Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israeli Military and Civilian Losses Surge, Questions Linger over Casualty Count

Discrepancies in casualty figures and internal military disagreements underscore the escalating human cost of Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza

Palestine Chronicle | April 25, 2025

More than 300 Israeli soldiers have been killed during the last 12 months alone, according to new figures released on Friday by the Israeli Defense Ministry—part of a rising toll that coincides with growing domestic discontent and calls to end the war on Gaza.

Quoting the Ministry, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that 316 soldiers and other members of the security and military establishment have been killed since April 2024. An additional 79 Israeli civilians were also killed in the same period.

However, a significant discrepancy emerged in the same report: the Ministry of Defense now counts nearly 6,000 new bereaved families since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023.

The term “bereaved families” typically refers to the immediate relatives of individuals killed in military service or in attacks classified as “hostile acts”.

The gap between the number of confirmed military deaths and the number of bereaved families has raised questions about how the figures are calculated—and whether they reflect additional, unreported losses or cumulative deaths from multiple timeframes.

In total, the ministry now records a total of 58,617 bereaved families in Israel, including 5,944 added since the war began.

These revelations come as tensions escalate within Israel’s military establishment.

According to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, sharp disagreements have surfaced between the Israeli Air Force and the Southern Command over the high number of civilian casualties in Gaza.

A senior security official reportedly told the paper that Air Force pilots are dissatisfied with the human cost of strikes on targets chosen by the Southern Command, also stating that civilian death tolls often exceed initial estimates.

Meanwhile, public sentiment continues to shift. In a recent editorial, the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv argued that Israel is “drowning in the Gaza quagmire” and urged the government to reach a deal—even at a steep price.

Yair Golan, leader of Israel’s Labor Party, echoed this call, warning that the country is “still paying a heavy price in blood” and cannot afford an indefinite war. He advocated for a regional political and security agreement to bring the war to an end and return the remaining hostages.

According to Haaretz, 139 prisoners have been returned alive from Gaza, while 38 bodies have been recovered. Another 40 Israelis remain in captivity, not including soldiers or police officers.

April 26, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Spain terminates multimillion deal with Israeli weapons maker

The Cradle | April 24, 2025

The Spanish government ordered the immediate termination of a $7.5 million contract to buy ammunition from a company with direct ties to Israeli arms maker Elbit Systems on 24 April.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez canceled the deal after Sumar, a group of left-wing parties, threatened to leave the governing coalition.

“After exhausting all routes for negotiation, the prime minister, deputy prime minister, and ministries involved have decided to rescind this contract,” a government source told Al Jazeera.

Earlier this week, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska formalized a contract with Israeli-owned company Guardian Homeland Security S.A. for over 15 million rounds of ammunition, causing a stir at the Moncloa Palace in light of Sanchez’s February 2024 pledge not to purchase weapons from Israel over the Gaza genocide.

Spanish media reports that authorities stressed the commitment of the progressive coalition government parties (PSOE and Sumar) “to the Palestinian cause and peace in the Middle East.” They also noted that since the US-backed ethnic cleansing campaign began in Gaza in October 2023, Spain has not purchased or sold weapons to Israeli firms, “nor will it do so in the future.”

However, despite the claims from Moncloa Palace, in February, the Progressive International (PI), the Palestinian Youth Movement, and the American Friends Service Committee revealed that over 60,000 weapon parts have been transported to Israel via Zaragoza airport in northern Spain since October 2023.

“The evidence indicates that these flights continue to this day,” investigators told elDiario.es, adding that the shipments include “parts and accessories for artillery, rifles, rocket/grenade launchers and machine guns” and “parts and accessories for revolvers and pistols.”

In December, The Intercept revealed that Washington sent over a thousand tons of ammunition to Israel on a ship that docked at a US naval base in Spain, despite Madrid’s embargo on vessels carrying military cargo bound for Israel.

“Shipments through American military bases in Spain of military materials, which may be used in the commission of international crimes, are harder to detect,” Spanish lawmaker Enrique Santiago told the New York-based outlet.

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

A ‘Trump deal’? Juggling war, ‘easy war’ and negotiation

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 24, 2025

Trump clearly is in the midst of an existential conflict. He has a landslide mandate. But is ringed by a resolute domestic enemy front in the form of an ‘industrial concern’ infused with Deep State ideology, centred primarily on preserving U.S. global power (rather than on mending of the economy).

The key MAGA issue however is not foreign policy, but how to structurally re-balance an economic paradigm in danger of an extinction event. Trump has always been clear that this forms his primordial goal. His coalition of supporters are fixed on the need to revive America’s industrial base, so as to provide reasonably well-paid jobs to the MAGA corps.

Trump may for now have a mandate, but extreme danger lurks – not just the Deep State and the Israeli lobby. The Yellen debt bomb is the more existential threat. It threatens Trump’s support in Congress, because the bomb is set to explode shortly before the 2026 midterms. New tariff revenues, DOGE savings, and even the upcoming Gulf shake-down are all centred on getting some sort of fiscal order in place, so that $9 trillion plus of short-term debt – maturing imminently – can be rolled over to the longer term without resort to eye-watering interest rates. It is Yellen-Democrat’s little trip wire for the Trump agenda.

So far, the general context seems plain enough. Yet, on the minutiae of how exactly to re-balance the economy; how to manage the ‘debt bomb’; and how far DOGE should go with its cuts, divisions in Trump’s team are present. In fact, the tariff war and the China tussle bring into contention a fresh phalanx of opposition: i.e. those (some on Wall Street, oligarchs, etc.) who have prospered mightily from the golden era of free-flowing, seemingly limitless, money-creation; those who were enriched, precisely by the policies that have made America subservient to the looming American ‘debt knell’.

Yet to make matters more complex, two of the key components to Trump’s mooted ‘re-balancing’ and debt ‘solution’ cannot be whispered, let alone said aloud: One reason is that it involves deliberately devaluing ‘the dollar in your pocket’. And secondly, many more Americans are going to lose their jobs.

That is not exactly a popular ‘sell’. Which is probably why the ‘re-balance’ has not been well explained to the public.

Trump launched the Liberation ‘Tariff Shock’ seemingly minded to crash-start a restructuring of international trade relations – as the first step towards a general re-alignment of major currency values.

China however, wasn’t buying into the tariff and trade restrictions ‘stuff’, and matters quickly escalated. It looked for a moment as if the Trump ‘Coalition’ might fracture under the pressure of the concomitant crisis in the U.S. bond market to the tariff fracas that shook confidence.

The Coalition, in fact, held; markets subsided, but then the Coalition fractured over a foreign policy issue – Trump’s hope to normalise relations with Russia, towards a Great Global Reset.

A major strand within the Trump Coalition (apart from MAGA populists) are the neocons and Israeli Firsters. Some sort of Faustian bargain supposedly was struck by Trump at the outset through a deal that had his team heavily peopled by zealous Israeli-Firsters.

Simply put, the breadth of coalition that Trump thought he needed to win the election and deliver an economic re-balance also included two foreign policy pillars: Firstly, the reset with Moscow – the pillar by which to end the ‘forever wars’, which his Populist base despised. And the second pillar being the neutering of Iran as a military power and source of resistance, on which both Israeli Firsters – and Israel – insist (and with which Trump seems wholly comfortable). Hence the Faustian pact.

Trump’s ‘peacemaker’ aspirations no doubt added to his electoral appeal, but they were not the real driver to his landslide. What has become evident is that these diverse agendas – foreign and domestic – are interlinked: A set-back in one or the other acts as a domino either impelling or retarding the other agendas. Put simply: Trump is dependent on ‘wins’ – early ‘wins’ – even if this means rushing towards a prospective ‘easy win’ without thinking through whether he possesses a sound strategy (and ability) to achieve it.

All of Trump’s three agenda objectives, it turns out, are more complicated and divisive than he perhaps expected. He and his team seem captivated by western-embedded assumptions such as first, that war generally happens ‘Over There’; that war in the post Cold War era is not actually ‘war’ in any traditional sense of full, all-out war, but is rather a limited application of overwhelming western force against an enemy incapable of threatening ‘us’ in a similar manner; and thirdly, that a war’s scope and duration is decided in Washington and its Deep State ‘twin’ in London.

So those who talk about ending the Ukraine war through an imposed unilateral ceasefire (ie, the faction of Walz, Rubio and Hegseth, led by Kellogg) seem to assume blithely that the terms and timing for ending the war also can be decided in Washington, and imposed on Moscow through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats.

Just as China isn’t buying into the tariff and trade restriction ‘stuff’, neither is Putin buying into the ultimatum ‘stuff’: (‘Moscow has weeks, not months, to agree a ceasefire’). Putin has patiently tried to explain to Witkoff, Trump’s Envoy, that the American presumption that the scope and duration of any war is very much up to the West to decide simply doesn’t gel with today’s reality.

And, in companion mode, those who talk about bombing Iran (which includes Trump) seem also to assume that they can dictate the war’s essential course and content too; the U.S. (and Israel perhaps), can simply determine to bomb Iran with big bunker-buster bombs. That’s it! End of story. This is assumed to be a self-justifying and easy war – and that Iran must learn to accept that they brought this upon themselves by supporting the Palestinians and others who refuse Israeli normalisation.

Aurelien observes:

“So we are dealing with limited horizons; limited imagination and limited experience. But there’s one other determining factor: The U.S. system is recognised to be sprawling, conflictual – and, as a result, largely impervious to outside influence – and even to reality. Bureaucratic energy is devoted almost entirely to internal struggles, which are carried out by shifting coalitions in the administration; in Congress; in Punditland and in the media. But these struggles are, in general, about [domestic] power and influence – and not about the inherent merits of an issue, and [thus] require no actual expertise or knowledge”.

“The system is large and complex enough that you can make a career as an ‘Iran expert’, say, inside and outside government, without ever having visited the country or speaking the language – by simply recycling standard wisdom in a way that will attract patronage. You will be fighting battles with other supposed ‘experts’, within a very confined intellectual perimeter, where only certain conclusions are acceptable”.

What becomes evident is that this cultural approach (the Think-Tank Industrial Complex) induces a laziness and the prevalence of hubris into western thinking. It is assumed reportedly, that Trump assumed that Xi Jinping would rush to meet with him, following the imposition of tariffs – to plead for a trade deal – because China is suffering some economic headwinds.

It is blandly assumed by the Kellogg contingent too that pressure is both the necessary and sufficient condition to compel Putin to agree to an unilateral ceasefire – a ceasefire that Putin repeatedly has stated he would not accept until a political framework was first agreed. When Witkoff relays Putin’s point within the Trump team discussion, he stands as a contrarian outside the ‘licensed discourse’ which insists that Russia only takes détente with an adversary seriously after it has been forced to do so by a defeat or serious setback.

Iran too repeatedly has said that it will not be stripped naked of its conventional defences; its allies and its nuclear programme. Iran likely has the capabilities to inflict huge damage both on U.S. forces in the region and on Israel.

The Trump Team is divided on strategy here too – crudely put: to Negotiate or to Bomb.

It seems that the pendulum has swung under intense pressure from Netanyahu and the Jewish institutional leadership within the U.S.

A few words can change everything. In an about face, Witkoff shifted from saying a day earlier that Washington would be satisfied with a cap on Iranian nuclear enrichment and would not require the dismantling of its nuclear facilities, to posting on his official X account that any deal would require Iran to “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program … A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal”. Without a clear reversal on this from Trump, we are on a path to war.

It is plain that Team Trump has not thought through the risks inherent to their agendas. Their initial ‘ceasefire meeting’ with Russia in Riyadh, for example, was a theatre of the facile. The meeting was held on the easy assumption that since Washington had determined to have an early ceasefire then ‘it must be’.

“Famously”, Aurelien wearily notes, “the Clinton administration’s Bosnia policy was the product of furious power struggles between rival American NGO and Human Rights’ alumni – none of whom knew anything about the region, or had ever been there”.

It is not just that the team is insouciant towards the possible consequences of war in the Middle East. They are captive to manipulated assumptions that it will be an easy war.

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Our 2002 Redux

By Matt Wolfson | The Libertarian Institute | April 22, 2025

In the detention of Mahmoud Khalil and the ensuing crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism by Donald Trump’s administration, a recognizable model for governance is emerging. The model is from 2002. During that year, as American citizens were distracted by the aftermath of a recession and energized from a terrorist attack, the Geoge W. Bush administration and its allies took actions to mute opposition to its Global War on Terror. These moves provoked charges from a vocal minority of Americans that the administration was acting in an unconstitutional, even a fascistic, way; and that U.S. citizens would be next to be detained or even disappeared.

What happened instead was a subtler and more insidious silencing of speech. This silencing would have been familiar to the Founders, who limited America’s government in order to encourage speech, since they knew that the mere awareness of menacing state power might be enough to forestall citizens’ willingness to speak openly in dissent. In 2002, America’s research universities and establishment media proved the Founders right. They noticed the Bush administration’s hard line and self-policed. Their silence smoothed the way for the invasion of Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, and much else we still live with today.

The 2002 plays occurred mostly behind the scenes. But they have been extensively documented by journalists sorting through their detritus.

Between September 2001 and August 2002, the Justice Department detained 762 aliens, some of them based on “minor immigration offenses,” often without proof of any actual ties to terrorism, and held them in indefinite detention rather than deporting them. To try these detainees, it set up special military courts that legal thinkers from different political persuasions, including Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia, believed usurped congressional power and the writ of habeas corpus. The administration created an Information Awareness Office in the Pentagon focused on “story telling, change detection, and truth maintenance” and “biologically inspired algorithms for agent control”: e.g. on the surveillance of American citizens for spreading government narratives. The Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans began releasing narratives through more traditional channels, including leaking to The New York Times about purported links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

The players pushing these policies and narratives were deeply linked to Israel and Saudi Arabia, which had interests in American involvement in the Middle East as a bulwark against Iraq and Iran. Powerful supporters in the media echoed them.

The Weekly Standard vociferously attacked those urging a cautious response after 9/11, including by offering “Susan Sontag awards.” These amounted to a regular bludgeoning of America’s foremost leftwing intellectual, after she argued in a 450 word article in The New Yorker that “a few shreds of historical awareness” might help prevent future 9/11s. The New Republic, whose literary editor publicly dropped his friendship with Sontag, began publishing an “Idiot Watch” about opponents of the rumored invasion of Iraq. Harvard Law School’s Laurence Tribe, who had just represented Al Gore in his losing litigation before the Supreme Court over the 2000 election, argued in The New Republic in favor of detaining prisoners via military tribunals, the position later argued against by Justice Scalia. New Republic contributor and Harvard president Larry Summers argued that petitions for American divestment in Israeli settlements, arguably a key driver of Islamic anger at America, could be “anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.”

In the face of the push, knowledge producing institutions cooperated. The New York Times, dependent on White House sources, reduced a series of reports that cast doubt on the connection between Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to one back page story. (The story’s author, James Risen, said later that “It’s like any corporate culture, where you know what management wants, and no one has to tell you.”) The Washington Post, similarly dependent on White House sources, backed the invasion of Iraq. University presidents and many eminent professors held a generally skeptical view as to the Iraq War’s plausible success—but they kept their dissent private.

Together, these operators created a bipartisan intelligentsia invested in or at least acceding to the Bush Administration’s “democracy agenda” in the Middle East, the “hope and change” agenda of its day.

The people resisting these moves were undone by either their even-handedness or their attention-seeking. The late Ronald Dworkin, one of America’s most eminent legal minds, wrote lucid critiques of these policies that were nonetheless unlikely to bring people to the barricades. The filmmaker Michael Moore aimed his hit documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, as its title suggests, to cash in on provocation at the expense of crossover appeal. Instead of making a difference in the debate, Moore made money as a cult hero, which he poured into progressive identity politicking. Meantime, the majority of the country supported the invasion of Iraq.

Within three years of the invasion—even before the loss of $3 trillion dollars, 7,000 Americans, and at least 80,000 Middle Eastern civilians—almost all of the liberal centrists who had backed it had bailed out, sort of. They expressed their “regret—but no shame” as well as their “pain” at their “mistake”: a mistake that was nonetheless “impossible” for them “to denounce,” since they had made the mistake for good reasons. They also expressed their disappointment with the Bush administration—and were duly featured in the pages of The New Republic, Slate, and The New Yorker. They turned their support to the Democratic Party and Barack Obama’s hope and change agenda. Obama’s Democrats, afraid of being called soft on terror, continued most of Bush’s policies, most of which continue to this day.

Since the beginning of March 2025, we appear to be in a 2002 repeat.

The Trump Administration has revoked the visas of 300 visa holders, among them college students and medical students who have expressed their opposition to American policy in the Middle East. It has equipped the State Department with artifical intelligence (AI) tools that scan the social-media posts of foreign students for posts that equate, in the administration’s view, support for Hamas. It has cancelled the appointment of a prominent anti-interventionist to the Department of Homeland Security and stalled the appointment of another to the Department of Defense. It has deepened ties with Saudi Arabia, and has likely committed to the project of razing, relocating, and rebuilding Gaza. It has started bombing the Saudis’ and Israelis’ enemies in Yemen—even though the trade benefits from this bombing mostly accrue, as Vice President J.D. Vance said, to Europe. The president has also taken a hard line on Iran, threatening bombings.

Powerful media players, like in 2002, have lent their support to these moves. The prime driver is The Atlantic, which has succeeded The New Republic as establishment Washington’s go-to magazine—and the promoter of many new bad ideas from psychological racism to restorative justice. Not only does the magazine’s majority investor have ties to Saudi Arabia but its editor is a former Israeli Defense Forces guard who, as a journalist in the 2000s, reinforced the Bush administration’s case for the Iraq War. Recently it’s become clear that The Atlantic has a line to National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, the Trump Administration’s resident interventionist. Echoing The Atlantic’s line are its contributors: many former government operators who teach at international schools of prestigious American research universities and appear at the Aspen Institute.

Universities are taking the hint. Columbia University set up an Office of Institutional Equity which has investigated students under a troublingly sweeping definition of anti-semitism. Columbia also “placed the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies department and the Center for Palestine Studies under review.” And it fired its interim president, Katrina Armstrong, for failing to propitiate the Trump administration. Meantime, reportedly under similar pressure, the two leaders of Harvard University’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies left their positions. New York University canceled a speech by a medic from Doctors Without Borders about Gaza which included images of injured children because these “slides about Gaza could be perceived as anti-Semitic.”

Unlike in 2002, there is broad resistance to these moves on the left and on the right. But the resisters are making many different arguments which entail complex questions; about the rights of citizens versus non-citizens; about the use of judicial review. The real issue remains what it was in 2002: the shutting down of debate inside knowledge-producing institutions with major influence over information flows. Democracy, as Susan Sontag said in 2001, promotes “candor” and “disagreement.” At least it should.

Like then, today’s shutting down is not widespread enough to provoke widespread resistance. But it’s enough to create a chill. That chill can persuade a third year college student, after a call home to worried parents, not to write an op-ed about campus speech for a school paper. It can persuade a Middle Eastern studies professor, mindful of Washington’s new interest in her classroom, to water down her lesson plan. It can persuade a second-year columnist at The Washington Post, now owned by recent Trump accomodator Jeff Bezos, not to touch the Yemen issue in her column that week or month or year. It can lead an influencer on Instagram, owned by other recent Trump accomodator Mark Zuckerberg, not to talk about Saudi human rights abuses. Anti-intervention protests will likely get smaller; the space for doubt in establishment newspapers will likely shrink. All of this amounts to the insidious silencing the Founders imagined. It probably already is.

[Some of] Trump’s genuinely populist supporters support this crackdown on the same logic as they support other Trump policies: Trump is silencing voices who aren’t citizens, who don’t seem to like America, and who are extracting resources—in this case education—from Americans. But this operation is not like the others. It affects American citizens by casting a chill on speech; and its function is to shut down opposition to an American involvement abroad.

What’s more, the people backing this play are no friends to America First. They are liberal and neoconservative centrists who, when the administration runs into difficulty, will repeat their play from the early 2000s. They will use the failure to usher into power a set of Democratic politicians who are already moving to the political center. Larry Summers is already making the play clear. Even as he applauds Harvard for changing its approach to the Middle East in response to Trump, he accuses Trump of being “dictatorial” towards universities and predicts “catastrophic” economic results from Trump’s presidency.

These centrists are dedicated above all to the maintenance of institutional power. Their rising influence in a presidency that was a referendum for popular constitutional government is cause for alarm, and for public pushback, and for debate—all of the things the institutions are trying to deny.

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Smoke in Rome: What’s really cooking between Trump and Tehran?

While US negotiators trade smiles with Tehran, internal rifts and foreign pressure reveal just how fragile Washington’s position has become

By Farhad Ibragimov | RT | April 23, 2025

Last Saturday, the second round of US-Iran nuclear talks took place in Rome, following an initial meeting held a week before in Muscat, Oman. Both sides had described the talks as “constructive,” but that optimism quickly collided with a wave of conflicting signals from the Trump administration. Despite the encouraging tone, it remained unclear whether a new nuclear agreement was truly within reach.

At the outset of negotiations, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz – an outspoken Iran hawk – laid down a hardline condition: Iran must completely dismantle its uranium enrichment program if it wanted any deal with the US. But after the Muscat meeting, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, who led the US delegation, struck a very different note. In an interview with Fox News, he suggested that Tehran might be allowed to maintain limited uranium enrichment for peaceful energy purposes – something that would have been a nonstarter just days earlier.

Witkoff emphasized the importance of strict verification protocols to prevent any militarization of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, including oversight of missile technology and delivery systems. Notably absent from his remarks? Any mention of “dismantlement.” This shift hinted that the administration might be considering a modified return to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the very agreement that Trump tore up in 2018, branding it a “disaster.”

But the pivot didn’t last. Just one day later, Witkoff reversed course in a post on X, doubling down on the demand for full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear and weapons programs. So what triggered the rhetorical whiplash?

According to Axios, Trump huddled with top national security officials just three days after the Muscat talks to reassess the US strategy. In that meeting, Vice President JD Vance, Witkoff, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued for a pragmatic approach. Pushing Tehran to dismantle its entire nuclear infrastructure, they warned, would tank the talks. Iran had already made it clear that such sweeping concessions were off the table. Vance even suggested Washington should brace for some level of compromise.

But not everyone agreed. A rival faction – led by Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – saw things differently. They argued that Iran’s current vulnerability gave the US a unique upper hand, one that shouldn’t be squandered. If Tehran failed to meet America’s terms, they insisted, the US should be ready to strike militarily or greenlight Israeli action.

The divide exposes a deeper strategic rift within the Trump administration. Between the maximalist view that Iran must be completely disarmed and the more flexible position that aims to curb weaponization while preserving peaceful enrichment lies a vast gray area. The lack of a unified message – or even basic consensus – risks leaving the US at a disadvantage against a seasoned and coordinated Iranian negotiating team.

In short, Trump finds himself in a difficult balancing act. On one hand, it’s clear he wants to avoid military escalation. The decision to send Witkoff – a figure known for his willingness to compromise – signals a genuine interest in diplomacy over saber-rattling. If hardliners had the upper hand in Washington, it’s unlikely the second round in Rome would have happened at all.

On Monday, April 21, Trump cautiously told reporters the talks were going “very well,” but warned that real progress would take time. His choice of words reflected a desire to stay flexible, while acknowledging the complexity – and risks – of negotiating with Tehran.

Optimism seems more palpable on the Iranian side. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the two sides had found significantly more common ground in Rome than in Muscat. His remarks suggest that momentum is building and that real progress may be on the horizon.

Araghchi’s itinerary also raised eyebrows. Before heading to Rome, he made a stop in Moscow, where he met with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. He reportedly carried a personal message from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – what he called “a message to the world.” The West didn’t miss the symbolism: the visit was widely interpreted as a public reaffirmation of the Moscow–Tehran alliance. Retired US Army Colonel and former Pentagon advisor Douglas MacGregor noted on X that any major American military action against Iran would likely draw a response from Russia, Tehran’s strategic partner.

On that same day, President Putin signed a law ratifying a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Iran – further cementing political and economic cooperation. Against the backdrop of fragile US-Iran talks, the Moscow-Tehran axis suddenly looks more consequential. With these growing ties, Washington may find it harder to exert unilateral pressure on Iran.

Meanwhile, not everyone in Tehran is sold on the negotiations. Many Iranian officials remain skeptical of Trump, whose decision to unilaterally scrap the JCPOA in 2018 still looms large. Their distrust extends beyond Trump himself to a broader concern: that future US presidents may once again reverse course. If Obama’s deals were dismantled by Trump, why wouldn’t Trump’s agreements suffer the same fate?

Despite these tensions, major international outlets have confirmed that two more rounds of talks are planned: one in Geneva next week, and another in Oman the week after. The continued diplomatic activity points to a shared interest in keeping the conversation alive. For now, both Trump’s measured optimism and Iran’s cautious tone suggest that, at least in the near term, the risk of war has receded.

This de-escalation in rhetoric reflects a deeper truth: despite lingering mistrust and domestic political pressures, both sides see value in staying at the table. You don’t have to be a policy wonk to see that. But in Israel, the mood is far more anxious. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – never one to hide his skepticism about engaging Iran – has condemned the talks. For Tel Aviv, negotiations risk softening Tehran’s isolation and threatening Israel’s strategic position.

Still, Trump’s priority isn’t regional politics – it’s his legacy. He wants to be seen as the president who avoided war and brokered a deal the American public can get behind. In that light, Netanyahu’s objections may have to wait

Farhad Ibragimov, lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel Stalls and the International Court of Justice Complies

By Rick Sterling – Dissident Voice – April 23, 2025

One year ago, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel had fifteen months to prepare their defense (“counter memorial”) against the charges of genocide filed by South Africa. They were told to present their arguments by 28 July 2025.

That seems like a very long time in a case involving the daily killing of many people, including children. But it was not enough time for Israel, which on 27 March 2025 filed a request to extend the time.

In a very recent decision, the International Court of Justice has obliged and extended the time by six months. Israel can continue killing with impunity, and their defense to the International Court of Justice is not required until 28 January 2026.

There has been very little news of this decision. The ICJ did not issue a press release, despite this being their most sensational case. Accordingly, the decision has not been reported in The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Guardian. Meanwhile, Israeli media reported, “EXCLUSIVE: Israel secures six month delay in Hague Court proceedings.”

Another important story that has been largely ignored by Western media is regarding the sole Judge who voted in favor of Israel in every single decision so far in this case. That person, Judge Julia Sebutinde, has been revealed to have grossly plagiarized the writings of two ultra-zionists: Douglas Feith and David Brog. Feith is a co-author of the infamous Netanyahu plan, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” and part of the Bush/Cheney team that campaigned for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Brog is Jewish but helped to found Christians United for Israel. He is currently the head of Miriam Adelson’s “Maccabee Task Force”. Anti-zionist scholar Norman Finkelstein has discovered that 32% of the ICJ judge’s pro-Israel dissenting opinion was plagiarized from Feith, Brog, and others.

As the saying goes, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” And if nobody reports or knows about it, did it really happen? Along with dead Palestinians in Gaza, Israel is trying and perhaps succeeding in killing the International Court of Justice.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist in the SF Bay Area. He can be reached at rsterling1@protonmail.com

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

War Dust and Collateral Inhalation: Israel Breathes in Gaza’s Dust

A Forensic Study of the Self-Inflicted Consequences of Modern Warfare

By Dennis Kucinich | April 23, 2025

Gaza is suffering the most intense bombing, per capita, of anywhere on earth, ever.

Over 100,000 tons of bombs have been dropped on Gaza, an area slightly smaller than the City of Detroit, Michigan, resulting in the recorded deaths of at least 60,000 Gazans and injuries to hundreds of thousands.¹

It is impossible to overstate the effects of the abominable bombing war on Gazans, their lives, their families, their health, and their communities.

What has escaped attention up until now is the undeniable environmental and health effects of the bombing of Gazans on Israelis, as well as on citizens of neighboring states, and the potential harm to U.S. military personnel in the region.

A study of explosion physics based on declassified Department of Defense data, as well as blast temperature data and consequent emissions; a review of wind patterns, together with publicly available data of health effects from 9/11, as well as data gathered from U.S. veterans of the Persian Gulf War, yield a shocking conclusion.

Israel, in executing the unprecedented bombing attack on Gaza, is, in effect, bombing itself, with grave consequences for the public health of its people.² What is being visited upon Gaza does not stay in Gaza.

The sustained bombing of Gaza pulverizes stone, heavy metals, and the human body. The vaporizing of human beings under extreme heat and pressure combines with dust, water vapor, and metallic particles the size of microns, all blasted upwards, aerosolized, wind-driven across borders, into Israel and surrounding countries.³

The unlimited bombing of Gaza has created an unparalleled ecological and biomedical feedback loop. Israel exhales death in Gaza and inhales the Gaza it has vaporized.

Israel, in bombing neighboring Gaza, is breathing in its own fallout, along with the vaporized remains of its declared enemies. The external consequences of violence becomes internalized. The substance of the oppressed communes with the oppressor.

On a clinical level, breathing in bioaerosols can compromise human immune systems.⁴ Breathing in ultrafine particles from non-biological war dust can cross the blood-brain barrier and contribute to neurodegenerative disease.⁵

Israel and the Palestinians share a common atmosphere. They inhale the same war dust, from bomb materials, carbon soot, and the fine particle remains of vaporized Gazans.

Human cremation occurs at temperatures between 1,400°F and 1,800°F.⁶ The blast temperatures of the bombs identified as being dropped on Gaza—MK-84 bombs: 4,496°F; GBU-39s: 4,892°F; BLU-109s: 3,632°F—far exceed this range.⁷ In comparison, blast furnaces used to melt steel operate at 2,500°F to 2,800°F.⁸

People at the epicenter of such bombings in Gaza are instantly turned into dust. This is a factor confounding the determination of exactly how many people have perished in Gaza since October 2023. How can an accurate body count be achieved if bodies have been turned to smoke and ash?

Let’s look at 9/11. The total confirmed dead: 2,753. Almost 40% of the victims were never identified, as their bodies were fragmented or vaporized, reduced to dust.⁹

When a bomb hits its target—for example, a tent city—the high-temperature explosion can vaporize a person so thoroughly that microscopic particles of DNA and loose molecules are suspended in air, mingling with dust and smoke as bioaerosols.¹⁰

These biologicals—DNA and fat in human tissue—turn to carbon, black dust, and smoke. The minerals of bones and teeth, skeletal dust, go airborne. Fragments of cells can float in the air, bubbles holding fat, bone, and broken DNA strands travel with the wind and are breathed in dozens of miles from the blast site.¹¹

It is not only the superheat that destroys the human body. The explosive force of a bomb, in terms of pounds per square inch (psi), can produce vaporization at the blast site, an impact equivalent to a plane plunging into the earth at high speed.¹²

As 100,000 tons of bombs have been dropped in Gaza, the matter destroyed takes a different form, as toxic pollutants carried aloft in gas, dust, vapor, and particulates.

Specifically, toxic quantities of cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, and arsenic are released into the air, together with dioxins, furans, PCBs, (polychlorinated biphenyls); PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and VOCs (volatile organic compounds).¹³

One calculation indicates that 100,000 tons of bombs, exploded in a densely populated area of Gaza, can generate between 800,000 to 1.2 million tons of pollution.¹⁴

Add to this the dust of Gazans’ human remains and you have extreme airborne consequences carried by the wind, directly into Israel, particularly the central and northern regions, and far beyond.

There are relevant comparisons for the health effects of a tremendous explosion in an urban area. A month after 9/11, people in Manhattan began to develop chronic coughs.

A longitudinal study of members of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) revealed that after six months, firemen began to suffer from chronic bronchitis; others saw the onset of pulmonary fibrosis.¹⁵

Two years after 9/11, a higher incidence of thyroid, prostate, breast, and other cancers arose among those exposed to 9/11 contaminants. Early-onset neurodegenerative, Alzheimer’s-type symptoms presented after five years or longer.¹⁶

Based on epidemiological data from studies of those near the people and buildings destroyed on 9/11, certain health effects can be anticipated in Israel.

The people of Sderot, Netivot, Be’er Sheva—all within a short distance of Gaza—are at high risk of long-term health effects of the bombing. Ashkelon and Tel Aviv have been exposed to environmental consequences, as has northern Israel and even Jordan.

While Israel’s Ministry of Environmental Protection operates air-monitoring stations at sites proximate to Gaza, it would be instructive, given the intensity of the bombing, to see if the effects of war-related pollution are being fully disclosed to the Israeli public.¹⁷

Given the unprecedented levels of bombing in Gaza, the types of bombs used, their explosive power, the extent of physical destruction, the extraordinary number of casualties, the creation of large plumes of black smoke containing the genetic material of burned and vaporized Gazans, the people of Israel—on the other side of the Gaza boundary—will likely experience increased levels of respiratory illness, asthma-like and other pulmonary diseases, and a sharp increase in cancer as a direct result of being exposed to toxic airborne substances present at a microscopic level.¹⁸

Added to this direct hazard is the ongoing recirculation of wind across the vast hellscape to which Gaza has been reduced. That, too, will sweep up and redistribute the contaminants from the over 50 million tons of debris from the land of Gaza to the land of Israel.

At this point, the calamity which has befallen Gaza as a result of incessant bombing will visit, in various forms and degrees of harm, southern and central Israel, western Jordan, the northeast Sinai Peninsula, northern Egypt (Delta and Cairo), Lebanon, Cyprus, southwestern Syria, northwestern Saudi Arabia, southeastern Turkey, Crete, Greece, Sicily, and Malta. Additionally, sea spray can carry aerosolized particles clear across the Mediterranean Sea.¹⁹

The United States has a substantial number of Naval forces in the eastern Mediterranean, including two aircraft carriers, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS Gerald R. Ford, as well as numerous other assault ships.²⁰

U.S. military installations are present at Incirlik, Turkey, Naples, Italy, Cyprus, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. All face “war dust” pollution hazards as a result of the bombing of Gaza.²¹

I know well the adverse health consequences suffered by US servicemen and women who served in the Persian Gulf War, 1990–1991.

Veterans of that war came to my congressional office complaining of constant pain, neurological, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms, all of which were ignored or covered up by the Department of Defense.

As a Member of Congress, over the objections of the Department of Defense, I took up the cause of veterans who suffered what came to be known as Gulf War Illness, a multi-symptom condition still affecting, to this very day, nearly 245,000 veterans of the Persian Gulf War.²²

Bernie Sanders and I worked together in Congress to obtain funding for research into GWI, which is now a medically recognized, war-related condition.²³

When you see the measurable, catastrophic effect which war environments can have on those who serve, and the measurable catastrophic effect of those proximate to the 9/11 attacks, and the indefensible obliteration bombing of Gaza and its people, you may come to an understanding of the wholly fallacious notion of the containment of war and why I assert Israel is bombing itself.

The bombing of Gaza has created a human health crisis which cannot be ignored any longer.

There must be an immediate cease-fire on humanitarian and ecological bases.

  • The UN must urgently address the collapse of the Palestinian public health system, including the implications of the war for respiratory diseases and cancers among survivors.
  • The UN must lead a Transboundary Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Immediate and Long-Term Implications of War Dust, which will include transboundary assessments of the toxic environmental effects of the war.
  • Monitoring stations must be set up. The people of the world have a right to know what is in the air they breathe.

International humanitarian and environmental law must, at last, be enforced.

UN representatives must determine a path forward.

Israel and the United States must consider the far-reaching consequences of the decision to attack and bomb the people of another country.

The tortured mindset which licenses the extinction of Gazans is now a spectre haunting the entire world, with its ghoulish designs on Iran. I will explore that approaching cataclysm in a future column.

Human rights and compassion are not considerations in bombing Gazans. Perhaps enlightened self-preservation can be introduced as a means to stop the bombing, once and for all.

The war against Gazans must end, and perhaps through the suffering of Gazans, and understanding the regional and global health impact of bombing, we may understand why it is time to call an end to all wars.

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Environmentalism, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Seyed Mohammad Marandi: Israel Pressures US Toward War With Iran

Glenn Diesen | April 22, 2025

Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor, an analyst and an advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi argues that Iran is ready for war, as the US and Israel disagree over attacking Iran.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:

Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/

Support the channel: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenn…

Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f

April 23, 2025 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s NSC Director for Israel and Iran Previously Worked for Israeli Ministry of Defense

By Ryan Grim and Saagar Enjeti | Drop Site News | April 21, 2025

The American official overseeing White House policy toward both Israel and Iran inside the National Security Council formerly worked for the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Drop Site News has learned. Merav Ceren’s appointment as Director for Israel and Iran at the NSC has not previously been reported, but her work with Israel’s MoD is well known among GOP circles.

Ceren’s appointment gives Israel an unusual advantage in internal policy discussions just as the Israeli government has launched a new campaign to pressure the American government to start a war with Iran rather than continue with negotiations toward a nuclear deal.

NSC spokesperson Brian Hughes confirmed that Ceren is now an official at the NSC and defended her as “a patriotic American.”

“Merav is a patriotic American who has served in the United States government for years, including for President Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, and Congressman James Comer,” said Hughes. “We are thrilled to have her expertise in the NSC, where she carries out the President’s agenda on a range of Middle East issues.”

Ceren includes her time with Israel’s Ministry of Defense in her bio at the pro-Israel think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

The Israeli campaign has forced the issue into the top echelons of government. At a high-level meeting reported on recently by the New York Times, Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth all pushed back against Israel’s plan for a major strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. They were even joined by NSC Director Michael Waltz, who warned that Israel’s effort would not succeed without ample U.S. support. Waltz and CENTCOM commander, Gen. Michael Kurilla, the Times reported, had previously been open to entertaining the Israeli idea and were briefed by Israeli military officials on a range of plans.

It’s rare for a foreign country to be able to pitch American policymakers on a joint war effort and look across the table to see a former member of their own Ministry of Defense working for the Americans. As Trump debates his tariff policy, for instance, there are no high-level officials who previously worked for the Chinese Communist Party present.

Ceren’s FDD bio says that while working for the Israeli military she participated in negotiations in the West Bank between Israel’s Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) and the Palestinian Authority. COGAT is the Israeli agency now refusing entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, sparking a humanitarian crisis of unspeakable proportions. Ceren is the sister of Omri Ceren, a bellicose neoconservative and longtime foreign policy adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz.

In 2021, she authored the article “The Moral Case for High-Tech Weapons” for The New Atlantis, a long-form style publication that seeks to “understand the core anxiety about tech as the threat of dehumanization.”

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Deporting dissent: The dangerous precedent set by the persecution of pro-Palestine activists

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | April 22, 2025

“Rights are granted to those who align with power,” Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student, eloquently wrote from his cell. This poignant statement came soon after a judge ruled that the government had met the legal threshold to deport the young activist on the nebulous ground of “foreign policy”.

“For the poor, for people of colour, for those who resist injustice, rights are but words written on water,” Khalil further lamented. The plight of this young man, whose sole transgression appears to be his participation in the nationwide mobilisation to halt the Israeli genocide in Gaza, should terrify all Americans. This concern should extend even to those who are not inclined to join any political movement and possess no particular sympathy for – or detailed knowledge of – the extent of the Israeli atrocities in Gaza, or the United States’ role in bankrolling this devastating conflict.

The perplexing nature of the case against Khalil, like those against other student activists, including Turkish visa holder Rumeysa Ozturk, starkly indicates that the issue is purely political. Its singular aim appears to be the silencing of dissenting political voices.

Judge Jamee E. Comans, who concurred with the Trump Administration’s decision to deport Khalil, cited “foreign policy” in an uncritical acceptance of the language employed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio had previously written to the court, citing “potentially serious foreign policy consequences” stemming from Khalil’s actions, which he characterised as participation in “disruptive activities” and “anti-Semitic protests”.

The latter accusation has become the reflexive rejoinder to any form of criticism levelled against Israel, a tactic prevalent even long before the current catastrophic genocide in Gaza.

Those who might argue that US citizens remain unaffected by the widespread US government crackdowns on freedom of expression must reconsider. On 14 April, the government decided to freeze $2.2 billion in federal funding to the University of Harvard.

Beyond the potential weakening of educational institutions and their impact on numerous Americans, these financial measures also coincide with a rapidly accelerating and alarming trend of targeting dissenting voices within the US, reaching unprecedented extents. On 14 April, Massachusetts immigration lawyer Nicole Micheroni, a US citizen, publicly disclosed receiving a message from the Department of Homeland Security requesting her self-deportation.

Furthermore, new oppressive bills are under consideration in Congress, granting the Department of Treasury expansive measures to shut down community organisations, charities and similar entities under various pretenses and without adhering to standard constitutional legal procedures.

Many readily conclude that these measures reflect Israel’s profound influence on US domestic politics and the significant ability of the Israel lobby in Washington DC to interfere with the very democratic fabric of the US, whose Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and assembly.

While there is much truth in that conclusion, the narrative extends beyond the complexities of the Israel-Palestine issue.

For many years, individuals, predominantly academics, who championed Palestinian rights were subjected to trials or even deported, based on “secret evidence”. This essentially involved a legal practice that amalgamated various acts, such as the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), among others, to silence those critical of US foreign policy.

Although some civil rights groups in the US challenged the selective application of law to stifle dissent, the matter hardly ignited a nationwide conversation regarding the authorities’ violations of fundamental democratic norms, such as due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).

Following the terrorist attacks [events] of September 11, 2001, however, much of that legal apparatus was applied to all Americans in the form of the PATRIOT Act. This legislation broadened the government’s authority to employ surveillance, including electronic communications and other intrusive measures.

Subsequently, it became widely known that even social media platforms were integrated into government surveillance efforts. Recent reports have even suggested that the government mandated social media screening for all US visa applicants who have travelled to the Gaza Strip since 1 January 2007.

In pursuing these actions, the US government is effectively replicating some of the draconian measures imposed by Israel on the Palestinians. The crucial distinction, based on historical experience, is that these measures tend to undergo continuous evolution, establishing legal precedents that swiftly apply to all Americans and further compromise their already deteriorating democracy.

Americans are already grappling with their perception of their democratic institutions, with a disturbingly high number of 72 percent, according to a Pew Research Centre survey in April 2024, believing that US democracy is no longer a good example for other countries to follow.

The situation has only worsened in the past year. While US activists advocating for justice in Palestine deserve unwavering support and defence for their profound courage and humanity, Americans must also recognise that they, and the remnants of their democracy, are equally at risk.

“Our defence is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere,” is the timeless quote associated with Abraham Lincoln. Yet, every day that Mahmoud Khalil and others spend in their cells, awaiting deportation, stands as the starkest violation of that very sentiment. Americans must not permit this injustice to persist.

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Syrian security forces detain Palestinian resistance leaders

The Cradle | April 22, 2025

Two top officials from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement in Syria have been detained by Syrian security forces.

Khaled Khaled, head of PIJ operations in Syria, and Yasser al-Zafari, head of the organizational committee, were arrested five days ago.

The Syria TV outlet acknowledged the arrests, yet Damascus has not commented officially on the matter.

The arrests come after reports that the US has issued a list of conditions that Syrian authorities must fulfill in exchange for relief from sanctions that were imposed by Washington on former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government.

These conditions include the destruction of any chemical weapons, cooperation on “counter-terrorism,” and ensuring foreign fighters are not granted top positions, according to Reuters.

Reuters also said that “one of the conditions was keeping Iran-backed Palestinian groups at a distance.”

The arrests coincide with Israel’s continued expansion of its occupation of southern Syria, and come after a visit to Damascus by US Congressman Cory Mills, who held talks with Syria’s interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani.

“The president and the leadership have demonstrated their willingness to work with Israel as they seek to prevent Hashd al-Shaabi from transferring weapons from Iraq through Syria into Lebanon,” Mills said in an interview with the Jusoor outlet.

The PIJ’s armed wing, the Quds Brigades, released a statement about the arrests on 22 April.

Khaled and Zafari were detained “without any explanation for the reasons of their arrest, and in a manner which we would not have hoped to see from our brothers [in Syria],” the Quds Brigades statement reads.

“Day five has passed and you have two of our best cadres,” it said. “We in the Quds Brigades hope that our brothers in the Syrian government will release our brothers held by them.”

“At this time when we have been fighting the Zionist enemy continuously for more than a year and a half in the Gaza Strip without surrender, we hope to receive support and appreciation from our Arab brothers, not the opposite,” it added.

Under Bashar al-Assad’s government, Syria was a haven for Palestinian resistance factions, including the PIJ and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP–GC).

Days after the fall of Assad’s government, Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar reported that the new government in Syria ordered Palestinian resistance groups to dissolve all military formations in the country.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group that toppled the former government, launched a wave of closures targeting Palestinian faction offices after entering Damascus in December 2024, according to The Cradle’s Palestine correspondent.

Offices belonging to Fatah al-Intifada, the Baath-aligned Al-Sa’iqa movement, and the PFLP–GC were shuttered, with their weapons, vehicles, and real estate seized.

Several Palestinian officials were detained and placed under house arrest.

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘A battle between right and wrong’: Houthi spokesman on confronting the US and Israel

The Grayzone | April 21, 2025

The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal interviews Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti, senior political officer and spokesman for Ansar Allah (the Houthi movement), on Yemen’s direct confrontation with a US military machine which is hellbent on destroying its ability to resist Israel. In this third conversation between The Grayzone and Bukhaiti, the Ansar Allah spokesman explains why he believes his movement’s war with the US-Israeli axis is unlike any conflict that preceded it, and why he believes Yemen is engaged in a righteous battle despite the terrible toll its civilians have faced. This interview was translated by Hekmat Aboukhater. 

Find more reporting at https://thegrayzone.com Support our original journalism at

Patreon:   / grayzone  

Facebook:   / thegrayzone  

Twitter:   / thegrayzonenews  

Instagram:   / thegrayzonenews  

April 22, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »