In a Wednesday Twitter post, United States Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) expressed his confusion why “[z]ero dopes have shown up at my home or office, or blocked a road to chant and protest over an actual genocide in Sudan.” Proceeding, he questioned why “South Africa engaged the ICJ over Gaza, but not for an actual genocide on their own continent” — in Sudan.
“ICJ” in Fetterman’s tweet refers to the International Court of Justice that ruled in January of last year that the Israel government may be committing genocide in Gaza and ordered Israel to not engage in acts of genocide. Then, in November, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The decisions of both courts have been disparaged and disregarded by the US and Israel governments.
It is in opposition to the US government’s extraordinary and critical support for war efforts of the Israel government in Gaza and beyond that protests have been undertaken against Fetterman. The obvious reason he has been targeted with protests is because he is among the US Congress members most vociferously supporting the US providing military, weapons, money, and intelligence support without which the Israel government could not continue to pursue its large and expanding war effort, including its devastating attack on Gaza that has produced monumental civilian suffering and death. Indeed, in Israel several months into the war and with Fetterman at his side, Netanyahu declared, “Israel has had no better friend than Senator John Fetterman” during the war.
Why no similar protests against Fetterman related to the action in Sudan to which Fetterman refers in his Twitter post? The answer is suggested by Fetterman’s own language. He calls that action in Sudan an “actual genocide.” It would be bizarre for people to protest him for supporting this “actual genocide” when he has declared his opposition. Instead, of course, they protest him for being a key supporter of the US government enabling the carnage and destruction wrought by the Israel government.
Fetterman linked in his Twitter post a Tuesday New York Times article by Declan Walsh that provides background information regarding the Sudan-related genocide claim:
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said the Rapid Support Forces, the paramilitary group fighting against Sudan’s military had committed acts of genocide, including a fearsome wave of ethnically targeted violence in the western region of Darfur.
The Treasury Department backed the determination of genocide with a raft of sanctions targeting the R.S.F.’s leader, Gen. Mohamed Hamdan, as well as seven companies in the United Arab Emirates, the group’s main foreign sponsor, that have traded in weapons and gold on his behalf.
As with Israel’s war, Fetterman in regard to Sudan — where the US also has a long history of intervention — is fully aligned with the executive branch’s position. In both instances, the position involves pursuing foreign intervention in no way justified to protect America. As is typical, the US flings allegations against the parties it opposes abroad while deflecting accusations against the parties it supports, all the while claiming to be devoutly advancing human rights and a “rules-based international order.” The message is again and again self-serving hooey.
Who again are the dupes?
January 10, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
A new study published in the UK’s Lancet medical journal estimates that Gaza’s death toll during the first nine months of the war was about 40 percent higher than figures reported by the Palestinian health ministry.
Research published in The Lancet medical journal on Friday suggests that around 2.9 percent of Gaza’s pre-war population or approximately one in 35 inhabitants died in Israeli attacks until late July 2024.
Up to June 30 last year, the health ministry in Gaza reported a death toll of 37,877 in the war.
The study suggests the total death toll was actually at around 64,260, which would mean the health ministry had under-reported the number of deaths by 41 percent.
The new study used data from the ministry, an online survey and social media obituaries to estimate that there were between 55,298 and 78,525 deaths from traumatic injuries in Gaza by that time.
However, the toll did not count the deaths from a lack of health care or food, or the thousands of missing believed to be buried under rubble.
Earlier a UN report had indicated that around 10,000 missing Gazans are probably buried under rubble.
The number of dead in Gaza has been a matter of bitter debate since Israel launched its genocidal campaign against the blockaded territory back on October 7, 2023, after the Palestinian Hamas resistance group carried out a historic operation against the usurping entity in retaliation for its intensified atrocities against the Palestinian people.
On Thursday, Gaza’s health ministry said that 46,006 people had died over the full 15 months of war.
January 10, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The US House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in protest of its arrest warrant for Israeli officials, Anadolu Agency reports.
The bill, which was introduced last Friday as soon as the 119th Congress began, passed in a 243-140 vote.
The Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act imposes sanctions on those who aid efforts by the ICC to prosecute Americans or Israelis.
The ICC issued arrest warrants in November for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip.
US congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, criticised the voting.
“What’s their top priority the first week of the new Congress? Lowering costs? Addressing the housing crisis? No, it’s sanctioning the International Criminal Court to protect genocidal maniac (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu so he can continue the genocide in Gaza,” Tlaib wrote on X.
Rep. Jim McGovern criticised Republicans for prioritising sanctioning the ICC amid the wildfires in the state of California.
“Of all the ways that Republicans have shown this country how messed up and backwards their priorities are, I have to say that this bill that we debating today to sanction the International Criminal Court, the ICC, this really takes the cake,” McGovern said from the House floor.
Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, pledged to bring the legislation to the Senate floor.
The Israeli army has continued a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip that has killed more than 46,000 victims, mostly women and children, since 7 October, 2023, despite a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire.
January 9, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, War Crimes | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
According to an article in the Washington Post, Gene Mills, a U.S. citizen who was one of the top amateur wrestlers in the world, stated, “He stole my life. That was my life. He took it away from me.”
Mills was referring to President Jimmy Carter, who recently passed away at the age of 100. It was Carter who ordered U.S. athletes to boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, Russia. The reason? Carter used the boycott to protest the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
There were two at least two big problems with Carter’s order, however.
One problem is that in a genuinely free society, people have the right to travel wherever they want and interact with anyone they want. If people want to compete in sporting events in foreign lands or just be spectators, that’s part of living the life of a free person. It’s none of the government’s business.
That wasn’t Carter’s mindset. His order reflected the reality of the American condition in modern times. In the United States, citizens no longer have the God-given, natural right of freedom of travel or freedom to interact with people in foreign lands. American citizens are subject to the orders, dictates, and edicts of their political masters. Once the president issued his order prohibiting them from competing in the Olympics, American citizens were expected to obey. I’ve sometimes wondered what U.S. officials would have done to U.S. athletes who decided to disobey Carter’s edict. No doubt Carter and his federal henchmen would have figured out ways to smash them.
Thus, the irony was that in issuing his boycott order to protest Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan, Carter was demonstrating that the United States was now founded on at least one of the principles of the communist Soviet Union — that freedom of travel is not a fundamental, God-given right here in the United States any more than it is in communist, totalitarian nations.
Of course, things haven’t changed a bit. If American citizens travel to Cuba, for example, and spend money there without the official permission of their U.S. masters, they are immediately indicted upon their return to the U.S., prosecuted, convicted, fined, and sentenced to prison.
Another big problem is that it was Carter and his national-security establishment who intentionally, knowingly, and deliberately provoked the Soviets into invading Afghanistan in the first place. Yes, you read that right. While Carter pontificated about the evil Soviet empire’s invasion of Afghanistan — and used American athletes as pawns in his protest against the invasion — the fact is that Carter himself, as well as the U.S. national-security establishment, wanted the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and, in fact, provoked them into doing so.
This evil little scheme was later confirmed by Carter’s national-security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. The scheme called for supporting Afghanistan opponents of Russia in the hopes of provoking the Soviets into invading the country. The scheme worked brilliantly. And when Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Carter, Brezinski, and other U.S, officials were as exultant as U.S. officials would be many years later when they succeeded in provoking Russia into invading Ukraine.
Why such exultation? As Brezinski put it, they had now given the Soviets their “own Vietnam.” In other words, Russia would now be bogged down in a war that would entail the killing of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, just like the 58,000 American soldiers that U.S. presidents, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA sacrificed in Vietnam for nothing. What a warped and perverted thing to be excited about.
Thus, here you had Carter protesting against the invasion of Afghanistan by those evil Russians when it was Carter himself who desired the invasion, provoked it, and was exultant about it when it happened. He then had the audacity to use innocent U.S. athletes, who had nothing to do with any of these machinations, as pawns to protest against the invasion that Carter wanted, provoked, and got. Is it really difficult to understand why so many people around the world, including here in the United States, hate the hypocrisy of the U.S. government so much?
January 9, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | Afghanistan, Human rights, Russia, Ukraine, United States |
Leave a comment
Germany and the European Union are in an uproar after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he was going to take efforts to end censorship on Facebook and Instagram, including the termination of Meta’s relationship with fact-checkers who Zuckerberg accused of political bias.
Given that much of the EU power runs on political censorship, Brussels and member states like Germany are worried they might lose control of the political narrative, especially when left-liberal leaders are falling from power across the Western world.
The Federal Network Agency in Germany, which reports to German Economic Minister Robert Habeck, is threatening that Facebook could more likely face sanctions if it does not continue its “fact checking” relationship with controversial organizations like Correctiv, known for its hit pieces on the Alternative for Germany (AfD).
The Green Federal Network Agency boss is threatening Facebook with sanctions if it does not resume working with “fact checkers” such as “Correctiv”. This has led to censorship on a large scale, as Zuckerberg admitted.
Klaus Müller, of the Greens and who runs the Federal Network Agency, wrote on X on Wednesday morning according to the Digital Service Act (DSA), “the cooperation of very large online platforms with fact-checking organizations is not mandatory, but their risk of sanctions is reduced if they do so in the EU.” EU election guidelines also note that the presence of fact checkers is considered “a risk-minimizing measure in elections” with regard to “systemic risks.”
“If a (Very Large Online Provider) VLOP does not work with fact checkers, it must prove that it is taking other, equally effective risk-minimizing measures,” he further wrote.
Zuckerberg admits that these fact-checkers have helped drive a regime of censorship on his platform. He notes that these organizations have exerted pressure to “censor more and more.”
However, German media reports that Facebook is still currently working with Correctiv. It is unclear when that relationship will end — if ever.
Zuckerberg says he now wants to switch to a community notes system like the one deployed by Elon Musk on X. Notably, he wants to lift restrictions on certain issues, such as immigration and gender issues, and adjust filters to allow free expression on the platform.
As Remix News reported, our own news site has come under attack from Facebook censors in the past, reducing our reach from millions of views a week to a few thousand a week as of now.
January 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Facebook, Germany, Human rights |
Leave a comment
It’s easy to support freedom of speech when one doesn’t have to face any risks for doing so, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov wrote on Wednesday, in a post on his messenger platform. The entrepreneur was apparently commenting on recent announcements by Meta – the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads – which has announced some major policy changes.
On Tuesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that his company would ditch its controversial third-party fact-checking program in the US. He admitted that such services did more harm than good, as they “shut out people with different ideas.” He also said that Donald Trump’s victory in the November presidential elections was one of the developments that prompted the policy change.
Zuckerberg called the recent US elections a “tipping point” towards prioritizing freedom of speech, and vowed to reduce censorship.
“It’s easy to say you support something when you risk nothing,” Durov wrote in his Telegram post the next day, adding that some “platforms are announcing they’ll now have less censorship.” He did not cite Meta by name in his post, though.
Those making such changes only now would face a “real test of their newly discovered values” when “the political winds change again,” the Telegram CEO predicted, adding that his company’s values “don’t depend on US electoral cycles.”
“I’m proud that Telegram has supported freedom of speech, long before it became politically safe to do so,” Durov said.
His words came just a week after the Telegram CEO himself said that his platform was facing certain restrictions in the EU due to anti-Russia sanctions. At that time, Durov stated that Russians had more media freedom than Europeans did, given that all Western media outlets were “freely accessible” on Telegram in Russia while “certain Russian media has been restricted in the EU under DSA/sanctions laws.”
Durov also faced major legal challenges in the EU last year. The Russian entrepreneur, who is also a citizen of France, the UAE, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, was detained in France and faced 12 criminal charges, including complicity in distributing child pornography, drug dealing, and money laundering. French authorities claimed that Telegram’s supposedly lax moderation rules had allowed criminals to flourish on the platform.
The businessman was released on bail but barred from leaving France. In September 2024, he announced an update to Telegram’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which would make it clear that that IP addresses and phone numbers of those who violate the messenger’s rules “can be disclosed to relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests.” In October of the same year, he also admitted that the platform had already been sharing such information with relevant authorities, as it had been possible to do so since 2018.
January 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | European Union, France, Human rights |
Leave a comment
At a time when public trust already teeters on a knife’s edge, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has decided that what we really need is a lecture on “misinformation.” Yes, the same Starmer who spent years navigating political quagmires with the dexterity of a politician reading polling data, and someone accused of lying to the public in the manifesto that got him elected, now fancies himself the arbiter of “truth” and “decency.” And what better way to assert moral authority than by weaponizing one of Britain’s darkest scandals—the rape gang crises—and reframing criticism of government failures as the “poison of the far-Right”?
Criticism: The New Extremism
During his January 6 press conference, Starmer ditched accountability in favor of a moral crusade against critics. He accused them of peddling “lies,” “misinformation,” and—brace yourself—aligning with the “far-right.” “We’ve seen this playbook many times,” Starmer said, oozing conviction.
But the public has seen his playbook too.
If you express concern about how successive governments ignored victims, allowed systemic failures to fester, and dragged their feet on justice, you’re basically a neo-Nazi. Starmer’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand here is stunning—turning widespread outrage into something inherently sinister.
By lumping legitimate grievances in with the ravings of extremists, he effectively tars everyone with the same brush. Victims and their advocates? Extremists. Grassroots activists demanding reforms? Extremists. It’s a brilliant move if your goal is to shut down meaningful conversation while appearing noble.
Blaming Musk: A Modern-Day Scapegoat
But Starmer wasn’t done. Enter the obligatory bogeyman of modern discourse: Elon Musk. When the X owner criticized MP Jess Phillips for refusing to support a public inquiry into the grooming gang scandals, Starmer leaped at the opportunity to accuse him of endangering her safety. Musk, Starmer implied, had crossed some vague and undefinable “dangerous threshold” by calling out a politician’s inaction.
There’s no denying threats against MPs are a serious matter, especially in today’s climate, but let’s not pretend Musk was personally drafting hate mail. Criticism of public officials, even harsh criticism, isn’t equivalent to endorsing violence. Yet, Starmer’s play here is clear: frame dissent as inherently harmful and wrap it in the protective cloak of “safety.” It’s a chillingly effective tactic that sets the stage for conflating free speech with hate speech—a distinction that seems increasingly inconvenient for those in power.
The New Gatekeepers of “Decency”
Starmer’s framing of these issues points to a larger, more insidious trend: the slow, deliberate erosion of public discourse under the guise of safeguarding “truth” and “decency.” Dissenting voices are no longer just misguided or even wrong—they’re now dangerous, toxic, and unworthy of a platform.
What makes this particularly egregious is the context. The grooming gang scandals are a grotesque example of institutional failure. Victims were ignored for years as authorities feared accusations of racism, prioritizing optics over justice.
What Starmer presents as a defense of democracy is, in fact, a calculated effort to consolidate narrative control. If criticism can be dismissed as “far-Right poison,” then any dissenting voice—no matter how valid—can be silenced without debate.
Sliding Toward Silence
Starmer’s approach represents the classic slippery slope of censorship. First, the extremists are silenced (fair enough, many argue). Then, the vaguely problematic voices are muted. Finally, anyone who veers too far from the approved script is deemed an enemy of “truth.”
This isn’t only about online discourse or high-profile figures like Musk. It’s about ordinary people—victims, activists, and concerned citizens—who now risk being labeled as agitators simply for demanding accountability.
The Real Threat: Manufactured Consensus
Starmer’s insistence on equating criticism with extremism creates a vacuum where only the government’s narrative is allowed to thrive. And when the only voices left are the ones singing praises of the status quo, we’re no longer talking about democracy; we’re talking about a PR campaign with parliamentary decorum.
James Cleverly, former Home Secretary, didn’t mince words when he weighed in on the fiasco, summing up what many in Britain are quietly, or not-so-quietly, thinking. “Accusing those who disagree with him, or who seek legitimate answers about repeated failures of child protection, as ‘far-Right’ is deeply insulting and counterproductive,” Cleverly said, in a rare moment of plain speaking from a political figure.
As Cleverly pointed out, branding dissent as extremism doesn’t bridge divisions; it widens them, pouring accelerant on an already polarized public square.
Maggie Oliver, the whistleblower who exposed the Rochdale scandal, spoke for many when she called Starmer’s remarks “insulting in the extreme.” Oliver, who resigned from Greater Manchester Police in protest over their inaction, knows better than most how hard it is to get the system to listen. To see campaigners lumped in with extremists, she argued, “sets a terrifying precedent.”
The “Misinformation” Blueprint: Starmer’s New Censorship Arsenal
If Prime Minister Starmer’s handling of criticism over the UK’s rape gang scandal feels less like leadership and more like a prelude to mass censorship, that’s because it likely is. With the newly minted Online Safety Act and provisions under the National Security Act 2023, Starmer’s buzzword-heavy rhetoric about “misinformation” starts looking less like clumsy damage control and more like the calculated groundwork for a chilling clampdown on dissent.
For years, “misinformation” has been a convenient scapegoat for governments worldwide to suppress inconvenient truths. Now, in the UK, the term threatens to become a legal cudgel, ready to pummel any narrative that strays too far from the government-approved script.
Weaponizing the Online Safety Act
Starmer doesn’t need to introduce sweeping new legislation to suppress dissent—his government already has a powerful set of tools at its disposal. The Online Safety Act, sold to the public as a safeguard against harm, contains provisions that are broad enough to suppress not only malicious lies but also legitimate criticism under the guise of protecting the public. Here’s how it could play out:
1. Section 179: False Communications Offense
This is where Starmer’s “misinformation” rhetoric gets teeth. Section 179 criminalizes knowingly false communications intended to cause “non-trivial psychological or physical harm.” The wording here is as vague as it is dangerous. What qualifies as “non-trivial psychological harm”? If the government decides that criticisms of its handling of the grooming gang scandal cause emotional distress to MPs—or, conveniently, to the public—it could label them as harmful misinformation.
Imagine this: a social media user accuses Starmer’s government of ignoring systemic abuse in grooming gang cases. Even if the criticism is grounded in fact, the government could argue that the way it’s framed constitutes psychological harm. Once flagged, tech platforms—obligated under the Online Safety Act to prevent such offenses—could preemptively remove posts or ban users entirely.
The chilling effect is immediate. Knowing the penalties—up to 51 weeks in prison and unlimited fines—citizens may think twice before questioning the government on sensitive issues. And that’s the goal: silence through fear.
2. Schedule 7, Section 37: Foreign Interference
The National Security Act 2023 adds another weapon to Starmer’s arsenal: the foreign interference clause. This provision criminalizes any “misrepresentation” on behalf of a foreign power, even if the information shared is true. While the law ostensibly targets foreign espionage, its scope is alarmingly wide.
Starmer could use this to neutralize high-profile international critics like Elon Musk. If Musk’s tweets about UK safeguarding policies are deemed to influence British political discourse, Starmer’s government could accuse him of “foreign interference.” The penalties? Up to 14 years in prison for violators and mandatory platform censorship of related content.
Any UK citizen amplifying criticism that the government ties to a foreign agenda—whether real or imagined—could face scrutiny under this Orwellian provision.
3. Section 152: Advisory Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation
Perhaps the most insidious element of the Online Safety Act is the creation of a disinformation advisory committee under Ofcom. This unelected body will have the power to define what counts as “misinformation,” aligning platforms’ moderation policies with government narratives.
Given Starmer’s framing of dissent as extremist “poison,” it’s easy to imagine how this committee could become a government lapdog. If dissenting views about rape gang scandals—or any politically sensitive issue—are labeled misinformation, platforms would have little choice but to silence those voices.
4. Section 165: Media Literacy
Ofcom’s mandate to promote media literacy sounds harmless enough, but in practice, it’s a PR goldmine for governments looking to control narratives. Imagine a state-backed campaign equating criticism of the grooming gang scandal to conspiracy theories, painting dissenters as dangerous purveyors of hate. This would prime the public to distrust any view that deviates from the official line, effectively preempting free debate.
Starmer’s Record: A Preview of What’s to Come
Starmer’s embrace of censorship isn’t theoretical—it’s historical. When riots broke out in the summer of 2023, his government oversaw the arrest of individuals for inflammatory social media posts. While some cases involved genuine incitement, others targeted people simply expressing anger at systemic failures or “misinformation.” The precedent was clear: if your post made the government uncomfortable, you were a target.
Fast forward to today, and Starmer’s buzzword-laden rhetoric—“misinformation,” “extremism,” “poison”—looks suspiciously like a blueprint for round two. His invocation of these terms isn’t casual; it’s calculated. Each one is a trigger for the machinery of censorship already baked into British law.
January 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
Israel’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) funded by European Union research programmes to target civilians is attracting a lot of criticism. Since the Israeli attacks on Gaza began on 7 October, 2023, the EU has provided over €238 million ($246m) to Israeli institutions for research and innovation. The funds are believed to have supported the development of AI-driven “location and killing” technology used by Israel against Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Nozomi Takahashi, a member of the board of directors of the European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCAP), told Anadolu that they are aware of allegations about EU funds aiding AI technologies targeting civilians. Takahashi said that they had addressed the issue in letters to high-level EU officials, including former EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.
She pointed to AI-based systems used by the Israeli army called “Habsora” (The Gospel), “Lavender” and “Where is Daddy?” She said that these systems are used “to identify, locate and kill the targets in the current genocide in Gaza.”
Emphasising that these systems are used indiscriminately against civilians, Takahashi noted that, “Such extrajudicial killing is prohibited by international law. The scale and frequency of civilians killed in Gaza using such AI systems are devastating.”
The ECCAP official highlighted the EU’s particular focus on AI development, and said that Israeli research institutions are also involved in various EU-funded projects in this field. However, identifying which EU-funded project underpins those used by the Israeli army is impossible due to confidentiality and secrecy. “The potential high risk associated with such technology in the hands of a government that has a record of human rights violations should raise the alarm.”
Only civilian projects, added Takahashi, are eligible for funding through the Horizon Europe programme. “The development of such AI technology further blurs the border between civil and military applications.” She criticised the EU for its “narrow focus” when evaluating the goals of the projects that it funds, with insufficient monitoring and overlooking the potential for their use in the military.
Takahashi highlighted that Horizon Europe’s ethical principles require funded projects to uphold “respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of minorities.” However, the research entity’s history with military activities or human rights violations is “neither questioned nor required” during ethics reviews, she claimed.
According to Eman Abboud, a lecturer at Trinity College Dublin, it has been demonstrated that EU funds have financed arms companies under the guise of civil security and tech research. She said that the EU is “culpable” by supporting the military industry in Israel — the state is currently facing genocide charges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — through its funding programmes.
“Israeli companies such as Elbit Systems Ltd. and Israel Aerospace Industries, which profit from and are deeply complicit in Israel’s long-term violent oppression and apartheid, as well as the current genocide of the Palestinian people, have received funding for security research from European funding programmes,” explained Abboud.
Criticising the ability of organisations contributing to human rights violations and the undermining of international humanitarian law to benefit from EU funds, she said, “The EU has refused to sever its trade links with Israel or ban them from Horizon Europe,” despite the ongoing ICJ case against the occupation state.
She referenced EU-GLOCTER, a “counter-terrorism” project involving Israeli institutions, noting the links to Israel’s military and intelligence, including Reichman University’s International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), which was co-founded by a former intelligence chief. “We must understand that institutions like these provide the means to create the intelligence apparatus that is used to target specific civilians in Gaza and in Lebanon. We cannot separate them, given the strategic dual use of academic research funding and military research funding.”
The AI technology developed within the Israeli military named Habsora, generating automated and real-time targets, frequently strikes civilian infrastructure and residential areas, with the number of civilian casualties always being known in advance.
The Lavender technology analyses data collected on approximately 2.3 million people in Gaza using ambiguous criteria to assess the likelihood of an individual’s connection to the Palestinian resistance group Hamas.
Sources told Tel Aviv-based +972 and Local Call that, early in the Gaza attacks, the military was “completely reliant” on Lavender, automatically targeting males it flagged, without oversight or specific criteria. Lavender has marked approximately 37,000 Palestinians as “suspects”.
Using the AI-based system called “Where is Daddy?” Israel simultaneously tracks thousands of individuals and when they enter their homes targeted individuals are bombed, with no regard for the presence of civilians, including women and children.
These AI technologies are known to make computational errors frequently and disregard the principle of “proportionality”. They have played a significant role in the killing of over 45,850 Palestinians since 7 October, 2023.
January 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | European Union, Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Israel has denied the United Nations permission to investigate sexual violence allegedly committed by Hamas during the 7 October cross-border infiltration, due to concerns that it could also involve investigating sexual violence against Palestinians in Israeli detention facilities.
Pramila Patten, the UN’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, sought authorisation to investigate the allegations against Hamas. However, she insisted that access to Israeli detention centres to probe allegations against Israeli soldiers was a necessary condition.
According to Haaertz, Israel rejected this request. Patten has called on Israel to sign a framework agreement with the UN, committing to measures to combat sexual violence in conflicts.
Patten’s office has confirmed plans to explore a future mission to the region, following invitations from both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. “The Office is exploring a future mission to the region after receiving an invitation from the Palestinian Authority regarding reports of conflict-related sexual violence against Palestinians as well as outreach by the Government of Israel for a follow-up visit on the 7 October attacks and their aftermath.”
However, Patten’s office has warned that Israel’s refusal to allow UN investigations into alleged crimes attributed to it could have negative repercussions. Representatives from Israel’s Women’s Network, who met with Patten’s team in New York last month, reported being warned that this stance could lead to Israel being added to the UN’s blacklist of entities responsible for sexual violence in conflicts, while Hamas might remain off the list.
This comes after Israeli authorities admitted that no allegations of rape or sexual assault have been filed from the 7 October cross-border infiltration by Palestinian resistance factions, despite extensive investigations.
Moran Gaz, a former lead prosecutor in Israel’s Southern District Prosecutor’s Office and member of Team 7.10, disclosed the findings in an interview with Ynet.
In March 2023, United Nations experts had already debunked similar allegations, concluding they were either unverified or proven false. Similarly, other gruesome claims, such as babies being beheaded or burned in ovens, were widely discredited but continued to circulate in political rhetoric.
January 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | Human rights, Israel, Palestine |
Leave a comment
If you believe Neil Mohan, YouTube’s CEO, the platform is a modern-day Agora—a self-described “bastion of free speech” where the world’s most pressing debates thrive. Though, “just because it’s an open platform, it doesn’t mean that anything goes,” Mohan told The Financial Times in the last week. Translation: Free speech is alive and well—until it isn’t. Because on YouTube, the marketplace of ideas comes with a bouncer, a velvet rope, and an ever-expanding list of banned words and topics.
This month, YouTube is eager to remind everyone it’s “committed” to free expression, a sentiment as convincing as a fast-food chain promising “health-conscious dining.” Over the last five years, the platform has turbocharged its content moderation policies, leaning on AI overlords and human censors to police conversations ranging from vaccine skepticism to who gets to call a virus a “lab leak.”
It’s a delicate balance, they claim—one requiring the finesse of a trapeze artist. But if the past is any guide, the only thing YouTube’s balancing act reliably delivers is corporate doublespeak and a pile of censored creators.
Moderation or Muting?
Mohan, the relatively new captain of YouTube’s Titanic, insists that the company welcomes “broad views” but won’t tolerate “anything goes.” Consider their “community guidelines,” a vague, shape-shifting set of rules that could find your grandma’s knitting tutorial in violation if it dares question Big Pharma.
Behind this rhetoric is an algorithmic enforcement machine programmed to flag, demonetize, or outright remove content at lightning speed—accuracy be damned. And when the AI overlords fumble, the human moderators step in, wielding their own biases like blunt instruments.
Critics, including banned creators, point out that YouTube’s moderation seems to skew conveniently in one direction. Questioning the CDC? Misinformation. Broadcasting claims about ivermectin? Censored. But when a mainstream outlet gets caught peddling unverified or downright wrong information, it’s business as usual.
The COVID-19 Information Iron Curtain
Of course, nothing showcases YouTube’s free speech schizophrenia better than its pandemic policies. To combat “medical misinformation,” the platform instituted a strict purge of dissenting voices, silencing everyone from epidemiologists to concerned moms armed with anecdotal evidence and Facebook memes.
Let’s not forget the lab leak theory, a hypothesis once relegated to tinfoil hat territory. When early adopters of the theory dared to post about it, their content was struck down faster than you could say “gain-of-function research.” Fast forward a couple of years and the lab-leak theory is now a “credible hypothesis,” endorsed by experts and even government agencies.
Oops.
But don’t expect an apology or even acknowledgment from YouTube for playing arbiter of acceptable science. They’ve quietly updated policies and moved on, leaving censored creators wondering why their “misinformation” turned out to be, well, information.
Advertiser-Friendly Speech Only
The real driver of YouTube’s overzealous content policing, of course, is money. Back in 2017, a wave of advertiser boycotts over “hateful” and “controversial” content sent the platform scrambling. The solution? Stricter guidelines are needed to ensure that only the most sanitized, brand-safe content remains.
While no one would argue against booting child exploitation, the crackdown didn’t stop there. It extended into politically sensitive areas, conveniently targeting independent creators and smaller voices while leaving corporate media to do as they pleased.
What’s worse is the blatant double standard. Want to critique vaccine mandates or discuss alternative COVID treatments? Good luck. But if you’re a major network spouting unverified claims about weapons of mass destruction or “imminent threats,” go right ahead. After all, those ad dollars won’t chase themselves.
YouTube’s Legacy of Censorship
Mohan’s lofty rhetoric about fostering “broad views” might play well in interviews, but the reality on the ground is clear: YouTube’s commitment to free speech is as reliable as a politician’s campaign promise. The platform has repeatedly chosen corporate image over open discourse, advertisers over authenticity, and control over community.
And yet, it continues to parade as a defender of free expression. Perhaps Mohan and his team truly believe in their own doublespeak. Or maybe they’re banking on the fact that most users will never notice the glaring contradictions. Either way, YouTube’s hypocrisy isn’t an accident—it’s a business model.
The next time you hear Neil Mohan wax poetic about “free speech,” remember this: On YouTube, freedom comes with conditions, and the only real winners are the ones writing the checks.
January 7, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Human rights, YouTube |
Leave a comment
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has vetoed a provision in House Bill 315 that sought to shield medical professionals from state disciplinary actions over medical opinions conflicting with state-sanctioned guidance. The measure, described as a “medical free speech” safeguard, was removed through a late-night line-item veto on Thursday.
The provision aimed to bar regulatory entities, such as the Ohio Medical Board, from disciplining or threatening to discipline medical practitioners for expressing opinions—whether publicly or privately—that deviated from those of the board or other state agencies.
However, DeWine justified his veto by warning of potential harm to public health. In his message accompanying the veto, the governor stated, “it is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly consequences for patient health.”
DeWine also elaborated to reporters on how such a measure might undermine the state’s ability to hold doctors accountable for malpractice. He expressed concern that the provision could allow practitioners to avoid scrutiny simply by framing negligent actions as personal medical opinions. “All the doctor would have to say in defense is, ‘Well, it’s my opinion,’” DeWine remarked in late December, signaling his intent to veto the provision. “This would totally gut our ability to regulate health professionals.”
The proposal has faced resistance from DeWine’s administration since its initial introduction in an earlier bill, House Bill 73.
That legislation, spearheaded by Representative Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, sought to expand patient access to off-label prescriptions and grant legal immunity to pharmacists filling such prescriptions. According to a nonpartisan analysis of H.B. 73, the bill aimed to protect both patients and medical providers engaging in treatments outside conventional practices.
Gross, a nurse practitioner, has consistently advocated for medical freedom, testifying before the Ohio House Health Provider Services committee in support of shielding health professionals from retaliation when utilizing what she described as “life-saving treatments.” Her stance reflects a broader push to ensure that neither patients nor medical practitioners face punitive consequences for pursuing unconventional or off-label medical options.
January 7, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Human rights, Mike DeWine, Ohio, United States |
Leave a comment
Less than 24 hours after Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its censorship case against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company is ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.
“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg told viewers in a press release video. Meta also owns Instagram.
CHD sued Meta in November 2020 over the social media giant’s censorship practices. The company de-platformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.
Commenting on today’s news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “It’s clear that Mark Zuckerberg is worried about new anti-censorship policies of the incoming administration — as he should be. The record in CHD v. Meta clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”
Holland added:
“CHD has taken its case to the Supreme Court, and Facebook doubtless realizes there are Justices there that are very dubious about Facebook’s role in censoring speech at the behest of the government in the new public square.
“Zuckerberg may imagine that by making this announcement he is mooting this case, or making it no longer significant. That’s not the situation — the country needs closure that this kind of fusion of state and industry to censor unwanted information will never happen again.”
CHD’s lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and its founder and CEO, Zuckerberg, alleges that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor the plaintiffs’ speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.
The suit also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website. On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against CHD.
Lawyers with CHD urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. They wrote in their petition, filed Monday:
“This case goes to the heart of our constitutional design, raising critical questions in the Internet Age about the availability of open debate free from government censorship-by-proxy.
“The practical consequences of leaving the decision below intact are enormous: the levers of censorship on the mega-platforms will always be sore temptation for executive office-holders — and not just about vaccines or Covid.”
National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe called Meta’s announcement a “very big deal for the country and for CHD.”
Jaffe represents CHD in some of its cases, including cases involving doctors’ right to speak freely about COVID-19. He told The Defender :
“For the last five-plus years, CHD — largely through Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, and the group’s supporters — have been at the forefront of defending free speech on social media … Meta’s action today shows the effect of the changing public’s view on censorship by social media companies which Meta could no longer ignore.
“So, congrats to CHD and its legal team who helped this happen. The work isn’t over yet, so onwards.”
Meta shifts to content moderation model used on X
Rather than turning to third parties to fact-check posts, Meta will use a “Community Notes model” in which social users themselves decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, said Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan in a statement. “We’ve seen this approach work on X,” Kaplan said.
The change will take a few weeks to implement, Kaplan said.
Meta also will lift restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan said.
The Defender asked Meta if it will lift restrictions on discussions about vaccine safety and COVID-19 but did not receive a response by deadline.
Meta is also changing how it enforces its policies. “Up until now,” Kaplan said, “we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that should haven’t been.”
Zuckerberg said there’s “legitimately bad stuff out there — drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” The company will continue to take those things “very seriously” by using automated systems to scan for them.
However, for less severe violations, Meta will rely on a person reporting an issue before taking action against an account user.
Zuckerberg said he always cared about freedom of expression but that in recent years, his company responded to pressure for stricter speech restrictions. “Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said. “A lot of this is clearly political.”
He acknowledged that some of the “complex systems” Meta built to moderate content made mistakes. “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”
Will Meta’s policy changes stick?
Zuckerberg said Meta’s policy changes were also prompted by the recent U.S. elections that were a “cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing free speech.”
Jenin Younes, a civil rights attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, told The Defender she was “cautiously optimistic” about Meta’s announcement.
Meta appeared to be making the changes because of a new presidential administration, Younes said. “That means that Meta could change course in another four years under a different administration. We need major social media platforms — the modern public square — to adopt principled free speech positions that don’t change with the wind.”
If platforms don’t adopt strong free speech positions, public dialogue suffers, Younes said. “Censorship on Meta, especially during the COVID era, strangled public debate and even went so far as to prevent vaccine-injured individuals from corresponding with each other in private groups.”
Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, told The Defender Meta’s announcement does not undo the years of the damage done to CHD and many other individuals and groups.
“What is important is not only that Meta is making these changes but also that steps are taken to make sure this cannot be repeated, which makes our ongoing cases — including the recently filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — critically important.”
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.
January 7, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Facebook, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 