US House Panel Reportedly Concludes FBI Helped Ukrainian Intel Censor US Accounts
Sputnik – 11.07.2023
WASHINGTON – The FBI helped the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) censor social media accounts based in the United States as part of an effort to combat alleged Russian disinformation, US media reported, citing a US House Judiciary Committee report.
The FBI forwarded Meta an SBU-provided list of accounts flagged for removal, based on their alleged involvement in spreading disinformation, the Monday report detailed. However, the list included some US-based accounts, including the US State Department’s own Russian-language Instagram account.
The FBI and SBU marked authentic accounts belonging to the US government and journalists in an effort to have them censored, the report said.
The Judiciary Committee’s allegations are reportedly based on information gained through subpoenas sent to Meta and Alphabet – the parent company of Google and YouTube.
Google was inundated with censorship requests following the launch of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, the report said, citing a senior Google cybersecurity official. The requests primarily came from the Ukrainian government, other Eastern European governments, the EU and European Commission, the employee reportedly said.
The judiciary panel’s report was developed alongside the subcommittee on the weaponization of the US government, which is investigating governmental abuse of authority and collaboration with private companies to suppress certain viewpoints.
The FBI’s actions constitute unconstitutional misconduct and endanger national security, the lawmakers’ report said. The subject is expected to arise during a committee hearing with FBI chief Christopher Wray later this week.
The allegations mirror those made earlier this year in the so-called “Twitter Files” release, which featured an email demonstrating collaboration between the FBI and SBU to forward censorship requests to Twitter.
Former head of Disinformation Governance Board: Government flagging content has “nothing to do with censorship”
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 9, 2023
Last week, in a significant victory for free speech, a federal court stepped in to curb potential overreach by the Biden administration in its collaboration with social media platforms to suppress online content. The court ruling, issued by US District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana on Tuesday caused critics to complain that it hinders the administration’s efforts to counter online conspiracy theories and “disinformation.”
But in the usual doublespeak in an interview with MSNBC, the former head of the government’s controversial Disinformation Governance Board Nina Jankowicz claims that the government flagging content that goes against Big Tech’s policies has “nothing to do with censorship” and “is not about removing speech.”
“This is a weaponization of the court system. It is an intentional and purposeful move to disrupt the work that needs to be done ahead of the 2024 election, and it’s really chilling,” she said to the Guardian.
The ruling inhibits key federal agencies and officials from intervening in the content posted on tech platforms. It has been suggested that without such a check in place, the government’s efforts could easily spill over into manipulating public discourse and controlling information, with potentially dangerous effects on free speech and political balance.
The injunction comes as conservative leaders and groups have been vocal in their opposition, accusing the Biden administration of collusion with social media companies in an attempt to suppress conservative viewpoints.
Judge Doughty supported the arguments of Republican attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri who filed the lawsuit. They contend that the Biden administration’s tactics infringe on First Amendment rights to free speech. He expressed the sentiment that the government seemed to be exploiting its power to stifle opposing voices, and he ominously compared the handling of social media content by the administration during the COVID pandemic to the “Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”
Nina Jankowicz, a former government appointee to lead a new Department of Homeland Security unit aimed at countering online misinformation, has defended the government’s actions, insisting that they do not amount to censorship. However, critics might question her impartiality, considering she was initially named as a defendant in the case but was later removed due to no longer holding a governmental role.
Adding to the controversy, this unit was swiftly disbanded after facing intense criticism from conservatives who claimed it was stifling conservative speech. This has led some to question whether the government’s efforts to fight misinformation are truly unbiased or, as many suspect, are a veiled attempt to suppress dissenting opinions.
The ruling, which temporarily bars several agencies and officials from pressuring social media companies to remove or delete “protected free speech,” sends a strong message that government interference in the digital public square must be carefully scrutinized. This order stands as an affirmation of the fundamental right to free speech.
Revenge of the Praetorian Guard
Brownstone Institute | July 9, 2023
There was no censorship, but it’s good that they censored misinformation.
Defenders of the Covid regime have adopted this Doublethink in response to Judge Terry Doughty’s recent injunction against the government’s collusion with Big Tech. As Orwell describes in 1984, they “hold simultaneously two opinions which cancel out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.”
Consider the language of the Biden administration’s call for an “emergency stay” of the injunction from Missouri v. Biden that stops the government from telling social media companies what they should and should not allow their users to post. The appeal says government is not censoring but must have the power to continue “working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes.”
Grave harm… from free speech!
Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe exemplifies this authoritarian advocacy. For decades, Tribe built a reputation as a legal scholar. He authored the country’s leading constitutional law treatise, advised presidents, and appeared on television as a legal commentator.
But age has a way of eroding veneers. Tribe is a defender of a political regime, a member of a Praetorian Guard comfortable with abolishing constitutional liberties when it advances his political preferences.
In the last three years, Tribe has argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin rigged the 2016 presidential election for “Thief in Chief, Donald Trump,” led the Justice Department to argue that the CDC eviction moratorium was constitutional, and successfully lobbied President Biden to unilaterally cancel student loans.
If he were on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Tribe might be accused of spreading misinformation and unconstitutional theories that threatened our democracy. Instead, he continues to serve as a mouthpiece for the country’s most powerful forces.
On Wednesday, Tribe co-authored an article with Michigan Law Professor Leah Litman attacking Judge Doughty’s injunction against the federal government’s collusive censorship of its political opponents. Their argument is notable for its false assertions of fact and improper implications of law. They remain obtuse to the allegations in the case, the principles of the First Amendment, and the historical ploys to overturn civil liberties. All the while, they maintain a posture of moral superiority that the Biden White House has mimicked.
A “Thoroughly Debunked Conspiracy Theory”
The professors begin their article with a false premise: “The impetus behind the case is the now thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that the government is somehow strong-arming Big Tech into censoring conservative speech and speakers in violation of the First Amendment.”
They don’t offer an explanation for this description. They fail to address the documented censorship of Alex Berenson, Jay Bhattacharya, the Great Barrington Declaration, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and others. There is no mention of Facebook banning users who promoted the lab-leak hypothesis after working with the CDC, the Biden Administration’s public campaign urging social media companies to censor dissent in July 2021, or the Twitter Files’ documentation of the US Security State’s influence on Big Tech.
Instead, Tribe and Litman dismiss censorship as a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. They didn’t need to look far for examples – the opinion documents multiple instances of the coordination between Big Tech and the Biden White House in silencing opposition.
“Are you guys fucking serious?” White House Advisor Rob Flaherty asked Facebook after the company failed to censor critics of the Covid vaccine. “I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.”
At other times, Flaherty was more direct. “Please remove this account immediately,” he told Twitter about a Biden family parody account. The company compiled within an hour.
His boss demanded Twitter remove posts from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., writing: “Hey Folks-Wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process of having it removed ASAP.”
There are too many incidents to list, but it is clear that censorship was more than a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. Either Tribe did not read the decision, or his ideology blinded him from reality.
“A cesspool of disinformation”
The professors’ debunked conspiracy theory premise contradicts their position later in the article.
Like many of their peers, Tribe and Litman hold an incompatible set of views: on one hand, they argue that allegations of censorship are illusory. At the same time, they argue that the government is justified in suppressing speech because of the dangers of “disinformation.”
Censorship doesn’t exist, but it’s good that it does.
They write that the ruling incorrectly defends Americans’ right of “existing in a cesspool of disinformation about election denialism and COVID.” They hold that this is an incorrect application of the First Amendment. The natural corollary to their argument would be that the government is justified in censoring “disinformation.”
But the First Amendment does not discriminate against false ideas. Labeling speech “disinformation” or smearing it with associations about “election denialism” does not take away its constitutional protections.
“Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea,” the Supreme Court held in Gertz v. Welch. “However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas.” Tribe and Litman wouldn’t defer to the conscience of judges and juries – they would leave corrections to unelected White House bureaucrats.
“Some false statements are inevitable if there is to be an open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation,” the Court held in United States v. Alvarez. The Framers knew the dangers of central government acting as arbiters of truth, so they banned that form of informational totalitarianism. Now, Tribe and Litman advocate to overturn that system of liberty.
It “will make us less secure as a nation and will endanger us all every day”
The professors resort to the familiar campaign of conflating dissent with danger. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes compared handing out leaflets opposing World War I to “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” The Bush Administration eroded civil liberties in the War on Terror through the false dichotomy: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Now, Tribe resorts to national security hysteria in defending the assault on the First Amendment. “If left standing,” he writes, the injunction “will make us less secure as a nation and will endanger us all every day.”
The professors explicitly accuse Judge Doughty of endangering Americans. So what does the judgment demand that calls for this accusation? Judge Doughty’s order prohibits government actors from communicating with social media companies to censor “content containing protected free speech.” The Biden Administration can denounce journalists, give its own press briefings, and take advantage of the friendly media environment; it just can’t encourage private companies to censor constitutionally protected speech.
“It is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish,” the Court held in Norwood v. Harrison. Judge Doughty applied that axiom to the digital age, and defenders of the regime have accused him of assaulting the republic.
The Biden Administration has adopted the same view as Tribe, writing in its appeal that the injunction hinders its ability to pursue “initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes.” Again, the language mimics Orwell’s description of Doublethink: “to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy.”
The appeal rests on the argument that the “immediate and ongoing harms to the Government outweigh any risk of injury to Plaintiffs.” Considering what Judge Doughty’s order prohibits, the Biden Administration is saying that the inability to work with social media companies to censor “content containing protected free speech” creates “immediate and ongoing harms” that outweigh Americans’ First Amendment liberties.
The Praetorian Guard
In sum, Tribe and Litman’s arguments are divorced from the facts of the case and the protections of the First Amendment. Their work is not legal scholarship; it is a defense of the regime. They advance unconstitutional agendas to pursue their political interests. More alarmingly, the White House has adopted their point of view.
Tribe is familiar with this tactic. He has promoted clearly unconstitutional programs related to the debt ceiling, student loans, and COVID because he agrees with their progressive aims. President Biden has enjoyed and followed Tribe’s advice in each initiative.
Tribe is not unfamiliar with the ramifications of censorship. “It would be a mistake to leave judgments about the ‘proper’ distribution of speech to politicians. Arming them with a roving license to level the playing field by silencing or adjusting the volume of disfavored speakers is an invitation to self-serving behavior and, ultimately, tyranny,” he wrote eight years ago. Now it is clear that he accepts, perhaps demands, tyranny provided it advances his political beliefs.
Maybe the tyrannical impulse is benign – Tribe may think abolishing the country’s constitutional guardrails would be best for the nation. The law, however, does not have a carve out for claims of moral pursuit.
In Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, Thomas More asks his son-in-law, William Roper, if he would give the Devil the protection of the law. Roper responds that he’d “cut down every law in England” to get to the Devil.
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?” More asks. “This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down… do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Tribe and the Biden Administration may think that they have a divine mission in censoring alleged misinformation, that the Devil’s reincarnation has taken multiple forms in the bodies of Tucker Carlson, RFK Jr., Alex Berenson, and Jay Bhattacharya. Woodrow Wilson had a devout certainty in his persecution of dissidents, as did George Bush in his War on Terror. The self-professed nobility of their missions, however, does not excuse violations of Constitutional rights.
None of us ever wanted to live in a country in which the ruling regime openly expresses opposition to core constitutional rights that many generations of Americans thought were guaranteed by law. The injunction of Missouri v. Biden does nothing other than remind the government of those rights. And this is precisely why the Biden administration so strongly objects.
New York state quietly shuts down Excelsior Pass program that cost $250M in tax money to build
YourDestinationNow | July 8, 2023
The state of New York has quietly shut down its Excelsior Pass program that cost taxpayers $250 million. The now-defunct pass was the Empire State’s version of a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine passport.
State officials announced on June 30 that the digital vaccine passport “will no longer be available” by July 28. They cited “reduced demand for access to digital COVID-19 test and vaccine records,” alongside “the official end of the COVID-19 public health emergency” last May 11, as reasons for the discontinuation.
Given this, the Empire State said it “will no longer recommend its use, provide technical support or release future versions” of the mobile app that holds the vaccine pass. “New users will be unable to log in and register for it.”
“Your data collected for [the Excelsior Pass] continues to be private and secure. [The state of] New York has gained knowledge on digital credentialing from this effort and remains interested in the potential this type of technology could bring in the future.”
Jordan Schachtel of the Dossier recounted that New York City (NYC) made use of the Excelsior Pass in its “Key to NYC” vaccine passport program for over two years. Former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and his successor, current Mayor Eric Adams, utilized the pass to prohibit entry to indoor facilities to those who refused to get injected with the two-dose Pfizer and Moderna injections and the single-dose Johnson & Johnson shot.
He continued: “The Excelsior Pass program began in early 2021 with an estimated cost burden of $2.5 million. It later ballooned to a sum approaching 100 times over the original budget, with an approximate amount of $250 million being handed out to IBM, Deloitte and Boston Consulting Group (BCG).”
Excelsior Pass now the subject of a probe by state inspector general
Citing state records, Schachtel wrote that Deloitte and BCG have billed taxpayers in the Empire State approximately $200 million for the pass’ “marketing” and “buildout” costs since 2021. Meanwhile, IBM has billed around $40 million plus $200,000 monthly since 2021 for “data storage” fees.
A May 14 piece by the Times Union‘s Joshua Solomon elaborated on the state’s expenditures in relation to the Excelsior Pass. Records obtained by the newspaper found that New York state has paid Deloitte and BCG almost $28 million to work on the app. IBM had also received an additional $36 million for its work on the pass, with $2.2 million in March for “application development” being the most recent payment.
Back in October 2021, Deloitte billed the state $3.6 million in Excelsior Pass costs. Two months later in December 2021, BCG billed the state for nearly $10 million in costs related to its work in reopening New York and on the Excelsior Pass.
“The money spent on the Excelsior Pass, and its accompanying ‘wallet,’ continued to flow to the consulting groups, even as the peak of the pandemic passed and the need for the app plummeted,” the Times Union piece noted. “The work by BCG and Deloitte was just one element of $200 million that flowed from New York to those firms that are now the subject of a state inspector general’s investigation. As the nation’s COVID-19 emergency fades from the front page, the spending renews the debate about New York’s ongoing use of contracts that were amended without public oversight during the pandemic.”
“While a handful of people in New York took action to protest against the authoritarian movement pass system, the vast majority of New Yorkers were happy to accommodate the bio-medical tyranny,” Schachtel pointed out. “In NYC, virtually every business complied with the program either out of sympathy or for fear of being shut down by the government.”
He ultimately remarked: “That’s $250 million down the drain, and on to the next ‘crisis.'”
YouTube Censors Australian Politician’s Maiden Speech to Parliament
By Rebekah Barnett | Brownstone Institute | July 8, 2023
‘30 minutes of truth bombs’ is how one Twitter user described Liberal Democrat John Ruddick’s maiden speech to the New South Wales (NSW) Parliament, last Wednesday 28 June.
Indeed, Ruddick, who left the Liberal Party in 2021 after public disagreements over the Party’s handling of the pandemic response, said out loud in parliament what many Australians have been saying for some time now – at first privately, around dinner tables, but increasingly more publicly, over workplace water coolers or at the pub, as saying the obvious becomes more socially acceptable.
Nevertheless, what is socially acceptable offline is not necessarily acceptable on social media. YouTube swiftly removed Ruddick’s speech from its platform, just seven hours after it was uploaded. The NSW Liberal Democrats say this is the first time in Australian history that a politician’s maiden speech has been censored by the platform.
The interference of the social media giant in Australia’s political discourse is ironic given this line from Ruddick’s speech: “We libertarians are plotting to take over the world … so we can leave you all alone.”
A spokesperson for the Lib Dems says, “We initially posted the video on party founder Dr John Humphreys’ YouTube account. We then circulated that link on other social media – for example, this tweet from Dr John, which you can see now links to a takedown notice.”
YouTube claims that the video violated its ‘medical misinformation policy’, and implied that removing the video was necessary to ensure that YouTube remains a ‘safe place for all.’
Note the definition of ‘medical misinformation’ as information that, “contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.”
Hear that? Galileo just rolled in his grave.
So what did Ruddick actually say about Covid that might have disturbed the information gatekeepers?
- He said that the NSW government had enacted an “authoritarian Covid police state.”
- He said that the NSW government had given in to “vaccine extremism,” telling the public, ‘we won’t let you out until you take multiple injections of not only a rushed vaccine but of an entirely new class of vaccine’.
- He said that, “NSW Health published weekly data showing, the fewer vaccines you had, the less likely you went to hospital or ICU. The fatality rate was similar for the vaxxed and the unvaxxed.”
- He said that, “since the vaccine rollout there has been a 15-20 per cent increase in excess deaths in nations like Australia that had mass mRNA injections,” and questioned whether this might have anything to do with the vaccines, or from locking people up for so long.
- He said that take-up of the fifth shot is low – “too many know of others with bad reactions.”
- He said that ivermectin, an anti-viral drug that won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Medicine, was disingenuously smeared as a horse dewormer. He noted the financial incentives for suppressing ivermectin as a potential treatment for Covid, despite researchers around the world testifying to its efficacy.
- He said that there have been over 137,000 adverse events reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration following Covid vaccination, and that many drugs have been pulled from the market for far less than this.
Agree or disagree as you please, but all these claims are evidence-based. As a friend of mine said when disagreeing with my insistence, in late 2021, that the vaccines would not be effective in preventing/reducing transmission, “We believe different scientists.”
The video of Ruddick’s maiden speech has been reposted on YouTube via the Lib Dems main account, and has not yet been taken down. You can watch the speech in full via the Lib Dems twitter account.
Spectator has also published the transcript of Ruddick’s speech in full.
A spokesperson for the Lib Dems said on Friday,
“We’re obviously very disappointed that YouTube feels the need to censor something not only from NSW Parliament but as time-honoured as a maiden speech, but we also oddly must thank them as we’ve benefited from the Streisand effect.
“The video already has over 225,000 views on one tweet, and is also being viewed in Facebook groups, on Telegram and (for now anyway) a little bit on the federal LibDems YouTube page. The interest in the speech certainly seems to have increased exponentially after the YouTube removal, and we’re getting inundated with positive comments and questions.”
Other notable ‘truth bombs’ from Ruddick’s speech include his criticism of blown-out government debt, and his concern that pursuing a net zero carbon economy is a “reckless folly.”
While the Lib Dems are benefiting from the Streisand effect for the time being, Member of the European Parliament, Christine Anderson, is dealing with YouTube censorship by suing the social media platform. Anderson reports that YouTube blocked two videos from parliamentary sessions in which she acted on the official Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Anderson has described YouTube’s censorship as “anti-democratic,” saying, “I will not put up with uncontrolled influence on this scale, which is why I have now taken the necessary legal steps to… ensure that all citizens have unfiltered access to relevant information at all times.”
Rebekah Barnett reports from Western Australia. She is a volunteer interviewer for Jab Injuries Australia and holds a BA in Communications from the University of Western Australia. Find her work on her Substack page, Dystopian Down Under.
France passes law allowing police to spy on citizens by remotely accessing phones, other devices
By Andreas Wailzer | Life Site News | July 7, 2023
French lawmakers have agreed on a law that enables the police to surveil suspects by remotely controlling and turning on the microphone, camera, and GPS of their mobile phones and other devices.
On the evening of July 5, French legislators voted in favor of a justice reform bill that includes the highly controversial spying provision, the French newspaper Le Monde reports.
According to Le Monde, the new surveillance provision will “cover laptops, cars, and other connected objects as well as phones; the measure would allow the geolocation of suspects in crimes punishable by at least five years’ jail.”
The legislators added an amendment that limits the use of remotely accessing devices to “when [it is] justified by the nature and seriousness of the crime” and “for a strictly proportional duration.” All instances of police spying on devices must be approved by a judge, and the duration of surveillance must not exceed six months. “Sensitive professions” including journalists, doctors, judges, lawyers, and MPs would be excluded as targets, according to the bill.
The digital rights advocacy group La Quadrature said that the new law “raise[s] serious concerns over infringements of fundamental liberties,” regarding privacy and freedom of movement, and called the provision part of a “slide into heavy-handed security.”
French government officials responsible for the bill attempted to downplay the danger it will help to create a surveillance state. Justice Minister Éric Dupond-Moretti claimed that the law would only affect “dozens of cases a year,” and stated that Franc is “far away from the totalitarianism of 1984 [George Orwell’s dystopian novel].”
He insisted that “people’s lives will be saved” through the new surveillance law.
The legislation allowing police to remotely access devices opens the door for the state to legally spy on its citizens in a broader manner. The French government, led by globalist and WEF “Young Global Leader” Emmanuel Macron, appears to be using the recent migrant riots to push for more digital surveillance and censorship. A day before the new surveillance bill passed, Macron suggested cutting off access to social media as a response to the violence on the streets of France.
Leaked Memo Shows Mayo Clinic Doubles Down On Censorship
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | July 7, 2023
Reports this week expose Mayo Clinic as “doubling down” on speech restrictions it previously chose to impose affecting Dr. Michael Joyner.
The information comes from an internal memo sent to Mayo Clinic College of Medical Science, which is interpreted as sticking to a policy of preventing this medical organization’s members from speaking freely.
Previously, Joyner, a professor, was punished for his public statements related to his research, concerning public health, including topics such as Covid, and transgenderism and, in general, making comments that were construed as being against some government policies, that is, something that was well within his right to do.
But Mayo Clinic took the stance that what was more important, and takes precedence was for Joyner to toe the line – i.e., stick to “prescribed messaging” and rather than focus on his medical expertise, worry more ardently about the clinic’s chosen “brand” and (ideological?) standing it derives from that.
The Joyner incident came to light in early June, and after Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) urged the health facility to withdraw the decision. Mayo Clinic’s Chief Communication Officer Halena Gazelka a while later the same month penned the memo, recommending to those in charge to effectively ignore the criticism.
One of the key points of the controversy is that the college has made a “promise” to its teachers and students of the right to free speech – which clearly wasn’t exercised when Joyner got suspended, and had a gag-order placed on him.
In the memo, Gazelka fairly brazenly advises college leadership to keep saying that Mayo Clinic continues to be “fully committed to academic freedom and expression.”
Joyner, who is still banned from talking to reporters without the college’s permission, might be surprised to learn this.
Furthermore, in the same vein of “tweaking reality,” the memo wants the college to push the narrative that Joyner’s punishment did not come as a result of his statements about transgender athletes, but because of his criticism (“unprofessional comments”) regarding the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) regulation of convalescent plasma.
There’s also a whiff of character assassination here, as the memo recommends framing the whole thing as sour grapes on Joyner’s part:
“Dr. Joyner’s comments about the NIH did not reflect the expression of a scientific or academic opinion but instead were an expression of his personal frustration with the NIH’s regulation of a therapy he had championed,” wrote Gazelka.
Palestine urges US to retract from building embassy in Jerusalem
MEMO | July 6, 2023
The Palestinian Presidency urged the US, on Thursday, to retract plans to build its embassy in Jerusalem because it will be built on Palestinian “private property”, Anadolu Agency reports.
The statement was in response to Israeli approval plans submitted by the US to build the embassy on lands the statement said were confiscated from Palestinian owners by Israel in 1948.
It described the move as “illegal” and “a violation of international law” because it will be built “on private property confiscated in 1948 from Palestinian owners, some of whom are holders of US citizenship”.
The Presidency said moving ahead with building the embassy “gives legitimacy to racist Israeli laws such as the absentee property law designed to legitimise the theft of Palestinian property”.
It added that the move is a “joint American-Israeli blow to any remaining hopes for a two-state solution.”
Former President, Donald Trump announced the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017. The US moved its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May the following year.
Jerusalem remains at the heart of the decades-long Mideast conflict, with Palestinians insisting that East Jerusalem — illegally occupied by Israel since 1967 — should serve as the capital of a Palestinian state.
Countess “Absolutely Terrified” After Bank Accounts Closed Without Explanation
Richie Allen | July 5, 2023
More and more evidence is emerging that banks and building societies are closing the accounts of customers who hold controversial views.
Countess Alexandra Tolstoy told LBC’s Nick Ferrari this morning that she was left “absolutely terrified” after her accounts were closed without explanation.
Tolstoy claims that someone at her bank told her that they were not obliged to provide her with any explanation.
She was left wondering if her Russian sounding surname led to the closure of her accounts.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Chancellor Jeremy Hunt have both criticised banks for closing the accounts of customers with controversial views.
Thousands displaced from Jenin as Israeli siege enters second day
The Cradle – July 4 2023
Around 3,000 Palestinians were forced to leave the Jenin refugee camp overnight on 4 July, as the Israeli army pushed ahead with the second day of the largest military invasion into the occupied West Bank since 2002.
“There are about 3,000 people who have left the camp so far,” Jenin deputy governor Kamal Abu al-Roub told AFP on Monday night, highlighting that 18,000 people live there.
Palestinians leaving their homes told reporters that Israeli forces had threatened to target them if they refused to leave, while some said the troops fired live shots at their homes.
Several families were tear-gassed as they fled for safety.
According to the mayor of Jenin, Nidal Obeidi, the Israeli army started demolishing homes in the refugee camp after displacing their residents.
“Those being targeted now are not just the resistance fighters, but civilians are being killed and wounded as well,” he told Al Jazeera.
Tel Aviv’s brutal invasion of the flashpoint West Bank city started in the early hours of 3 July and has left at least 10 Palestinians dead. Over 100 others have been wounded.
Shelling and fighting continued overnight. In the early hours of Tuesday, Israeli warplanes launched a series of airstrikes in the Al-Damej neighborhood, while drones could be seen flying over the camp.
The Israeli siege involved drone strikes, Apache helicopters, and ground forces, including army bulldozers that tore up streets across Jenin. The offensive has been widely described as one of the worst Israeli attacks on the West Bank since the end of the Second Intifada.
While reporting on the siege, several journalists reported they were directly targeted by Israeli live fire. Al Araby TV correspondent Ahmed Shehadeh said the army destroyed his camera while he and four other journalists were taking refuge inside one of the homes in the camp before being evacuated by the Red Crescent.
While the Israeli military initially declined to say how long the siege of Jenin would take, army spokesperson Daniel Hagari announced on Tuesday morning that the operation “could end faster than initially expected, even within a matter of days.”
The operation was launched in response to the unprecedented rise of armed resistance in the West Bank, which has become a significant threat to Israeli cities and illegal West Bank settlements.
Confronting the massive invasion are several different resistance factions, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s (PIJ) Jenin Brigade, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and groups linked with Hamas.
The Jenin Brigade claims they have shot down at least four Israeli drones since the start of the siege.
Solidarity with Jenin has been pouring in from across West Asia and North Africa, with dozens of nations condemning the Israeli aggression.
A general strike was announced in the occupied West Bank for Tuesday, while people in Gaza held rallies to express solidarity with the people of Jenin.
Gaza resistance factions on Monday said in a statement, “We call on all our people in cities, villages, and camps, especially around Jenin, to confront the Israeli occupation and support Jenin.”
“We call on the resistance fighters in all arenas to respond to any aggression if the Israeli occupation continues its crimes against our people.”
Featured Video
Fat Fiction
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Anti-science
The infinite list
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | October 12, 2022
Almost three years ago science entered a new dark age.
Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, seems to agree. He has been compiling a list of the examples of anti-science we have unfortunately become used to.
I have listed his thoughts so far but the list is continually expanding... continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
- UAE deports tens of thousands of Pakistanis, seizes their savings amid war on Iran: Report
- Wheels Down in Tbilisi: Was a Routine U.S. Military Stopover a Deliberate Signal to Iran?
- Trump’s second strike on Iran would be suicidal. But that’s not the reason why he won’t go ahead with it
- Palantir touts record expansion and ‘battlefield’ AI value
- Israeli telecom networks used for mass surveillance across countries
- US claim of sinking Iranian boats ‘a lie’, senior military official tells IRIB
- New KC-46 Supertankers Promise Israel Conventional Samson Option Strike Сapability
- No, New York Times, We Don’t Need to Dam the Bering Strait
- Gates-Funded ‘Big Catch-Up’ Delivers 100 Million Vaccine Doses — Including High-Risk DTP Vaccine Not Used in U.S.
- If Americans Knew
- 1 in 5 amputees in Gaza is a child, UN warns amid prosthetic care crisis
- 6,000 Gazans lack prosthetic and/or rehabilitation care – Daily Update
- As in Gaza, Israel is targeting rescue workers in South Lebanon, killing more than 100 since March
- Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
- Israel Said It’s Applying the Gaza Model in Lebanon. This Is What the Devastation Looks Like.
- New Member of Trump’s Iran Negotiating Team Comes From Notoriously Pro-Israel Think Tank
- Israeli army demolishes Christian monastery, nuns’ school in southern Lebanon
- Tokenizing Christians In Israel
- One Gaza is not enough: Israel is turning southern Lebanon into another Gaza – Daily Update
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
Aletho News 