By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | July 2, 2024
The EU Council has managed to nestle fighting “disinformation and hate speech” between such issues as the Middle East, Ukraine, and migration – not to mention while at the same time appointing a new set of “apparatchiks,” in the wake of the European Parliament elections.
This proceeds from the Council’s 2024-2029 strategic agenda, adopted on June 27. This document represents a “five-year plan” to guide the bloc’s policy and goals.
Under the heading, “A free and democratic Europe,” the document addresses different ways in which “European values” will be upheld going forward. The Council’s conclusions state that in order to strengthen the EU’s “democratic resilience,” what it decides is disinformation and hate speech will have to be countered.
These categories of speech are infamously arbitrarily defined, even in legislation, and habitually used as a tool of censorship – but the conclusions count combating them among the strategic goal of fending off foreign interference and destabilization.
In other words, those individuals or organizations that are found to be “guilty” of hate speech or disinformation might face the grim possibility of being treated as, essentially, a threat to the EU’s security.
Another promise the document makes in the same breath is that tech giants will be made to “take their responsibility for safeguarding democratic dialogue online.”
Does this mean there will be more or less censorship in the EU over the next five years? The Brussels bureaucrats are at this point so practiced at churning out platitudes that, theoretically, this statement could be interpreted either way.
However, in conjunction with the “misinformation” etc., talk, it is fairly clear which course the EU intends to keep when it comes to online freedom of expression.
AI is not explicitly mentioned as a threat (either to the EU or by the EU, as the technology that can be used to ramp up censorship, aka, “combat misinformation”).
However, you name it, the EU supposedly has it: under the part of the conclusions addressing competitiveness, increasing capacities related to AI sits right there with growing defense, space, quantum technologies, semiconductors, health, biotechnologies capabilities – not to mention “net-zero technologies, mobility, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and advanced materials.”
It’s a pretty comprehensive bridge the EU appears to be trying to sell to its member-states and their citizens.
Press TV – July 1, 2024
More Palestinians have said they were injured by Israeli soldiers then forced onto the hood of vehicles and driven at speed along village roads following a recent military operation in the occupied West Bank.
Two more men have said they were subjected to the terrifying ordeal after an Israeli raid in Jabariyat, on the outskirts of Jenin in the West Bank.
Samir Dabaya, 23, now hospitalized in Jenin, said he was shot in the back during the raid, and lay face-down and bleeding for hours before he was assessed by soldiers.
He said when the soldiers realized he was alive he was beaten with a gun and then picked up and thrown onto the bonnet of a military jeep.
“They took off my [trousers]. I wanted to hold onto the car, but [one soldier] hit my face and told me not to. Then he started driving. I was waiting for death,” Dabaya was quoted as saying by the British state-backed broadcaster BBC, which said it was shown security camera footage that appeared to confirm his account.
Another Palestinian, Hesham Isleit, said he was shot twice during the operation in Jabariyat and forced onto the same military jeep. He said during the raid he was shot in the leg as he tried to run away.
“They ordered us to stand up, and undressed us, then they asked us to get onto the front of the jeep,” Isleit said.
All this came after footage of 23-year-old Mujahid Abadi Balas clinging to the bonnet of the same jeep sparked international outrage. The shocking image raised concerns over the use of human shields, something that is repeated in several ways in the occupied West Bank.
Israeli regime forces put Palestinian civilians in front of them or otherwise put civilians in the line of fire and force them to open doors that could be booby-trapped or remove suspicious objects that might be bombs.
The Zionist forces also often employ the “neighbor procedure” in which Palestinian civilians are forced to attempt to persuade individuals to leave or surrender themselves.
The use of Palestinians as human shields by Israeli regime forces in numerous cases has been well documented by multiple human rights organizations.
For decades, Palestinian children and adults alike have been used as human shields by the Israeli forces during operations.
Press TV – July 1, 2024
The director of Gaza’s al-Shifa hospital, who had been detained by Israeli forces for more than seven months, says he was put through “severe torture” during his detention in Israeli prisons.
Mohammed Abu Salmiya was among more than 50 Palestinians released and returned to Gaza, according to a medical source in the besieged territory.
Salmiya told a press conference on Monday that detainees “are subjected to all kinds of torture,” in Israel’s prisons and detention centers.
“There was almost daily torture. Cells are broken into and prisoners are beaten.”
“Several inmates died in interrogation centers and were deprived of food and medicine,” the hospital chief said.
Salmiya said the regime’s prison guards “broke his finger and caused his head to bleed during beatings, in which they used batons and dogs.”
According to him, the Israeli regime’s medical staff at different detention facilities had also taken part “in violation of all laws.”
Some Palestinian detainees, he said, had limbs amputated because of poor medical care.
Salmiya said there are still thousands of detainees held by the regime’s forces.
According to the Gaza media office, the regime forces have kidnapped at least 5,000 Palestinians since October 2023, when the military launched its bloodiest-ever war in the besieged territory.
The fate of many of them or the conditions of their detention are still unknown, said the media office.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Alice Jill Edwards, said previously that he received reports that Palestinians were being beaten, kept in cells blindfolded and handcuffed for excessive periods, deprived of sleep, and threatened with physical and sexual violence.
Other reports suggest detainees have been insulted and exposed to acts of humiliation, such as being photographed and filmed in degrading poses.
The UN expert urged the regime to allow immediate access to international human rights and humanitarian observers to all the places in which Palestinians have been detained since October.
Human rights groups have repeatedly raised the alarm about “unprecedented difficult conditions” in which all Palestinian detainees, including women, are being held. Around 80 female detainees are currently being held in the regime prisons.
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 30, 2024
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) civil rights group is not giving up on the free speech fight it has been conducting on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs in the Murthy v. Missouri case. The tactic is now to go for expanded discovery, aimed at demonstrating direct harm caused by government censorship.
A statement to this effect comes after the US Supreme Court voted 6-3 to lift a preliminary injunction that prevented the White House and several powerful agencies (CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Surgeon General’s Office) from interacting with social media companies by “encouraging” (or coercing) them to carry out censorship of lawful and protected speech.
The ruling is seen by critics and those who brought and supported the case aimed at ending this type of collusion as yet another blow to the First Amendment, and to make things worse, shortly ahead of another US presidential election.
NCLA said that the Supreme Court decision – which overturned the injunction previously ordered by a district court and upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – leaves its clients “without redress.”
This is despite the fact their original lawsuit had to do with blacklisting, shadow-banning, deranking, account termination, and other forms of censorship, believed to have been done because of pressure coming from the government.
This was happening during the time of the previous campaign and in the wake of the election – concerning, among others, the issues that featured prominently in that campaign, namely those around Covid controversies.
But the NCLA said that despite the Supreme Court ruling which “practically erased the First Amendment and permitted government to co-opt private entities, like social media platforms, to accomplish its censorship aims” – the battle for free speech will continue in lower courts.
NCLA litigation counsel Jenin Younes has told the Federalist Radio Hour podcast that the rights group is not giving up and it has decided to pursue the case on the merits in the district court. “We want to get more discovery,” said Younes.
In the NCLA’s press release, Younes said that the Supreme Court has “green lighted the government’s unprecedented censorship regime, which resulted in the censorship of top scientists like our clients on the areas of their expertise,” adding:
“This decision is a travesty for the First Amendment, for Americans’ rights to free speech, and for the pursuit of scientific and other knowledge.”
One of the dissenting Supreme Court justices, Samuel Alito, expressed a similar sentiment as he warned that the government’s actions were “blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”
IMEMC | JUNE 30, 2024
Earlier this week, the Israeli military again targeted the family of the senior political leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniya, killing ten civilians, including his elderly sister.
This is the second time during this current nine-month long invasion that the Israeli military targeted Haniyeh’s family for assassination by missile.
The first time, on April 10, 2024, on the first day of the Al-Fitr Muslim feast that marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan, an Israeli drone fired a missile at a car carrying members of Haniyya’s family in the Shati’ refugee camp, in Gaza City, killing three of his sons, Hazem, Amir and Mohammad, and two of his grandchildren.
It is worth mentioning that, on November 21, 2023, the army killed Haniyya’s oldest grandson, Jamal Mohmmad Haniyya, and his daughter. On November 10, the army killed Haniyya’s grandchild, Ro’a Hammad, after firing missiles at their homes.
At the time, Haniyya, in Doha – Qatar, told Al-Jazeera that that Israel has already killed at least sixty members of his family, including cousins, nephews, and nieces, and added that all Palestinians in Gaza have paid a heavy price, but is determined to create a better future, achieve liberation and independence.
In an earlier Israeli assault on Gaza, in 2014, Israeli forces had targeted Haniyeh’s family home with a missile, destroying the home but causing no casualties.
The targeting of Haniyeh’s family comes, just like the previous time, as the Palestinian Prime Minister had agreed to the terms of a peace agreement after careful negotiations between the Qatari and Egyptian mediators. Some analysts have called these assassinations an attempt by the Israeli government to undermine and subvert the ceasefire negotiations.
According to the Palestine Chronicle, some family members remain under the rubble, with most of the victims being women.
According to Al-Jazeera, search efforts for survivors are ongoing, and the death toll is expected to rise.
The attack came at a time when the Israeli army has intensified its raids on the Shati camp, also targeting a United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) shelter school, killing dozens, including children.
On April 10, three of Haniyeh’s sons and several grandchildren were killed in an Israeli raid on a civilian car in the Beach Camp, Gaza City.
The Israeli army acknowledged responsibility for the raids on the Shati camp, claiming they bombed buildings used by Hamas.
Although they did not directly mention targeting Haniyeh’s family, the Israeli Army Radio commented on the attack in which family members, including Haniyeh’s sister, were killed.
Currently on trial before the International Court of Justice for genocide against Palestinians, Israel has been waging a devastating war on Gaza since October 7.
According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, 37,626 Palestinians have been killed, and 86,098 wounded in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza starting on October 7.
Moreover, at least 7,000 people are unaccounted for, presumed dead under the rubble of their homes throughout the Strip.
Palestinian and international organizations say that the majority of those killed and wounded are women and children.
The Israeli war has resulted in an acute famine, mostly in northern Gaza, resulting in the death of many Palestinians, mostly children.
The Israeli aggression has also resulted in the forceful displacement of nearly two million people from all over the Gaza Strip, with the vast majority of the displaced forced into the densely crowded southern city of Rafah near the border with Egypt – in what has become Palestine’s largest mass exodus since the 1948 Nakba.
Israel says that 1,200 soldiers and civilians were killed during the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation on October 7. Israeli media published reports suggesting that many Israelis were killed on that day by ‘friendly fire’.
Al Mayadeen | June 30, 2024
Tunisia saw on Sunday mass popular demonstrations outside the US embassy, in support of Gaza and in rejection of the ongoing Israeli aggression on the Strip, amid demands for the expulsion of the American ambassador and the closure of the embassy.
Since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza, Tunisians have been continuously taking to the streets and staging sit-ins to raise their voices in support of the Resistance and to demand an end to the genocide being committed in Gaza by Israeli occupation forces.
Salaheddine al-Masri, the chairman of the Tunisian League for Tolerance, told Al Mayadeen that the Israeli occupation would destroy itself if it dared to confront the Lebanese Resistance, as evidenced by the United States sending messages to the Israeli entity not to open a front with Lebanon.
BY BLAISE MALLEY | RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT | JUNE 27, 2024
In the more than seven months since Israel’s war on Gaza began, the Biden administration has been almost entirely deferential to the war effort, providing Tel Aviv with $6.5 billion worth of weapons, offering rhetorical and diplomatic cover, and holding Hamas wholly responsible for the inability to strike a ceasefire deal.
To some members of Congress — mostly Republicans — this level of support for Israel does not go nearly far enough.
This week, the House of Representatives will be voting on the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations legislation. Among the 75 amendments to the bill that were made in order and will be voted on are a series of anti-Palestinian proposals that seek to eliminate any appearance of balance in the United States’ approach to the war.
Two of the amendments seek to “prohibit funds” appropriated in the bill from being spent on holding Israel accountable for any violations of U.S. law.
One, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) “Prohibits funds from enforcing Executive Order 14115,” which Biden announced in February of this year as a way to sanction individuals or groups who the administration deemed “undermining peace, security and stability” in the West Bank. The effort was widely seen as an effort to punish extreme Israeli settlers — as of March, nine Israelis have been sanctioned under the law — but in June the U.S. also sanctioned a Palestinian armed group.
The other, introduced by Reps. Andy Ogles (R-TN) and Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), would block “the use of funds from being used to administer or enforce National Security Memorandum 20.” NSM-20 is the memo issued by Biden in February that required the administration to receive written assurances that recipients of American military aid were complying with international law — in essence, ensuring that no one is using our weapons while committing atrocities, including blocking aid and medicine from getting to civilians.
The first report issued to Congress under this memorandum found that Israel had not violated the law in war conduct or in the distribution of international law. The directive would require the State Department to issue a new report each fiscal year.
Both Executive Order 14115 and NSM-20 call on Israel to do the bare minimum to comply with U.S. law, and critics, including in Congress, have argued that the administration has not gone nearly far enough in administering them.
How exactly Congress could “defund” either of these operations is not exactly clear, but both of these are likely intended as symbolic messages that the United States should not do anything that could in any way constrain Israel as it carries out its war.
Two other proposed amendments are aimed at ensuring that Americans are not aware of the scale of suffering in Gaza nor capable of alleviating it.
A bipartisan group of five representatives, led by Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) introduced an amendment that would prohibit “funds appropriated by this act to be made available for the State Department to cite statistics obtained from the Gaza Health Ministry.”
Given that the Health Ministry — which estimates that more than 37,000 Palestinians have died since October — is the only official source for casualties in the Strip, members seem to think the amendment will preclude the State Department from using the statistics. If so, officially, the U.S. would be ignoring the true scale of destruction in Gaza if this amendment is adopted.
Supporters of Israel have used the fact that Hamas runs the outfit as a way to undermine the death count for public perception, though the figures offered by the ministry have in the past been corroborated by international organizations and the Israeli government.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian pier — the Biden’s administration’s military plan for getting aid into Gaza — has been a failure. Operations have stopped and started intermittently due to the weather, the amount of aid entering Gaza through the pier is wholly inadequate, and even the supplies that have reached the Strip have not made their way to Gazans due to aid workers’ safety concerns. But aside from air drops, absent a ceasefire or the Biden administration putting real pressure on the Israelis, the pier remains the only way that Washington is currently sending assistance.
Nevertheless, Reps. Michael Waltz (R-Fla), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) have put forth an amendment to cut off funding for the project.
Taken together with an earlier ban on funding UNRWA, the largest provider of humanitarian assistance in Gaza, and an amendment to the NDAA that prohibited Washington from funding the reconstruction of the strip, it is clear that some in Congress want to play no role in helping Gazans who have suffered during this brutal war.
Debate over the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill began on Wednesday evening before being adjourned, with votes on these and a number of other amendments carrying over into Thursday morning.
In a disappointing 6-3 ruling the court found that the states and individual plaintiffs lack standing to seek an injunction against the government
By Aaron Kheriaty, MD | Human Flourishing | June 26, 2024
The Supreme Court issued a very disappointing ruling today in our Murthy v. Missouri case. Note that this is not a final ruling, but only a ruling on the preliminary injunction. The case will continue. The key takeaway from the Court was this finding:
Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant.
The Supreme Court punted here, refusing to opine on the merits of the case. The standing finding rests on technicalities that I will do my best to explain. To clarify, this ruling that we lack standing on the preliminary injunction does not mean we lack standing to bring the case to the trial. The case will move to the trial phase at the District Court now, where we will seek additional discovery and continue to expose the government’s elaborate censorship machinery. I hope we can uncover sufficient evidence for the Supreme Court not to continue to look the other way when it comes to a final ruling.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett explains:
Here, the plaintiffs’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they seek to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future.
But this is manifestly untrue: it was the platforms actions done at the behest of the government. The whole Constitutional problem is one of joint action, where the state forced third parties to censor. I don’t see how the Court could miss this obvious fact, given the evidence we presented. The ruling continues:
The plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant.
Apparently, the fact that we are still being censored on several platforms is insufficient to establish this? A related issue is one of traceability: the Court insists that we show that particular instances of censorship are directly linked to particular government actions. But this traceability standard presents an impossibly high burden for plaintiffs’—any plaintiffs—to meet. The government conducts its communications with social media companies in secrecy, and subpoenaed documents tell only a small part of the story—they can’t capture phone conversations or private meetings, for example.
On this standard, so long as the government does not name names of individuals in writing that it wants censored, then the government can exercise broad censorship powers and no one who is directly or indirectly harmed can have any recourse to legal redress. For example, the government could order Facebook and YouTube to censor anyone favorable towards the Great Barrington Declaration, a document critiquing our pandemic response written by my co-plaintiffs Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff. So long as those censored were not specifically named by the government, any person on the receiving end of this censorship would not be able to definitively establish in court that their censorship was government-driven.
The upshot is the government can continue to censor so long as the targets are ideas, topics, themes, and not specifically named individuals. In other words, it can do precisely what the First Amendment forbids: content-based censorship.
Try, if you can, to follow the byzantine logic of this judicial reasoning:
The plaintiffs suggest that the platforms continue to suppress their speech according to policies initially adopted under Government pressure. But the plaintiffs have a redressability problem. Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion. And the available evidence indicates that the platforms have continued to enforce their policies against COVID–19 misinformation even as the Federal Government has wound down its own pandemic response measures. Enjoining the Government defendants, therefore, is unlikely to affect the platforms’ content-moderation decisions.
Translation: even if the government coerced platforms to censor you in the past, and platforms continue to censor you according to these same policies—and without any evidence (just taking the government’s word for it) that the government is not coercing platforms anymore—plaintiffs cannot prove that they will likely be harmed in the future, which is one of the necessary criteria for a preliminary injunction. Translation: they got away with it in the past, and we trust they won’t do it again in the future. Or if they do, you won’t be able to prove they were targeting you by name.
Let me try an analogy here: the government placed its boot on the platforms’ face, and the platforms tried to resist but eventually complied, however reluctantly, as the record in our case showed. Now the government claims it’s no longer stomping on the platforms’ face, which means the platform is free to go against the government’s directives now if they so choose. Forgive me if I think this strains all plausibility.
Finally, for purposes of the injunction at least, the Court rejected our argument, grounded in prior First Amendment cases, that free speech protects the rights of the listener and not just the speaker.
The plaintiffs next assert a “right to listen” theory of standing. The individual plaintiffs argue that the First Amendment protects their interest in reading and engaging with the content of other speakers on social media. This theory is startlingly broad, as it would grant all social-media users the right to sue over someone else’s censorship—at least so long as they claim an interest in that person’s speech. While the Court has recognized a “First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,” the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 762. Attempting to satisfy this requirement, the plaintiffs emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work as scientists, pundits, and activists. But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm. They have therefore failed to establish an injury that is sufficiently “concrete and particularized.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560. The state plaintiffs assert a sovereign interest in hearing from their citizens on social media, but they have not identified any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow.
Again, try to follow the logic here: plaintiffs “do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm” and the two states “have not not identified any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow.” But wait a minute. Those instances are not available for us to find precisely because the information was censored, which means we cannot access it! That information went down the digital censorship memory hole incinerator—it was effectively destroyed by being removed—so how can we possibly present it to the court? The crime itself made the evidence disappear. Under this impossible burden of proof, how can any Americans possibly assert their First Amendment rights?
Justice Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, wrote a blistering dissent to this ruling. I’ll post more on that later. It is disappointing that we only have three justices of the Supreme Court who seem to understand what is at stake in this case.
In the meantime, rest assured that we will continue to fight the government’s censorship leviathan in court. As the case goes back to the District Court for trial we anticipate more discovery, which will allow us to continue to shine a light on the government’s unconstitutional behavior. Perhaps we will uncover communications that even meet the Supreme Court’s impossibly high traceability standard. Some individuals were specifically named and targeted in the government’s missives to social media companies, and at least one of them—Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—has filed an analogous case already. Maybe a Presidential candidate will fare better on the standing issue than we did.
This is not the end, my friends. Just one battle in what will prove to be a long war. Onwards!
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 27, 2024
US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has reacted to Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Murthy v. Missouri case, to call for new legislation that would, going forward, reinforce the rules, already contained in the First Amendment, meant to protect citizens from government-orchestrated censorship.
Jordan, whose Committee is probing alleged government-Big Tech collusion in violation of the First Amendment through the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, noted that the US Constitution’s First Amendment is “first for a reason.”
According to the Republican congressman, free speech that this amendment protects (from government intervention) should extend to any government infringement – be it in Congress, or online.
Jordan said that while respectfully disagreeing with the SCOTUS ruling the Committee’s own oversight “has shown the need for legislative reforms.”
“While we respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reforms, such as the Censorship Accountability Act, to better protect Americans harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industrial complex,” Jordan wrote in a statement.
In other words, the increasingly pressing issue of how the government “interacts” with social platforms (because of their massive reach and therefore influence among the electorate) should be put into the hands of courts and their interpretations based on new and clear legislation to guide those decisions.
The Judiciary Committee chairman mentioned the Censorship Accountability Act – a bill that would let citizens launch legal action against federal employees suspected of colluding to suppress free speech.
Regardless of the SCOTUS decision, Jordan pledged that the Committee’s “important work will continue” – stating that the Subcommittee thus far has “uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment.”
Murthy v. Missouri – which sought to give the plaintiffs the right to pursue their legal case against the government, alleging it pressured social media to censor online user content, was thrown out by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling as “lacking standing to sue.”
At the same time, the court canceled – at a particularly sensitive time, mere months before the upcoming US presidential election – an injunction that limited the way the government can “interact” with social platforms regarding a range of issues.
The collusion allegations for the most part refer to activities and communications between the government and Big Tech in the context of the previous vote that resulted in the installment of the current US administration.
The Cradle | June 27, 2024
Israeli forces have demolished 17 Palestinian homes across the occupied West Bank on 26 June.
Local sources told WAFA news outlet that the demolitions included four houses east of Jericho, eleven homes in the Umm al-Khair community in Masafer Yatta in Hebron, one home in Beitillu village, and one home in east Jerusalem’s Silwan neighborhood.
In Jericho, the demolitions were carried out on the basis that they were built without Israeli-issued permits.
The eleven houses demolished in Masafer Yatta all belonged to to the Al-Hathalin family, leaving over 50 Palestinians homeless.
Bulldozers tore through the land, uprooting many solar cells, water tanks, and fences, as well as trees.
With international attention on Gaza, Israel has stepped up settler violence to ethnically cleanse and expand its illegal settlement of the occupied West Bank.
Last week, Israeli forces carried out a campaign of raids in various parts of the occupied West Bank, as Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly confirmed that Israel has plans to annex the West Bank. The Israeli military gave significant legal powers in the occupied West Bank to pro-settler civil servants working for Smotrich to accelerate the annexation of the occupied Palestinian territories.
In March, the Israeli government designated 2,000 acres of Palestinian-owned land in the occupied Jordan Valley as state-owned property for the construction of over 100 settlement housing units and an area for commerce and industry.
Earlier this month, Norway’s largest private pension fund, Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP), dropped its stakes in Caterpillar Inc over concerns of complicity in the destruction of Palestinian homes.
Al Mayadeen | June 27, 2024
Israeli analysis conducted by the Israeli army suggests significantly less damage to Gaza’s infrastructure from the ongoing war compared to international reports, according to a Thursday report from Ynet.
Israeli data claim that approximately 16%, or around 36,000 of Gaza’s permanent structures, have been irreparably damaged during the war. In contrast, UN assessments based on satellite surveys have reported damage to about 50% of structures, with some media outlets suggesting as much as 70% destruction based on similar satellite analyses.
Thousands of buildings destroyed by Israeli Army not linked to Hamas
Ynet reporter Yoav Zitun acknowledged significant discrepancies—sometimes up to 70%—between “Israel’s” claims and data from international bodies regarding the true extent of the damage in the Gaza Strip since October 7.
The correspondent explained that it is “inconceivable” to assume that the data provided by the Israeli army is closer to reality, and it could also be presented to international courts and foreign investigative committees that will investigate the actions of the Israeli army and “Israel” at the end of the war.
He also noted that international investigative bodies from international organizations will be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip when the war is over.
Ynet also noted that thousands of buildings destroyed by the Israeli army are not necessarily affiliated with Hamas but are “located near the border fence.”
The Israeli army justified their destruction by creating a “border buffer zone” and a corridor that splits Gaza into two through the middle, as per the report.
It also noted that hundreds of buildings were leveled in the al-Shujaiya and the al-Tuffah neighborhoods near Nahal Oz and towers in Beit Hanoun.
‘Israel’ destroys 72% of residential buildings in Northern Gaza
Earlier this month, a Palestinian official in Gaza reported that approximately 50,000 housing units had been demolished by Israeli occupation forces during their nearly eight-month-long aggressive campaign in the northern region of the territory.
The chairman of the Emergency Committee for Northern Gaza municipalities emphasized that along with the destruction of homes, vital infrastructure, such as sewage networks and roads, has been extensively damaged across most municipalities in Northern Gaza. Additionally, the official mentioned the destruction of 35 water wells, schools, and UNRWA facilities, highlighting the imminent risk of famine in the northern area of Gaza.
The official also announced that the Jabalia refugee camp and Beit Hanoun, both located in northern Gaza, have been designated as “disaster zones” due to the devastating destruction inflicted by Israeli aggressive war, which the official characterized as genocidal.
Abdallah al-Dardari, the UN assistant secretary general and director of the UN Development Program’s regional office for the Arab states, stated that the Israeli aggression has resulted in the complete or partial destruction of 72 percent of Gaza’s residential buildings.
Analysts across the world agree that “Israel’s” war on Gaza is currently among the bloodiest and most devastating in recent history. The Israeli regime claims to be considerate of civilian lives, but the death toll and the extent of the destruction reveal otherwise.
Back in March, the UNRWA agency revealed that the war on Gaza has resulted in around 23 million tons of rubble and unexploded weapons all over the area and that it will “take years” before Gaza is safe again.
Moreover, a report by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in January indicated that rebuilding Gaza and restoring its 0.4% growth per year seen over the past 15 years would factually take 70 years, confirming that enormous amounts of aid would be needed to make Gaza at least habitable.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
RT | September 23, 2026
The US Democratic Party has embraced a transgender agenda that amounts to “the normalization of sadism,” author A.J. Rice has said, warning that radical trans policies would return if the party is allowed to regain power.
Speaking to RT’s America First host Scotty Nell Hughes about his new book, ‘The Curse of the Bearded Lady: How the Trans Mafia Whacked American Sanity’, Rice argued that activists have gained significant influence in schools, medicine, and corporate America while people who questioned the agenda have faced pressure to stay silent.
The author described the “trans mafia” as the sprawling network of people and institutions that have helped the movement gain influence. He singled out parts of academia, wealthy backers, and corporations, and stated that providers of transition-related treatment also have a financial incentive to keep young people in their care indefinitely.
Rice argued that the consequences of these policies ultimately fall on children who are being drawn toward gender-affirming medical treatments and on girls who are expected to share locker rooms or compete in sports with biological males.
He noted that while voters rejected the Democrats’ approach to gender in 2024, the party, which has been “captured by madness,” has since only doubled down and is seeking what is effectively “the normalization of sadism.” … Full report
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
