as it relates to not just this broader process but additional information that they’ve shared.”
The Grayzone obtained the glorified account of the killing of Asad, which according to the self-described soldier’s account, the unit brutalized Asad as punishment for supposedly interfering with a raid.
“This geezer who’s like trying to interfere with our operation, we’re going to like, f*** with him for a night,” the soldier said, as he called Arabs “murders, criminal animals” and boasted about killing and torturing Palestinians, likening himself to Americans who photographed themselves with dead Japanese soldiers during World War II, “doing funny things with their bodies.”
“Yeah, I enjoy it because they’re our enemy,” he expressed.
Read also: IOF units ‘remediated’ after rights violations, no Leahy sanctions
MEMO | May 22, 2024
An NGO has submitted a complaint to the United Kingdom’s Scotland Yard against Israel’s use of “starvation as a weapon of war” and targeting of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, in what is the latest such complaint regarding war crimes in Gaza to be reported to British police.
According to the London-based International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), it submitted a complaint to Scotland Yard’s War Crimes Team regarding Israel’s suspected use of “starvation as a method of warfare” and for ‘wilfully causing great suffering’ to Palestinians.
Although filed in the UK, both crimes are illegal under British and international law, including under the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Using starvation as a weapon of war also violates the Geneva Convention, a major keystone of contemporary international law.
The 60-page complaint – which was added to by a further 800 pages of evidence – includes accounts collected by ICJP’s investigation and legal teams, which include former British police detectives who collected the evidence to the standards of British police forces.
The evidence reportedly includes that collected from first-hand eyewitnesses, expert reports and expert evidence from nineteen medical professionals who have worked within the besieged Gaza Strip since October, when Israel began its ongoing offensive.
According to ICJP’s Director, Tayab Ali, “Complicity comes in many forms, whether that be providing political cover, encouraging criminal acts, supplying weapons or, as in the case of starvation, withholding funds from agencies that provide life sustaining humanitarian aid”.
The extensive complaint notably builds upon and expands an existing complaint issued by the ICJP back in January this year, which named four British government ministers for alleged complicity and criminal responsibility in Israeli war crimes. This latest update, however, further implicates a fifth senior government minister as an alleged perpetrator of those crimes.
Due to the war crimes’ illegality under British law and subsequent ability to be prosecuted in the UK, Scotland Yard’s War Crimes Investigation Team will now reportedly consider the complaints leading up to an ultimate decision on whether to open a formal criminal investigation on the matter. If that proceeds, there is the possibility that police will then question, arrest, and prosecute the alleged perpetrators and those complicit.
READ ALSO: Boris Johnson accused of obstructing investigations into war crimes in Gaza
The Cradle | May 22, 2024
Norway, Ireland, and Spain announced on 22 May that they will formally recognize Palestine as a state next week, drawing the ire of Israel as the country immediately recalled its ambassadors to Dublin and Oslo.
“There cannot be peace in [West Asia] if there is no recognition … In the midst of a war, with tens of thousands killed and injured [in Gaza], we must keep alive the only alternative that offers a political solution for Israelis and Palestinians alike: Two states living side by side, in peace and security,” Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store said on Wednesday.
Shortly after Oslo’s announcement, Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris said his country would also recognize a Palestinian state.
“Today, Ireland, Norway, and Spain are announcing that we recognize the state of Palestine,” Harris said at a news conference. “I’m confident that further countries will join us in taking this important step in the coming weeks,” he added.
Foreign Minister Micheal Martin said via social media that the recognition will become official on 28 May.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez followed suit, announcing Wednesday that the country’s council of ministers would also recognize an independent Palestinian state on 28 May. He also accused his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu of putting the two-state solution in “danger” with his policy of “pain and destruction” in Gaza.
In response to the news, Tel Aviv immediately recalled its ambassadors to Ireland and Norway and pledged to recall its envoy to Spain. The foreign ministry also summoned the ambassadors from the three European nations to “reprimand” them.
Israeli foreign minister Israel Katz called the show of support for Palestinians a “folly,” adding that recognizing Palestinian statehood “[sends] a message to the Palestinians and the world: Terrorism pays.”
Palestinian officials welcomed the announcement by three European nations, with Hamas calling it an “important step.”
“We welcome the announcement by Norway, Ireland, and Spain of recognition of the State of Palestine, and we consider it an important step on the path to consolidating our right to our land and establishing our independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,” the statement by the Palestinian resistance says.
“Historical moments in which the free world triumphs for truth and justice after long decades of Palestinian national struggle, suffering, pain, occupation, racism, murder, oppression, abuse and destruction to which the people of Palestine were subjected,” the Secretary-General of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) said via social media.
Nine European countries — Bulgaria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Sweden, Malta, and the Greek Cypriot administration — have already recognized Palestine as a state.
MEMO | May 20, 2024
Jailed Palestinian leader, Marwan Barghouti, has been subjected to violations and torture, and spends days in a narrow, dark cell in solitary confinement, without any means to treat wounds he sustained as a result of being dragged with his hands tied behind his back, the Guardian revealed on Saturday.
The newspaper pointed out that books, newspapers and a television that he used to be able to access have been confiscated since October.
“The lights that flicker in his cell each evening are intended to make sleep near impossible,” it said.
His lawyer Igal Dotan, who visited Barghouti in Israel’s Megiddo Prison two months ago, told the paper that “mentally he’s a very strong person, but physically his condition is deteriorating, you can see it. He’s struggling to see out of his right eye, as a result of one of the assaults.”
“He has lost weight – he doesn’t look good. You wouldn’t recognise him if you compare his current appearance with the famous photos of him,” he said.
Barghouti told his lawyers that in March he was dragged to an area of the prison without security cameras and assaulted. He recalled bleeding from the nose as he was dragged across the floor by his handcuffs, before he was beaten unconscious.
Dotan counted bruises in at least three places on Barghouti’s body when he visited weeks later, adding that he probably has a dislocated shoulder from the assault and is in constant pain, but prison officials have refused a full medical examination of his injuries.
Since October, he has been transferred to three different detention facilities, and held in solitary confinement in each.
In Ayalon Prison “he was beaten on several occasions,” said Dotan, including an incident where guards swore at him while Barghouti was “dragged on the floor naked in front of other prisoners.”
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 