Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Stolen sheep and their owners detained in Khirbet Hammamat Al-Maleh

International Solidarity Movement | July 17, 2025

Amid the brutal massacre carried out by settler gangs—under the protection and support of the occupation army in the Hammamat Al-Maleh area of the northern Jordan Valley—the crime did not stop at slaughtering the sheep and terrorizing families. It directly targeted two citizens: Suleiman Salem and Salem Salman from the Al-Najada Bedouin community.

The sheep found slaughtered—dozens in number—were their private property, executed in cold blood, some shot and others stabbed with knives, in a scene that goes beyond the limits of savagery. After committing this crime, the occupation did not stop at complicity; it arrested the two shepherds, Suleiman and Salem, throwing them into detention, leaving their families to face helplessness, fear, and deprivation. International activists were also prevented from reaching Suleiman and Salem’s home.

The two men had tried to defend their livelihood and land against the arrogance of power, but the outcome was the slaughter of their flock and the arrest of the shepherds. They were not even allowed to document what had happened and were taken to an unknown location, while their families were left without protection or provider.

This crime represents another face of the slow ethnic cleansing practiced by the occupation authorities in the Jordan Valley against farmers, shepherds, and peasants, aiming to empty the land of its people and prepare it for annexation and settlement.

The heartbreaking scene of slaughtered sheep in the mountains—piled on top of each other, blood washing the stones of the earth—is not just a violation but a scream in the face of a silent world, and a badge of shame on the forehead of everyone who sees and remains silent.

This is not just a massacre of sheep… It is a massacre of life, a massacre of dignity, a massacre of existence.

July 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Italy’s Florence University severs ties with Israel, joins academic boycott

Press TV – July 20, 2025

Five departments at the University of Florence have severed ties with academic institutions in Israel as part of what they described as the “academic boycott” of the Israeli regime.

In a move in line with the growing global campaign for Palestinian rights, and as part of the international academic boycott against Israel, on Sunday, five departments at the University of Florence officially severed their ties with academic institutions in Israel.

The Department of Computer Science and Mathematics has ended its collaboration with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, an institution with longstanding links to the Israeli military-industrial complex.

Ben-Gurion University is also known for hosting Nobel laureate Dan Shechtman, who supports Zionist academic networks.

The Departments of Agricultural Sciences, Engineering, and Technology have also suspended their partnerships with their Israeli counterparts under the same initiative.

The Department of Architecture has cut ties with Ariel University, which is located in an illegal settlement in the Occupied West Bank, further emphasizing the university’s rejection of institutions complicit in the occupation.

Israeli legal academics have condemned plans by the administration of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to set up what it calls a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza, saying the proposal constitutes a war crime.

The boycott comes amid increasing international condemnation of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its decades-long occupation of Palestinian lands.

Across the world, academic communities and students have intensified their demands for institutions to divest and boycott all entities complicit in apartheid and war crimes.

Academic institutions have come under significant pressure from professors and students to sever ties with Israeli entities that play direct or indirect roles in normalizing apartheid, research for military purposes, or sustaining the occupation.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, inspired by the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, has gained renewed momentum globally amid Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, where as many as 59,000 Palestinians, most of whom are children and women, have been killed.

July 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | Leave a comment

Why Israel seeks a temporary Gaza truce to keep its genocide going

Behind the talk of calm, Tel Aviv is redrawing Gaza’s borders, displacing its population, and laying groundwork for permanent control, one truce at a time.

By Qassem Qassem | The Cradle | July 20, 2025

Twenty-one months into its brutal campaign against the Gaza Strip, Israel is again mulling a temporary ceasefire with the Palestinian resistance. Two brief truces have already collapsed into renewed bloodshed.

But is the genocidal war really coming to a close? This question looms over the proposed truce, raising doubts about whether Israel seeks an end, or simply a pause before its next assault.

This time, mediations led by Qatar and the US, with Egypt playing a minor role, are pushing for a 60-day cessation of hostilities. The deal hinges on a pledge from US President Donald Trump to extend the truce if talks progress.

Tel Aviv’s day-after plans for Gaza

These negotiations reflect a deeper shift in the occupation state’s security doctrine. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly declared his intention to reshape Gaza’s future beyond a temporary lull in fighting.

He insists on disarming the resistance, dismantling Hamas’s authority and control, and eliminating any future threat from the besieged enclave. In Tel Aviv’s vision for the “day after,” there is not even a role for the collaborative Palestinian Authority (PA) in the Strip.

At most, Israel may tolerate an occupation state-backed militia resembling the Yasser Abu Shabab group or deploy Arab security forces to support local merchants or clans in governing Gaza – until the PA is “reformed” to Washington’s satisfaction, with Israel maintaining overarching security and military control.

This plan dovetails with the long-standing aspiration of Israel’s far-right government to re-establish illegal settlements in northern Gaza. Netanyahu is lobbying his army to construct a “tent city” in Rafah to forcibly relocate 600,000 Palestinians, a blatant demographic engineering scheme.

The 60-day truce proposal includes a phased Israeli withdrawal from west to east, a halt to air raids, permission for food and humanitarian aid entry, and a prisoner exchange. Unlike previous ceasefires, Trump’s involvement is being marketed as a guarantee that the occupation forces will not resume attacks once the deadline expires – as they did immediately after the March truce.

Yet despite signs of possible relief for Gaza’s starving and besieged population, Israel still believes it has not achieved its core objective: dismantling Hamas. One unnamed Israeli official was recently quoted as saying: “The flexibility we’ve shown paves the way for an agreement, but Netanyahu clearly doesn’t intend to end the war.”

Any upcoming truce is thus likely a pause to prepare the battlefield for the next round. Still, renewed war could prove challenging given the limits of the occupation army and the deepening cracks in its society.

Reconstruction as leverage and the Morag corridor ploy

As part of ongoing pressure, anti-resistance forces are using Gaza’s reconstruction as leverage. Israel has floated a deceptive offer to allow Qatari and international funds into Gaza during the truce, which is an attempt to lure Hamas into believing the war is truly ending. This is, in reality, a calculated deception by Israel to manufacture the illusion of an approaching end to war and draw Hamas into a false sense of security.

According to a report on 10 July by Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel has “tentatively agreed” to Qatari participation in rebuilding the Strip, provided it does not monopolize the process. Other states are expected to co-fund reconstruction to prevent funds from reaching Hamas, although Saudi Arabia and the UAE have made their commitment to Gaza’s reconstruction conditional on the war’s conclusion.

A major sticking point is Israel’s new “Morag Corridor,” carved between Khan Yunis and Rafah to replicate the Philadelphia Corridor separating Gaza from Egypt. Much like the Netzarim axis that once bisected the Strip, the Morag route is presented by Israel as vital for its security. Tel Aviv plans to use the corridor to isolate the Rafah tent city from northern Gaza—effectively creating a walled-off holding zone for displaced Palestinians.

Palestinian resistance factions have flatly rejected this scheme. Not only does it violate Palestinian sovereignty, but it would turn Gaza into a cluster of disconnected, besieged cantons, with Israel occupying nearly 40 percent of the territory.

On 14 July, Netanyahu’s government submitted a third withdrawal map to mediators. Leaks reveal that Israeli forces plan to remain in a 900-meter belt near Beit Hanoun and a 3.5-kilometer strip east of Rafah. In a post on X, Kan political correspondent Gili Cohen, citing sources familiar with the negotiations, said that Israel is now showing “flexibility” on broader withdrawals from Rafah and the Morag axis.

But Rafah remains the core obstacle to any deal. Israel insists on cramming 600,000 Palestinians into the southern city, either to push them into Egypt, where alarm over Israeli designs is mounting, or force them toward the sea. Tel Aviv and Washington are actively probing third countries to receive Gaza’s expelled population.

A tactical pause, not a peace plan

Netanyahu’s real goal is to secure strategic gains for the post-war phase. During his visit to Washington earlier this month, he sought a written US assurance that would allow Israel to resume its war, even under a formal ceasefire.

He plans to wield this assurance as political cover at home, particularly to placate extremist coalition partners like Itamar Ben Gvir (Jewish Power) and Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism), who demand total war and Hamas’ annihilation.

Netanyahu’s envoy and strategic affairs minister Ron Dermer put it bluntly in a 14 July podcast interview with US columnist and political advisor Dan Senor:

“Right now, what we’re trying to do is get to a ceasefire … the minimum requirement is that the force responsible for the Oct. 7 attack is no more. They have lost control of Gaza due to their decision to act.”

According to Walla News, Netanyahu convinced Trump to delay the agreement by an additional week—bringing the timeline closer to the end of the Knesset’s summer session (late July). The paper noted that Trump is “tired of the war,” but Netanyahu managed to buy time, though what he offered in return remains unclear.

The proposed truce cannot be viewed in isolation from Israel’s broader strategy. Far from signaling the war’s end, it is a calculated intermission. Tel Aviv seeks to redraw Gaza’s demographic and security map, while Hamas focuses on regrouping and fortifying its battlefield presence.

Netanyahu’s recent moves prove that this is no pursuit of peace. What Israel wants is a lull long enough to dismantle Hamas’ political infrastructure, impose buffer zones, and reengineer the population through its “tent city” blueprint.

Palestinian affairs analyst Michael Milstein mocked Tel Aviv’s “day after” vision in a 13 July column in Yedioth Ahronoth, arguing that Gaza has become a constant testing ground for flimsy Israeli schemes that collapse shortly after being proposed. He described Israel’s latest military campaign as a “ferocious effort devoid of dramatic gains,” noting that its aggression in northern Gaza ahead of the last ceasefire produced no lasting achievements. These include past attempts to build isolated ‘bubbles’ of alternate governance in Gaza, and the so-called ‘Generals’ Plan,’ which failed to yield results even amid heavy attacks in the north. He pointed to the long record of failed experiments, from the village leagues in the West Bank, to the occupation’s backing of the Kataeb militias in Lebanon, to the eventual collapse of the South Lebanon Army. These models, he wrote, reflect a deeply flawed understanding of reality, rooted in the belief that brute military force can compel Hamas to disarm, surrender, or abandon Gaza entirely.

He noted two competing camps inside Israel: one that seeks phased withdrawal while postponing Hamas’ fate, and another pushing for full reoccupation based on the racist logic that “Arabs are only deterred by losing land” and that “settlements prevent terrorism.”

Rather than a moment of transition, this seems to be a continuation of Israel’s campaign by other means. So long as Tel Aviv avoids a political reckoning for its war on Gaza, every ceasefire will be a battlefield in disguise. Between a fleeting truce and a deepening occupation, Gaza stands today at a decisive crossroads — one where the illusion of peace masks a relentless colonial project.

July 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Zionists Control Australia’s Media

By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | July 20, 2025

On July 15th, The New York Times published an unprecedented “guest essay” by Brown University’s professor of Holocaust and genocide studies, Omer Bartov. In it, he formally accused Israel of perpetrating genocide in Gaza, and “literally trying to wipe out Palestinian existence.” Bartov, a Zionist and Occupation Force veteran, previously emphatically denied this was the case in a November 2023 op-ed for the outlet. More generally, America’s newspaper of record has hitherto whitewashed, distorted, and obscured Tel Aviv’s horrific crimes on an industrial scale.

Its editors previously explicitly ordered reporters to avoid “inflammatory terms” such as “ethnic cleansing”, “occupied territory”, “genocide”, and even “Palestine”. Wholly fabricated stories about Hamas atrocities and mass rape fed to the outlet by Israeli government, military and intelligence sources have been exposed as tissues of lies by the newspaper’s own staff, but not retracted. As such, for Bartov to acknowledge the Zionist entity is committing genocide, and The New York Times to provide him with a platform to say so, is no small thing.

It speaks volumes about the state of the Western media that admission of this inarguable fact by any source can be considered remotely noteworthy. Since the beginning of Israel’s unconscionable assault on Gaza in October 2023, it has been unambiguously evident the ZOF’s indiscriminate rampage is concertedly genocidal in nature. In April too, the UN formally accused Tel Aviv of committing “genocidal acts” in Gaza, consciously and intentionally “calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians as a group.”

Palestinians traverse ZOF-inflicted ruins in northern Gaza

This finding, along with identical conclusions drawn by Western rights groups and legal scholars, mysteriously escaped the attention of major news outlets. The obvious question arises as to how the mainstream media remained silent so long – to the point of active complicity – not merely about the Zionist entity’s 21st century Holocaust in Gaza, but Israel’s historic abuse, persecution and slaughter of the Palestinian people. An answer is provided in veteran Australian journalist John Lyons’ 2017 biography, Balcony Over Jerusalem.

Buried in the book is a comprehensive account of how Australia’s Israeli lobby systematically plunges its poisonous hooks into influential editors and reporters Down Under, ensuring they act as dependable propagandists for Tel Aviv. The details are of enormous wider relevance, for as this journalist has previously documented, foreign media outreach is a dedicated, devastatingly effective means by which occupation, land theft, and ethnic cleansing hardwired into Zionism has been successfully concealed from Western audiences for decades. Identical operations are undoubtedly in force across the globe.

‘Hardline Side’

Lyons’ disclosures about the Zionist lobby’s mephitic influence in Australia are all the more remarkable given the author evidently does not perceive Palestinians to be wholly innocent victims. His book’s blurb perversely frames them and Zionists as equal parties in a “devastating war”, and boasts how he has “confronted Hamas officials about why they fire rockets” into Tel Aviv. There is zero insinuation in its contents Lyons denies or even vaguely questions Israel’s ultimate right to exist in some form or other.

Moreover, Balcony Over Jerusalem is rife with sentimental passages recalling trips to the Zionist entity to interview senior officials old and new, his long-running personal friendships with Australian Jews, and work on a major project investigating Jewish identity. This renders Lyons’ critical insights particularly valuable. The vicious backlash that erupted against the author from the Israel lobby within and without Australia in response to his book, which has raged ever since, is also instructive. Those same elements initially sought to foster a warm bond with the veteran journalist.

Lyons explains how once appointed deputy editor of the Sydney Morning Herald in the early 1990s, his “phone began ringing with requests for meetings” with local Jewish groups. Only later did he learn, “once you have ‘deputy’ in your title or are perceived as being on the rise within your media organisation you become a target for cultivation” by Australia’s “fiercely efficient pro-Israel lobby.” Public affairs apparatchiks at local Zionist organisations pestered him for a “year or so” to accept an all-expenses-paid tour of Israel.

Lyons eventually accepted, and in 1996 made his first visit to Tel Aviv, funded by the Melbourne-based Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. He recorded how “it has become almost a rite of passage for deputy editors of any major Australian news outlet to be offered a ‘study trip’ to Israel.” A senior AIJAC official boasted to Lyons the organisation had “sent at least 600 Australian politicians, journalists, political advisers, senior public servants and student leaders on these trips over the last 15 years.”

Lyons’ “assessment” was, “by ‘educating’ rising media executives, the Israeli lobby has in place editors” across Australia “who ‘understand’ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” exclusively from the Zionist entity’s warped perspective, and report on local events accordingly. “I barely know an Australian newspaper executive who has not been on one of these trips,” he noted. Lyons and other senior staffers at major local media outlets were flown to Tel Aviv “for five days of wining, dining and briefings (including a stay in a kibbutz).”

Once inside the Zionist entity, he “quickly realised how narrow a range of opinions we were receiving” on the reality on-the-ground there. The trip’s organisers “set us up for an hour or so… to hear the point of view of the Palestinian Authority, but apart from that we were getting only one side of the story – and a hardline side at that.” It rapidly became clear to Lyons “the whole point of the trip was to defend Israel’s settlements in the Palestinian territories.”

‘Like Dresden’

In search of a “broader perspective”, Lyons asked his hosts to visit Hebron, Israel’s illegally occupied portion of the West Bank. The trip was spurred by his understanding that “in Hebron you can see the raw conflict,” as “it’s the only Palestinian city where there is an Israeli settlement in the middle of the Palestinian population; normally, the settlements are separated.” At that time, “several hundred settlers” lived “in the middle of 200,000 Palestinians.”

These settlers were and remain protected by the ZOF, and “the same rules of engagement for the army apply” as in other areas illegally annexed and occupied by Tel Aviv. Immediately upon arrival in Hebron, “the cruelty” of Zionist occupation was “there for all to see.” Lyons saw “how the conflict between the settlers and Palestinians played out at the most basic level.” It is a stomach-churning, life-threatening daily reality hidden from the outside world.

Hebron’s streets are typically empty, as “Palestinians are not able to drive on some roads or walk on others.” Years later, he took his editor on a trip there – they remarked, “it’s like Dresden after the bombing.” Arriving late at night, the pair encountered a “heavy Israeli Army presence” and a “certain eeriness” in the silent, deserted city. His stunned editor asked a ZOF soldier at a “closed checkpoint” into Jerusalem, “where are the Palestinians?” The militant smirkingly replied, “they’re all tucked up in bed!”

A street in Hebron where Palestinians are forbidden to tread

In Hebron, Lyons saw how Palestinians placed “wire over their market stalls to stop them being hit when Jewish settlers living above them throw bricks, chairs, dirty nappies and rotting chickens onto them.” He also witnessed Israeli soldiers “decide, without notice, to lock the Palestinians into the old part of the city at night, behind big security gates that look like cages.” The situation has only worsened subsequently, with illegal settlements – and concomitant ZOF repression – expanding exponentially. Lyons’ appraisal of the West Bank under Zionist rule is stark:

“If the whole world could see the occupation up close, it would demand that it end tomorrow. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians would not pass muster in the West if the full details were known. The only reason Israel is getting away with this is because it has one of the most formidable public-relations machines ever seen, and enormous support from its diaspora communities… Military occupations look ugly because they are ugly. Israel’s reputation will bleed as long as its control over another people continues.”

Such perspectives are vanishingly rare among the countless Australian opinion-formers who have been treated to Zionist lobby-financed tours of Israel. As Lyons records, “wave after wave of journalists, editors, academics, student leaders and trade union officials” have been whisked to Tel Aviv “to hear the same spin from the same small group of people used to defend Israel’s policies in the West Bank” over the years. Few have followed Lyons’ example in actually visiting the area, to see the horror with their own eyes.

Nonetheless, Lyons’ outlook wasn’t fully fatalistic. He noted that while the Zionist entity’s Hasbara tactics “worked for the first few decades of the occupation, now virtually every incident between an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian is filmed by a mobile phone,” exposing the ZOF’s routine savagery to overseas audiences. Fast forward to today, and the Gaza genocide has been televised globally in real-time not merely by fearless Palestinian journalists, who have often paid for their courage with their lives, but Israeli militants who sickly film their own hideous crimes.

The impact of these horrendous images on global public perceptions of the Zionist entity has been catastrophic, and irreversible. Polls consistently show across the West, even in the few countries that harboured some sympathy for Tel Aviv following October 7th, the overwhelming majority of citizens hold deeply unfavourable views of Israel. Support for the entity and its genocidal actions is becoming increasingly indefensible, as the monstrous truth becomes writ ever-larger. It can only be considered an unspeakable tragedy so many innocent Palestinians had to die for us to reach this point.

July 20, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , | Leave a comment

13-year-old Palestinian boy was killed after being shot in the back and left to bleed

Defense for Children Palestine | July 19, 2025

Israeli forces killed a 13-year-old Palestinian boy in Ya’bad village yesterday.

Amr Ali Ahmad Qabha, 13, was shot and killed around 6:30 p.m. on July 18 in the Palestinian village of Ya’bad, south of Jenin in the northern occupied West Bank, according to documentation collected by Defense for Children International – Palestine. Two military vehicles came from the Mevo Dotan settlement and military base, entered the village and took up positions in its northern area, where several soldiers exited their vehicles near the Patient’s Friends Society.

Amr was walking around a road near the Association, he unknowingly approached the group of Israeli soldiers stationed at the site. Due to the circular bend in the road, the soldiers did not initially see him, nor was he aware of their presence. As Amr turned back and attempted to take cover, the soldiers opened fire on him with live ammunition from a distance of 10 meters (33 feet) away, and he was struck with around seven bullets: three bullets in the back, one in the neck, one in the abdomen, one in the upper right thigh, and one in the groin.

“Systemic impunity creates an ultra permissive context where Israeli forces know no bounds and routinely shoot to kill Palestinian children in circumstances where there is no imminent threat to life,” said Ayed Abu Eqtaish, accountability program director at DCIP. “Unlawful killings of Palestinian children have become the norm as Israeli forces become increasingly empowered to use intentional lethal force in situations that are not justified. In short, these are war crimes with no consequence.”

Amr fell to the ground as Israeli soldiers advanced toward him, preventing anyone from reaching him, including medical staff and ambulance teams. As news of Amr’s injury quickly spread in the village, his father rushed directly to the scene. Despite the soldiers’ shouting and warning shots, he managed to reach and embrace Amr.

According to the father, Amr was still alive at that time, using hand gestures to plead for medical help, as he was unable to speak. Israeli soldiers handcuffed the father behind his back, severely beaten and forced to sit beside his bleeding child.

The soldiers continued to detain both father and son, blocking ambulance access for approximately 40 minutes. Only after the soldiers were certain Amr had died, they allowed the ambulance to approach and transport him to the Ya’bad Government Emergency Center and then transferred to Jenin Government Hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

Israeli forces have killed 33 Palestinian children in the occupied West Bank in 2025, according to documentation collected by DCIP.

207 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers in the occupied West Bank since October 7, 2023, according to documentation collected by DCIP.

Israeli forces deliberately and systematically blocked paramedics and ambulances from reaching injured Palestinian children, according to documentation collected by DCIP. Israeli forces order Palestinian paramedics and ambulance drivers to leave the scene at gunpoint, fire live ammunition toward individuals to offer aid, and block roads and detain ambulance crews. In some cases, Israeli forces surround a bleeding child, preventing any medical care.

These acts of cruelty leave Palestinian children, injured by Israeli live fire, bleeding out on the ground, alone and in pain, with the intent to ensure death.

By preventing medical aid and ambulances to reach an injured child, Israel violates Article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as enshrined within it is every child’s inherent right to life. State parties to this treaty, such as Israel, must ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of a child. The decisive act of preventing medical assistance to reach a child shot with live ammunition seems to indicate an intent to ensure to the maximum extent possible the death of that child.

July 19, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Dozens arrested in London as protests against Palestine Action ban sweep UK

A protester is arrested at a rally in support of Palestine Action in Parliament Square, central London, on July 19, 2025. (AFP)
Press TV – July 19, 2025

British police have arrested more than 50 people in central London during protests against the ban of the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action.

Similar demonstrations were held across the United Kingdom in Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol, and Truro on Saturday

In London, protesters gathered in Parliament Square carrying white placards that read: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”

The Metropolitan Police said in a post on X: “55 people were arrested in Parliament Square for displaying placards in support of Palestine Action, which is a proscribed group.”

Several protesters were led away in handcuffs, while others were physically carried off by officers.

Eight people were arrested near Truro Cathedral, police said. Another 16 arrests were also reported in Manchester.

Palestine Action, which targets UK-based Israeli arms factories and their supply chains through direct action—such as splashing red paint and destroying equipment— was officially proscribed on July 5 under the Terrorism Act 2000.

The designation makes it a criminal offence to support or be a member of the group, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The Met had threatened that it would take action against any public displays of support for proscribed organizations, including chanting, clothing, and placards.

Over the past two weekends, police said they have detained 70 people at demonstrations in Parliament Square alone.

Defend Our Juries, which is coordinating the demonstrations, said a total of 120 people had so far been arrested across the UK.

Saturday’s protests come ahead of a key High Court hearing on Monday, where Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, is seeking to challenge the ban.

Palestine Action says direct action is “necessary in the face of Israel’s ongoing crimes against humanity of genocide, apartheid and occupation, and to end British facilitation of those crimes.”

July 19, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Europe Faces Backlash Over Climate Speech Crackdown Suggestions

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | July 17, 2025

Tensions over how climate change is discussed, and who gets to control that conversation, are escalating across Europe.

At the European Parliament’s environment committee this week, the European Commission defended its campaign against “climate disinformation,” facing down strong opposition from lawmakers who fear the erosion of free expression.

Meanwhile, in the UK, Labour donor and green energy tycoon Dale Vince added fuel to the fire by publicly calling for criminal penalties against climate skeptics.

Opening the committee session in Brussels, Commission official Emil Andersen attempted to draw a line between belief and verifiable fact: “As citizens of a free society, we are each entitled to our own opinions but not entitled to our own facts.” That assertion quickly ran into fierce resistance, with several parliamentarians warning of state overreach cloaked in scientific authority.

Anja Arndt of Germany’s AfD challenged the prevailing climate consensus and accused the EU of weaponizing disinformation policy. “A front-on attack on freedom of expression, freedom of science, and the truth,” she declared. Her colleague Marc Jongen warned that if the European Commission took it upon itself to decide what constitutes truth, then “we’re on the road to a totalitarian system.”

Those concerns found parallels in the UK. Dale Vince, founder of Ecotricity and a major Labour Party financier, stated that climate skepticism should not only be rebutted but also punished. Writing on X, he said, “I’d make climate denial a criminal offence myself – given the incredible harm that it will cause, even by slowing down progress to net zero.” Rather than promoting dialogue or transparency, Vince called for punitive action against dissenting opinions.

His comments came shortly after Energy Secretary Ed Miliband lashed out at both the Conservatives and Reform UK for resisting rapid decarbonization. “Future generations” would hold them accountable, he said in an interview with The Times.

While many agree on aspects of environmental responsibility, calls to outlaw disagreement threaten to undermine core democratic values. Branding opposing views as dangerous, rather than countering them with argument and evidence, risks transforming public discourse into a one-sided echo chamber.

Inside the European Parliament, skepticism about the Commission’s disinformation push was not confined to the political fringes. Sander Smit of the centre-right European People’s Party expressed concern that Commission-backed “fact-checking” could suppress debate, especially during elections. He argued that this approach might render “a certain type of discussion” impossible.

Others in the chamber took the opposite view. Members of liberal and social democratic groups insisted that denying climate science was not an acceptable position in democratic debate. Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy of the Renew group maintained that accepting climate science was based on evidence, while rejecting it was “precisely” ideological. He urged lawmakers to maintain integrity in public discourse and to form a coalition against climate denial. He also asked the Commission to formally refute what he described as the AfD’s “nonsense,” though no assurance was given.

July 18, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Bogota Summit launches Global South’s legal intifada against Israel and US impunity

By José Niño | The Cradle | July 17, 2025

From 15–16 July, Bogota became the unlikely capital of a global insurrection against western legal impunity. Over 30 countries – including key powers from the Global South and even some European states – gathered in the Colombian capital for the Hague Group Emergency Summit.

This was the most ambitious multilateral initiative yet to directly confront what participants unflinchingly termed Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the broader culture of impunity that has shielded the occupation state since 1948.

From steadfast client to anti-imperial spearhead

That the summit was held in Colombia – a long-standing US vassal in Latin America – was not incidental. Once regarded as Washington’s most loyal client in the hemisphere, Colombia’s dramatic pivot under President Gustavo Petro represents the boldest regional defiance of US authority in decades.

Petro, who severed diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv in 2024, has placed Bogota on a collision course with the US over his unwavering opposition to the occupation state’s onslaught in Gaza.

Washington reacted predictably by issuing warnings to allies against the “weaponization of international law,” and sanctioning UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for her “illegitimate and shameful efforts” to advance the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecutions of Israeli and US officials. Bogota responded with direct defiance. In the run-up to the summit, Petro publicly backed Albanese, declaring that “the multilateral system of states cannot be destroyed,” in a thinly veiled rejection of US diktats.

Over 30 nations participated, including the eight founding members of the Hague Group – Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal, and South Africa, co-chaired by Colombia and South Africa. They were joined by more than 20 additional states spanning Latin America, Africa, Asia, and even Europe.

The participation of European countries such as Portugal and Spain was noteworthy. Both states only established full diplomatic relations with Israel in the latter part of the 20th century: Portugal in 1977 and Spain in 1986, emblematic of their historic caution over Israel’s contested legitimacy.

But since Tel Aviv’s genocidal war on Gaza began in late 2023, Madrid has adopted a string of punitive diplomatic moves.

Spain canceled a €6.6 million (around $7.2 million) ammunition purchase from an Israeli firm, scrapped a €285 million (around $310.7 million) anti-tank missile deal with the Spanish subsidiary of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, banned Israeli weapons from port entry, formally recognized Palestinian statehood, and pushed to suspend the EU–Israel Association Agreement.

Though neither European state fully endorsed all of Bogota’s proposals, their participation and scathing denunciations of Israeli policy reflect a deeper fracture within Europe over Tel Aviv’s legitimacy and the cost of complicity.

Laying the legal gauntlet

Central to the summit was a blistering legal and moral condemnation of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The Hague Group issued a detailed catalog of war crimes: the mass killing of over 57,000 civilians, the targeting of hospitals and schools, the weaponization of starvation and siege, and the deliberate use of forced displacement.

The apartheid state in the occupied West Bank, enforced through racial segregation, parallel legal systems, and land confiscations for settlements, was cited as a textbook violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and, per the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2024 advisory opinion, a breach of international prohibitions against forced territorial acquisition and apartheid.

Francesca Albanese delivered the summit’s keynote, setting the tone with an uncompromising indictment:

“For too long, international law has been treated as optional – applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful … That era must end.”

The ICC arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – citing crimes such as starvation as a weapon, indiscriminate civilian targeting, and the murder of Palestinian non-combatants – were repeatedly invoked as a historic turning point.

The Resistance Axis of lawfare

The summit’s ethos was clearly to rupture the impunity enabled by the UN Security Council’s paralysis. The Hague Group, founded in January 2025, framed itself as the Global South’s corrective to a postwar order that protects violators so long as they are shielded by US power.

That paralysis, most attendees argued, was not accidental but structural: The P5 veto system ensures impunity for those, such as Israel and its allies.

Meeting in the San Carlos Palace, delegates from 12 states – Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and South Africa – announced six binding measures. These included a full arms embargo on the occupation state, port bans for Israeli military vessels, contract reviews to terminate commercial complicity with the occupation, and firm support for domestic and international prosecution of Israeli officials.

These policies were anchored in the ICJ’s 2024 opinion declaring Israel’s occupation illegal and the UN General Assembly’s September 2024 resolution urging decisive global action within 12 months.

A global rift – but still an uphill battle

Despite the breakthrough, significant limitations remain. Only 12 states adopted the measures outright. Others were given until the UN General Assembly in September to sign on. Key powers, including China, withheld endorsement – despite supporting the initiative’s aims – likely due to economic entanglements with Israel, including port infrastructure investments.

Organizers acknowledged the uphill road ahead: absent broader UN uptake and stronger alignment from economic powers, Washington’s veto and European hesitation could neuter the Hague Group’s legal insurgency. But the coalition remains adamant that justice is no longer negotiable.

Colombian Vice Minister Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir captured the summit’s urgency:

“The Palestinian genocide threatens the entire international system … The participating states will not only reaffirm their commitment to opposing genocide, but also formulate concrete steps to move from words to collective action.”

A warning – and a promise

The Bogota summit was not just another international conference. It openly challenged the post-1945 legal fiction of a “rules-based order” – a system long exposed as a euphemism for western prerogative.

As South Africa’s International Relations Minister, Roland Lamola, asserted

“No country is above the law, and no crime will go unanswered.”

Yet the struggle remains unfinished. The Hague Group’s bold confrontation with Israeli impunity marks a decisive break, but the future of this legal uprising hinges on whether its momentum can breach the fortified walls of New York and The Hague, and whether powers like China, India, and Brazil shift from quiet endorsement to active alignment.

On 16 July, as thousands gathered in Plaza Bolivar in support, the message was unambiguous: either the era of impunity ends, or the legitimacy of the global order collapses with it.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran: World bodies giving up legitimacy, ‘sense of mission’ to bullying, unilateralism

Press TV – July 17, 2025

Iran says the imposition of US sanctions targeting a UN-appointed human rights expert and the mass resignation of members of the UN Palestine inquiry show that the world bodies are no longer allowed to even record the truth.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks in a post on his X account on Thursday after the US on July 9 announced punitive measures against Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, while all three members of the UN commission investigating crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories submitted their resignations on Monday.

In his post, Baghaei said the sanctions and the resignations should not be taken lightly as they are an “alarming sign of the erosion of the global legal and normative order.”

“International institutions are giving up their legitimacy, effectiveness, authority and ‘sense of mission’ to militant bullying & radical unilateralism,” the Iranian spokesperson wrote.

He said future generations would affirm that silence, indifference, and double standards in the face of grave injustices and wars led to the collapse of the world normative order.

Albanese, independent from the UN bureaucracy, operates under a UN Human Rights Council mandate. She has faced repeated smears and threats from Israeli officials and lobby groups for her accurate, evidence-based reporting on the situation in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Despite growing political backlash, human rights defenders continue to raise the alarm over the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza.

Since October 2023, the Israeli regime has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians—most of them civilians, women, and children—amid widespread destruction and blockade-induced starvation.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No Due Process at Gitmo

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | July 17, 2025

Last week, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., invalidated a plea agreement for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has been incarcerated at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for 20 years. Mohammed has been charged with conspiracy to commit mass murder in the United States on 9/11. Originally, the federal government blamed Osama bin Laden as the 9/11 mastermind. Then, after bin Laden was murdered in his home in Pakistan by the feds, they decided that Mohammed was the real mastermind. Bin Laden had never been charged with any crimes in the U.S.

After 20 years of litigation, the feds and Mohammed and his lawyers entered into a written plea agreement. The agreement, which was sought and drafted by the prosecutors, relieved them of the intractable burden of defending torture in a public courtroom and removed the death penalty from the menu of penalties available for imposition upon the defendant.

Both sides presented the plea agreement to the military judge, who held hearings on its voluntariness, after which he accepted the plea agreement and all parties reasonably believed they had a guilty plea on their hands — a valid, freely negotiated, publicly accepted, lawful guilty plea.

Then, Lloyd Austin, who was the Secretary of Defense at the time, decided that the Biden administration did not want to answer for allowing the 9/11 mastermind to escape the federal death penalty. So, he ordered the same legal team that sought and negotiated and actually drafted the guilty plea to ask the trial judge to vacate it. Following standard criminal procedure, the court upheld the agreement as a binding, judicially approved contract between the United States government and Mohammed.

Then the feds appealed this denial to a military court of appeals, which also upheld the plea agreement. Thereupon the feds appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which, last week, on a 2 to 1 vote, rejected the plea, holding that the decision was Austin’s to make; and it didn’t matter if he said no well after the agreement had been entered.

Here is the backstory.

Due process has numerous definitions and aspects, but for constitutional purposes it basically means that all charged persons are presumed innocent and entitled to a written notice of the charges, a speedy and fair hearing before a neutral fact finder, a right to appeal; and the entire process imbued with fairness and a profound recognition of personal innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Due process also explicitly prohibits the use of torture.

In order to ensure that due process and habeas corpus — the right to compel the jailer to justify one’s confinement — would trump the whims of government officials, stated differently, to ensure that the British system of torture and confession and conviction did not occur here, James Madison and the Framers crafted protections in the Constitution to which all in government needed to swear allegiance and support.

Fast forward to Gitmo, and you can see the constitutional system turned on its head.

This George W. Bush-crafted American Devil’s Island, which costs $500 million a year to operate, once held 780 prisoners, allegedly there due to their personal involvement in the war on terror against the United States. Not a single one of them has been convicted of 9/11-related crimes, and only one former detainee is currently serving time in an American federal prison.

Nearly all the prisoners were tortured, and most were captured by roving militias and sold to American forces for bounties. Last year, the Biden administration laudably released 11 detainees, all of whom had been at Gitmo for 20-plus years and none of whom had even been charged with a crime.

The best known of the remaining 15 prisoners is Mohammed, who was scheduled for trial when the military judge in his case retired. The new judge — the fifth on the case — was confronted with the daunting task of reading 40,000 pages of transcripts and documents concerning the torture of Mohammed by U.S. personnel.

At the same time, a new team of military and civilian prosecutors was assigned to the case and the new prosecutors told their bosses in the Pentagon, chief among whom was Austin, and the new military judge that unlike their predecessors — who sought to mitigate the 183 torture sessions U.S. personnel administered to Mohammed — they were prepared to acknowledge it and decline to use any evidence obtained from it in the courtroom.

This remarkable turnaround — one that rejected the premises upon which Gitmo came into being — resulted in the prosecutors commencing plea negotiations.

The Bush-inspired premises of Gitmo were that since it is located in Cuba, federal laws don’t apply, the Constitution doesn’t apply and federal judges can’t interfere. In five landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected all these premises, and the new team of prosecutors and the new judge recognized as much.

The prosecutors basically said that they cannot ethically defend torture, they will not offer evidence derived from it in the case and the case is difficult to prove without evidence derived from torture.

This is a remarkable lesson to be learned. Instead of cutting holes in the Constitution, follow it. Instead of using torture, use acceptable investigative techniques. Instead of crafting a Devil’s Island, use the systems in place that have basically worked for hundreds of years.

None of this jurisprudential mess would have occurred if Bush had allowed the criminal justice structure to proceed unimpeded. The use of torture, rotating judges and prosecutors, and incarceration for a generation without charges or trial are all hallmarks of an authoritarian government.

If justice consists in convicting the guilty using established norms and fair procedures, Gitmo has been an unjust unhumanitarian disaster. But if justice consists in the government getting whatever he wants, then the Constitution is useless as a protector of freedom.

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Von der Leyen’s final plan: a false democracy for a false Europe

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 17, 2025

A change in perception

The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis.

In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying. While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).

These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.

Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession.

Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed. It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president.

Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions.

The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote. Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners.

This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.

European elections lose political weight

Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.

The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited.

A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”

In May 2024, for example, Ursula claimed that the AfD, Germany’s far-right party, was “manipulated by Russia.” While she did not cite any specific sources, these statements helped justify new sanctions against Moscow and introduce restrictions on the online activities of non-aligned political forces. Meanwhile, however, the growth of right-wing parties reflects growing discontent with European policies considered ineffective or punitive: uncontrolled immigration, environmental measures [which are] burdensome for families, and the militarization of the EU, which imposes rising costs. Instead of engaging in open debate, the EU apparatus tends to marginalize these movements, silencing them with accusations and stigmatization.

Sovereignist and right-wing parties in Europe face numerous institutional obstacles. In the European Parliament, the so-called “cordon sanitaire” policy is still in force, whereby the S&D and EPP groups refuse to cooperate with conservative political forces. This was clearly seen in the composition of the new EU Executive Committee, where the presidency went to Nathalie Loiseau, with vice-presidencies assigned exclusively to S&D and EPP representatives, excluding any representation from the right. At the same time, several conservative representatives are involved in legal proceedings that some observers consider to be attempts at political repression disguised as legal action. This is the case, for example, of Finnish MP Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views on the family. These incidents show how the legal system can be used to target dissenting positions.

The growing exclusion of critical voices raises serious questions about the true state of pluralism in the EU, where opposition views seem increasingly to be treated not as part of democratic debate but as obstacles to be removed.

Controlling public discourse

In recent years, the regulation of digital platforms has become one of the main tools with which the EU manages political dissent. Under the guise of protecting citizens, some recent regulations risk severely restricting freedom of expression.

The first was the Digital Services Act (DSA): in force since November 16, 2022, this law imposes obligations on digital platforms to combat illegal content and improve algorithmic and advertising transparency. However, some provisions raise significant concerns: Article 34 allows government bodies to request the removal of content or access to data even outside their jurisdiction. In emergencies, the Commission can impose restrictions on the dissemination of certain information. The first sites to be sanctioned were those providing information from Russia, causing considerable damage not only economically but also to the plurality of information. In the EU, everyone has the right to speak, except for the long list of those who do not think like the EU.

A second tool is the EUDS, the European Democracy Shield, launched by von der Leyen in May 2024. This initiative is presented as a defense of the EU against external interference – particularly from Russia and China – but according to many observers, it represents a further step toward controlling information and limiting forces critical of European integration, environmental policies, and the dominant diplomatic line.

Among the main points of the EUDS are:

  • Forced removal of so-called fake news;
  • Greater transparency in political propaganda;
  • Strengthening mechanisms to identify and block content considered “external manipulation.”

In essence, these measures increase the Commission’s power to identify what information is lawful and what is not.

Inconsistencies in the European Union’s foreign policy

Von der Leyen continues to strongly support the Ukrainian cause, insisting on the need to supply weapons to Kiev and isolate Russia internationally. However, this commitment also has obvious inconsistencies.

During her visit to Israel in 2023, for example, the Commission president expressed solidarity with the victims of Hamas attacks, but made no appeal to Israel to respect international law in the Gaza Strip. This attitude has drawn criticism from UN officials and some European leaders, and even Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, known for his words against the Axis of Resistance and in particular for his media attacks on Iran, has reiterated that the definition of diplomatic guidelines is the responsibility of the governments of the member states, not of a single institutional figure.

Another example of this approach is his determination to accelerate Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Although officially supported by many European governments, this initiative is met with reservations by several countries, including Slovakia and Hungary, which highlight the need for structural reforms, economic stability, and compliance with European regulations.

Her insistence on a rapid transition to electric vehicles, including the decision to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars from 2035, has also been adopted despite strong concerns from the automotive industry and part of the population, as well as calls for compromise from countries such as Germany.

Ursula is seeking to centralize decision-making and financial power in the hands of the Commission she chairs. This is a political method, not a “hiccup.”

Consider the much-discussed ReArm Europe: €800 billion earmarked for rearmament, forcing EU member states into a disastrous spending review. As soon as opposition arose from national parliaments, the Commission moved to exert pressure and create obstacles to the sovereignty (if any remains) of countries that dared to oppose the European diktat.

Many European citizens are expressing growing concern about the president’s top-down style. Sanctions packages against Moscow, climate initiatives, defense projects, and even official statements are often developed without involving member states. In numerous cases, von der Leyen has taken a position on behalf of the entire Union without consulting the European Council or the External Action Service.

If a single leader is able to block institutional activities without transparency or coordination, this signals a dangerous personalization of power and a lack of shared governance mechanisms.

The European Union has always claimed to be democratic and multilateral, at least formally; but the truth is that, especially in recent years, this European Union – which is something different from Europe – is dismantling the last vestiges of sovereign power and freedom, compressing everything into a few bureaucratic, indeed technocratic, structures that are in the hands of a very few people who report to the President of the Commission. There is no transparency, no pluralism, no real democracy. Just chatter, words, slogans, advertising campaigns, and internships for young students lobotomized by European political drugs. And while discussions multiply about the impact of these transformations on fundamental rights – including freedom of speech, democratic participation, and the right to criticize – European leaders reiterate that these measures are being taken in the interest of the collective good and the stability of the Union. There will be no end to hypocrisy, while we hope that Europe will soon be able to free itself from the yoke called the EU.

July 17, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia | , | Leave a comment

Connecticut Passes Law Mandating Water Fluoridation at Existing Levels in Move to Preempt Federal Changes

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 16, 2025

Connecticut Gov. Ted Lamont on Tuesday signed legislation requiring public water systems to continue fluoridating drinking water at the levels currently recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In the press release, Lamont said current recommended levels of water fluoridation have been proven to be “safe and effective for many decades.”

The new law will ensure that “this public health standard continues in Connecticut regardless of whatever political decisions are made at the federal level,” Lamont said.

Previous state law mandated that water be fluoridated at levels recommended by HHS. Currently, the agency recommends 0.7 milligrams per liter, but it may reexamine that recommendation.

The law mandates that the amount of fluoride that must be added to the state’s water supply remains at the HHS-recommended level of 0.7 milligrams per liter.

Pro-fluoridation lobbyists, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and state dental associations, celebrated the news. The ADA said it was pleased that Connecticut “has taken a proactive approach to protecting community water fluoridation.”

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which educates the public about the dangers of fluoridation, criticized the move. “Change is hard,” it posted on X. “Connecticut has stubbornly fossilized current fluoridation levels into law.”

In a press release, Lamont’s office cited outdated statistics claiming water fluoridation reduces cavities by 25%. It also quoted Connecticut senators, the state’s public health commissioner, and several dental organizations who affirmed the importance and safety of fluoridation. It didn’t cite any evidence to back those claims.

A growing body of research showing fluoride’s toxic effects, particularly for pregnant women and children, gained national attention when a federal judge in September 2024 ruled against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a landmark lawsuit brought by the FAN, Mothers Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch and others.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that water fluoridation at current levels of 0.7 milligrams per liter posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and must be regulated.

Chen’s 80-page decision outlined the scientific evidence that fluoride exposure is linked to reduced IQ in children.

The decision to fluoridate water is usually made by local governments. However, fluoridation infrastructure typically has state funding, and a handful of states require fluoridation, usually for communities of a certain size.

Trump administration gives mixed signals on water fluoridation

Since the September federal court ruling, more than 60 communities, towns and states — including Florida, the third most populous state — have voted to stop adding fluoride to their water systems.

Water fluoridation has been practiced in the U.S. since the 1940s. At the time of the lawsuit ruling, 200 million Americans were drinking water treated with fluoride.

Water fluoridation hasn’t always been a partisan issue. In the early 2010s, Democratic cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, voted to end water fluoridation over concerns about the chemical’s toxic effects.

However, the issue became more politicized in November 2024, after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime fluoride critic, said the incoming Trump administration would advise local water systems to stop fluoridating water. Kennedy was confirmed as HHS secretary in February.

Since then, Democratic politicians and the mainstream press have vocally supported water fluoridation and attacked critics — including even CNN and Washington Post health commentator Dr. Leana Wen.

However, the Trump administration has given mixed signals on its approach to water fluoridation.

In April, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to “expeditiously review” new science on the possible health risks of water fluoridation. Also that month, Kennedy said he planned to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending water fluoridation nationally.

However, that recommendation has not happened.

Instead, last week, Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs in the landmark fluoride lawsuit, announced on X that the EPA plans to appeal Chen’s decision ordering the agency to address the risks of water fluoridation.

The agency is expected to file its appeal later this week.

In 2015, President Barack Obama’s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation from 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter to 0.7 milligrams per liter after considering “adverse health effects” along with alleged benefits.

The original draft version of Murthy’s revised water fluoridation recommendations included a summary of research on fluoride’s impact on IQ and other neurological issues, with a statement saying further research was needed on the topic. Those statements were not present in Murthy’s final draft.

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

July 16, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »