Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Marked for Death by a Reckless America?

By Ron Unz • Unz Review • August 4, 2025

A few weeks ago I published an article noting that the State of Israel and the Zionist movement that gave rise to it have probably employed assassination as a tool of statecraft more heavily than any other political entity in recorded history. Indeed, their deadly activities had easily eclipsed those of the notorious Muslim sect that had terrorized the Middle East a thousand years ago and gave rise to that term.

The piece had been prompted by Israel’s sudden strike against Iran, capping its reputation as the greatest band of assassins known to history. Even as the Iranian government was intensely focused on the negotiations with America over its nuclear program, a sudden Israeli surprise attack successfully assassinated most of Iran’s highest military commanders, some of its political leaders, and nearly all of its most prominent nuclear scientists. I cannot recall any previous case in which a major country had ever had so large a fraction of its top military, political, and scientific leadership eliminated in that sort of illegal sneak attack.

Less than one year earlier, a series of missile exchanges between Israel and Iran had soon been followed by the death of hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and his foreign minister in a highly-suspicious and never explained helicopter crash. Given subsequent events, I think we can safely assume that he, too, had died at the hands of the Israelis.

Earlier this year, the declassification of a large batch of JFK Assassination files had prompted me to recapitulate and summarize many of my articles of the last half-dozen years on that landmark twentieth century event. I gathered together some of the very considerable evidence that the Israeli Mossad played the central role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 as well as the death of his younger brother Robert a few years later, probably the highest-profile political assassinations of the last one hundred years or more.

The most weighty and authoritative work on the long history of Israeli assassinations is surely Ronen Bergman’s 2018 volume Rise and Kill First, running 750 pages and including a thousand-odd source references, with many of the latter citing official documents never previously made available to journalists. By some estimates, this book documented nearly 3,000 such foreign political killings, a remarkable total for a small country then less than three generations old.

Although the Bergman book was certainly very comprehensive, it was produced under strict Israeli censorship, so the text quite understandably omitted almost any coverage of some of the highest-profile Zionist attacks on Western targets. For example, there was no mention of the unsuccessful but well-documented attempts to kill President Harry Truman, nor the assassination efforts aimed at British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the top members of his Cabinet.

Some of this latter coverage may be found in Thomas Suarez’s 2016 book State of Terror which I would recommend as a very useful supplementary work, though its focus is almost entirely limited to the activities of Zionist groups just prior to the establishment of Israel.

For a broader discussion of the history of Israeli assassinations and closely-related terrorist attacks, especially those targeting Westerners, one of the most useful compilations might be my own very long January 2020 article, providing extensive references to the underlying primary and secondary sources.

That 2020 article had actually been prompted by America’s own sudden assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a shocking development that drew a great deal of media coverage at the time.

I had opened my long discussion by noting that over the last several centuries Western governments had almost totally abandoned the use of political assassinations against the leadership of major rival nations, regarding such actions as immoral and illegal.

For example, historian David Irving revealed that when one of Adolf Hitler’s aides suggested to him that an attempt be made to assassinate the Soviet military leadership during the bitter combat on the Eastern Front of World War II, the German Fuhrer immediately forbade any such practices as obvious violations of the laws of civilized warfare.

For most of American history, a similar attitude had prevailed, but I explained that this began to change over the last couple of decades, mostly in the wake of the 9/11 Attacks.

The 1914 terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was certainly organized by fanatical elements of Serbian Intelligence, but the Serbian government fiercely denied its own complicity, and no major European power was ever directly implicated in the plot. The aftermath of the killing soon led to the outbreak of World War I, and although many millions died in the trenches over the next few years, it would have been completely unthinkable for one of the major belligerents to consider assassinating the leadership of another.

A century earlier, the Napoleonic Wars had raged across the entire continent of Europe for most of a generation, but I don’t recall reading of any governmental assassination plots during that era, let alone in the quite gentlemanly wars of the preceding 18th century when Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa disputed ownership of the wealthy province of Silesia by military means. I am hardly a specialist in modern European history, but after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and regularized the rules of warfare, no assassination as high-profile as that of Gen. Soleimani comes to mind…

During our Revolutionary War, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and our other Founding Fathers fully recognized that if their effort failed, they would all be hanged as rebels by the British. However, I have never heard that they feared falling to an assassin’s blade, nor that King George III ever considered using such an underhanded means of attack. During the first century and more of our nation’s history, nearly all our presidents and other top political leaders traced their ancestry back to the British Isles, and political assassinations were exceptionally rare, with Abraham Lincoln’s death being one of the very few that comes to mind.

At the height of the Cold War, our CIA did involve itself in various secret assassination plots against Cuba’s Communist dictator Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders considered hostile to US interests. But when these facts later came out in the 1970s, they evoked such enormous outrage from the public and the media, that three consecutive American presidents—Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan—all issued successive Executive Orders absolutely prohibiting assassinations by the CIA or any other agent of the US government.

Although some cynics might claim that these public declarations represented mere window-dressing, a March 2018 book review in the New York Times strongly suggests otherwise. Kenneth M. Pollack spent years as a CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, then went on to publish a number of influential books on foreign policy and military strategy over the last two decades. He had originally joined the CIA in 1988, and opens his review by declaring:

One of the very first things I was taught when I joined the CIA was that we do not conduct assassinations. It was drilled into new recruits over and over again.

Yet Pollack notes with dismay that over the last quarter-century, these once solid prohibitions have been steadily eaten away, with the process rapidly accelerating after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. The laws on our books may not have changed, but

Today, it seems that all that is left of this policy is a euphemism.

We don’t call them assassinations anymore. Now, they are “targeted killings,” most often performed by drone strike, and they have become America’s go-to weapon in the war on terror.

The Bush Administration had conducted 47 of these assassinations-by-another-name, while his successor Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar and Nobel Peace Prize winner, had raised his own total to 542. Not without justification, Pollack wonders whether assassination has become “a very effective drug, but [one that] treats only the symptom and so offers no cure.”

Thus over the last couple of decades the American government has followed a disturbing trajectory in its use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, first restricting its application only to the most extreme circumstances, next targeting small numbers of high-profile “terrorists” hiding in rough terrain, then escalating those same killings to the many hundreds. And now under President Trump, the fateful step has been taken of America claiming the right to assassinate any world leader not to our liking whom we unilaterally declare worthy of death.

Pollack had made his career as a Clinton Democrat, and is best known for his 2002 book The Threatening Storm that strongly endorsed President Bush’s proposed invasion of Iraq and was enormously influential in producing bipartisan support for that ill-fated policy. I have no doubt that he is a committed supporter of Israel, and he probably falls into a category that I would loosely describe as “Left Neocon.”

But while reviewing a history of Israel’s own long use of assassination as a mainstay of its national security policy, he seems deeply disturbed that America might now be following along that same terrible path.

Pollock’s discussion of these facts came in his lengthy 2018 New York Times review of the Bergman book entitled “Learning From Israel’s Political Assassination Program,” and he greatly decried what many have called the “Israelization” of the American government and its military doctrine. President Donald Trump’s sudden public assassination of so high-profile a foreign leader as Gen. Soleimani came less than two years later and demonstrated that Pollock’s concerns were fully warranted and indeed even understated.

As my January 2020 article explained, nothing like this had ever previously happened in peacetime American history, and only very rarely even during wars.

The January 2nd American assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran was an event of enormous moment.

Gen. Soleimani had been the highest-ranking military figure in his nation of 80 million, and with a storied career of 30 years, one of the most universally popular and highly regarded. Most analysts ranked him second in influence only to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s elderly Supreme Leader, and there were widespread reports that he was being urged to run for the presidency in the 2021 elections.

The circumstances of his peacetime death were also quite remarkable. His vehicle was incinerated by the missile of an American Reaper drone near Iraq’s Baghdad international airport just after he had arrived there on a regular commercial flight for peace negotiations originally suggested by the American government.

Our major media hardly ignored the gravity of this sudden, unexpected killing of so high-ranking a political and military figure, and gave it enormous attention. A day or so later, the front page of my morning New York Times was almost entirely filled with coverage of the event and its implications, along with several inside pages devoted to the same topic. Later that same week, America’s national newspaper of record allocated more than one-third of all the pages of its front section to the same shocking story.

But even such copious coverage by teams of veteran journalists failed to provide the incident with its proper context and implications. Last year, the Trump Administration had declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard “a terrorist organization,” drawing widespread criticism and even ridicule from national security experts appalled at the notion of classifying a major branch of Iran’s armed forces as “terrorists.” Gen. Soleimani was a top commander in that body, and this apparently provided the legal fig-leaf for his assassination in broad daylight while on a diplomatic peace mission.

Although Pollock provided some explanations for this shocking transformation in American doctrine, he failed to note what was arguably the most obvious factor. Over the last generation or two, the American government and American political life have been almost entirely captured by what scholars John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt called “The Israel Lobby” in their best-selling 2008 book of that title, and this political and ideological transformation has only further accelerated in the last couple of years, most recently reaching ridiculous, almost cartoonishly extreme levels.

For example, nearly every other country on earth regards Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as one of the worst war criminals in modern history, now under indictment by the International Criminal Court for his ongoing genocidal massacre of Gaza’s helpless two million civilians, with an international warrant issued for his arrest. But the American political system is almost entirely under the control of pro-Israel partisans so he was invited in 2024 to give an unprecedented fourth public address to a joint session of Congress, receiving an endless series of standing ovations by the trained barking seals of our national legislative body.

Over the last couple of generations, successful American politicians have increasingly been selected for their unswerving loyalty to the State of Israel and their admiration for all things Israeli, often describing themselves as committed Zionists, followers of a foreign nationalist movement.

As a notable example of this strange pattern, a Republican Gentile such as Rep. Brian Mast had not only volunteered for service in the Israeli military, but then proudly wore his foreign uniform while serving as an elected member of Congress. Perhaps partly as a consequence of this demonstration of his overriding loyalty to a foreign nation, in January he was named chairman of our powerful House Foreign Relations Committee.

In another bizarre twist, foreign students attending American universities have never been punished for denouncing or condemning America or the behavior of the American government, but under the Trump Administration they have been rounded up and deported if they criticized the foreign government of Israel.

So if Israel and the Zionist movement have spent the last one hundred years heavily relying upon political assassinations as a primary geopolitical tool, it is hardly surprising if American political leaders have now increasingly adopted the practice of their Israeli mentors and exemplars and done the same.

This trend was further accelerated by the complete capture of the foreign policy establishment of both of our major political parties by the militantly pro-Israel Neocons. Indeed, as I have noted, the term “Neocon” has largely dropped from usage during the last decade or so because the views and beliefs of almost everyone in DC establishment circles would now fall into that category, a tendency that extends across our entire political ecosphere of elected officials, staffers, think-tanks, and media outlets.

I believe that this new American emphasis on political assassinations has extremely dangerous consequences for the world, consequences that perhaps most analysts have failed to properly appreciate. Israel’s tendency to assassinate the political leaders of those countries it views as rivals or threats has naturally focused upon its own region. But when American leaders have adopted that same mind-set, their targets have obviously been different ones.

Israel’s sudden and largely successful decapitation strike against Iran had heavily relied upon the innovative use of drones. But just a couple of weeks earlier, a somewhat different but equally bold use of drones had been used to hit all of Russia’s interior airbases housing its strategic bomber fleet, successfully destroying quite a number of those nuclear-capable aircraft, one of the important legs of the country’s nuclear deterrent triad. Just before that, there was an attempt to assassinate Russian President Vladimir Putin with a swarm of drones when he visited the Kursk area on a helicopter tour of that region.

Although the Ukrainian government took full credit for these latter two attacks against Russia, it seems extremely unlikely that they would have undertaken such action without the full support and approval of their American and NATO paymasters, and indeed the Russians claimed to have hard evidence of such involvement. As I noted in an article, the Ukrainian government explained that the planning for the project had begun roughly eighteen months earlier, and that had been exactly the time when New Jersey and parts of the East Coast had reported a mysterious wave of very heavy drone activity, which our government later admitted was testing for a highly classified military project. I think that the very close match of timing was hardly likely to have been coincidental.

The size of Russia’s nuclear arsenal surpasses our own and its large suite of unstoppable hypersonic delivery systems has given it a measure of strategic superiority over America and our NATO allies on both the nuclear and conventional escalation ladders. So the very strong likelihood that America was intimately involved in an attack on Russia’s nuclear triad and an attempt to assassinate Russia’s president seems exceptionally reckless and dangerous behavior. In a recent article, I suggested that Russia should take prompt and forceful action to deter any such future attacks, but this has not yet happened:

A couple of years earlier, I published an article focusing on indications of earlier American attempts to kill President Putin. This came after our bipartisan political and media elites had begun vilifying the Russian leader as “another Hitler,” with leading media figures and top U.S. Senators loudly calling for his assassination. I noted that the Russians seemed concerned that such assassination efforts might even employ novel, biological means:

We should also recognize the reality that during the last seventy years America has maintained the world’s largest and best-funded biological warfare program, with our government spending many tens of billions of dollars on biowarfare/biodefense across those decades. And as I’ve discussed in a long article, there is even considerable evidence that we actually used those illegal weapons during the very difficult first year of the Korean War…

Soon after their invasion, the Russians publicly claimed that the U.S. had established a series of biolabs in Ukraine, which were preparing biological warfare attacks against their country. Last year one of their top generals declared that the global Covid epidemic was probably the result of a deliberate American biowarfare attack against China and Iran, echoing the accusations previously made by those countries.

Russian security concerns over our advanced biowarfare capabilities and the extreme recklessness with which we might employ them may explain the rather strange behavior of President Putin when he met in Moscow for talks with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz shortly before the outbreak of the Ukraine war.

At the time many observers were puzzled why in each case the two national leaders were seated at opposite ends of a very long table, with Putin blandly suggesting that the placement was meant to symbolize the vast distance separating Russia and NATO’s Western leaders. Perhaps that innocuous explanation was correct. But I think it far more likely that the Russians were actually concerned that the Western leaders meeting him might be the immunized carriers of a dangerous biological agent intended to infect their president.

On the face of it, American attempts to assassinate Russia’s president would make little logical sense and these would obviously be extremely reckless and dangerous. But much the same could be said of American-orchestrated efforts to destroy Russia’s strategic nuclear bomber fleet, yet there seems very strong evidence that both these actions occurred. So we should seek to understand the logical framework, however irrational and unrealistic, under which such American decisions would be made.

I think an important insight may have been recently provided by Alistair Crooke, a former senior MI6 officer and Middle East peace negotiator, with a great deal of expertise and excellent sources in that latter region.

In an interview a couple of weeks ago, he claimed that America had been directly involved in the wave of Israeli assassinations against Iran’s leaders, taking such action despite the fact that we were currently in the midst of crucial nuclear negotiations with that country. Launching a massive assassination attack against the entire leadership of a country with whom you are currently negotiating is obviously an extremely destabilizing action, one that will hardly inspire confidence among other prospective negotiating partners and will surely long be remembered.

Video Link

But according to Crooke, the logic behind such American action was the widespread belief that the hold of the Islamic Republic upon the 90 million people of that country was quite fragile, and that the successful assassination of most of the Iranian leaders would cause the collapse of the regime, much like the government of Syria had collapsed earlier this year after attacks by armed Islamicist forces based in Idlib. The American government was greatly disappointed when that wave of assassinations failed to trigger such a political collapse and instead redoubled popular support for the ruling regime.

Crooke suggested that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had been targeted for death as well, but unlike so many other senior Iranian officials they had been fortunate enough to survive. Indeed, not long afterward, President Trump repeatedly threatened to assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei unless he completely acceded to America’s demands regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Offhand, I can’t remember the last time a world leader has publicly threatened to assassinate one of his foreign counterparts in such fashion.

If Crooke’s analysis is correct, similarly mistaken reasoning might help to explain the likely American involvement in the attempt to assassinate Putin a few weeks earlier. Most of America’s political decisionmakers may have convinced themselves that the Russian regime was discredited, unpopular, and fragile, and that the sudden elimination of Russia’s president perhaps combined with a heavy blow to Russia’s nuclear retaliatory arsenal would cause its collapse.

Such an analysis might seem extremely implausible to most observers, but much of America’s leadership seems to exist in an unrealistic propaganda-bubble in which these notions have become widespread.

Consider, for example, estimates of Russian casualties in Ukraine. The Western-funded anti-Putin media outlet Mediazona has used its considerable resources to continually sweep the Russian Internet in order to compile a running total of verified Russian losses in the Ukraine war, and as of July 2025 had confirmed a total of over 120,000 Russian soldiers killed. This is likely somewhat of an underestimate given that at least some such deaths have escaped public notice, and such totals certainly represent heavy losses in a Russian population of around 140 million.

But our Neocon-dominated American government and its intelligence services have instead accepted without question totally outrageous figures apparently based upon the dishonest claims of Ukrainian propagandists. Back in February, Trump told reporters that Russia had already suffered 1.5 million casualties, an astonishing figure, and just a few days ago, he claimed that almost 20,000 additional Russians had been killed in the month of July alone.

As former CIA officer Larry Johnson noted, journalist Seymour Hersh reported that an intelligence official described for him a destroyed Russian military that had already suffered two million casualties:

“The total now is two million. Most importantly,” the official stressed, “was how this number was described. All the best trained regular Army troops, to be replaced by ignorant peasants. All the best mid-grade officers and NCOs dead. All modern armor and fighting vehicles. Junk. This is unsustainable.”

Two million Russian casualties would probably amount to more than 5% of that country’s entire population of military-age males, and such enormous losses could not possibly be kept concealed. Those figures are obviously delusional.

But if America’s political leaders and many of their military advisors accept such fantasies, they could easily convince themselves that a defeated Russia is now ripe for regime-change triggered by Putin’s assassination. They would obviously hope that the replacement might be a new government closely aligned with the West and subservient to its demands, much as had been the case during the 1990s.

Other Neocon analysts have proposed Russia’s dismemberment into several different much smaller states, none of which would be able to resist American pressure and domination, with various such proposed maps floating around.

Thus, America’s likely involvement in assassination efforts against the top leadership of both Iran and Russia was based upon our unrealistic assumptions regarding the weakness of the two regimes, and the belief that elimination of their top leaders would lead to a collapse. Moreover, in each case these attacks rather treacherously occurred in the midst of ongoing negotiations, over Iran’s nuclear program in one case and over Russian willingness to end the Ukraine war in the other. We should also remember that Trump’s earlier assassination of Gen. Soleimani occurred when that latter leader had been treacherously lured to Iraq for peace negotiations.

Unfortunately, countries that are totally delusional on some national security matters are much more likely to be equally delusional on others as well. I have recently discovered that important elements of the American foreign policy establishment have convinced themselves that the government of China is also fragile and weak, and possibly ripe for collapse if it were hit by one or more sharp shocks. A blogpost brought these strange and surprising notions to my attention a couple of weeks ago.

The blogger highlighted a major article in the New Yorker focusing on aspects of a likely future war between America and China, and suggesting that in some respects it might be analogous to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza. Indeed, the subtitle even described Israel’s invasion of Gaza as “a dress rehearsal” for a future American war with China.

China has an enormous military, equipped with some of the world’s most highly-advanced weapons, and these include a full suite of the unstoppable hypersonic missiles that America has so far failed to successfully produce. So the belief that Israel’s ongoing slaughter of Gaza’s helpless, unarmed civilians holds any serious lessons for the course of a future American war with China seems rather strange reasoning indeed.

  • What’s Legally Allowed in War
    How U.S. military lawyers see Israel’s invasion of Gaza—and the public’s reaction to it—as a dress rehearsal for a potential conflict with a foreign power like China.
    Colin Jones • The New Yorker • April 25, 2025 • 3,300 Words

The rather peculiar tone of that article may have been influenced by a very lengthy report published several months earlier by the Rand Corporation, whose title appeared to raise strong doubts about the military effectiveness of China’s armed forces.

However, after carefully reading that Rand study, I concluded that the title was somewhat misleading. The researcher correctly noted that China gave no indications of preparing to wage war against Taiwan, America, or any other country, and much unlike the U.S. had avoided involvement any military conflicts for the last half-century. But lack of interest in starting wars is quite different than lack of military effectiveness if attacked or sufficiently provoked, and conflating the two probably reflected the ideological climate found at most American think-tanks based upon the influence of their funders.

Finally, the lengthiest and most astonishing think-tank report of all was published just a couple of weeks ago by the Hudson Institute, one of our most unswervingly Neocon research organizations. This book-length study argued that China’s Communist government might be ripe for collapse and casually suggested that American military forces should be prepared for deployment inside China in order to seize crucial military and technological facilities and then reconstruct the government of that enormous country after the downfall of its current regime.

  • China After Communism
    Preparing for a Post-CCP China
    Miles Yu et al. • The Hudson Institute • July 16, 2025 • 65,000 Words

The blogger quoted a couple of the paragraphs from the executive summary of this remarkable document:

While the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has weathered crises before, a sudden regime collapse in China is not entirely unthinkable. Policymakers need to consider what might happen and what steps they would have to take if the world’s longest-ruling Communist dictatorship and second-largest economy collapses due to its domestic and international troubles.

With chapters written by experts in military affairs, intelligence, economics, human rights, transitional justice, and constitutional governance, this report examines the initial steps that should be taken in the immediate aftermath of the CCP regime’s collapse and the long-term trajectory China might take after a stabilization period. Drawing on historical analysis, strategic foresight, and domain-specific expertise, this anthology describes these challenges as an exercise in possibilities. The different chapters explore how a single-party system collapses in key sectors of the country and how political institutions transform, as well as China’s unique political, economic, and social situation. Taken together, they assess the daunting tasks of stabilizing a long-repressed country after it has collapsed, in addition to the forces shaping China’s future. In so doing, the authors hope to offer policy recommendations for managing the risks and opportunities of a transition.

Having carefully read the entire report, I found it just as astonishing as was suggested by those paragraphs.

Over the last half-century, China has certainly been the world’s most successful major country, experiencing perhaps the highest sustained rate of economic growth in all of human history and now possessing a real economy far larger than that of the U.S.

Indeed, if we exclude the service sector, whose statistics are easily subject to manipulation, China’s real productive economy is now actually larger than the combined total for America, the EU, and Japan, while certainly growing much more rapidly. Meanwhile, America has experienced decades of stagnation, with heavy financialization replacing our once enormous real industrial strength. Moreover, in many technological sectors, China has now become the world leader, and it is near the very top in most of the others.

Earlier this year I published a lengthy comparative analysis of China and America, whose conclusions were hardly favorable to the latter:

  • American Pravda: China vs. America
    A Comprehensive Review of the Economic, Technological, and Military Factors
    Ron Unz • The Unz Review • January 13, 2025 • 14,100 Words

The following month I summarized much of this same material in a lengthy interview with Mike Whitney:

One of the main authors of that Hudson Institute report was lawyer and conservative columnist Gordon G. Chang, probably best known as the author of the 2001 book The Coming Collapse of China, and a quarter-century of absolutely contrary real-life trends seems to have hardly changed any of his views.

The Hudson Institute is a leading DC think-tank, quite influential in mainstream political circles, and a report with five co-authors that runs 128 pages must surely carry considerable weight in establishment circles. So when it suggests that the Chinese government is fragile and might soon collapse, those policy makers hostile to China are likely to take such views quite seriously.

Suppose that a leading Chinese think-tank with close ties to the PRC government published a weighty report predicting that America might soon collapse, then went on to argue that Chinese military forces would need to be deployed in our own country to seize our key military and technological assets and also establish a new government organized along Chinese lines. I doubt that most American political leaders or ordinary citizens would view such Chinese proposals with total equanimity, and indeed the blogger quoted a shocked Western pro-China business executive who succinctly summarized some of the striking elements in that Hudson Institute research study:

… which provides detailed operational plans for inducing Chinese regime collapse through systematic information operations, financial warfare, and covert influence campaigns, followed by detailed protocols for U.S. post-collapse management including military occupation, territorial reorganization, and the installation of a political and cultural system vassalized to the U.S.

Rand and Hudson are two of our leading mainstream think-tanks and the New Yorker is one of our most prestigious media outlets. Taken together those major articles and reports could easily convince the ignorant and suggestible ideologues in our government that the Chinese military was weak and the Chinese government fragile and ripe for collapse.

If delusional beliefs regarding the fragility of the Iranian and Russian governments had already led to American assassination attempts against their top leadership, similar reasoning might easily result in targeting those of China as well, especially President Xi Jinping, widely regarded as the strongest Chinese leader in decades. And given all of the recent American assassination projects, the Chinese government might certainly have itself reached such conclusions.

China and Russia are the two leading members of the BRICS movement, which held its 17th summit last month in Brazil. The media noted that neither Russian President Putin nor Chinese President Xi attended in person, with the latter missing his first BRICS summit since he came to power 13 years ago.

Xi’s surprising absence caused some discussion in the media. I initially paid little attention to this issue, but then some commenter suggested an obvious explanation: Both Xi and Putin were concerned about the possible risk of American assassination.

Brazil is located within the Western Hemisphere, a region under full American military domination. Given the extremely reckless and unpredictable behavior of the American government, with President Trump having publicly threatened to assassinate Iran’s top leader just a couple of weeks earlier, both China and Russia may have believed that some risks should best be avoided.

Suppose an errant missile struck down an incoming presidential plane, with no conclusive means of proving the source, or an aircraft were destroyed by some more sophisticated methods. Over the years, Xi and Putin had both met on numerous occasions with Iranian President Raisi, with whom they had developed an excellent working relationship, and surely his 2024 death in a mysterious helicopter crash while returning from a foreign trip would have concentrated their minds.

Any such “conspiratorial” explanation has naturally been entirely avoided by the media. For example, a lengthy article late last month in the Wall Street Journal described how Xi had drastically reduced his foreign travel over the last year or so, noting that a China-EU summit originally set for Brussels was moved to Beijing after the Chinese explained that Xi had no plans to visit Europe. Since the end of 2024, Xi’s only foreign travels have been to Russia and to several countries in South-East Asia. Unlike Europe or Latin America, none of these countries nor the travel routes to reach them would be likely venues for serious American attempts at assassination.

When major countries develop a well-deserved reputation for assassinating the leaders of other major countries, often even doing so in the midst of international negotiations, such behavior may obviously have serious consequences. Back in 2017, President Xi was quite willing to visit Mar-a-Lago for face-to-face negotiations with President Trump, but I very much doubt the Chinese leader will be taking any trips to our own country in the foreseeable future.

Related Reading:

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump conditions $1.9B in disaster funds on rejection of Israel boycotts

MEMO | August 4, 2025

The Trump administration has threatened to withhold roughly $1.9 billion in disaster preparedness funding to states and cities that support boycotts of Israel or Israeli firms.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) said in grant notices published Friday that applicants must comply with its internal terms and conditions, which include clauses mandating that entities seeking funding not support efforts to blacklist Israel.

Applicants must not support severing “commercial relations, or otherwise limiting commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies or with companies doing business in or with Israel or authorized by, licensed by, or organized under the laws of Israel to do business,” according to the 2025 fiscal year terms and conditions, posted in April.

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Super PAC Targeting Massie Funded By Three Israel-Backing Billionaires

By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | August 3, 2025

Though it sports a Kentucky- and MAGA-branded name, the new Super PAC launched solely to support a primary challenge against popular Republican Congressman Thomas Massie is funded entirely by three Israel-backing billionaires from Nevada, New York and Florida, according to disclosure filings posted on Thursday.

The super PAC was launched in June, just days after President Trump threw a social media tantrum over Massie’s condemnation of Trump’s commitment of US forces to Israel’s war on Iran. Massie has long been a thorn in Trump’s side on domestic issues too, from opposing the $2 trillion, Trump-backed Covid-19 “relief package” in 2020 to voting against this year’s Big Beautiful Bill. However, Massie’s opposition to US involvement in Israel’s war seemed to have been the last straw. Trump assigned his top political operatives Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita to start and run the super PAC. LaCivita told Axios the entity will spend “whatever it takes” to oust Massie.

The PAC’s only three donors have two things in common: they’re billionaires, and they’re ardent supporters of Israel. According to the PAC’s first funding disclosure filed with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday, it has received:

  • $1 million from New Yorker hedge fund manager Paul Singer, who has also funded a Israel-favoring US think tank and other pro-Israel organizations, and urged Trump to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal
  • $250,000 from Floridian hedge fund manager John Paulson
  • $750,000 from the Preserve America Super PAC, which has also been led by La Civita and primarily funded by Nevadan Miriam Adelson and earlier, her late husband Sheldon Adelson

The PAC is called “MAGA Kentucky,” a name that’s misleading on two levels. Not only are its funders not Kentuckians, their principal motive for destroying Massie is his opposition to US bankrolling of Israel and participation in its wars. That is anything but a MAGA motive. As Trump recently told a prominent Jewish donor, “My people are starting to hate Israel.”

MAGA Kentucky has already started running misleading attack ads that cherry-pick items from the sprawling Big Beautiful Bill and accuse Massie of voting “against” them, and also accuse him of “siding” with Iran’s ayatollah.

In addition to opposing aid to Israel, Massie has also voted against legislation designed to stop Americans from criticizing Israel. The Antisemitism Awareness Act would use an expansive definition of antisemitism to expose universities to federal enforcement action if students voiced opposition to Zionism — a political philosophy — or compared the actions of Israel’s government to those of Nazi Germany.

In April, Massie introduced the Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act, which would require candidates for federal office to disclose any non-American citizenships they hold. Advocates of Israel swiftly accused him of antisemitism, but Massie said his measure doesn’t target any specific country. “We swear an oath to the Constitution, and the question is, if you’re a citizen of two countries, which oath are you taking more seriously, or can you take them both seriously?” Massie asked Fox’s Will Cain.

First elected to Congress in 2012 and consistently advocating for fiscal discipline, the right of armed self-defense, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, Massie has built a large and loyal national following among the libertarian right and other conservatives, with many regarding him as the congressional successor to the iconic Ron Paul. In his latest aggravation of Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, Massie is leading the drive to compel the release of Epstein investigative files. He has introduced a discharge petition that’s predicted to secure enough signatures to force a vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA H.Res. 581), which he introduced with Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna.

With Georgia GOP Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene recently introducing an amendment to remove military aid to Israel from the defense bill, and accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, don’t be surprised to see a “MAGA Georgia” PAC created to oust her, too — funded by a similar cast of Israel-first characters. In the meantime, the drive to take out Massie is having unintended consequences:

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Hamas rules out giving up arms unless ‘independent, sovereign’ Palestinian state established

MEMO | August 2, 2025

The Palestinian resistance group Hamas said Saturday it will not give up its arms unless an “independent, fully sovereign” Palestinian state is established, Anadolu reports.

The statement came following reports by the Israeli daily Haaretz citing a recording attributed to US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff: “Hamas has said that they are prepared to be demilitarized.”

“We are very, very close to a solution to end this war,” Witkoff is also heard saying, according to Haaretz.

“Commenting on reports by some media outlets quoting US envoy Steve Witkoff as saying the movement expressed willingness to disarm, we reiterate that resistance and its weapons are a national and legitimate right as long as the occupation continues — a right recognized by international laws and conventions,” Hamas said in a statement on Telegram.

The group added that such rights “cannot be relinquished except with the full attainment of our national rights, foremost being the establishment of an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.”

Witkoff met families of Israeli hostages in Tel Aviv on Saturday, as hundreds rallied to demand a ceasefire deal that would secure their release from the Gaza Strip, Israel’s Haaretz newspaper reported.

Witkoff’s visit, his third to Hostage Square since the war began, came shortly after Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad released footage showing two emaciated Israeli captives, Evyatar David and Rom Braslavski, prompting renewed outrage.

On Friday, Witkoff visited an aid center in southern Gaza operated by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

Diplomatic merchandise: Exploiting the issue of Palestinian recognition

He said the aim was to give US President Donald Trump “a clear understanding of the humanitarian situation and help craft a plan to deliver food and medical aid to the people of Gaza.”

The visit comes amid mounting criticism of US-Israeli coordination in Gaza, particularly regarding the group’s distribution model, which Palestinians say serves as a tool for displacement under the guise of humanitarian relief as well as a “death trap” for many Palestinian aid seekers, with over 1,300 killed since May while waiting for relief supplies.

Hamas on Thursday denounced the visit as a “propaganda stunt” aimed at deflecting global outrage over what rights groups and UN officials have described as Israel’s systematic starvation campaign.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, at least 169 Palestinians, including 93 children, have died of hunger-related causes, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

Rejecting international calls for a ceasefire, the Israeli army has pursued a brutal offensive on Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023, killing more than 60,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children.

Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.​​​​​​​

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on the enclave.

August 2, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Zionism without borders: Annexation and normalization as tools of Arab subjugation

By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | August 1, 2025

Four weeks after Israel signed the US-brokered Abraham Accords with the UAE and Bahrain on 15 September 2020, Tel Aviv’s Higher Planning Council approved 4,948 new settler units in the occupied West Bank. No public fanfare.

No tanks rolled in – just signatures authorizing another layer of occupation. The first wave of expansion advanced quietly, legitimized by the language of “peace.”

This sequencing deliberately reflects the core logic of Zionist expansion: Normalize when the region submits, colonize when the world blinks.

Where possible, the occupation state’s army conquers land directly. Where resistance or scrutiny makes that unfeasible, the occupation government builds a web of security pacts, trade routes, and intelligence partnerships that extend its reach without a single uniformed soldier. This dual formula, territorial conquest and hegemonic integration, has underpinned Israeli strategy since 1967, and today stretches unimpeded from the Jordan Valley to the Atlantic coast.

Two paths, one destination

“Greater Israel” represents the settler-colonial ambition to annex, settle, and absorb land across historic Palestine and beyond. It is rooted in the Zionist vision of Jewish dominion over the so-called “biblical Land of Israel.” In contrast, “Great Israel” describes the imperial design to dominate the surrounding region through proxies, economic leverage, and security alignments.

Where occupation is costly, Tel Aviv turns to influence. Through deals, destabilization, or coercion, it reshapes the sovereignty of its neighbors. Greater Israel devours land. Great Israel neutralizes independence. Together, they are one project.

Zionist literature makes this plain. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism, demanded sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine and Transjordan – “Greater Israel on both sides of the Jordan River” – and rejected compromise with Arabs. In The Iron Wall (1923), he declared that only an unyielding Jewish force could compel Arab acquiescence:

“Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population.”

The occupation state’s first prime minister and Labor Zionist leader, David Ben-Gurion, publicly accepted a partition plan in 1937, but privately described it as “not the end but the beginning.” In a letter to his son, he wrote that a Jewish state on part of the land would strengthen the Zionist project and serve as a platform to “redeem the entire country.” In a June 1938 meeting of the Jewish Agency executive, he said:

“After the formation of a large army … we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”

Early Zionist leaders did not view borders as final, but as phases. During its first two decades, Israel lacked the military strength or western backing to expand beyond its 1949 borders. Direct confrontation with Arab states risked catastrophe. Instead, Tel Aviv pioneered a subtler doctrine of peripheral infiltration.

Through the “periphery doctrine,” it cultivated covert ties with non-Arab states and oppressed minorities – Shah-era Iran, Turkiye, Kurdish groups in Iraq, and Christian separatists in Sudan. This strategy sowed chaos among Israel’s Arab rivals while embedding Israeli influence in strategic corners of West Asia and Africa. Most recently, the occupation state has made overtures to Druze communities in southern Syria, seeking to replicate this strategy amid renewed instability.

The corridor to colonization

Israel’s integration into the Arab world is now deeper than ever before. Through normalization, Tel Aviv has converted former enemies into partners economically, diplomatically, and militarily. While Egypt and Jordan first formalized ties through Camp David and Wadi Araba, it was the Abraham Accords that opened the floodgates. What followed was a deluge of tech deals, weapons transfers, and commercial partnerships linking the occupation state to the Persian Gulf.

By 2023, Israel’s trade with the UAE had reached $3 billion annually. That figure rose by 11 percent the following year, even as Israel waged genocide in Gaza. Israeli Consul General Liron Zaslansky described trade relations between Abu Dhabi and Israel as “growing, so that we ended 2024 at $3.24 billion, excluding software and services.”

In 2022, Morocco purchased $500 million worth of Israeli Barak MX air defense systems. Rabat also partnered with BlueBird, an Israeli drone firm, to become the first UAV manufacturer in West Asia and North Africa.

This has created a “corridor of influence” that grants Tel Aviv access to new markets, air and sea routes, and intelligence spaces stretching from Casablanca to Khor Fakkan.

On the ground, the war continues

While trade flourishes, colonization accelerates. In 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ultranationalist government approved 12,855 settler homes – a record for any six-month period. More than 700,000 settlers now occupy the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That figure has grown sevenfold since the early 1990s.

In May 2025, Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed cabinet approval for the construction of 22 new West Bank settlements, including multiple previously unauthorized outposts. Katz framed the move as necessary to “strengthen our hold on Judea and Samaria” and to “prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

These settlements are not arbitrary. They are connected by Jewish-only bypass roads, fortified by the occupation army, and strategically designed to fragment the occupied West Bank into isolated Palestinian enclaves. This is de facto annexation, defined by a matrix of irreversible facts that eliminates the territorial basis for any future Palestinian state, while avoiding the international fallout of formal annexation.

The “logic” of expansion has also spilled beyond Palestine. In Syria, Tel Aviv now occupies 250 square kilometers across Quneitra, Rural Damascus, and Deraa – territory seized during the collapse of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government by Al-Qaeda rooted terrorists – Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – who now occupy the seat of power in Damascus. HTS was under the leadership of former ISIS chief Abu Mohammad al-Julani. Upon ousting Assad, Julani began using his government name, Ahmad al-Sharaa, and became the de facto president of Syria.

In Lebanon, Israeli forces maintain a presence over 30–40 square kilometers, including Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shuba Hills, and the northern half of Ghajar. Additional outposts and buffer zones stretch along the so-called Blue Line.

Occupation rebranded

Israel’s expansion today is no longer confined to bulldozers and soldiers; it is mediated through trade, tech, and treaties. But make no mistake: normalization has not replaced occupation. It has enabled and accelerated it.

Every Emirati deal, every Moroccan drone line, every Bahraini handshake fuels Tel Aviv’s capacity to deepen its military presence and Judaize more land. Plans are underway to double the number of settlers in the Golan Heights and to deploy armored units along the demilitarized zone.

The ripple effects are already destabilizing the region. Egypt has begun constructing a concrete wall on its border with Gaza to prepare for mass displacement or military spillover. Jordan faces existential peril in the Jordan Valley, where settler expansion is displacing Bedouin communities and draining natural aquifers. Syria and Lebanon remain hemmed in by fortified Israeli positions, with both countries facing increasing pressure from Washington to normalize relations.

Greater Israel devours Arab land. Great Israel colonizes Arab decision-making. One swallows borders. The other swallows sovereignty.

August 2, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Prof. Rashid Khalidi quits Columbia over pro-‘Israel’ crackdown deal

Al Mayadeen | August 1, 2025

Esteemed Palestinian-American historian Rashid Khalidi has pulled out of teaching at Columbia University this fall, denouncing the institution’s decision to submit to the Trump administration’s campaign to silence pro-Palestinian voices on campus.

In a powerful open letter published in The Guardian, Khalidi, Edward Said Professor Emeritus of Modern Arab Studies, condemned Columbia’s recent $200 million settlement with the federal government, a deal he says strips the university of its integrity and hands over academic independence to a political agenda aimed at shielding “Israel” from criticism.

“Although I have retired, I was scheduled to teach a large lecture course on this topic in the fall as a ‘special lecturer’ but I cannot do so under the conditions Columbia has accepted by capitulating to the Trump administration in June,” he wrote.

Capitulation Pact

The agreement, reached under the threat of lost federal funding, comes after months of student-led protests demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza and university divestment from institutions complicit in Israeli apartheid. Rather than defending free speech and academic inquiry, Columbia chose to comply with demands that reflect a broader campaign to criminalize solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

Under the deal, Columbia is required to expand its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, submit its Middle East curriculum to external review, and dismantle programs deemed “unlawful” by the federal government. An independent monitor appointed by Washington will oversee implementation. On top of the $200 million settlement, the university will pay $21 million to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, following claims of alleged discrimination against Jewish employees.

Critics, including faculty, students, and human rights advocates, have described the agreement as a dangerous precedent: one that empowers the state to dictate how Palestine can be taught, discussed, or even mentioned on campus.

Silencing Dissent

In his letter, Khalidi warned of the chilling effect such measures will have on truth-telling about “Israel’s” colonial violence. “Columbia chose to adopt a definition of antisemitism that ‘conflates Jewishness with Israel, so that any criticism of Israel, or indeed description of Israeli policies, becomes a criticism of Jews’,” he wrote.

He stressed that the settlement effectively outlaws honest scholarship about “Israel’s” founding and its current atrocities in Gaza. “The fearsome apparatus that Columbia has erected [will] punish speech critical of Israel, and … crack down on alleged discrimination, which at this moment in history almost invariably amounts simply to opposition to this genocide.”

Khalidi also denounced the intrusion of government oversight into academic spaces. “Agreeing to submit the syllabi and scholarship of prominent academics for review by outside actors is ‘abhorrent’,” he said.

His letter ends with a stark assessment of what Columbia has become: “Columbia’s capitulation has turned a university that was once a site of free inquiry and learning into a shadow of its former self, an anti-university, a place of fear and loathing, where faculty and students are told from on high what they can say and teach, under penalty of severe sanctions.”

For many, Khalidi’s stand reflects a growing crisis: as “Israel” intensifies its war on Gaza, academic institutions in the West are increasingly complicit in the silencing of Palestinian narratives and the repression of those who dare to speak against genocide.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israeli soldier reveals ‘strange order’ to cancel Gaza border patrols on 7 Oct

The Cradle | July 31, 2025

An Israeli soldier stated that he and his fellow soldiers stationed at a military outpost near Gaza received orders not to carry out their usual early morning patrol on the border fence on 7 October 2023, Israeli media reported on 17 July.

During the time the border patrol would have normally been carried out, members of Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, crossed the fence to attack Israeli army bases and settlements (kibbutzim).

Shalom Sheetrit, a soldier in the Golani Brigade, revealed the directive while giving testimony at a meeting of the lobby for reserve personnel in the Israeli Knesset.

He stated that on the night before the 7 October attack, he and two other soldiers, Yotam Sror and Itamar Ben Yehuda, sat by the battalion radio at the Pega military outpost near Kibbutz Be’eri.

“We were playing on the phone [at 5:20 am] and suddenly a strange message comes from my battalion commander,” the soldier explained, “and what he says on the call is something like this: ‘I don’t know why, but an order was issued that there are no patrols at the fence until nine in the morning.’”

Sheetrit said soldiers from the outpost carried out patrols on the border fence every morning “because you are in an operational battalion and that is part of the matter.”

Hamas fighters attacked the Pega outpost and killed 14 Israeli soldiers there during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.

When asked if this was why many soldiers at the outpost were still sleeping when the Hamas attack began, Sheetrit stated, “I don’t know how to answer it that way. In our mortar department, there was an alert at dawn, and we woke up. It’s possible that in the patrol departments, they were told not to wake up. I don’t know. I don’t want to just say that.”

Sheetrit stated that the military units based in the Pega outpost were responsible for protecting Kibbutz Be’eri, which was also attacked by Hamas.

“Unfortunately, we were not up to the task. There were dozens against hundreds of terrorists, 25 against 150, and so we couldn’t arrive, unfortunately. I’m far from being a military man who can give answers to questions, the situation hurts me just as it hurts everyone,” the soldier explained.

A major battle took place at Be’eri in which over 100 Israelis were killed.

After the attack began, the Israeli air force deployed Apache Helicopters, tanks, and drones to bomb the kibbutz and the Gaza border nearby to prevent Hamas from taking captives with them back to Gaza.

As a result, Israeli forces burned to death hundreds of Israeli civilians and Hamas fighters in airstrikes in Be’eri and other kibbutzim near the border, as well as at the Nova Music Festival, per a secretive policy known as the Hannibal Directive. The deaths were all quickly blamed on Hamas.

“I tried to ask military personnel why and what happened there. The blood of my friends and the blood of many people in the country was spilled in a huge tragedy, and I tried to understand why it happened and how,” Sheetrit added.

The strange order to cancel routine patrols along the Gaza border adds to evidence that Israeli political and military leaders knew in advance about Hamas’s plan to attack on 7 October – and allowed it to happen to justify the conquest and ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the building of Jewish settlements on top of the ruins of the strip’s soon-to-be-destroyed cities.

Israeli military and intelligence officials ignored many signals on the night before the attack, and in the previous weeks and months, indicating that Hamas was planning a large attack to take captives to exchange for Palestinian prisoners.

Female Israeli soldiers tasked to observe activity on the Gaza border issued multiple warnings to their superiors that an attack was imminent, but they were ignored.

“In hindsight, we could have done a lot of things, we could have listened to the observers, we could have brought up the air force, and these things didn’t happen,” Sheetrit concluded.

“That’s the failure. It’s not a failure of the fighters on the ground, but of the higher levels in the army, of people who went down to Eilat even though we informed them a week in advance that there was intelligence information.”

August 1, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Leave a comment

‘America First’ clashes with ‘Israel First’ as Trump threatens Canada over Palestine recognition

MEMO | August 1, 2025

Donald Trump has provoked outrage among parts of his own political base after threatening to block a trade deal with Canada in retaliation for Ottawa’s decision to formally recognise the State of Palestine. The US president posted on Truth Social: “Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!”

Trump’s statement was widely interpreted as prioritising Israeli interests over domestic economic concerns, prompting fierce backlash from some right-wing influencers. Prominent conservative commentator Matt Walsh posted on X: “This is ridiculous. If a trade deal with Canada is beneficial to the American people then it should go forward regardless of Canada’s stance on Palestine. The benefit of the American people should be the guiding principle here.”

Walsh’s post drew thousands of responses, many supportive, but others accused him of failing to grasp America’s “special alliance” with Israel. However, critics have pointed out that it is Canada, not Israel, that is bound to the US through comprehensive economic and military treaties.

Along with the UK and France, Canada is one of Washington’s oldest and closest allies. By contrast, US-Israel ties, while historically deep, are often framed as ideologically and politically driven, bolstered by domestic lobbying pressure rather than national interest.

Observers say the incident highlights a deepening divide in US politics: on one side, a growing segment of voters who either support Palestinian rights or advocate for an “America First” foreign policy that avoids foreign entanglements; on the other, a political elite that consistently prioritises Israeli interests, often regardless of public opinion or national cost.

Despite mounting evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza and a global shift toward recognising Palestinian statehood, including by key Western allies, US lawmakers remain overwhelmingly aligned with Israel.

This split is becoming more pronounced as influential voices on the right, once assumed to be pro-Israel by default, now openly question the costs of that allegiance.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

With Gaza as its compass, Yemen rewrites the rules of naval warfare

By Stasa Salacanin | The Cradle | August 1, 2025

After the Ansarallah-aligned Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) announced that it would resume attacks on merchant ships linked to companies operating with Israeli ports, tensions in the Red Sea and beyond have reignited, as Tel Aviv’s ongoing genocide in Gaza fuels instability across West Asia.

As part of the fourth phase of the blockade, the Yemeni army sank two commercial vessels earlier this month, showcasing not only its enduring capabilities but also the failure of US-led strikes to curb its maritime campaign.

On 6 May, US President Donald Trump claimed, “The Houthis have declared they no longer want to fight. They simply don’t want to fight anymore. And we will honor that. We will stop the bombings, and they have surrendered.”

Yemeni officials immediately dismissed the claim, reiterating that Sanaa had not negotiated with Washington nor agreed to halt operations in support of Gaza. The Sanaa government’s naval campaign resumed soon after, with fresh attacks targeting Israeli-linked vessels – undermining Trump’s attempt to declare victory.

New red lines in the Red Sea

In a statement on Sunday, explaining the latest phase of the naval operations, YAF spokesman Brigadier General Yahya Saree said:

“This escalation includes targeting all ships belonging to any company that deals with Israeli ports, regardless of their nationality and wherever they may be, within our forces’ reach. We warn all companies to cease their dealings with Israeli ports, starting the hour this statement is issued.”

The new escalation comes just several weeks after the sinking of two Liberian-flagged, Greek-owned bulk carriers – the Magic Seas and the Eternity C. In the latter attack, four sailors were killed and two others wounded, while 11 other crew members were taken captive.
Following the sinking of the two ships, Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi revealed that the YAF had carried out over 1,679 attacks since November 2023 using missiles, drones, and warships in support of Gaza, warning of further escalation if the war does not end.

Although the Sanaa government agreed in May to a ceasefire with Washington, halting attacks on US warships, it maintains that this truce does not apply to vessels linked to the occupation state. These ships, Sanaa argues, continue to serve Israeli ports, part of “occupied Palestine.”

Contrary to western media narratives of indiscriminate aggression, maritime data from Lloyd’s List confirmed that both targeted vessels had routinely docked in Israeli ports over the past year.

The ongoing attacks have prompted international concern. The UN Security Council recently approved continued reporting on Red Sea maritime assaults. Twelve members of the 15-member council voted in favor, while Russia, China, and Algeria abstained over concerns about breaches of Yemen’s sovereignty.

China’s deputy UN Ambassador Geng Shuang called tensions in the Red Sea “a major manifestation of the spillover from the Gaza conflict.” At the same time, the Russian UN representative also stressed the link between normalizing the situation in the Red Sea and the need for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Challenging naval supremacy

Despite the presence of five major foreign military bases in Djibouti – home to US, French, Japanese, Chinese, and Italian forces –  the Ansarallah-aligned army has continued to strike commercial vessels with precision. This raises uncomfortable questions about western and allied naval efficacy.

Speaking to The Cradle, Senior Research Fellow at The Soufan Center, Colin P. Clarke – who also teaches at Carnegie Mellon’s Institute for Politics and Strategy – says Yemen ranks among the most potent forces within the Axis of Resistance and shows no sign of retreat:

“Out of all the ‘Axis’ proxies, the Houthis are among the most potent and also have a lot to prove. I don’t expect them to wind down their military campaign at any point soon.”

Nicholas Brumfield, a Washington-based analyst on Yemen and maritime security, concurs. He tells The Cradle that Yemen’s campaign has remained largely undiminished despite nearly two years of US and Israeli airstrikes:

“The Houthi attacks since early July have thus far been limited to areas of the Red Sea where they have attacked before, so it’s unclear if there’s been any increase in their range. As for Trump’s claims of capitulation, that was always viewed by most researchers focused on Yemen as a bit of hot air. The US–Houthi ceasefire was a limited de-escalation between two parties, and the Houthis have more or less been continuing what they were doing before the truce in terms of attacking Israel directly.”

Clarke adds that Trump’s reluctance to escalate against Yemen stemmed from electoral optics and strategic caution against bogging the US down in “endless wars,” which is one of the reasons why the US involvement in bombing Iran was so circumscribed. “Trump believes, perhaps correctly so, that it would be extremely difficult to engage with the Houthis without being sucked into a quagmire from which it would be difficult to escape from. And the results would be hard to measure.”

According to Mohamed Aliriani of the Yemen Policy Center, the May ceasefire secured safe passage for US, UK, Chinese, and Russian vessels – thanks to the latter two’s ties with Iran. But ships from other nations remain exposed. European-led operations, he argues, are largely ineffectual in safeguarding their cargoes.

Aliriani tells The Cradle that “the current situation has created a two-tiered, protectionist system that benefits powerful states while driving up global insurance and shipping costs, setting a dangerous precedent for other strategic chokepoints.”

Persistently high insurance premiums reflect the enduring risk. “Had the threat been perceived as eliminated, traffic would have resumed, and rates would have dropped,” he explains. The Yemeni army’s targeting of oil and chemical carriers has introduced environmental and financial perils that keep insurers wary.

Redefining control at sea

These facts point to a stark reality: The Ansarallah-led naval campaign has largely succeeded in imposing an effective blockade on Israeli-linked maritime traffic.

Still, Aliriani cautions against overstating the extent of Sanaa’s control. “The Houthis do not exercise Sea Control over the Red Sea, as they lack a surface fleet capable of patrolling and commanding the waterways. What they have successfully achieved is Area Denial.” By demonstrating a credible capability to hold any vessel transiting the Bab al-Mandab Strait at risk, they have made passage through this critical chokepoint prohibitively dangerous for any vessel:

“Their strike range has proven to extend for hundreds of kilometers and given the information available about the weapons used, range likely exceeds 1,000 kilometers, effectively denying the use of a vast area without needing to control it physically.”

Independent force, not Iranian proxy

Western narratives often depict Ansarallah as mere Iranian proxies. Yet, there is scant evidence that Tehran directed these maritime attacks.

Brumfield points out that while Iran continues to supply advanced weaponry to its ally – as evidenced by a 750-ton arms shipment intercepted en route to Yemen – there is no indication of Iranian command over Ansarallah operations.

Former UN envoy to Yemen Jamal Benomar has consistently emphasized Sanaa’s autonomous decision-making, noting that they “have their own agendas and decision-making mechanisms.”

Palestine remains the compass

The timing of recent Yemeni operations suggests a clear link to developments in Gaza. Brumfield observes that Sanaa was notably quiet during last month’s 12-day war between Iran and Israel, only to escalate following reports of worsening conditions in the besieged enclave:

“When there was a ceasefire in Gaza, the Houthis completely stopped their maritime attacks. Recent reports of deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza may have contributed to the group’s decision to re-escalate in this file.”

While some analysts suggest that Ansarallah’s pro-Palestinian rhetoric is a political maneuver to boost legitimacy amid domestic challenges, Benomar insists their stance on Palestine is ideologically embedded. “They’re not just being opportunistic as Palestine is a core part of their ideology.”

Although Tel Aviv has urged Washington to relaunch strikes on Yemen, most experts, including Aliriani, believe the US is unlikely to escalate unless the Ansarallah-allied military crosses a significant red line. So far, the YAF has targeted only vessels tied to Israeli trade.

However, Ansarallah’s recent decision to strike all ships linked to Israeli ports, regardless of nationality, may drag new actors – such as Egypt – into the fray. Cairo’s deepening logistical ties to Israeli trade may soon make it a target of Yemen’s expanding campaign.

“The Houthis” may not control the seas, but they have undeniably changed the rules of engagement.

August 1, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Child in Gaza kisses aid worker’s hand before being fatally shot by Israeli forces

MEMO | July 31, 2025

A resigned US Army soldier who served at an aid distribution point in Gaza, affiliated with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), has shared a heartbreaking account of the final moments of a Palestinian boy known as “Gaza’s little Amir”, who was shot dead by Israeli forces shortly after receiving a small portion of food.

In his testimony, the former soldier, Anthony Aguilar, recalled the tragic events of 28 May, when the boy Amir was killed while trying to get food.

Amir, who was barefoot and visibly thin, walked 12 kilometres under the scorching sun, hoping to find something to eat after hours of waiting. All he managed to gather was a handful of rice and lentils from the ground, Aguilar said.

He went on to describe a deeply emotional moment, saying that the child had approached him, set down his belongings, gently placed his small hands on the soldier’s face, kissed his hand, and thanked him in English. The boy then picked up his things and returned to the crowd. Just minutes later, as he was leaving with other civilians, Israeli forces reportedly opened fire with gas and live ammunition, striking Amir and killing him on the spot.

Aguilar added that the day was no different from others in Gaza — except that death came quicker.

Rumble

July 31, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Family urges release of 16 y/o Palestinian-American held in ‘Israel’

Al Mayadeen | July 31, 2025

The family of Muhammad Zaher Ibrahim, a 16-year-old Palestinian-American, is urging his immediate release from Israeli military detention. Ibrahim was detained in February while still 15 years old at his family’s home in the occupied West Bank village of Silwad. According to relatives, he was blindfolded and handcuffed before being transferred to Megiddo prison. He remains in pre-trial detention, accused of rock-throwing, an allegation his family denies.

The Ibrahim family, who divide their time between Silwad and Palm Bay, Florida, sought assistance from Republican Congressman Mike Haridopolos. Zaher Ibrahim, Muhammad’s father, wrote to the congressman in March after more than 45 days of no contact with his son. Describing the conditions at Megiddo as notorious for brutality, the family has exhausted all local legal options and turned to US authorities for support.

Haridopolos’s office acknowledged the outreach and forwarded the case to the State Department. The US embassy in “Israel” confirmed it was following standard procedures. A State Department spokesperson emphasized that ensuring the safety and security of US citizens is a top priority.

Human rights concerns

Human rights organizations have raised alarms over the treatment of Muhammad Zaher Ibrahim and others like him. A video seen by The Guardian shows Ibrahim being interrogated without legal counsel. Advocates argue that his US citizenship has provided little protection in a system known for detaining minors for extended periods without charges or family contact.

Ayed Abu Eqtaish from Defense for Children International-Palestine told The Guardian that Palestinian children in Israeli prisons are often isolated from the outside world, regardless of their nationality.

US government response

While US embassy officials have conducted welfare checks, their access has been increasingly restricted. Early reports from the embassy noted that Muhammad had lost 12 kilograms. In July, he was diagnosed with scabies, a contagious skin condition. The state department reported he was receiving medical treatment, but it remains unclear whether recent visits have occurred.

The department affirmed it provides consular support to detained US citizens, including ensuring access to necessary medical care and facilitating communication with families.

Targeting of Palestinian Americans

Since 2022, nine Americans have been killed by Israeli forces or settlers, including five since October 2023. Among the most recent cases is Sayfollah Musallet, the cousin of Muhammad Ibrahim, a 20-year-old from Tampa, Florida, beaten to death by settlers in July 2025. Others include Mohammad Khdour, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar, Amer Rabee, and Omar Assad, a 78-year-old who died after being gagged and handcuffed by Israeli soldiers.

Multiple Palestinian Americans have also been detained or subjected to travel restrictions and surveillance. In February 2024, American citizens Hashem and Borak Alagha were detained during a raid on their family shelter in Gaza. Samaher Esmail, a 46-year-old from New Orleans, was arrested in Beit Lahm for alleged incitement on social media. Families report minimal assistance from US authorities.

West Bank under Israeli occupation

Since the outbreak of the war on Gaza in October 2023, “Israel” has launched an unprecedented campaign of mass arrests across the occupied West Bank. By July 2025, approximately 18,000 Palestinians had been detained, nearly double the number held before the war. As of late July 2025, “Israel” currently holds around 10,800 Palestinians in its prisons, including about 450 children and 50 women.

A particularly concerning trend has been the rise in administrative detention, imprisonment without charge or trial. Over 10,000 administrative detention orders have been issued, and 37% of detained Palestinian children are now held under such orders, the highest on record.

The arrest campaign intensified further with “Israel’s” launch of Operation Iron Wall in January 2025, displacing 40,000 Palestinians from refugee camps in Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nur Shams. Most arrests during that period were concentrated in Jenin, which experienced severe aggression.

July 31, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | Leave a comment

Gaza genocide case: 114 lawyers ask ICC to investigate French officials’ complicity

French President Emmanuel Macron (C), Prime Minister Francois Bayrou (R) and Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu in Paris on May 8, 2025 (Photo by AFP)
Press TV – July 31, 2025

More than a hundred French lawyers have filed a petition with the International Criminal Court, formally requesting the ICC to initiate an investigation or prosecution of some French officials for their complicity “in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide” by the Israeli regime against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The 56-page petition made public by the French investigative media outlet Blast on Monday named President Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister Francois Bayrou, Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, Minister of the Armed Forces Sebastien Lecornu, and 19 lawmakers of the National Assembly’s European Affairs Committee as officials of the country facilitating Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

“Far from taking concrete measures to prevent the ongoing genocide against the Palestinians, the members of the French executive cited in this communication have continued to support the criminal actions” of Israel by “providing military, political, economic, diplomatic and propaganda support” including by providing the means to commit the crimes in question, the group of lawyers, who represent the Pour la Justice au Proche-Orient (“for justice in the Middle East”) organization, stated in the petition addressed to the Office of the ICC Prosecutor, in the Hague.

The lawyers also slam France for refusing to respect the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), ratified by Paris, which imposes an absolute ban on exporting weapons if they have knowledge the arms could be used to commit war crimes, despite several requests from legal groups and NGOs.

The petition for legal action by the lawyers is equivalent to a formal criminal complaint to the ICC regarding a crime falling under its jurisdiction.

Now, it is up to the ICC Prosecutor to decide whether the request is in accordance with Article 15 of the Rome Statute, which states that the prosecutor may open proprio motu (which means on their own initiative) investigations based on information relating to crimes within the court’s jurisdiction.

The formal petition asking the ICC to investigate Macron and French ministers for Gaza genocide complicity was signed by 114 French lawyers.

The ICC acts as a court of last resort against individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, or the crime of aggression, complementing national courts in addressing these grave international crimes.

Karim Khan, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, issued arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former war minister, Yoav Gallant, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in November 2024.

Israel is accused of using starvation as a method of warfare, intentionally attacking civilians and committing other inhumane acts during its genocidal military campaign in the besieged strip.

Israeli forces regularly attack starving Palestinians suffering from acute malnutrition and a severe lack of essential supplies.

Since the US-Israeli genocide started in October 2023, the death toll has reached over 60,100. Over 146,200 Palestinians have also been injured.

Nearly 1,000 Palestinians have also been killed by Israeli attacks in the occupied West Bank since the regime began its genocidal war on the Gaza Strip in October 2023.

July 31, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »