Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Rick Sanchez “threatened with prison” over work with RT

RT | March 18, 2025

Former RT host and longtime television journalist Rick Sanchez has spoken about his experience with the Russian broadcaster in a newly released interview with Tucker Carlson. Once one of RT’s highest-rated anchors, Sanchez revealed that he was forced out of his job last summer under pressure from the administration of former US President Joe Biden, which he says even threatened him with prison over ties with RT. He also revealed that his departure was foreshadowed by an unexpected phone call from an “old friend,” a warning which he described as a case study in the decline of free speech in the US.

Press freedom in the US

Sanchez has criticized the state of press freedom in the US, particularly under the Biden administration. The veteran journalist expressed concerns over increasing restrictions on alternative media voices, arguing that journalists who deviate from government-approved narratives often face professional consequences. He described a growing atmosphere of intolerance for dissenting perspectives, particularly regarding coverage of international conflicts.

Sanchez claimed that mainstream media outlets have become overly aligned with government interests, limiting diverse viewpoints and discouraging critical journalism. “If you don’t toe the line, if you don’t say what they want you to say, you’re out,” he said, emphasizing the pressures faced by journalists covering global affairs, especially those related to Russia and Ukraine. He suggested that reporters are under immense pressure to conform to prevailing narratives or risk retaliation.

Experience working for RT

Reflecting on his time at the Russian news network RT, Sanchez described it as an unexpectedly positive experience. He recalled initially joining the network with some hesitation but soon realizing that he was given considerable editorial freedom.

Sanchez noted that, unlike in many Western outlets, he was not instructed on what to say or how to frame his reports. He characterized his time at RT as “almost nirvana” in terms of journalistic independence, a stark contrast to his experience in US media. However, he also acknowledged that working for a Russian-backed network came with significant scrutiny, particularly from American authorities.

Mysterious phone call from an “old friend”

Sanchez also revealed that he had received a cryptic telephone call from an “old friend” shortly before he was forced to cut ties with RT. He described the conversation as unsettling, with the caller warning him that the people at the government agency he now works for “don’t necessarily like some of the things that you’re saying.”

While he did not disclose the caller’s identity, Sanchez suggested that the person had inside knowledge of actions being taken against him and that the call was meant to intimidate him into resigning before more severe repercussions followed.

Threats of prison

Expanding on the pressures he faced, Sanchez stated that he was not only forced to leave RT but also threatened with legal action. He alleged that US authorities made it clear that his association with the network could result in imprisonment.

“They were like, no, you violate the order and you’re going to prison,” Sanchez revealed, emphasizing the seriousness of the threats. While he did not specify the exact nature of the charges he was warned about, he argued that such actions demonstrate how far the US government is willing to go to suppress dissenting voices.

US tendency to create a villain

One of the central themes of Sanchez’s interview was the American tendency to create a villain in political discourse. He observed that the US media frequently needs an adversary to rally public opinion against, whether it be Russia, China, or a domestic political figure.

Sanchez warned that this pattern stifles critical thinking and forces audiences into a black-and-white worldview where certain countries or individuals are portrayed as purely evil while others are beyond reproach. He argued that this mindset contributes to unnecessary conflicts and prevents meaningful diplomatic engagement.

Sanchez’s perspective on the state of US media

Sanchez offered a harsh critique of American journalism, claiming that many mainstream outlets have abandoned their role as independent watchdogs. He accused the media of prioritizing corporate and political interests over factual reporting, resulting in a narrow and often misleading portrayal of global events.

He further claimed that media consolidation has contributed to the problem, as a handful of powerful companies control most of the news Americans consume. This, according to Sanchez, has led to an environment where only certain viewpoints are allowed airtime, while dissenting opinions are marginalized or outright censored.

Pinning hopes on Trump to reverse trend

Looking ahead, Sanchez expressed hope that US President Donald Trump could lead to a reversal of sanctions imposed on RT and other alternative media sources. He suggested that Trump, who has had a contentious relationship with mainstream US media, might be more inclined to allow greater media pluralism.

“The Trump administration will undo this because things are moving and there’s negotiations now with Russia,” Sanchez said. “And I understand the Trump administration is trying to remove some of the silly sanctions that we have on them that are just ridiculous.”

Sanchez argued that lifting restrictions on foreign-backed outlets would be a step toward restoring genuine press freedom and allowing Americans access to a broader range of perspectives. He concluded that, regardless of political affiliations, the suppression of alternative voices ultimately harms democracy.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

‘Israel’ reneged on Gaza ceasefire, US complicit in genocide: Hamas

Al Mayadeen | March 18, 2025

“Israel” has reneged on the ceasefire agreement, evading its obligations, and continues to commit massacres against the Palestinian people in Gaza, amid a shameful international silence, Hamas affirmed on Tuesday.

After a fragile ceasefire that lasted roughly two months, “Israel” has resumed its aggression on Gaza with intense airstrikes, resulting in an initial toll of 404 martyrs, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry.

In a statement, Hamas said, “The claims made by the [Israeli] occupation regarding preparations by the Resistance to launch an attack on its forces are baseless and are merely false pretexts to justify its return to war and escalate its bloody aggression.”

The Palestinian group accused “Israel” of “attempting to mislead public opinion and fabricate false justifications to cover up its premeditated decision to resume its genocidal campaign against defenseless civilians, disregarding any commitments it made.”

“Hamas adhered to the agreement until the very last moment and was committed to its continuation,” the statement stressed, adding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “seeking a way out of his internal crises, preferred to reignite the war at the cost of our people’s blood.”

In a separate statement, Hamas considered that the US administration’s admission that it was previously informed about the resumed Israeli aggression “confirms its direct partnership in the genocide” against the Palestinian people.

US President Donald Trump greenlit “Israel’s” renewed war on Gaza after Hamas refused to release more captives, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing an Israeli official.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Fox News interview that “Israel” consulted with the administration of President Donald Trump before launching a series of large-scale airstrikes on Gaza early Tuesday.

This acknowledgment once again exposes the “blatant complicity and bias” of the US in favor of the occupation and reveals the falsehood of its claims about prioritizing de-escalation, the group pointed out.

It emphasized that by providing unlimited political and military support to the occupation, Washington “bears full responsibility for the massacres and the killing of women and children in Gaza.”

Hamas urged the international community to take immediate action to hold the occupation and its supporters accountable for these crimes against humanity.

“Our Palestinian people will not retreat from their legitimate struggle until the occupation is ended and their rights are fully restored,” the group underscored.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

European Court of Human Rights finds Ukraine guilty of the Odessa massacre

By Uriel Araujo | March 18, 2025

On March 13, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a landmark ruling, finding Ukraine guilty of violating the right to life in the May 2, 2014, Odessa massacre. The court determined that Ukrainian authorities failed to prevent the violence that killed 48 people—mostly anti-Maidan activists trapped in the Trade Unions House fire—and neglected to conduct a proper investigation. The decision awarded €114,700 in compensation to victims’ families and survivors, spotlighting a decade of impunity.

One will have a hard time finding anything about the ECHR ruling if one looks at Western media right now; and this in itself speaks volumes about the nature of Western propaganda (yes, such is a thing).

Let us imagine for the sake of comparison, the following scenario: after a coup followed by an ultra-nationalist revolution, Russia starts rewriting History, and enforcing Russian chauvinism through a number of policies pertaining to minority ethnic groups. Russian far-right paramilitary groups grow increasingly violent while Moscow turns a blind eye to them, as reported by the Freedom House.

Then, one day, a group of far-right hooligans and activists clashed with protesters and things turned ugly, with fighting ensuing. Around 400 such activists retreated and barricaded themselves inside the nearby Trade Unions House, only to find themselves surrounded by the ultra-nationalists, who threw Molotov cocktails. The building then caught fire, flames spread rapidly, trapping those inside. Some desperately jumped from upper floors to escape, only to be beaten by the nationalist crowd below; others suffocated or burned.

Emergency response was slow—firefighters, albeit stationed just 400 meters away, took around 30 minutes to arrive despite frantic calls. By nightfall, 42 people inside the building were dead, bringing the day’s total to 48. The Russian government failed to properly investigate, as denounced by European councils and human rights groups, and, 10 years later, there was still no justice for the victims of nationalist brutality.

Can you imagine the international outrage if such scenario I just imagined were real? Well, this is pretty much what happened in Odessa—just replace “Russian nationalists” with “Ukrainian nationalists”, “Moscow” with “Kyiv”, “Russian government” with “Ukrainian government”, and there you have it.

During my PhD, when I was conducting fieldwork and research in the Rostov-on-Don area in southern Russia, I also visited Luhansk (Donbas) at a time when the Donbas war (which started in 2014 and has not ended) was being described as yet another “frozen conflict”. One of the events I attended, on May 2, was a tribute in memory of the victims of Odessa Massacre, which was also attended by MP Oleg Akimov (with the local “rebel” government) and Anna Soroka, who led an initiative to report Ukrainian state terrorism crimes to international courts.

That day, in 2019, marked the fifth anniversary of the Odessa tragedy, and the location chosen, in Luhansk, to hold the event in honor of the victims was in front of the place, on a road, where Donbas residents, mostly civilians, who perished during a Ukrainian offensive in 2015, are buried.

At that time in 2015, the city was without electricity for several days, so that keeping the bodies in the morgue was impossible (and access to other places was blocked by Kyiv’s attacks), so many of the decomposing bodies, already unrecognizable, were, in that chaotic scenario, buried in a kind of mass grave. Next to it, a chapel was later built in memory of the tragedy. By honoring the dead of Odessa in that particular place, they linked both tragedies, symbolically uniting the relatives of the victims. Some residents held portraits of their deceased relatives, possibly buried there without identification, and, somewhat confusingly, one of the residents who was in Odessa on the day of the massacre gave his emotional account. For them, in a way, Luhansk was Odessa—and Donetsk was Odessa.

One should thus never underestimate the tremendous symbolic and emotional importance that the events in Odessa hold for many in Eastern Ukraine, including the disputed region of Donbas. The Odessa massacre unfolded amid post-Maidan chaos, as pro-Ukrainian nationalists (including football ultras and Right Sector members) clashed with anti-Maidan demonstrators. The former besieged the Trade Unions House, and burned it with Molotov cocktails thereby killing dozens, as mentioned. Police stood by, with evidence of complicity, and subsequent investigations stalled.

Since 2014, Ukraine’s nationalist surge has repeatedly marginalized Russian and pro-Russian communities. The Maidan uprising, while often described as a broad-based revolt against corruption (which it also was), in fact empowered far-right groups like Right Sector and Svoboda, whose fascistic anti-Russian rhetoric and actions gained tacit state tolerance—not to mention the Azov Regiment.

Language laws, such as the 2019 bill mandating Ukrainian in public life, sidelined Russian speakers (about a third of the population), thereby fueling further alienation. It is no wonder the massacre quickly became a grim symbol. Pro-Russian victims were vilified as separatists by post-Maidan Ukrainian media and government, their deaths downplayed, and perpetrators shielded.

This pattern, once again, extends beyond Odessa. Far-right militias like the Azov Battalion, once fringe vigilantes, were folded into the National Guard, their neo-Nazi roots overlooked as they fought “pro-Russia rebels” in Donbas. Public glorification of WWII-era nationalist Stepan Bandera, whose forces collaborated with Nazis and massacred minorities, has surged, with statues and street names proliferating, despite protests from Jewish, Greek, Hungarian, Romanian, and Polish groups, and from Warsaw.

Attacks on Russian cultural sites, harassment of Orthodox Church parishes tied to the Moscow Patriarchate (founded over a thousand years ago, in 988) as well as other religious organizations, and unchecked hate crimes against minorities—often by ultranationalist gangs—signal in all a state unwilling to curb extremism when it aligns with anti-Russian aims.

Kyiv’s blind eye isn’t just strategic; it’s structural. Post-Maidan governments reliant on nationalist support and their military and paramilitary muscle have not just avoided alienating these factions, but have rather embraced and empowered them, in the most cynical and hypocritical way.

The ECHR ruling thus exposes this Faustian bargain: justice for Odessa’s victims was sacrificed to preserve a fragile unity rooted in chauvinism. As Ukraine touts its European aspirations, the verdict demands reckoning—not just with one day’s horrors, but with a decade of pandering to far-right forces at the expense of its own people, Russian-speaking or otherwise.

Until that happens, Odessa remains a wound unhealed, and a warning unheeded. Whatever one’s stance on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is, any fair and balanced assessment of the issue must include topics such as the Donbass war, the Odessa massacre, and the neo-Nazism problem, including but not limited to the Azov Regiment. Those are part of the blind spot within the Western narrative on the matter. With the latest ECHR ruling (largely underreported), a small part of it is finally coming to light.

Uriel Araujo, PhD is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Jenin: Israeli occupation forces destroyed all Jenin camp’s streets, displaced entire neighborhoods

Palestinian Information Center – March 17, 2025

JENIN – The Jenin City municipality said that the Israeli occupation forces destroyed all the streets of Jenin refugee camp and 85 percent of the city’s streets and displaced the residents of entire neighborhoods in the camp.

In press remarks on Monday, Jenin municipality director Mamdouh Assaf said that about 8,000 commercial facilities had been completely shut down in Jenin as a result of the Israeli military operation. However, he did not specify whether these closures occurred within the city itself or in the refugee camp.

For his part, Jenin mayor Mohamed Jarrar said that 25 percent of Jenin’s residents had been displaced by the Israeli army, adding that the number of displaced citizens from Jenin camp surged to 21,000 people.

Jarrar described the scale of destruction caused by Israeli bulldozers in Jenin as “immense,” pointing to a sharp rise in the poverty rate as a result of the Israeli military operation that has severe economic repercussions for the residents.

In a related context, the Palestinian health ministry said that since the beginning of the second academic semester in early February, 72 schools in the cities of Jenin and Tulkarem have stopped providing direct education as a result of the ongoing Israeli aggression.

The Israeli occupation army launched a large-scale military operation in the northern West Bank 56 days ago, unleashing a violent campaign in Jenin that resulted in the death and injury of dozens of civilians, widespread destruction of homes and public and private property, and the displacement of thousands.

The operation later expanded to Tulkarem and Tubas, targeting mainly the refugee camps of Tulkarem, Nur Shams, and al-Fari’ah.

March 17, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Germany recruiting Afghan migrants as mercenaries for Ukraine – source

RT | March 17, 2025

The German government has been coercing Afghan refugees into fighting for Ukraine, an anonymous source has claimed to RT. The scheme allegedly targets refugees who have been detained for various crimes, with the threat of deportation if they refuse to comply.

According to the individual, whose identity cannot be disclosed for security reasons, the “German authorities are forcing Afghan migrants to join the International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine in order to urgently replenish the personnel of the Kiev regime’s armed forces, which is experiencing an acute shortage of people.”

The scheme supposedly involves approximately 2,300 refugees detained by German police for various crimes in cities such as Berlin, Bonn, Cologne, Hamburg, Munich, Frankfurt am Main, and Stuttgart.

“In the event of refusal to sign the relevant contract and go to Ukraine, the migrants are threatened with guaranteed extradition to Afghanistan,” the source claimed.

The source went on to allege that a number of German security experts have sounded the alarm over the potential ramifications for Germany’s own national security, especially with respect to the threat posed by radical Islamists.

“Some of the refugees are likely to return to Germany after the expiration of their imposed contracts, possessing skills in handling weapons and explosives, as well as experience in combat,” the experts have warned, according to the source.

Last month, Bild reported that at least one recruitment center belonging to Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov brigade was operating near Berlin. A recruiter told the media outlet that they were seeking “supporters for our new international battalion.”

Russian authorities have consistently prosecuted foreign nationals caught fighting for Kiev, whom they describe as mercenaries. In January, a Russian court sentenced retired US Army Ranger Patrick Creed to 13 years in prison for serving with the Ukrainian military from 2022 to 2023. In March, British citizen James Scott Rhys Anderson was handed a 19-year sentence for participating in Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region.

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that foreign mercenaries fighting for Kiev are not entitled to the same legal protections under international law as those granted to regular Ukrainian POWs.

March 17, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

UK Terrorism Law Overhaul Blasted as “Unacceptable” Threat to Free Speech

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 16, 2025

Jonathan Hall, a UK government-appointed Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has dubbed reforms announced by PM Keir Starmer in this legislative area as “unacceptable” – specifically in how that would restrict freedom of expression.

These changes came as part of the Labour government’s reaction to the Southport murders and subsequent protests and unrest.

The issue addressed by Hall’s report published this week is the legal definition of terrorism, and whether it needs to be expanded to acts of extreme violence like those perpetrated by Axel Rudakubana in Southport last summer.

Hall’s overall conclusion is that there is no need to amend the definition of terrorism, as it is “already wide.”

One of the implications, should proposed changes be adopted, concerns speech, writes the terrorism watchdog. He warns about risks involving “major false positives” – i.e., persons that would get prosecuted although they cannot be considered terrorists “by any stretch of the imagination.”

However, there is also the issue of definition expansion into what Hall refers to as novel territory.

“For example, any person who glorified ‘extreme violence’ would be at risk of arrest and prosecution as a terrorist. People swapping violent war footage would be at risk of encouraging terrorism, resulting in unacceptable restriction on freedom of expression,” he writes.

Hall also argues against the notion that it is possible to examine the browsing history of a perpetrator like Rudakubana and from that alone deduce which point in his online activities fatefully influenced his real world actions.

Expansion of the definition of terrorism to include such crimes – as essentially a way to give the authorities greater powers – is not likely to be effective for the purposes declared by the government, Hall suggests.

Many opponents of the UK government’s decisions and initiatives in the wake of the Southport murders have been warning that redefining legislation paves the way for greater mass surveillance capabilities.

Hall thinks that expectations when it comes to actually dealing with extreme violence in the proposed way might be unrealistic.

“There is no supercomputer or algorithm that can magically scan all online communications and tell who is an attacker and who is a fantasist,” he observes.

In order to avoid what the report describes as an extremely high risk of unintended consequences of rushed changes to the definition of terrorism, Hall advises the government to consider “a new offense, adapted from terrorism legislation, to deal with non-terrorist mass casualty attack-planning.”

March 16, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Harvard Law School moves closer to divestment from Israel following referendum

Press TV – March 15, 2025

In the latest move by pro-Palestinian students at US universities, the Harvard Law School (HLS) student body has successfully passed a referendum urging the university to divest from the occupying Tel Aviv regime.

The resolution, which called on Harvard to “divest from weapons, surveillance technology, and other companies aiding violations of international humanitarian law, including Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine,” passed with 72.7 percent of votes in favor, with 842 students participating.

Nearly 2,000 students attend Harvard Law School, according to the university’s newspaper, The Harvard Crimson.

The university’s Palestine Solidarity Committee celebrated the move, calling it a landslide victory that took place “despite federal crackdown and admin’s repression on student activism for Palestine.”

“[US President Donald] Trump cannot repress the student movement for Palestine,” the group said in a statement amid the US president’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests across American universities

“The university must answer our call and divest from companies that profit from Palestinian annihilation,” it added.

The referendum was first proposed in a petition by student group Law Students for a Free Palestine (LSFP), which passed the 300-signature threshold needed to trigger a Student Government referendum in February.

In a press release, HLS LSFP organizer Irene Ameena commended the result as a rebuke of Trump.

“The Trump administration’s threats are meant to scare us into submission, but this referendum shows that those efforts only strengthen our solidarity with Palestine,” she said.

Thursday night’s results mark the second time a Harvard student body has voted in favor of divesting from Israel.

The call for divestment generally entails calling on institutions to cut economic and any other relevant ties with Israel as a form of protest against its occupation of the Palestinian territories, and more recently its bloody onslaught in Gaza which has killed over 61,000 Palestinians since October 7, 2023.

In June last year, students at the Harvard School of Public Health voted to demand that Harvard divest from Israel, and governments at the Law School, Harvard Divinity School, and the Graduate School of Design have all made similar calls too.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel rejects Hamas offer to free Israeli-American captive

MEMO | March 15, 2025

Israel today dismissed a Hamas offer to free an American-Israeli dual national if Tel Aviv begins the next phase of ceasefire talks towards a permanent end to the war.

Hamas said it had made the offer to release New Jersey native Edan Alexander, a 21-year-old soldier in the Israeli occupation army, after receiving a proposal from mediators for negotiations on the second phase of a ceasefire deal, which has halted major fighting since 19 January but has been in limbo for two weeks as Israel refuses to begin negotiations on a second phase and looks to exert maximum pressure on Palestinians to force them to accept its new terms.

The group said its exiled Gaza chief, Khalil Al-Hayya, was due to arrive in Cairo later today for further ceasefire talks with Egyptian mediators.

Since a temporary first phase of the ceasefire expired on 2 March, Israel has closed the borders to Gaza, banning all humanitarian aid from entering the Strip, and cut off electricity to the enclave’s only desalination plant.

Israel says it wants to extend the ceasefire’s temporary first phase, a proposal backed by US envoy Steve Witkoff. Hamas says it will resume freeing captives only under the second phase.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu’s office called the offer to release Alexander “manipulation and psychological warfare”.

“While Israel has accepted the Witkoff proposal, Hamas stands by its refusal and has not budged a millimetre,” his office added. It said he would convene with his cabinet tomorrow night to discuss the situation and decide on the next steps.

Witkoff told reporters at the White House early in March that gaining the release of Alexander was a “top priority”. US hostage negotiator Adam Boehler met with Hamas leaders in recent days to seek Alexander’s release.

Two Hamas officials told Reuters their agreement to release Alexander and the four bodies was conditional on beginning the talks on the second phase of the ceasefire, opening crossings, and lifting the Israeli blockade.

“We are working with mediators for the agreement to succeed and to compel the occupation to conclude all phases of the agreement,” Abdel-Latif Al-Qanoua, the Hamas spokesperson, said.

Israel has violated the ceasefire over 1,000 times since January, including by killing four Palestinians today in an air strike in the Zeitoun neighbourhood in Gaza City.

Palestinian media said the four men had been collecting firewood needed for cooking in the absence of gas under the blockade.

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Far-Right Betar group sends list of thousands of pro-Palestinian activists to Trump admin. for deportation

Press TV – March 15, 2025

The American branch of the Betar Zionist movement, Betar US, says it has sent “thousands of names” of Palestine defenders to the administration of President Donald Trump for potential arrest and deportation, as part of its new smear campaign targeting participants in pro-Palestine protests across the country.

The far-right group made the remarks on social media on Friday, stressing that “Jihadis have no place in civilized nations.”

This comes as critics have voiced concern over Betar’s activities and ongoing “deportation efforts,” which involve documenting protest attendees and reporting them to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Earlier this week, Betar said, “We told you we have been working on deportations and will continue to do so. Expect naturalized citizens to start being picked up within the month. You heard it here first. Those who support jihad and intifada and originate in terrorist states will be sent back to those lands.”

The group — which took credit for the arrest of Palestinian student-activist and US Green Card holder Mahmoud Khalil by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for protesting the Israeli regime’s brutal war on the Gaza Strip — further named Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian studying philosophy at Columbia University in New York City, as its next target.

On Friday, US immigration officers announced the arrest of another activist who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, one of the most prestigious schools in the country.

Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian from the occupied West Bank, was detained for allegedly overstaying her expired student visa, the DHS said in a statement.

She had previously been arrested in April 2024 for taking part in protests at Columbia University, the statement added.

The DHS further noted that another student, Ranjani Srinivasani, who has Indian citizenship, chose to “self-deport” by leaving the US earlier this week.

The Trump administration has also set a deadline for Columbia University to cede control of one of its academic departments over a scholarship critical of Israel.

Back in January, Trump signed an executive order, pledging to deport foreign students who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests.

Following the detention of Khalil, Trump declared it was “the first of many to come,” labeling Khalil a “radical foreign pro-Hamas student” without providing any evidence.

He emphasized that his administration would adopt a strict stance against any pro-Palestinian activities within American universities.

Founded in 1923 by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Zionist figure, and named after Brit Yosef Trumpeldor, Betar US actively spreads Zionist propaganda and in recent months, the group has intensified efforts to identify foreign students in the US who participate in anti-Israel protests, seeking their deportation.

The extremist group is using facial recognition technology and social media to monitor and intimidate pro-Palestine activists, reporting them to US immigration authorities for potential deportation.

This crackdown on free speech has sparked outrage, with critics condemning the group’s tactics as an attempt to suppress dissent and stifle advocacy for Palestinian rights.

Pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League has recently designated Betar as a hate group, after it responded to the publication of a list of thousands of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces by saying on its account on X, “Not enough. We demand blood in Gaza!”

March 15, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

University crackdown on Palestine solidarity encampments a grievous violation of Charter freedoms

By Laurie Adkin | Canadian Dimention | March 9, 2025

If the repression of Palestine solidarity protests on Canadian campuses is permitted to go unchallenged, we risk a serious erosion of Charter-protected rights and freedoms. The cases of the Universities of Calgary and Alberta highlight what is at stake.

In May 2024, the University of Calgary executive[1] called in the police to forcibly remove the Palestine solidarity encampment on that campus within hours of its appearance. The University of Alberta executive quickly followed suit, deploying riot police to drive members of the People’s University for Palestine (PU4P) from the campus. The executives thus revealed the vacuity of their institutional slogans and their unwillingness to defend university autonomy from political direction. University records[2] and media reports show that United Conservative Party government officials were urging the deployment of police against the universities’ students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community supporters.

Since October 2023, university executives have been implementing security regimes that put their students, staff, and faculty under continual surveillance and subject them to policing that not long ago would have been unthinkable. The Kent report confirms that the University of Alberta Protective Services and the Edmonton Police Service collaborate in surveillance of the conversations, social media posts, and activities of students, staff, and faculty on campus (using patrols, video cameras, and facial recognition technology). Police presence on campus has become routine. Operating procedures for protests were amended unilaterally by executives on both campuses in May 2024 in anticipation of the Palestine solidarity encampments. The result is that the environment for freedom of expression on campuses has been significantly degraded. However, the failure of university executives to stand up for constitutional freedoms is a grievous abdication of democratic duty to all citizens. Given what is at stake, it is urgent that court challenges to their actions be initiated, and that those responsible be required to apologize and make reparation to those who were traumatized and whose freedoms of political expression and assembly were unreasonably denied.

The UCalgary’s executive has tried to establish the legality of its actions by commissioning a consultancy report described by legal experts as “superficial.” The UAlberta executive no doubt hopes that the Report on the Encampment they commissioned from retired Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice, Adèle Kent, will close the book on its decision to deploy police against the PU4P. The Kent report concluded that “the administration’s ability to have the police dismantle the encampment was reasonable and justifiable under the Charter” (78). This opinion—which is not a judicial ruling—is unsubstantiated by evidence and hinges on an incomplete (and often contradictory) review of the legal tests required to arrive at such a conclusion.

UAlberta President Bill Flanagan issued a cluster of statements in May 2024 attempting to justify the forcible removal of the PU4P by police on the grounds that it posed “serious and potentially life-threatening risks” to “university community members and members of the public,” and that its removal was intended to “ensure public safety and security.” The evidence—including highly credible first-hand testimony—effectively eviscerated these claims; even Justice Kent and campus security agreed the PU4P presented no threats to anyone’s safety at the time the police were sent in.

What the executive and the justice turned to, then, to justify the camp’s removal was the possibility of future threats that could be (and were) imagined by the president’s executive council and the police. One fear they raised was that counter-protestors might show up on campus and altercations between the groups might ensue. There was no indication at the time that such events were likely, but even if they had been, we should question the logic of the argument that is being made here for the denial of Charter freedoms of expression and assembly. If the possibility of a future counter-protest that might be violent is considered grounds to ban otherwise peaceful political expression and assembly, then effectively, these Charter freedoms are null and void.

The “community safety” pretext offered by President Flanagan further lacks credibility because alternatives were available to ensure the safety of the PU4P participants that entailed far less risk of harm than the option that was chosen (sending in riot police at the crack of dawn). In this regard, the executive’s decision clearly fails the Charter tests of “least impairment” and “rationality” in relation to its supposed objective. Members of the executive chose not to meet with the PU4P, instead spending hours in “crisis management” meetings among themselves and with government officials and the police, grasping at pretexts to simply get rid of the protestors without having to answer their demands. They misled students and the public about their intentions, concealing their decision to deploy the police from student leaders and implying that negotiations were in progress when this was not true. This is the kind of bad faith treatment to which pro-Palestinian student activists have become accustomed.

We cannot overlook the likelihood that these Palestinian solidarity encampments were labelled security threats because of the relentless pressures on university administrators exerted by Zionist politicians and pro-Zionist government officials to characterize any criticism of Israel as threatening to the “safety” of Jewish students and faculty. Such pressures have been well-documented in the cases of the Universities of Alberta and Calgary, and are exhibited in many of the submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ investigation of “antisemitism” on Canadian campuses (May 2024). Notably, the committee’s December 2024 report recommended, among other measures, that universities adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which encompasses anti-Zionism or criticism of the state of Israel.

In contrast, we see clearly how little the safety of “community members” from racialized Muslim backgrounds (and non-Zionist Jews) has mattered for university executives—how quickly their safety was sacrificed to achieve higher-ranked priorities. The repression of pro-Palestinian protest on university campuses is consistent with the denial of rights and the violence being inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank on a massive scale by Israel and its military and diplomatic allies.

It can have escaped no one’s notice that we live in times of rising authoritarianism. If Canadians accept the flimsy, speculative pretexts offered by university authorities to crush peaceful protest—if we do not subject them to rigorous Charter tests—we risk the further erosion of our political rights and freedoms. If these rights may be trampled underfoot on university campuses without legal challenge, where are they protected? Constitutional lawyers, don your armour.

Laurie E. Adkin is a professor emerita in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta.

References

1. By “executive” I refer to the president, the president’s executive team, or council, and the Board of Governors. While responsibility for the decisions falls ultimately on the shoulders of the university presidents, the reviews have been vague in identifying who authorized what and when. Some members of the executive team at UCalgary were away from the university when the decision to call in the police was taken; none, however, have subsequently resigned their positions. In the UAlberta case, we know that the Chair of the Board was closely involved in the decision-making about the PU4P, but we do not know if other governors on the Board were consulted; none have publicly expressed their agreement or disagreement with the action that was taken. This is typical of the lack of meaningful accountability of these board members to both internal constituencies and the broader public.↩

2. Its flaws notwithstanding, the UAlberta-commissioned Kent report provides very useful information in its excerpts from interviews with executive decision-makers and the appended (though redacted) “Rolling Update” on meetings, decisions, etc., maintained by the Crisis Management Team. Additional records were obtained by journalist Jeremy Appel through a FOIPP application to the UAlberta.↩

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Remove Hamas and the other Resistance groups from the Home Office list of proscribed organisations

By David Miller | Al Mayadeen | March 14, 2025

The British government should de-proscribe all of the Palestinian and Lebanese Resistance groups currently listed on the anachronistic list maintained by the Home Office. The first and most obvious reason for this is that banning these groups does not in any way prevent or disrupt political violence in the UK. This sounds like a dramatic claim. So, let’s take a close look.

After a year and a half of genocide by the illegitimate Zionist entity, voices are beginning to be raised calling for the removal of Palestinian resistance groups from the government list of proscribed organisations. But what is the list and what offences are attached to it?

When I was detained by officers of SO15 or the Counter Terrorism Command (formerly the Special Branch) under Schedule 7 the other day, I was given a piece of paper with the legal basis of the detention which I was required to sign and was given a copy to keep. It states that the detention is to enable whether I appeared ‘to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission of instigation of acts of terrorism.’

And yet, they asked me no questions about commissioning or instigating acts of “terrorism”. Not a single one.

Instead, they asked about extremism, the Western way of life, and asked me to characterise specific views on political violence. If the Trades Description Act applied to the Terrorism Act 2000 and to the activities of SO15, I would be making a complaint to the Heathrow Trading Standards Officer.

But the reason for this is that Schedule 7 is not really intended to disrupt actual terrorism, but to surveill and repress political views and political speech which is critical of UK foreign policy, including of course support for the Palestinians’ legitimate right to resist the Zionist occupation. Don’t believe me? Let’s look closely at the Home Office list of offences related to proscribed organisations.

As one can see from the offences below, none of them have anything to do with actual acts of violence. Let’s take each in turn.

  1. Obviously being a member of a proscribed group might have some relevance, but membership is not itself an act of terror. And certainly, professing to be a member of Hezbollah is not, in itself, an act of terror.
  2. Inviting support for a proscribed group is an offence. How does one ‘invite’ support for a ‘terrorist’ organisation? The language is of course similar to the ‘notice’ issued to UK broadcasters on 19 October 1988. Otherwise known as the Broadcasting Ban, this was an attempt to suppress support for the Irish Republican movement and in particular its political wing Sinn Fein, which throughout the period remained a legal political party with many elected councillors in the north of Ireland. It made, as I argued at the time, no appreciable difference to the Irish Republican Army, the wing of the movement engaged in armed struggle. But what does it mean to ‘invite’ support? It’s not altogether clear and it is pretty plain that this particular provision has been of little use to the British state, resulting, as it has, in precious few convictions. As a result, the government added a wider and more vague clause to the act via the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, to which we turn next.
  3. Express an ‘opinion’ or ‘belief’ that is supportive of a proscribed organisation. What does that mean? It obviously has the potential to be stretched quite far into opinions and beliefs that are shared by most people, even in the UK. Is saying that Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, the assassinated leader of Hezbollah, was widely respected and admired an opinion which is ‘supportive’ of a banned group?  Notice the language is ‘will be’ encouraged not ‘is’ encouraged. So, at best this is a conjectural crime which does not require that anyone is actually encouraged, only that the hypothetical ‘reasonable person’ might think that. Again, nothing here that relates to involvement in planning any ‘act’ of violence.
  4. Arranging or managing a meeting is, manifestly, not an act of violence, whether or not it involves giving ‘support’ for a proscribed organisation and whether or not a representative of the organisation speaks, or whether the purpose of the address is to encourage support. In fact, the more we hear the voices of those (in proscribed organisations and legal ones alike) who are involved in resisting the menace of Zionism and genocide, the better it will be for the possibility of ending the genocide.
  5. Next is Clothing: It is an offence to ‘wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation’. Articles of clothing are also not in themselves acts of terror, no matter how they are displayed. Obviously, what they have in mind here is branding relating to specific organisations, such as a Hezbollah flag, a Qassam Brigades head band, or other perhaps less directly connected imagery or items.  Obviously, given the attemtps of the Zionists and their craven allies in the British security state, there is a push to widen the parameters so they can scoop up more and more supporters of the Palestinians. Thus the case of the young women found guilty under these powers of sporting parachute patches (below).

Or, the case of the young man found guilty of supporting Hamas for wearing a green headband with the Shahada (the Muslim profession of faith) on it (first below). This is of course not a ‘Hamas headband’. Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, do have a specific headband with a gun on it! As can be seen, it is not at all similar (right below).

6.        It is an offence to “publish an image of an item of clothing or other article, such as a flag or logo, in the                          same circumstances.” This is obviously intended to cover social media posts, which are manifestly not                           ‘acts’  or terrorism. This provision was inserted (12.4.2019) by Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act                        2019.

Overall, then, as we see these ‘proscription’ powers have nothing at all to do with interfering with material acts of political violence or armed struggle.

The proscription offences are not terrorism offences. It is an absurd nonsense, not to mention a colossal waste of resources, that SO15 are required to attempt to police thoughts, beliefs and speech as the vast majority of their activities at ports.

When the leading journalist Asa Winstanley was recently raided (but not arrested), he was told that it related to his alleged support for proscribed groups. A letter addressed to him ‘from the “Counter Terrorism Command” … indicates that the authorities are “aware of your profession” as a journalist but that “notwithstanding, police are investigating possible offenses” under sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act (2006). These provisions set out the purported offense of “encouragement of terrorism.”’

And yet, if you look at the passage at the beginning of this article about commission or instigation of acts of terror, the implication is that to be of interest one would have to be involved in setting up a branch of Qassam Brigades in North London, or a version of Hezbllah’s Radwan Force in Reading.  There is nobody in the entire counter-terrorism apparatus who believes that that is what Asa, me, or anybody else, is doing.

And when you put it like that, it’s also manifestly the case that neither Hamas, Hezbollah, the PFLP-GC or Palestinian Islamic Jihad are planning to set up branches in the UK, or – indeed – to carry out attacks here. Given the UK’s role in directly participating in the genocide, that is generous of them, but it appears to be a fact.

But more than that, free speech about armed groups fighting an almost universally acknowledged genocide should not be criminalised and proscribed.

And the case for proscribing their welfare, health, education and other manifest functions of Hezbollah and Hamas is even weaker.

They should be de-proscribed now.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin comments on ECHR Odessa massacre ruling

RT | March 14, 2025

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling holding Ukraine accountable for the massacre in the city of Odessa in 2014 appears to be a “glimpse of common sense,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Friday. However, a single ruling is not enough to draw broader conclusions, he added.

The ECHR found the Ukrainian authorities guilty of the deaths of the so-called anti-Maidan activists who burned to death after taking refuge in the Odessa trade union building, which was subsequently set on fire by radical nationalists. The court ruled on Thursday that Ukraine failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the violence, halt it once it began, or rescue those trapped in the building.

“A very belated decision, but it seems like a glimpse of common sense,” Peskov remarked. “To confirm this, we need to see other similar actions. Which, of course, we would like to witness.”

On May 2, 2014, clashes erupted in Odessa between Ukrainian nationalists, who supported the armed coup in Kiev that had occurred several weeks before, and those who opposed it. The pro-Maidan activists attacked a tent where local residents were gathering signatures for a referendum on the federalization of Ukraine and recognition of Russian as a state language.

Outnumbered by the far-right radicals, the anti-coup activists took refuge inside the city’s trade union building. However, the nationalists surrounded the building, lobbed Molotov cocktails at it and eventually set it on fire, resulting in 48 deaths and over 200 people injured.

More than a decade later, Kiev has neither identified nor prosecuted any of the perpetrators. Instead, it has shifted the blame to Moscow, alleging that the events in Odessa were “a pre-planned and well-financed operation” by the Russian security services. Moscow has repeatedly called for an investigation into the massacre, even advocating for a special tribunal to be convened.

Relatives of 25 victims, along with three survivors of the fire, filed complaints against Ukraine with the ECHR. The court ruled that the Ukrainian police had “had ignored the available intelligence and the relevant warning signs” and made no “meaningful attempt to prevent the clashes” that led to the fire. While the ECHR acknowledged that “propaganda from Russia had had its part” in tensions being escalated, it admitted that this did not absolve Kiev of responsibility for the massacre.

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »