Mamdani raises ‘US funding’ of Israeli genocide in Gaza during Trump meeting
US President Donald Trump meets with New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani in the White House in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2025. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP)
Press TV – November 22, 2025
In a meeting with US President Donald Trump, the newly elected New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, raised the issue of US funding for the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza.
The meeting at the White House on Friday was the first in-person meeting for the political opposites, who have clashed over everything from immigration to economic policy.
The 34-year-old mayor told reporters that when he spoke to New Yorkers who supported both Trump and him, the two main reasons given were a desire to “end forever wars” and an “end to the taxpayer dollars we had funding violations of human rights.”
Answering a reporter’s question, the mayor-elect reiterated that Israel has been “committing genocide” in Gaza and his assertion that US taxpayers’ dollars are helping fund it.
Mamdani clarified that he had “spoken about the Israeli [regime] committing genocide and I’ve spoken about our government funding it.”
“I shared with the president in our meeting about the concern that many New Yorkers have about wanting their tax dollars to go toward the benefit of New Yorkers and their ability to afford basic dignity,” Mamdani said.
“There’s a desperate need not only for the following of human rights but also the following through on the promises we’ve made New Yorkers.”
“I appreciate all efforts toward peace,” he added. “We’re tired of seeing our tax dollars fund endless wars, and I also believe that we have to follow through on the international human rights, and I know that still today those are being violated, and that continues to be work that has to be done, no matter where we’re speaking of.”
Trump did not comment on the matter, beyond noting that he and Mamdani feel “very strongly about peace” in West Asia.
Trump also said that he and Mamdani did not discuss the latter’s pledge to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he came to the Big Apple.
Trump had previously called the incoming New York City mayor a “radical left lunatic,” a communist, and a “Jew hater.”
As Mamdani surged in the polls to victory, Trump, a Republican, issued threats to strip federal funding from the biggest US city.
The mayor-elect has regularly criticized a range of Trump’s policies, including plans to ramp up federal immigration enforcement efforts in New York City, where four in ten residents are foreign-born.
How a shamed Supreme Court Justice helped Israeli dual citizens in America
If Americans Knew | November 20, 2025
In 1967, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas changed American tradition with his tie-breaking vote in favor of an Israeli national. The landmark decision allowed dual citizens to fight in a foreign army and even hold office in a foreign country.
Former Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Services Leonel Castillo said that the special U.S.-Israel relationship was dangerous, and that it was dangerous because it was unknown to what extent it would go if Americans were allowed to fight in a the Israeli military.
According to the Washington Post, currently there are more than 23,380 Americans fighting in the Israeli military, instead of enlisting in the U.S. armed forces. Other sources reveal that only between 8,000 and 10,000 Jewish-Americans are enlisted in the American military.
Two notable bills regarding dual citizens are currently being pushed in Congress.
1. Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who served in the Israeli military, has put forward the Protecting Americans who served in the IDF Act, which would offer the same benefits to Israeli soldiers as American soldiers. It’s also important to know that Mast was voted to lead the House Foreign Affairs panel in 2024. Mast has gone on record saying, “As the only member to serve with both the United States Army and the Israel Defense Forces, I will always stand with Israel.”
2. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who is the only Republican lawmaker without an “AIPAC guy”, has put forward the Dual Citizen Disclosure Act, which would compel candidates and elected officials to disclose any dual citizenship they may have. “At a minimum, (elected officials) should disclose their citizenship in other countries and abstain from votes specifically benefiting those countries,” Massie said.
Washington Post : https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/…
The Times of Israel : https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/moder…
In 1995 Donald Neff exposed Fortas’ action to change a long-held American tradition on behalf of Israel: https://ifamericansknew.org/media/epi…
Supremacism as an inherent aspect of the Zionist ideology
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 21, 2025
A recent speech by Israeli Minister of Security Itamar Ben-Gvir clearly revealed the inherently supremacist character of Zionist ideology. Ahead of the UN Security Council vote on the implementation of the next phase of the U.S.-mediated Gaza peace plan, Ben-Gvir categorically stated that “the Palestinian people do not exist.” This statement is not merely a rhetorical provocation; it is an explicit expression of a worldview that denies the historical, cultural, and political existence of another nation based on ethnic and religious criteria.
Ben-Gvir, leader of the ultranationalist Otzma Yehudit party, argued that Palestinians are “an invention without any historical, archaeological, or factual basis.” In his view, the presence of Arabs in the region controlled by Israel does not constitute a legitimate nation and therefore does not deserve any political recognition or right to self-determination. More than denying the existence of a people, the minister asserts that the only “real” solution to the conflict would be to encourage voluntary emigration — a proposal that, in practice, amounts to the forced removal of an entire population.
What is evident in this speech is the crystallization of a supremacist logic: defining one’s own group as the exclusive holder of rights over the land, history, and political narrative, while the other group is dehumanized and reduced to a threat to be eliminated or marginalized. This perspective is not isolated. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich recently reinforced the idea that a Palestinian state “will never be established,” demanding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu communicate this unequivocally to the world.
These statements highlight a crucial point that many international analyses hesitate to address: Zionist ideology has an essentially supremacist and deeply racist core. The denial of Palestinian existence, the exclusion of the Arab population from the national narrative, and the promotion of forced emigration policies reflect a conception of the state based on the supremacy of one ethno-religious group over all other historical inhabitants of the region.
It is important to emphasize that this vision directly contrasts with international law and global consensus on the recognition of the Palestinian people. Currently, the State of Palestine is recognized by 157 countries, including four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, figures such as Ben-Gvir and Smotrich remain steadfast in defending policies that deny any possibility of Palestinian coexistence or self-determination.
Moreover, Ben-Gvir’s rhetoric does not emerge in a political vacuum: it is part of a broader project of exclusion and supremacy within Israel’s domestic context, but it also directly influences the country’s foreign policy, affecting international negotiations and peace plans. By treating Palestinians as nonexistent, the Israeli government positions itself against diplomatic solutions that respect equal rights, such as the widely endorsed two-state solution supported by multiple international actors.
The supremacist nature of Zionist ideology cannot be reduced to mere political differences or territorial disputes. It is a worldview that establishes racial and historical hierarchies, justifying the disregard for the rights of an entire people based on the supposed “superiority” of another. By delegitimizing Palestinian existence, Ben-Gvir exposes a logic of total exclusion that threatens not only regional stability but also universal principles of justice and national sovereignty.
In summary, the recent statements of Israeli leaders reveal that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not merely a territorial or strategic dispute, but also a struggle against an ideology rooted in the denial of the other. Understanding ideological Zionism through the lens of supremacism is crucial for any serious analysis of the contemporary Middle East and demonstrates that, until the humanity and rights of the Palestinian people are recognized, the ongoing genocide in Gaza will not cease.
EU conference in Brussels links Gaza recovery funds to PA reforms
The Cradle | November 21, 2025
The EU held a donor conference in Brussels on 20 November to discuss reconstruction and post-war governance in the Gaza Strip, with several countries signing a reform-linked financial support package for the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Sixty delegations participated in the conference in Brussels. Four EU members states – Germany, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Spain – signed commitments confirming €82 million ($95 million) in support for the PA, which was already previously pledged.
This came as part of the new €1.6 billion ($1.85 billion), EU multi-year program for Palestinian recovery, unveiled earlier this year. In total, €88 million ($101.4 million) was pledged this year. The contributions will be channeled through the Palestinian-European Socio-Economic Management and Assistance Mechanism (PEGASE).
The disbursement of the funds is dependent on specific reforms that the PA must carry out first.
No new pledges were made during the donor conference on Thursday.
“Our aim is to strengthen governance, build a more resilient economy, stabilize finances, improve services for the population, and create conditions for future effective governance across all territories,” said EU commissioner for the Mediterranean Dubravka Suica.
“Our financial support is linked to the PA reform agenda, which, of course, they committed to implement,” Suica added. “Switzerland, New Zealand, Norway, Turkiye, which are not members of the European Union, are looking forward to their pledges to use this mechanism … which is controlled and assures that money goes in the right place.”
Chief of the EU Ursula von der Leyen said the bloc was “committed to working towards a Palestinian state with a reformed, well-functioning Palestinian Authority at its core.”
A follow-up conference will be held in Egypt to secure more funding.
Three days ago, the UN passed a US-drafted resolution to approve the second phase of US President Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan.
The initiative includes deploying international forces to Gaza to disarm the resistance, and allows Israel to maintain a presence inside the strip until the disarmament is complete. Hamas and the other factions have outright rejected the resolution.
The Trump plan includes an eventual return of the PA to Gaza, conditional on reforms that must be carried out by Ramallah. However, Tel Aviv has not signed off on PA governance in the strip.
Ramallah has already begun carrying out reforms at the request of Washington, Arab states, and western countries, including last year, when it ended its policy of stipends to the families of Palestinian prisoners convicted for resistance operations or attacks against Israelis.
Tel Aviv and Washington have referred to this policy as “pay-to-slay.”
In September, the French and UK governments announced their recognition of a Palestinian state. According to a report by The Telegraph that month, London and Paris conditioned their recognition of Palestine on an “overhaul” of the Palestinian education system.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas is “under pressure to drive through reforms to the Palestinian school curriculum in an effort to placate Israeli concerns over anti-Semitism,” the report said, adding that other political reforms and elections are also on the list of demands.
Last month, the Times of Israel reported Abbas sacked his finance minister for continuing payments to the families of prisoners in defiance of Israeli and western demands.
The PA was formed in the aftermath of the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Abbas was elected as president in 2005, and has been in power since then despite the expiry of his term in 2009.
Despite years of deep security coordination between Ramallah and Tel Aviv, and the PA cracking down on West Bank resistance on behalf of Israel, the authority is facing an Israeli campaign of financial strangulation and is constantly accused of encouraging terrorism and antisemitism.
Emirati, Israeli disinformation campaign frames Sudan conflict as Christian persecution: Report
Press TV – November 21, 2025
Far-right Emirati and Israeli social media influencers have engaged in a coordinated digital campaign to falsely claim that Christians were being killed by “Islamists” in Sudan, a new report has revealed.
Sudanese investigative platform Beam Reports said that after the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group seized control of el-Fasher in Darfur nearly a month ago, misleading content about the nature of events began to surface online in a “synchronised manner.”
Beam found that several accounts took to social media to re-use images of RSF abuses against civilians in el-Fasher and frame them as “Islamist violence against Christians.”
The outlet accused Amjad Taha, an Emirati analyst, of being the architect of the campaign. He reportedly posted several claims about alleged Islamists in Sudan, which were then amplified by other accounts.
For several months, the Emirati figure has led the charge on social media to link Sudan’s armed forces with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic resistance movement Hamas in Gaza.
Amjad Taha claimed that Sudan’s army had “killed 2 million Christians, displaced 8 million, and raped 15,000 women, while leftists stay busy attacking the UAE… a nation where church bells ring freely.”
However, none of the numbers cited were supported by credible sources or verified reports, according to the investigation.
The Emirati influencer also said that a Sudanese army officer had “eaten a man’s heart after killing him and his children.” Again, no evidence was provided, but such claims were amplified by Emirati, Israeli, and far-right accounts.
According to the report published by Beam, the objectives of the coordinated campaign included shifting blame of atrocities away from the RSF, recasting Sudan’s war as a religious conflict to “evoke foreign sympathy,” and flooding the online space with fabricated content to confuse media coverage.
One such example was American influencer Nima Yamini, who shared images from el-Fasher and claimed they showed “Christians slaughtered in Sudan – and no one talks about it,” adding that massacres against Christians were so severe that you can “see blood from space.”
In reality, blood splatters seen from space were from areas of el-Fasher where the RSF were reported to have shot residents.
In a different post, far-right Polish politician Dominik Tarczynski shared a purported image of a mother and child in el-Fasher with the false caption: “Sudan: genocide of Christians by the Islamists.”
In 2023, a conflict broke out between the Sudanese army and the RSF, far from religious lines, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, displaced over 12 million people, and led the International Rescue Committee to characterize it as “the largest humanitarian crisis ever documented.”
Sudanese authorities have repeatedly said the RSF enjoys unconditional support from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), with Khartoum taking legal action against the country at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in April.
A report by British daily newspaper The Guardian late last month revealed that British-made weapons and military equipment are being supplied by the UAE to militants from the RSF.
Furthermore, Khartoum-based writer and strategic affairs analyst Makkawi Elmalik also said in October that what is happening in Sudan “is not a regular military battle, but a systematic extermination committed by the RSF, supported by the UAE and Israel.”
He further stated that both the UAE and the Israeli regime have participated in planning the militia’s attacks on civilians in the Sudanese city and provided them with weapons and intelligence.
Russia, China upbraid anti-Iran IAEA resolution, urge West to drop threats
Press TV – November 21, 2025
Russia and China have, in the strongest terms, rebuked a recent anti-Iran resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), calling for the settlement of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear issue through dialogue and cooperation.
Drafted by France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States and approved 19–3 with 12 abstentions on Thursday, the resolution sought to pressure Tehran by demanding it “without delay” account for its enriched uranium stocks and facilities damaged in the June attacks by the United States and Israel.
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova announced at a press conference in Moscow that Russia continues to firmly emphasize finding political and diplomatic solutions to the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.
Asked about a recent telephone conversation between the Russian and Iranian foreign ministers, during which the issue of Iran’s nuclear program and related talks were discussed, Zakharova was cited by TASS as saying that Moscow is consistently committed to actively seeking political and diplomatic solutions to the Iranian nuclear issue.
The spokeswoman added that Moscow has repeatedly warned about the dangers of “military actions” that threaten the stability and security of West Asia, underlining that any military attack on nuclear facilities, especially those under the monitoring of the IAEA, is “unacceptable.”
Zakharova also said the US aggression against Iran’s nuclear sites undermined the principles the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — a treaty to which Iran has always been fully committed and which the IAEA has confirmed.
The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman went on to say that despite the efforts on the part of some foreign actors to create chaos and trouble in Iranian society, Tehran still prefers the path of dialogue over war and believes that national interests can be secured based on equal dialogue and by taking into account mutual concerns.
She stressed that in order to resume the talks, Iran needs “serious guarantees” that its nuclear facilities will not be targeted by missile or air attacks again.
Zakharova further underlined that the West must put aside threats of sanctions and military threats and return to diplomacy with Iran.
IAEA urged to create ‘favorable conditions for cooperation’
Li Song, China’s permanent representative to the IAEA, told the Board of Governors on Thursday that pushing through a counterproductive resolution against Iran will “only make things worse,” stressing that the US, Israel, and key European states are fueling the ongoing crisis surrounding Tehran’s nuclear file.
“Countries that have recklessly resorted to the use of force and obsessively pursued confrontation and pressure are responsible for the current situation of the Iranian nuclear issue,” Li said.
The Chinese envoy stressed that Israel and the United States attacked Iranian nuclear facilities safeguarded by the IAEA in June, which led to a “fundamental change in the situation of the Iranian nuclear issue.”
“Such an act should be strongly condemned by the international community and the IAEA,” he said.
On the Cairo agreement reached between Iran and the IAEA in September, Li emphasized that the pact was “a positive development” and “an important opportunity” to fully revive safeguards cooperation.
He said the activation of the snapback mechanism by the UK, France, and Germany had “seriously undermined the good momentum of cooperation” between Tehran and the Agency.
Li added that the Iranian nuclear issue “can only be properly resolved” by respecting Iran’s legitimate NPT rights and ensuring the peaceful nature of its program through political, diplomatic, and safeguards mechanisms.
The envoy called on the BoG to “create favorable conditions for cooperation and dialogue” and to avoid “provoking confrontation.”
The new kill zone: Gaza’s borders after the ‘ceasefire’
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | November 20, 2025
The so-called Gaza ceasefire was not a genuine cessation of hostility, but a strategic, cynical shift in the Israeli genocide and ongoing campaign of destruction.
Starting on 10 October, the first day of the announced ceasefire, Israel transitioned tactics: moving from indiscriminate aerial bombardment to the calculated, engineered demolishing of homes and vital infrastructure. Satellite images, corroborated by almost hourly media and ground reports, confirmed this methodical change.
As direct combat forces seemingly withdrew to the adjacent “Gaza envelope” region, a new vanguard of Israeli soldiers advanced into the area east of the so-called Yellow Line, to systematically dismantle whatever semblance of life, rootedness, and civilisation remained standing following the Israeli genocide. Between 10 October and 2 November, Israel demolished 1,500 buildings, utilising its specialized military engineering units.
The ceasefire agreement divided Gaza into two halves: one west of the Yellow Line, where the survivors of the Israeli genocide were confined, and a larger one, east of the line, where the Israeli army maintained an active military presence and continued to operate with impunity.
If Israel truly harbored the intention of, indeed, evacuating the area following the agreed-upon second phase of the ceasefire, it would not be actively pursuing the systematic, structural destruction of this already devastated region. Clearly, Israel’s motives are far more insidious, centered on rendering the region perpetually uninhabitable.
Aside from leveling infrastructure, Israel is also carrying out a continuous campaign of airstrikes and naval attacks, relentlessly targeting Rafah and Khan Yunis in the south. Later, and with greater intensity, Israel also began carrying out attacks in areas that were, in theory, meant to be under the control of Gazans.
According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, 260 Palestinians have been killed and 632 wounded since the commencement of the so-called ceasefire.
In practice, this ceasefire amounts to a one-sided truce, where Israel can carry out a relentless, low-grade war on Gaza, while Palestinians are systematically denied the right to respond or defend themselves. Gaza is thus condemned to relive the same tragic cycle of violent history: a defenseless, impoverished region trapped under the boot of Israel’s military calculations, which consistently operate outside the periphery of international law.
Before the existence of Israel atop the ruins of historic Palestine in 1948, the demarcation of Gaza’s borders was not driven by military calculations. The Gaza region, one of the world’s most ancient civilisations, was always seamlessly incorporated into a larger geographical socio-economic space.
Before the British named it the Gaza District (1920-1948), the Ottomans considered it a sub-district (Kaza) within the larger Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem – the Jerusalem Independent District.
But even the British designation of Gaza did not isolate it from the rest of the Palestinian geography, as the borders of the new district reached Al-Majdal (today’s Ashkelon) in the north, Bir al-Saba’ (Beersheba) in the east, and the Rafah line at the Egyptian border.
Following the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which codified the post-Nakba lines, the collective torment of Gaza, as illustrated in its shrinking boundaries, began in earnest. The expansive Gaza District was brutally reduced to the Gaza Strip, a mere 1.3 per cent of the overall size of historic Palestine. Its population, due to the Nakba, had explosively grown with over 200,000 desperate refugees who, along with several generations of their descendants, have been trapped and confined in this tiny strip of land for over 77 years.
When Israel permanently occupied Gaza in June 1967, the lines separating it from the rest of the Palestinian and Arab geography became an integral, permanent part of Gaza itself. Soon after its occupation of the Strip, Israel began restricting the movement of Palestinians further, sectionalising Gaza into several regions. The size and location of these internal lines were largely determined by two paramount motives: to fragment Palestinian society to ensure its subjugation, and to create military ‘buffer zones’ around Israeli military encampments and illegal settlements.
Between 1967 and Israel’s so-called ‘disengagement’ from Gaza, Israel had built 21 illegal settlements and numerous military corridors and checkpoints, effectively bisecting the Strip and confiscating nearly 40 percent of its land mass.
Following the redeployment, Israel retained absolute, unilateral control over Gaza’s borders, sea access, airspace, and even the population registry. Additionally, Israel created another internal border within Gaza, a heavily fortified “buffer zone” snaking across the northern and eastern borders. This new area has witnessed the cold-blooded killing of hundreds of unarmed protesters and the wounding of thousands who dared to approach what was often referred to as the “kill zone.”
Even the Gaza sea was effectively outlawed. Fishermen were inhumanely confined to tiny spaces, at times less than three nautical miles, while simultaneously surrounded by the Israeli navy, which routinely shot fishermen, sank boats, and detained crews at will.
Gaza’s new Yellow Line is but the latest, most egregious military demarcation in a long, cruel history of lines intended to make the lives of the Palestinians impossible. The current line, however, is worse than any before it, as it completely suffocates the displaced population in a fully destroyed area, without functioning hospitals and with only trickles of life-saving aid.
For Palestinians, who have been battling confinements and fragmentation for generations, this new arrangement is the intolerable and inevitable culmination of their protracted, multi-generational dispossession.
If Israel believes it can impose the new demarcation of Gaza as a new status quo, the next few months will prove this conviction devastatingly wrong. Tel Aviv has simply recreated a much worse, inherently unstable version of the violent reality that existed before 7 October and the genocide. Even those not fully familiar with the deep, painful history of Gaza must realise that sustaining the Yellow Line of Gaza is nothing more than a dangerous, bloody illusion.
A Mandate for Force: What the UNSC’s Gaza Resolution Means in Practice
By Robert Inlakesh | The Palestine Chronicle | November 19, 2025
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed a regime change resolution against Gaza this Monday, effectively issuing a mandate for an invasion force to enter the besieged coastal enclave and install a US-led ruling authority by force.
Passing with 13 votes in favour and none in defiance, the new Security Council resolution has given the United States a mandate to create what it calls an “International Stabilization Force” (ISF) and “Board of Peace” committee to seize power in Gaza. US President Donald Trump has hailed the resolution as historic, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has stood in opposition to an element of the resolution that mentions Palestinian Statehood.
In order to understand what has just occurred, it requires a breakdown of the resolution itself and the broader context surrounding the ceasefire deal. When these elements are combined, it becomes clear that this resolution is perhaps one of the most shameful to have passed in the history of the United Nations, casting shame on it and undermining the very basis on which it was formed to begin with.
An Illegal Regime Change Resolution
In September of 2025, a United Nations commission of inquiry found Israel to have committed the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip.
For further context, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the most powerful international legal entity and organ of the UN, ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and thus issued orders for Tel Aviv to end specific violations of international law in Gaza, which were subsequently ignored.
Taking this into consideration, the UN itself cannot claim ignorance of the conditions suffered by the people of Gaza, nor could it credibly posit that the United States is a neutral actor capable of enforcing a balanced resolution of what its own experts have found to be a genocide.
This resolution itself is not a peace plan and robs Palestinians of their autonomy entirely; thus, it is anti-democratic in its nature. It was also passed due in large part to threats from the United States against both Russia and China, that if they vetoed it, the ceasefire would end and the genocide would resume. Therefore, both Beijing and Moscow abstained from the vote, despite the Russian counterproposal and initial opposition to the resolution.
It also gives a green light to what the US calls a “Board of Peace”, which will work to preside over governing Gaza during the ceasefire period. The head of this board is none other than US President Trump himself, who says he will be joined by other world leaders. Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who launched the illegal invasion of Iraq, has been floated as a potential “Board of Peace” leader also.
On February 4 of this year, President Trump vowed to “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. The American President later sought to impose a plan for a new Gaza, which he even called the “Gaza Riviera”, which was drawn up by Zionist economist Joseph Pelzman. Part of Pelzman’s recommendations to Trump was that “you have to destroy the whole place, restart from scratch”.
As it became clear that the US alone could not justify an invasion force and simply take over Gaza by force, on behalf of Israel, in order to build “Trump Gaza”, a casino beach land for fellow Jeffrey Epstein-connected billionaires, a new answer was desperately sought. Then came a range of meetings between Trump administration officials and regional leaderships, aimed at working out a strategy to achieve their desired goals in Gaza.
After the ceasefire was violated in March by the Israelis, leading to the mass murder of around 17,000 more Palestinians, a number of schemes were being hatched and proposals set forth. The US backed and helped to create the now-defunct so-called “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” (GHF) program, which was used to privatize the distribution of aid in the territory amidst a total blockade of all food for three months.
Starving Palestinians, who were rapidly falling into famine, flocked to these GHF sites, where they were fired upon by US private military contractors and Israeli occupation forces, murdering over 1,000 civilians. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and France were busy putting together what would become the “New York Declaration” proposal for ending the war and bringing Western nations to recognize the State of Palestine at the UN.
Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, here came Trump’s so-called “peace plan” that was announced at the White House in October. This plan appeared at first to be calling for a total end to the war, a mutual prisoner exchange and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza in a phased approach.
From the outset, Trump’s “20-point plan” was vague and impractical. Israel immediately violated the ceasefire from the very first day and has murdered nearly 300 Palestinians since then. The first phase of the ceasefire deal was supposed to end quickly, ideally within five days, but the deal has stalled for over a month.
Throughout this time, it has become increasingly clear that the Israelis are not going to respect the “Yellow Line” separation zone and have violated the agreement through operating deeper into Gaza than they had originally agreed to. The Israeli-occupied zone was supposed to be 53% of Gaza; it has turned out to be closer to 58%. Aid is also not entering at a sufficient rate, despite US and Israeli denials; this has been confirmed by leading rights groups and humanitarian organizations.
In the background, the US team dealing with the ceasefire deal that is headed by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff has been juggling countless insidious proposals for the future of Gaza. Even publicly stating that reconstruction will only take place in the Israeli-controlled portion of the territory, also floating the idea that aid points will be set up there in order to force the population out of the territory under de facto Hamas control. This has often been referred to as the “new Gaza plan”.
As this has all been in the works, including discussions about bringing back the disastrous GHF, the Israelis have been working alongside four ISIS-linked collaborator death squads that it controls and who operate behind the Yellow Line in Gaza.
No mechanisms have been put in place to punish the Israelis for their daily violations of the ceasefire, including the continuation of demolition operations against Gaza’s remaining civilian infrastructure. This appears to be directly in line with Joseph Pelzman’s plan earlier this year to “destroy the whole place”.
The UNSC resolution not only makes Donald Trump the effective leader of the new administrative force that will be imposed upon the Gaza Strip, but also greenlights what it calls its International Stabilization Force. This ISF is explicitly stated to be a multi-national military force that will be tasked with disarming Hamas and all Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip.
The US claims it won’t be directly involved in the fighting with “boots on the ground”; it has already deployed hundreds of soldiers and has been reportedly building a military facility, which they deny is a base, but for all intents and purposes will be one. Although it may not be American soldiers killing and dying while battling Palestinian resistance groups, they will be in charge of this force.
This is not a “UN peacekeeping force” and is not an equivalent to UNIFIL in southern Lebanon; it is there to carry out the task of completing Israel’s war goal of defeating the Palestinian resistance through force. In other words, foreign soldiers will be sent from around the world to die for Israel and taxpayers from those nations will be footing the bill.
The only reason why Israel has reservations about this plan is because it included a statement claiming that if the Palestinian Authority (PA) – that does not control Gaza and is opposed by the majority of the Palestinian people – undergoes reforms that the West and Israel demand, then conditions “may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” A keyword here is “may”, in other words, it is not binding and was simply added in to give corrupted Arab leaderships the excuse to vote yes.
Hamas and every other Palestinian political party, with the exception of the mainstream branch of Fatah that answers to Israel and the US, have opposed this UNSC resolution. Hamas even called upon Algeria to vote against it; instead, the Algerian leadership praised Donald Trump and voted in favor. Typical of Arab and Muslim-Majority regimes that don’t represent the will of their people, they all fell in line and bent over backwards to please Washington.
It Won’t Likely Work
As has been the story with every conspiracy hatched against the people of Gaza, this is again destined to fail. Not only will it fail, but it will likely backfire enormously and lead to desperate moves.
To begin with, the invasion force, or ISF, will be a military endeavour that will have to bring together tens of thousands of soldiers who speak different languages and have nothing in common, in order to somehow achieve victory where Israel failed. It is a logistical nightmare to even think about.
How long would it take to deploy these soldiers? At the very least, it’s going to take months. Then, how long would this process take? Nobody has any clear answers here. Also, what happens if Israel begins bombing again at any point, for example, if there is a clash that kills Israeli soldiers? What would these nations do if Israeli airstrikes killed their soldiers or put them in harm’s way?
Also, tens of thousands of soldiers may not cut it; if the goal is to destroy all the territory’s military infrastructure, they may need hundreds of thousands. Or if that isn’t an option, will they work alongside the Israeli military?
It is additionally clear that nobody knows where all the tunnels and fighters are; if Israel couldn’t find them, then how can anyone else? After all, the US, UK, and various others have helped the Israelis with intelligence sharing and reconnaissance for over two years to get these answers.
Finally, when Arab, European, or Southeast Asian soldiers return to their nations in body bags, how do their regimes justify this? Will the President or Prime Minister of these nations have to stand up and tell their people… “sorry guys, your sons and daughters are now in coffins because Israel needed a military force capable of doing what they failed to do, so we had to help them complete their genocidal project”. Also, how many Palestinian civilians are going to be slaughtered by these foreign invaders?
As for the plan to overthrow Hamas rule in Gaza, the people of the territory will not accept foreign invaders as their occupiers any more than they will accept Israelis. They are not going to accept ISIS-linked collaborators as any kind of security force either. Already, the situation is chaotic inside Gaza, and that is while its own people, who are experienced and understand their conditions, are in control of managing security and some administrative issues; this includes both Hamas and others who are operating independently of it, but inside the territory under its de facto control.
Just as the Israeli military claimed it was going to occupy Gaza City, laying out countless plans to do this, to ethnically cleanse the territory and “crush Hamas”, the US has been coordinating alongside it throughout the entirety of the last two years. Every scheme has collapsed and ended in failure.
It has been nearly a month and a half, yet there are still no clear answers as to how this Trump “peace plan” is supposed to work and it is clear that the Israelis are coming up with new proposals on a daily basis.
There is no permanent mechanism for aid transfers, which the Israelis are blocking. There is no clear vision for governance. The “two Gazas” plan is not even part of the ceasefire or Trump plan, yet it is being pursued in an incoherent way. The ISF makes no sense and appears as poorly planned as the GHF. Hamas and the other Palestinian factions will not give up their weapons. There is no real plan for reconstruction. The Israelis are adamant that there will be no Palestinian State and won’t allow any independent Palestinian rule of Gaza, and the list of problems goes on and on.
What it really looks like here is that this entire ceasefire scheme is a stab in the dark attempt to achieve Israel’s goals while also giving its forces a break and redirecting their focus on other fronts, understanding that there is no clear solution to the Gaza question for now.
The United Nations has shown itself over the past two years to be nothing more than a platform for political theatre. It is incapable of punishing, preventing, or even stopping the crime of all crimes.
Now that international law has suffocated to death under the rubble of Gaza, next to the thousands of children who still lie underneath it, the future of this conflict will transform. This UNSC vote demonstrates that there is no international law, no international community, and that the UN is simply a bunch of fancy offices, which are only allowed to work under the confines of gangster rule.
If the Palestinian resistance groups feel as if their backs are against the wall and an opportunity, such as another Israeli war on Lebanon, presents them the opportunity, then there is a high likelihood that a major military decision will be made. In the event that this occurs, it will be this UNSC resolution that is in large part responsible.
When the suffering in Gaza finally ends, whether that is because Israel obliterates all of its regional opposition and exterminates countless other civilians in its way, or Israel is militarily shattered, the UN should be disbanded as was the League of Nations. It is a failed project just as that which preceded it. Something new must take over from it.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
How Saudi F-35s would not erode Israeli air superiority: Report
By Ali Halawi | Al Mayadeen | November 19, 2025
The Trump administration’s move to advance a potential sale of Lockheed Martin F-35s to Saudi Arabia might mark a significant turning point in regional military dynamics. Yet the central question remains: would the acquisition truly grant Riyadh a decisive edge, or will “Israel’s” deeply entrenched air superiority remain firmly intact?
The announcement, made as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) visited Washington, does not itself consummate a transfer. Any sale would require formal notification to, and likely scrutiny by, the US Congress, and would reopen the fraught question of how Washington preserves “Israel’s” qualitative military edge (QME) while exporting one of the world’s most advanced fighter aircraft. While the operational edge of Israeli pilots and aircrew is evident, the US retains the ability to constrain Saudi F-35 capabilities through technical and software-based controls.
The deal on the table and the road to congressional approval
When a US president signals willingness to sell F-35 aircraft, the next formal step is notification under the Arms Export Control Act and a review period during which Congress can raise objections or seek certifications. For decades, US administrations have treated QME for “Israel” as a legal and political constraint on certain arms transfers; that tradition has informed reviews of past F-35 discussions with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Any proposed sale to Riyadh will therefore be judged not only on price and offset packages but on assurances that “Israel’s” operational superiority will remain intact; a determination that is both technical and political and could trigger contentious hearings. Members of both parties have in the past conditioned or slowed high-end sales over human-rights concerns, counter-proliferation assessments, and explicit demands to preserve the QME.
However, competing pressures further complicate Washington’s calculus as the Trump administration attempts to solidify its strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, secure a landmark normalization agreement with one of West Asia’s most influential powers, and counter the expanding Russian and Chinese footprint in the Kingdom’s defense and technology sectors.
Who in the region flies fifth-generation aircraft today
As of today, the Israeli Air Force is the only air force in West Asia operating the F-35s.
Abu Dhabi negotiated for the aircraft in 2020 but later suspended the talks; other Gulf air forces operate advanced fourth-generation fighters but not fifth-generation stealth airframes.
The practical consequence is that a US sale to Riyadh would not simply add another modern fighter to the region; it would introduce a category of capability that, until now, has been regionally singular.
Why the airframe is only half the story
It is important to separate the aircraft’s physical attributes from the invisible systems that make it decisive in combat. The F-35’s important advantages include low observable design or stealth, powerful sensors, sensor fusion, and integrated electronic warfare, which enable pilots and commanders to detect, identify, and engage threats at ranges and with a fidelity earlier generations cannot match.
Much of the F-35’s real combat power does not lie in the airframe but in the software stack that governs nearly everything the jet does:
- Mission-data files (MDFs)
- Electronic-warfare threat libraries
- Radar-emitter databases
- Electronic-attack and jamming profiles
- Sensor-fusion logic
- Weapons-employment algorithms
Most critically, the US controls every layer of this ecosystem for all export customers, except “Israel”.
“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” has a special agreement allowing the integration of sovereign Israeli-made sensors, electronic warfare systems, and locally developed software add-ons. While the core flight software remains a US product, “Israel” can add its own “plug-and-play” systems and has the authority for some domestic maintenance and upgrades, giving it a level of independence not afforded to other customers. In practice, the platform’s combat potential is as much a product of data and code as it is of metal and jet engines.
This creates a built-in mechanism for Washington to tilt the operational balance decisively toward “Israel,” even if other states receive the same aircraft on paper.
Update priority, withholding certain mission-data libraries, limiting weapons-integration permissions, and controlling sustainment services are all practical mechanisms to maintain an advantage for one operator over another.
“Israel’s” F-35I “Adir” and operational freedom
Israel negotiated an unusually broad set of privileges for the Adir. Unlike most customers, the Israeli regime has been permitted deep customization, integration of indigenous sensors and weapons, unique mission-data development, and a degree of independence from the US sustainment cloud that most operators use.
Those permissions give the Israeli Air Force both practical freedom of operation and a pathway to maintain and evolve its fleet in ways other buyers cannot match.
Israeli mission data files are infused with intelligence drawn from decades of regional aggression. Their electronic-warfare tuning reflects specific threat libraries, and the backlog of locally developed weapons integrations further differentiates the Adir from standard F-35As.
The aircraft can fire the Israeli Python‑5 and Derby/Derby‑ER air‑to‑air missiles, giving it a sovereign engagement capability independent of US munitions. It also carries advanced stand‑off strike weapons such as the SPICE‑1000 and SPICE‑2000 precision‑guided kits and the Delilah loitering cruise missile, enabling deep, accurate attacks against heavily defended targets. Added to this is a bespoke Israeli C4I architecture and a classified electronic‑warfare suite installed directly into the aircraft’s systems, granting the Israeli Air Force full control over threat libraries, jamming profiles, and data links.
The airframe itself has also been adapted to support these systems. The Israelis received rare permission to incorporate custom apertures, access points, and internal wiring channels into the fuselage in coordination with Lockheed Martin, enabling installation and maintenance of its electronics. In addition, “Israel” is the only country known to operate F‑35s equipped with Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs), which add 600–800 gallons of fuel along the fuselage without compromising stealth or weapons capacity. These tanks extend the Adir’s operational range, reduce reliance on aerial refueling, and allow longer, deeper-strike missions, providing a level of flexibility and endurance unavailable to any other F‑35 operator.
Software and sustainment
The F‑35’s combat edge lies less in its airframe than in the software, mission-data, and sustainment systems that govern nearly every aspect of its operations. Historically, the US has used software-centric restrictions to preserve the advantage of favored partners, ensuring that certain operators maintain a decisive qualitative edge.
Key instruments include mission-data files (MDFs), which encode threat signatures, radar and SAM profiles, and geospatial threat maps. Operators with richer, bespoke MDFs detect and classify threats more quickly and respond more effectively. Denying or limiting MDF depth to a buyer is therefore a direct mechanism to sustain another operator’s superiority. Similarly, restricting electronic-warfare software, including emitter libraries, advanced jamming and deception modes, and the timing of mission-data updates, can materially degrade an F‑35’s ability to detect, classify, and suppress hostile radars. The operational effect is slower threat identification, narrower jamming envelopes, and less accurate geolocation for Suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) operations, giving the Israeli Air Force a persistent edge even if both sides operate the same airframe.
These fundamental differences could prove decisive in a theoretical Saudi-Israeli confrontation. An export-restricted Saudi F-35, with its potentially downgraded software, might detect Israeli emitters seconds later and with reduced precision. In contrast, the Israeli F-35I Adir, equipped with bespoke software, proprietary threat libraries, and its electronic warfare systems, could identify, geolocate, and suppress Saudi radar networks first.
These software controls illustrate how the US could maintain Israeli superiority should the Saudi deal move forward. While technically effective, such safeguards carry grave political and operational costs for the buyer, the same concerns Abu Dhabi cited when it stepped back from F‑35 talks in 2021.
Basing, geography, Israeli red lines
Unlike the UAE, whose main airbases are distant from Israeli interests, parts of Saudi Arabia lie relatively close to Israeli settler populations and military centers. Israeli officials have publicly signalled concern that basing F-35s in western Saudi Arabia would materially shorten flight times into Israeli airspace and therefore elevate risk perceptions in Tel Aviv. Reports also indicate “Israel” is pressing Washington to condition any sale on formal normalization and legally binding basing limits.
Those basing preferences are intimately linked to the software and sustainment controls described above. Even if Riyadh accepted software tiering, “Israel” still wants to condition the basing of F-35 jets to be outside Western Saudi Arabia airstrips.
Why Abu Dhabi balked despite normalization
The UAE’s experience is a near-perfect case study for what Riyadh may face. Abu Dhabi negotiated a package in 2020 under a broader normalization agreement but informed US officials in December 2021 that it would suspend discussions, citing “technical requirements, sovereign operational restrictions, and cost-benefit analysis” as reasons.
Three interlocking fault lines explain why. First, as explained, export conditions on software, weapons, and mission systems sharply limit a buyer’s operational autonomy. Doing anything beyond the approved list requires US authorization and often a long, costly certification process. For a state that prizes independent strike options and rapid operational adaptation, those limits impose real political and tactical costs.
Second, sustainment architecture locks customers into US logistics and updates ecosystems. The F-35’s logistics and health-monitoring systems (ALIS originally, now the ODIN framework) and the global sustainment enterprise mean that maintenance and updates become levers Washington can control.
Third, and more prosaically, the practicalities of preserving stealth require specialized sustainment. Low-observable coatings, seam integrity, and specialized repairs demand trained personnel, approved materials, and certified processes; many of those tasks are regulated and performed under Lockheed-approved protocols or at regional hubs designated by the program. Buyers often cannot fully sustain the low-observable characteristics that make the jet survivable without continuing contractor or US support.
Finally, political and geostrategic concerns compounded the technical ones. Washington’s scrutiny of buyers’ ties to third parties, notably China, and congressional insistence on preserving “Israel’s” QME raised further strings the UAE found difficult to accept, from restrictions on sensitive supply-chain partners to conditioned access to high-end sustainment and software features.
“The Americans want to sell the Emiratis the planes but they want to tie their hands,” a Gulf source told Reuters at the time. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said defense deals include requirements for purchasing nations, but that the restrictions in this deal made it unfeasible.
Geopolitical considerations, only amplified by Riyadh’s larger strategic weight and geography, will determine whether Saudi Arabia accepts comparable limits, if imposed by Washington, or walks the same path as Abu Dhabi.
Jeffrey Epstein used Rothschild banking empire to finance Israeli cyberweapons industry
Press TV – November 19, 2025
Convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein used his close relationship with the Rothschild banking empire to channel private investments into the Israeli regime’s cyberweapons industry.
Documents released by the US House Oversight Committee in November, alongside hacked emails from former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, reveal that Epstein acted as a key intermediary, connecting the Rothschild banking dynasty with Israel’s cyberweapons sector.
The records show Epstein coordinating private investments in Israeli startups developing offensive cyber capabilities, surveillance tools, and spyware technologies.
Following Barak’s retirement from office in 2013, he recruited Pavel Gurvich, a former operative of Israel’s secretive Unit 81, to identify promising cyber ventures.
Barak relied on Gurvich for guidance on investments in offensive cyber tools, including Tor network surveillance, NSO-style cellphone hacking software, and router exploitation technologies.
Gurvich supplied detailed maps of undersea transatlantic cables and network access points, illustrating the global reach of potential operations.
Epstein then facilitated connections between Barak, Gurvich, and the Rothschild dynasty, offering logistical support, guidance on tax and investment structures, and strategic advice.
Epstein’s involvement included a $25 million contract in October 2015 between his Southern Trust Company and Barak’s spyware-linked startup Reporty Homeland Security (now Carbyne).
The agreement covered “risk analysis and the application and use of certain algorithms.”
He also organized private meetings and dinners to foster collaboration, including a January 2014 gathering in Paris with Barak, the Rothschilds, and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Emails suggest Epstein coached Barak on managing the Rothschild relationship, advising him to provide “time, attention, stable, recurring, predictable” engagement to earn trust.
Barak also proposed a donor-advised fund to channel private capital into Israeli technology, planning to allocate 4–5% of the fund to startups in telecommunications, cyberwarfare, and biotechnology.
The fund would operate through the Rothschilds’ “umbrella fund” structures, allowing tax-deductible contributions to finance early-stage military and spyware technology companies. Epstein coordinated introductions and advised Barak on securing Rothschild backing.
Furthermore, Epstein managed the logistics of Barak’s participation in the 2014 Herzliya Conference, Israel’s premier cyberwarfare summit, sponsored by the Rothschild Caesarea Foundation (RCF).
Emails show he relayed speaker lists, arranged private meetings with the Rothschilds, and guided Barak on handling inquiries from conference organizers.
Correspondence indicates Epstein remained active in the network until at least April 2017, arranging private meetings and maintaining connections between Barak, the Rothschilds, and other influential figures in Israel’s cyberwarfare industry.
Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019 and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City.
He reportedly committed suicide by hanging in August 2019, despite prior reports that he was under suicide watch following an attempt in July of that year.
Russia to re-establish nine military positions in Syria’s Quneitra
The Cradle | November 19, 2025
A high-level Russian delegation visited Syria’s Quneitra Governorate on 17 November, The Cradle has learned from private sources, indicating Moscow’s intention to reinforce its military presence in the sensitive region adjacent to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
The Russian delegation included officers from field commands operating in Syria, accompanied by a committee from the Syrian Ministry of Defense. The delegation conducted an extensive tour of several military sites from which Russian forces had previously withdrawn.
Contrary to some leaks suggesting trilateral coordination or a Turkish role in restructuring the military presence in the south, the delegation did not include any Turkish officers.
According to the sources speaking with The Cradle, the absence of the Turkish side reflects a Russian desire to manage the southern file exclusively through channels between Damascus and Moscow.
The tour included several military positions where Russia deployed its forces in 2018 as the Syrian war ended. That year, foreign-backed militants from the former Al-Qaeda affiliate, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), reached agreements with Syrian and Russian forces to evacuate the area and leave toward the HTS stronghold of Idlib Governorate in northwest Syria.
Moscow reduced its presence in Quneitra after HTS, led by Syria’s current self-appointed President Ahmad al-Sharaa, toppled the government of former president Bashar al-Assad in December of last year.
Among the most prominent of the sites toured by the delegation on Monday was the Tulul al-Hamr, one of the most sensitive military positions in the region due to its proximity to the 1973 ceasefire line and its importance for monitoring and surveillance operations towards Israeli forces occupying the Golan Heights.
According to information obtained by The Cradle, the Russian command has decided to redeploy its forces to nine military positions in southern Syria, mainly in the Quneitra and Deraa countryside.
These are the positions from which it withdrew during the transitional phase following the ousting of Assad. This move is part of a new Russian strategy to reposition its military influence along the southern border and ensure that no vacuum is created that could be exploited by regional or local powers.
According to informed sources, the Russian delegation maintained a permanent logistics post in Quneitra after concluding its tour. The post aims to assess technical and engineering needs and to submit detailed reports on redeployment requirements, including the rehabilitation of infrastructure and supply lines, and the necessary readiness to activate these points in the coming period.
This development follows a series of reciprocal Russian–Syrian moves, the most recent being the arrival of a large delegation from the Russian Ministry of Defense in Damascus a few days ago.
This was in addition to the telephone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which followed the visit of President Sharaa to Moscow. It is estimated that southern Syria was a key topic in these communications.
According to The Cradle sources, practical steps for redeployment in southern Syria are expected to begin in the coming weeks, with Moscow gradually announcing the reopening of some of its military posts before the end of the year.
Analysts believe the Russian return to Quneitra has strategic dimensions that extend beyond military considerations. Moscow seeks to consolidate its influence in the country as regional alliances are being rebuilt and the balance of power shifts following the transitional phase in Damascus.
In particular, Russia wishes to keep its naval base in Tartous and its air base in Hmeimim on the Syrian coast to project power in the Mediterranean and toward Africa.
A tacit relationship between Russia and Israel was revealed in February, when Netanyahu visited Washington to present a “white paper” regarding Syria to US officials.
After Netanyahu’s visit, Reuters reported that “Israel is lobbying the United States to keep Syria weak and decentralized, including by letting Russia keep its military bases there to counter Turkey’s influence.”
The Times of Israel later commented that Tel Aviv was lobbying the “US to buck Sharaa’s fledgling government in favor of establishing a decentralized series of autonomous ethnic regions, with the southern one bordering Israel being demilitarized.”
In its effort to divide Syria, Israel is seeking to create autonomous regions in Druze-majority Suwayda and the Alawite-dominated Syrian coast.
US’s Gaza Plan Designed to Give Palestine’s Subjugation Veneer of UN Legitimacy – Mohammad Marandi
Sputnik – 18.11.2025
The UN Security Council approved the US’s Gaza ceasefire and international stabilization force plans on Monday. Russia and China abstained from the vote. Sputnik asked renowned Iranian-American political analyst Mohammad Marandi for his reaction.
The US Gaza plan is “a fake peace plan that is approved by the UN Security Council will only enhance the strength of the United States and the Israeli regime to further abuse Palestinians and to push Palestinians out of Gaza,” Marandi told Sputnik.
The plan proposes what the observer fears amounts to “an international occupation” of the Strip, with “no mention of Palestinian independence” in the US resolution.
“With this fake mantle of the UN Security Council, they will be able to do a lot of harm in the name of the international community,” Marandi emphasized.
The US “has no intention of allowing the Palestinian people to have a state.” The stabilization force will amount to “international occupation,” according to the observer.
The US is “a party to the holocaust in Gaza, and so are all Western allies of the Israeli regime, even regional countries that have preserved political and economic ties with the regime over the last two years… they’re all complicit in the genocide in Gaza,” Marandi stressed, pointing out that without US support, “the Israeli regime, Netanyahu, would not be able to carry out the mass murders that we saw on a daily basis, [and] continue to see… as we speak now.”
The observer characterized last month’s Gaza Peace Summit in Egypt as a shameful “monkey show,” and suggested that attendees “literally sold out the Palestinian people” to try to get in the US president’s good graces.
Russian representative Vassily Nebenzia said the Security Council resolution on Gaza passed Monday was “reminiscent of colonial practices and the British mandate for Palestine” that was “granted by the League of Nations, when the opinions of the Palestinians themselves were not taken into account whatsoever.”
He also warned that the lack of clarity about the stabilization force’s mandate could make it into an unwitting party to the conflict.
Russia and China abstained from Monday’s vote, but did not veto the resolution outright in light of the desire expressed by the Palestinian Authority and regional countries to avoid a resumption of bloodshed in the besieged Strip.
Featured Video
Alon Mizrahi: ‘Israel Must Be Dismantled’
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Allies Don’t Need Lobbies
By Jay Knott | Dissident Voice | September 24, 2013
In a recent article on Counterpunch, Rob Urie defended the traditional Marxist analysis of US policy in the Middle East. He argues that support for Israel is driven primarily by economic interest, not the Jewish lobby.
He starts by paying tribute to the idea that Western societies are uniquely racist. He says that the “Western narrative” claims there is an “Arab character”, and that this is “antique racist blather”. He gives no definition of these terms. Further, he establishes his credentials as part of the dominant current in the American left by claiming that “over a million people in Iraq died so ‘we’ in the West can drive SUVs.”1
When he tries to criticize bourgeois economics, he makes it clear he doesn’t understand the developments it has made since Marx’s day, using the mathematical discipline known as “game theory”. He dismisses the basic abstraction of economic theory, the idea of the rational individual, on the grounds that it is “devoid of history, culture and political context”. But abstractions are always devoid of something.
He defends a more concrete economic theory, mostly Marxist, with some input from another theorist of capitalist crisis, Hyman Minsky. This concrete theory leads him to the view that US activity in the Middle East is primarily driven by rational capitalist motives, the need to secure a supply of oil.
“Taking the totality of circumstance — former oil company executives launching war on an oil rich nation on a pretext they publicly proclaimed they didn’t believe shortly before taking office — and that upon launching their war proved to be non-existent, requires a willingness to overlook the obvious — that the war on Iraq was for oil, that is difficult to support.”1
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood him, but based on what he says in the rest of the article, this convoluted sentence seems to argue that, because president Bush and vice-president Cheney attacked Iraq on false premises, and they also said it was all about oil, and they are former oil executives, and Iraq has a lot of oil, it’s difficult to deny US attacks on Iraq are all about oil.
In fact, it’s not hard at all. As Urie points out, at times Bush and co. said that attacking Iraq was “protecting the world’s supply of oil.”1 But, as he also points out, they are congenital liars. Why should we believe them when they say they are trying to “protect” the oil supply? Protect it against what? When politicians “admit” attacks on Middle Eastern countries are wars for oil, they are parroting the neo-con party line, feeding the public, both left and right, with a plausible-sounding pretext. For right-wingers, “it’s a war for oil” is a reason to support war, and for leftists, it’s a way to feel better by complaining impotently about corporate greed. Both approaches help the war drive. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Pakistan ramps up food exports to Persian Gulf nations as war deepens food insecurity
- Iran submits response to US plan, sets terms for war’s end: Tasnim
- US vs Iran: Kharg Island Talk — Bluff or Escalation? Ex-Military Officer Weighs In
- Zelensky unnecessarily involves Ukraine in the Middle East crisis
- Turkish tanker blacklisted by Ukraine hit in drone attack – media
- Canada, the U.S., and NATO: the inescapable trap
- Villains of Judea: Leonid Radvinsky
- Alon Mizrahi: ‘Israel Must Be Dismantled’
- Former Head Of MI6 Admits That The U.S. And Israel Are Losing The Iran War
- Scattered Thoughts on War and Peace
- If Americans Knew
- Israel may be committing war crimes in Lebanon – Not a ceasefire Day 167
- In the West Bank, life is a constant battle – 3 articles
- Jacob Reses, one of the most powerful pro-Israel operatives in Trump’s Washington
- Israeli-US assaults kill or injure 87 children a day – Not a ceasefire Day 166
- ‘Forever live by the sword’: Understanding Israelis’ massive support for Iran war
- UN’s special rapporteur on human rights says Israel is systematically torturing Palestinians
- Trump White House plagiarized Iran war manifesto from Israel-aligned think tank
- Gaza says 6–10 patients die daily waiting for treatment abroad as Israel blocks medical evacuations
- ‘Substantial evidence’ of double-tap strike in killing of Gaza’s Hind Rajab
- ‘Do Not Want To Die For Israel’: Doubts About Trump’s Iran Strategy Spread Among Troops
- No Tricks Zone
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
Aletho News 