Middle East « Aletho News

Syrian military outlines response to terrorist offensive

RT | November 30, 2024

The Syrian military is not allowing terrorists that launched a surprise offensive on Aleppo to establish well-entrenched positions in the city and is gathering forces for a counterattack, the country’s General Command has said. It admitted, however, that dozens of its troops have been killed in the fighting.

Earlier this week, the Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS) terrorist group, an offshoot of Jabhat al-Nusra, and its allies launched the first major attack in Syria in years, capturing large swaths of land in Idlib and Aleppo and pushing back government forces.

In a statement on Saturday, the Syrian General Command said that the attack was “supported by thousands of foreign terrorists, heavy weapons, and a large number of drones.” It said that the military has fought battles over an area exceeding 100km in a bid to halt their advance.

Damascus acknowledged that “dozens of our forces were killed and others were wounded during the battles,” without giving exact figures.

The Command added that the terrorist forces have been able “to enter large parts of Aleppo city” but failed “to establish their positions due to the continued concentrated and strong strikes by our armed forces.” The military is also expecting reinforcements to arrive for a counterattack, the statement added. Authorities are making every effort to ensure the safety of people and to regain control of the entire area, it said.

Meanwhile, unverified videos circulating on social media appear to show the militants in the center of Aleppo, with one clip depicting an armed man waving a flag at the gates of the city’s historic citadel.

The Syrian military’s response to the attack was backed by Russian airstrikes. According to Oleg Ignasyuk, deputy head of the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria, Russian and Syrian forces have eliminated about 600 militants over the past two days.

Moscow intervened militarily in Syria in 2015, helping the government of Bashar Assad inflict heavy defeats on numerous terrorist groups, most notably al-Nusra and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). Russia maintains a significant military footprint in the country, with bases in Hmeimim and Tartus.

November 30, 2024 Posted by aletho | Wars for Israel | Jabhat al-Nusra, Middle East, Syria, Zionism | Leave a comment

Bernard-Henri Lévy, a Zionist spin master masquerading as a ‘philosopher’

By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | November 30, 2024

Bernard-Henri Lévy, a self-proclaimed “philosopher,” has earned notoriety for himself as a supporter of controversial causes and illegitimate entities, most notably the Israeli regime.

He was at it again recently after jumping in defense of war criminals in Tel Aviv following the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants against them over the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Introduced in the Western and Israeli media as an “intellectual,” “philosopher,” and “peace activist,” Lévy’s words and actions illustrate that he is a PR agent for the Israeli occupation.

While the ICC’s indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former minister of military affairs Yoav Gallant on Thursday for their roles in the regime’s war crimes against Palestinian civilians in Gaza has been widely welcomed, the move has frustrated Zionists and their apologists.

Among them is Lévy, a French national and a Zionist at heart, who vented his disappointment on X and other social networks where he is followed by hundreds of thousands of people.

He took to X on November 22 to criticize the Hague-based court for “distorting international law” and disfiguring the noble idea of international justice.”

He posted similar rants on Facebook and Instagram, where he wrote that the ICC indictment was “shameful” and “disgraceful,” and that the same applies to calling Israeli crimes in Gaza genocide.

Lévy vehemently denied that genocide was taking place in Gaza, calling it “false, morally abject and a perverse inversion,” while linking his review to the US conservative news website The New York Sun.

In the article, he anachronistically argued that the use of “genocide” for the Israeli campaign of extermination is “insulting to the real victims of genocide,” or the victims of Nazism 82 years ago.

On November 25, he again took to X to defend the Zionist regime’s genocide in Gaza and decry the ICC for issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu.

“The ICC in The Hague is only competent for countries with failing judicial systems, unable of trying themselves their leaders’ misconduct,” he wrote.

The court, he hastened to assert, was “created (and I was part of this reflection and conceptualization) for countries like #Russia! #China! #Iran! #Nigeria” adding that it has “no jurisdiction over tiny but democratic #Israel!”

“This mandate, in other words, makes no sense. Netanyahu cannot, under any circumstances, be apprehended. Those who claim otherwise simply have no understanding of the international law.”

Lévy’s outbursts were met with widespread criticism for their bias, whitewashing, contradictions, hypocrisy, and double standards, especially since he had welcomed the ICC arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin in March last year.

In his tweet on March 17, 2023, the French “philosopher” described the indictment of the sitting Russian president as “great news, glaring truth and justice.”

“The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir #Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova for the deportation of #Ukrainian children. The truth is glaring. Justice will prevail,” he wrote then.

Long-time Zionist

Lévy’s latest pro-Zionist rhetoric and inconsistencies are nothing new, but a continuation of his uncompromising apologetics in favor of the Israeli regime.

Late last month, he also produced a book, “Israel Alone,” in which he argued that the Tel Aviv regime, openly and unabashedly supported by the United States and European countries, as the title suggests, actually stands “alone.”

He dehumanizingly referred to the Axis of Resistance as “barbarians,” while spouting the classic clichés that anti-Zionism amounts to “anti-Semitism” and that the Zionist entity “fights for the entire collective West.”

Lévy’s statements to the media and on social media have also been riddled with such twisted interpretations, and in the last few weeks alone, he has used them to justify all of the most extreme moves by the Netanyahu cabinet.

In collaboration with the influential Zionist organization B’nai B’rith International, he regularly participates in pro-Israel conferences in Paris, defending Israeli genocidal actions against Palestinians in Gaza and Lebanese in Lebanon.

Despite the global outcry, he welcomed the Israeli ban on the operations of UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees on whose aid millions of civilians depend, questioning the organization’s humanitarian mandate.

He has also supported the Israeli aggression against Iran and Lebanon, claiming that they are “not invading, but liberating Lebanon,” and that those who do not understand this have “lost all moral and political compass.”

According to available evidence, over the past quarter of a century, Lévy has been known as a fierce advocate of aggressive Israeli, American, and French foreign policies, justifying all of their wars, as well as their proxies in numerous conflicts.

He has often justified Israeli aggressions with the cliché of “the most moral army in the world,” which is a repetition of Ariel Sharon’s statements from 2004, as well as with the regime’s frequent demagogy of “the only democracy in the region.”

The same worn-out platitude about “democracy” was used by Lévy to glorify all terrorists backed by the aforementioned Western powers.

Bernard-Henri Lévy with Olivier Rafowicz and Israeli officials in occupied Palestine in this undated photo.
Part of a PR campaign

Although Lévy has a habit of defending his support for Zionism with so-called “political worldviews,” experts and investigative journalists have for years pointed to his direct cooperation with the top brass of the Israeli regime.

He was born into a Jewish Zionist family and visited the occupied territories as a teenager, but his stronger political engagement began at the beginning of this century, congruent with the then-US neocon-Zionist imperial ambitions.

Lévy is often placed in the context of the so-called “liberal hawks,” a group of public figures, often former Marxists and declared liberals, who ironically have justified Western military aggressions with “humanitarian” arguments.

Their sudden appearance in the mass media and public space was not spontaneous, but part of an organized PR campaign aimed at winning over Western public opinion from all sides of the political spectrum.

Lévy is thus branded as a “thinker, intellectual, or philosopher,” even though he briefly worked as a lecturer and did not produce any significant philosophical work or ideas, nor is he treated as a serious thinker by contemporary philosophers.

In fact, he has been widely criticized and ridiculed in philosophical circles for quoting Jean-Baptiste Botul, who is a fictional figure, which, as some suggest, shows his works are written by ghostwriters.

Political philosopher Perry Anderson called Lévy’s prominence “bizarre” and a reversion to national standards of taste and intelligence in France’s public sphere.

French investigative journalists Jade Lindgaard and Xavier De La Porte, in a co-authored book analyzing his words and works, called him a “pseudo-philosopher, an impostor, and an ace of postmodern agitprop.”

The duo states that he skillfully camouflages his Zionism and has invented a discourse that delivers both propaganda and the antidote to that propaganda, eluding critical grasp and making it impossible to criticize him.

For example, he claimed to support the creation of a Palestinian state, but he supported all Israeli moves and policies that tried to prevent that from happening.

Bernard Henri Lévy with members of Israeli military in occupied Palestine in this undated photo.
The unofficial IOF spokesman

Lévy is a long-time zealot advocate of the Israeli military (IOF) and has actively participated in the regime’s PR campaign to whitewash its genocidal crimes and improve its public image.

This collaboration began in 2002 during the Second Intifada when accompanied by soldier Olivier Rafowicz and with the permission of the Israeli regime, he visited their army barracks, giving eulogies about them to the media.

Accompanying him, Lévy visited the battlefield again in 2006 during the Israeli aggression on Lebanon, presenting Rafowicz as an ordinary soldier and an expert on the situation on the ground.

In reality, Rafowicz was the IOF’s spokesman to the foreign media; French-born and a perfect French speaker, in charge of PR relations with French journalists.

During the neatly choreographed tour, Lévy also visited minister of military affairs Amir Peretz, foreign minister Tzipi Livni, and former PM Shimon Peres, but he did not talk to a single Israeli opponent of the war, not one Palestinian refugee and no one from Lebanon.

Once again, in 2009, Levy covered the Israeli aggression on Gaza, telling foreign media that he entered Gaza City and there were no signs of any destruction.

The implicit message was that Israeli shelling had not been as destructive as claimed in the media, but his claims were quickly exposed as a lie because he did not visit Gaza but Abasan al-Saghira, a border town 20 km away.

Unlike foreign journalists, Lévy was not denied a visit to the troops, which, together with manipulative statements to the media, proves it was another regime PR stunt.

This time he also had ready access to the top dignitaries of the Israeli army and the regime, including PM Ehud Olmert, minister of military affairs Ehud Barak, and Yuval Diskin, the director of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal military service.

During all these excursions, Lévy delivered the regime’s PR mantra of “the most moral army in the world” to foreign media, and was awarded two honorary doctorates by Israeli universities for his propaganda activities.

He continued his role as an Israeli field operative later during the Arab Spring protests, when he met with militants in Libya and Syria, claiming to the media that they were ready to recognize the Israeli regime and establish diplomatic relations.

November 30, 2024 Posted by aletho | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | France, Israel, Middle East, Zionism | 1 Comment

UK, US intended to move Palestinians out of Palestine through UNRWA, British documents reveal

By Amer Sultan | MEMO | November 27, 2024

The UK and the US intended to resettle Palestinians in the neighbouring countries, after they were forced to flee their homes in Palestine in 1947 and 1948 due to the terrorist actions of Zionist forces, British documents reveal.

The documents, unearthed by MEMO in the British National Archives, also show that the British government viewed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) as a tool to achieve this goal.

UNRWA was established by a UN General Assembly resolution on 8 December 1949, and officially began operations on 1 May 1950, with its headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon. Since its inception, the agency’s main mission was to transfer Palestinian refugees from direct relief to work programmes while awaiting a political solution to their plight. By mid-June 1950, the UN reiterated that the agency “has no mandate to deal with political settlement of the problem of the Palestinian refugees”.

In December 1949, the UN adopted Resolution 194, which recognised the Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their homes in Palestine. The resolution called for refugees who wished to return and live peacefully with their neighbours to “be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.” It was adopted with 35 votes in favour, including from the United Kingdom and the United States, 15 votes against and 8 abstentions.

The resolution also stipulated that compensation should be provided to those “choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

However, in August 1949, 13 months after the announcement establishing Israel, the British government decided that the “final solution” of the problem lies in “resettlement not in relief”.

Prime Minister Clement Attlee, in a memo on the “Palestinian Arab refugees” problem, instructed his foreign, treasury and economic ministers to “discuss what further provision should be made” for addressing the problem. “The emphasis should lie heavily on resettlement,” he wrote.

When UNRWA’s operations began in 1950, the agency was assisting around 750,000 Palestinian refugees residing in 58 recognised refugee camps across Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Attlee’s memo further instructed that no financial support should be given to the governments of countries hosting the refugees unless they contributed to the resettlement effort. “Any further specific contributions from British funds should be conditional on the recognition by the local government concerned, to a greater extent than hitherto, of responsibilities in the matter,” the memo added.

This followed deliberations among various British governmental departments to establish an official British stance on the refugee problem. The ministers recommended that the governments of the neighbouring countries should “make a substantial contribution to the relief and resettlement” of the Palestinian refugees. They stressed that the British government should prioritise resettlement over relief efforts, and that “the major emphasis should be on the framing of the scheme for resettlement in preference to relief.”

At the time it was estimated that the combined costs of relief and resettlement efforts from both Western and non-Western governments amounted to around $24 million. The ministers recommended waiting to see what contributions other governments would make before committing further British funds. “We should also expect them to contribute a larger proportion to any future fund than their share,” they wrote.

In a letter to the prime minister, Lord Jay, the British economic minister, expressed his belief that “the only radical solution of the relief problem is by way of resettlement and not relief.”

“The prime responsibility for these Arab (Palestinian) refugees rests with the local governments concerned,” he wrote. While acknowledging that Britain had a “special position in the Middle East,” Lord Jay suggested that Britain had a “substantial interest” in the refugee question. However, he also argued that the British contribution to the relief fund was already “more than our appropriate share.”

Lord Jay’s letter was sent to the prime minister after a request from Ernest Bevin, the then foreign minister, who proposed that “further funds should be provided for relief and/or resettlement” of the Palestinian Arab refugees. In his response, Lord Jay again emphasised that the main focus “should be on resettlement”.

The British government viewed the refugee issue as “a direct responsibility” shared not only by Israel but also by the neighbouring Arab states and the international community.

In his letter, Lord Jay reminded his colleagues that the Arab states “inhabit an area so important from the political and strategic aspect” and noted that the Arabs “tend to consider that British policy over the last thirty years has been responsible for the setting up of a Jewish state and, in some degree, for the displacement of these Arab refugees.”

The documents also reveal that the UK and the US were in frequent contact to discuss how best to resettle the Palestinian refugees in host countries through ongoing relief activities.

The British “have been considering both in London and with the Americas how best to stimulate the local governments to continue the work of relief and turn it into resettlement,”Lord Joy’s letter explained. The British and the Americans believed that the resettlement “would provide the only long-term solution of the problem.”

The documents reveal that less than a year later, a number of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon appealed to Britain and human rights defenders for the right to return to Palestine, their homeland. In a letter to the British prime minister, sent through the British consul in Beirut, they wrote in Arabic: “We truly believe that you could send us back to our homes by using your powers if you wished.”

The letter was written by Ali Ahmed El-Abed, who had been forced to leave his village, Shafa Amr, in northern Palestine. He had to live as a refugee in the Wavel Camp, located in Baalbek, east of Beirut.

The letter placed the responsibility for the Palestinian refugees’ plight squarely on the UK. It reminded the British government that Palestinians had been under British protection for 30 years and noted: “As a result, we are scattered away far from our homes, our country, and our people.” The situation of the refugees was deteriorating, the letter explained, stating that “the situation goes from bad to worse,” and warning that “death is nearer to us than life.”

The letter, dated 21 June 1950, reminded the British government that the refugees still considered themselves “under British protection, and carry passports bearing the British crown.”

On 18 July, the British government rejected the petition. In its response, the government expressed “sympathy” for the refugees, but clarified that “it is not possible for His Majesty’s government to take any action in this matter except through the medium of the United Nations.” The response, sent to El-Abed, affirmed the British government’s “full and unqualified support” for the UN in addressing the issue.

A few weeks later, the former Soviet Union’s ambassador received a similar letter, signed by 10,000 refugees, requesting support for the Palestinians’ return to their homes. This letter rejected UNRWA as a project that “aimed to prevent the implementation of the decisions of the United Nations.” The signatories viewed this project as a “pursuit of an imperialist policy.”

The letter, written in Arabic with an English translation, was sent to the British government and insisted on the implementation of UN Resolution 194, which affirmed the Palestinians’ right to return to their homes in Palestine.

November 28, 2024 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Human rights, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, UK, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

‘Genocide’ vs ‘Bigger Genocide’ in Gaza: Time to decolonise our minds

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | November 27, 2024

“Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well,” wrote Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth (1961). What the iconic anti-colonial philosopher and psychiatrist was essentially arguing is that the mind must be decolonised first, in order for the undoing of colonialism to succeed in all aspects of our liberation.

Many in the Global South, but especially intellectuals and analysts concerned with Middle East affairs, are still struggling with their relationship with the United States. Although all signs indicate a rapid decline of America’s global status, many among our intelligentsia, possibly unwittingly, still believe that Washington holds all the cards, and that whoever controls the White House must naturally also rule the world.

Of course, US domestic and foreign policies are relevant to global affairs, as financial decisions by the US Federal Reserve, for example, will affect US-global trade volumes, and will have an impact on the interest or disinterest in purchasing US treasury bonds. Some countries that are keen on standing at an equal distance between the US and China often jockey to refine their positions and to protect themselves in case of seismic political changes in the US.

The vibe radiating from many in the Middle East is that the doomsday scenario is real, and that the big war is upon us.

However, they ignore the fact that for many nations around the world, from Gaza to Lebanon to Ukraine to Sudan and elsewhere, wars have already arrived, many of which are bankrolled by western funds and political blank cheques. To warn of war while tens of millions are already suffering the outcomes of western-funded wars reflects the degree of desensitisation and opportunism of the followers of western order.

Some of those crying over the supposedly imminent doom had initially presented the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, as the best worst-case option for Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. Although they may have acknowledged the genocide in Gaza, and even criticised the Joe Biden administration for enabling it, they recoiled at the mere suggestion that the Democrats must be punished for their many sins in the Middle East and beyond.

Another crowd presented Donald Trump as the saviour, the strong man who, with a stroke of a pen, will end all wars, the one in Gaza included. They cited the man’s repeated claim that, “I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop the wars.” They even went on to argue that Trump, who would be serving a second and final term in office, is now immune to political manipulation from the pro-Israel lobby and all other pressures.

Trump won, of course.

His crushing defeat of the Democrats on all fronts, including in the popular vote, indicates that he would have won regardless of those who considered ending the war in Gaza to be a top political priority. However, the early announcements that Trump’s administration come January will be a who’s who of the pro-Israel Republican circle has reignited the debate about the “bigger genocide” awaiting Palestinians and other scare-mongering tactics.

Both sides of this inconsequential debate conveniently ignore obvious facts: that America’s ruling elites are rooted in pro-Israel political allegiances; that although there might be a difference in style, US foreign policy under Democratic Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Trump’s future hire, Marco Rubio, is likely to be identical; and that the Biden-Harris administration gave Israel all the help it needed to sustain its wars in the Middle East over the course of 13 months and counting.

This stifling debate, however, misses some of the most critical points that should be discussed, and urgently so. For example, the Middle East region is not a single political monolith. It has its own political calculations, conflicts, alliances and options that include other political heavyweights, such as China and Russia, among others.

Moreover, several Middle Eastern countries are joining the increasingly influential BRICS alliance. The latter is not just a trade club, but also a powerful economic alliance with a strong political discourse to match.

Thus, the future and survival of the Middle East does not hinge on US economic policies.

Finally, the war in Gaza is a war that also involves the Palestinians, the Lebanese and their Arab and international allies. The people of occupied Palestine and Lebanon have agency, choices and strategies that are not wholly dependent on the ideological identity or political inclinations of a lone American ensconced in the White House.

If the political views of the US president were indeed the most decisive aspect in the fate and future of the Palestinian people, Palestinian aspirations would have been suppressed decades ago due to America’s inherent pro-Israel bias. They weren’t, not because of any compassion on the part of US administrations, but due to the sumud, resilience, of the Palestinian people.

It is time that we abandon the archaic thinking regarding our collective colonial past, or present, that views western leaders as our masters, and our people as mere subjects, struggling to survive, imploring, though never obtaining, prudent western foreign policies.

The world is changing, vastly, and it is time for us to change as well. Fanon gave us the cure decades ago: We must clinically detect and remove the rot, not only from our land but from our minds as well.

November 27, 2024 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States | Leave a comment

The Games of the ICC

By Christopher Black – New Eastern Outlook – November 26, 2024

On November 21, the prosecutor of the ICC announced that a three-judge panel has finally made a decision on his May 2024 application for an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

A warrant for his arrest and that of his former Defence Minister, Gallant, has been issued. If an indictment has been drawn up, which should precede an arrest warrant, we are not told and none appears on the ICC website.

Many are celebrating the arrest warrant against Netanyahu and Gallant. But, while there is no doubt that they deserve to be held to account by the Palestinians and the world for the crimes they have and continue to commit in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, they are not charged with the crime of genocide, even though they are charged with inflicting mass starvation on the people of Gaza, nor the supreme war crimes of aggression for their continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and the brutal suppression of the Palestinian resistance to that occupation. Nor are they charged for their aggression against the sovereign nations of Lebanon, Syria and Iran, which crimes they openly brag about and which are recognised by the entire world, but not, it seems, by the prosecutor or judges of the ICC.

Further, as people calm down in their cheering, they must realise that the ICC has also issued arrest warrants for a leader of Hamas, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri whose alleged war crimes are nothing more than echoes of Israeli propaganda about the Palestinian armed resistance to the brutal occupation of Palestinian lands and the brutal oppression by the occupation forces of the Palestinian people.

Where is the charge of Genocide?

Netanyahu and Gallant are charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity for mass starvation and targeting the civilian population with aerial attacks, and mass attacks by Israeli armoured and other forces.

The ICC press release states,

“Each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”

“The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”

But these charges also amount to acts of genocide, so why are they not charged with genocide? And why has no indictment been issued? Only the prosecutor and the judges can explain, and they do not.

But aside from pointing out the obvious compromise made by the ICC, to placate its critics about its inaction over Israeli crimes by laying charges yet not laying the most serious charge, the one that should be laid, we have this phrase underlined above which needs to be considered, the phrase, “jointly with others.”

Israel’s Partners in Crime Untouched

Who are the “others”? The ICC coyly refuses to say, hoping no one will ask the question. But the answer is clear: the USA, the EU, UK, France, Canada and the rest, who all give military aid and support to Israeli to carry out these crimes and have made themselves co-belligerents in this murderous war against the peoples of the Middle East, and are its partners in crime. The leaders of those nations must also be charged and warrants issued for their arrest. They are equally culpable under international law. But they are not charged. So that, in his defence, Netanyahu, if he is ever brought before this tribunal, can argue the defence of selective prosecution, that is, he can ask, “why am I charged but not the co-conspirators, the co-actors who supported and encouraged my crimes. It is not just to charge me if they are not going to be charged.”

He would be right to use that defence, and perhaps the prosecutor has arranged it so that Netanyahu and Gallant now have that defence available to them.

Political Purpose of the Warrants

But we know that Netanyahu will never be arrested and face a trial at this so-called world court. The Americans immediately came to his defence and denounced the action of the ICC. They have to because if Netanyahu is ever before the judges of the ICC, they fear the facts about their role in the crimes against the Palestinians and the others will be revealed in all their detail and depravity. The British, the French, and the Canadians will have their dirty crimes exposed as well. None of the allies of Israel want Netanyahu arrested and tried. So he will not be. The ICC knows this.

So why was the warrant finally issued after so long a delay, after so much political interference was exerted by Britain, the US, the French and others to prevent the ICC from issuing charges?

We can only speculate, as we are not privy to the phone calls between Mr. Khan and the various governments involved in these crimes, and how it was all arranged, but it was a political decision of a political prosecutor of a political tribunal.

One reason can be to improve the image of the ICC, to make it look like it is doing something, while, in effect, nothing is done to change the situation for the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Iranians, and the Syrians. It will placate some who support the Palestinians, who think the ICC is a real court, and perhaps it is hoped that this will reduce the street protests across Europe and elsewhere. No need now the ICC will say, we have acted, and you can go home now.

The ICC attempts to justify its charges against Russia

But there is another reason, and that is to trick people into thinking the ICC is some real arbiter of international justice and therefore the arrest warrants the ICC issued against President Putin and others are valid and should be acted upon.

The ICC has issued warrants of arrest of a series of Russian officials over the past few months; we suppose to keep the pot boiling, each as absurd as the one before it.

On 17 March 2023, the ICC issued warrants for Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation. Based on the Prosecution’s applications of 22 February 2023, Pre-Trial Chamber II considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each suspect bears responsibility for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.

The absurdity of these charges and warrants, based solely on Kiev propaganda about Russia’s attempts to save the lives of children, is manifest. It is also clear that they did not charge President Putin with aggression because there has been none, and so they decided to use the most emotive charge possible to inflame public opinion against Russia. In other words, the ICC became an active tool of NATO in its war against Russia.

On 5 March 2024, the ICC issued warrants of arrest for Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash, a Lieutenant General in the Russian Armed Forces who at the relevant time was the Commander of the Long-Range Aviation of the Aerospace Force, and Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov, an Admiral in the Russian Navy, who at the relevant time was the Commander of the Black Sea Fleet for the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects, the war crime of causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects, and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts. None of these allegations are based on any facts or any investigation and meant to be propaganda.

On 24 June 2024, the ICC issued warrants of arrest Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, in the context of the situation in Ukraine for alleged international crimes committed from at least 10 October 2022 until at least 9 March 2023 for the same reasons, war propaganda, to justify the continuance of the war against Russia.

Ukraine leadership given immunity from prosecution for its crimes

The ICC has not charged anyone in the illegitimate government of Ukraine for any of its crimes against the civilian population of Ukraine in the Donbass oblasts from 2014 to today, nor for its gratuitous attacks on the civilian population of Russia. It has been given immunity from prosecution.

The only legitimate prosecutors are the Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians and Syrians for Israeli crimes committed against them.

So, all those celebrating and cheering the warrants issued against Netanyahu and Gallant should think carefully about what they are doing. Yes, those two are war criminals. Yes, they should be held accountable, but to the Palestinians and the Lebanese, the Syrians and Iranians. They are the ones who should be issuing warrants for their arrest, who should make them stand trial before the tribunals of those nations, as well as the leaders of the USA and the other nations who are parties to the Israeli crimes not this political farce called the ICC which is not a world court, which is not an independent judicial body capable of rendering justice, but a political tool of the West, used by the West for its own political and strategic reasons and objectives. The world is tired of the games of the ICC. The people of the world want real justice.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events.

November 26, 2024 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Canada, France, ICC, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Russia, UK, Ukraine, United States, Zionism | 1 Comment

Trump’s ‘new’ policy on Iran

By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – November 26, 2024

According to a report published by the Financial Times, Trump’s new team intends to ‘bankrupt’ Iran during his second presidential term. The report, citing a national security expert close to the new team, states that executive orders targeting Iran, mainly its oil exports, could be signed on the first day Trump takes office.

The so-called ‘maximum pressure campaign’ is a set of measures imposed against Iran in 2018 after Trump brazenly and illegally withdrew Washington from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement, signed in 2015, limited Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for an easing of economic and financial sanctions. Trump called the agreement a ‘disaster’ only because it was signed by Democratic President Barack Obama. He allegedly stated that he was going to make sure that Iran would never receive nuclear weapons, while promising to limit Iran’s regional influence.

In other words, the world has a very dangerous precedent in the Middle East: on the one hand, Israel has completely illegally developed and put into service nuclear weapons and their means of delivery and, on the other hand, Trump is trying to limit – and, moreover, prohibit – Iran from developing peaceful nuclear energy and oppose Tehran’s relations with its neighbours. What kind of democracy is this and what exactly does Trump mean by the word ‘democracy’? This is no longer democracy, rather a medieval-type dictatorship: if I want to, I will allow it, but it is better not to allow it at all.

What was Trump’s goal previously?

Since 1979, Iran has constantly faced US sanctions. The Trump administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign was not so much about inventing new limitations as about dramatically expanding the scope and viciously tightening compliance with previous or existing limitations.

Following the unabashed withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA (an international document), Trump immediately reinstated sanctions against Iran’s energy, shipping, shipbuilding, automotive and oil sectors in accordance with a decree issued on August 6, 2018. The key difference was the aggressive implementation of so-called ‘secondary sanctions’, which punished foreign organisations for doing business with Iran, regardless of whether these transactions violated their own domestic laws. The aim was to put significant pressure on international players to comply with US sanctions. Apparently, Trump considered himself a liege lord and all others to be his vassals, the purpose of whom was to fulfill Trump’s will.

In May, 2019, the Trump administration dealt a blow to Iran’s metallurgical industry (the second largest source of export revenue) by tightening sanctions on the production of iron, steel, aluminum and copper. This included well-designed sanctions against any foreign financial institutions facilitating large transactions related to these industries. At the same time, Washington was completely uninterested in the opinions and interests of other parties involved in peaceful trade with Iran.

The third major decree issued by Trump was directed against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and any organisations or individuals conducting financial transactions with it. The stated goal was to limit Iran’s production of ballistic missiles, a weapon that, according to then-US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook, existed only in Photoshop. Nevertheless, Trump hastened to impose severe sanctions on the IRGC.

The new Biden administration that came to power, contrary to expectations, did not put an end to Trump’s policy. According to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, all sanctions were to remain in force and hundreds more new ones were added to them. It is incomprehensible how one strong and arrogant country is trying to rule the whole world and establish its own rules of life and trade that are only beneficial to it.

Did Trump’s policy bear fruit?

“The efficacy of US sanctions against a foreign government is measured by the economic damage not caused”, said Amir Ali Abolfat, an expert on North American affairs, “and the extent to which sanctions achieve their political goals and change the behaviour of the target government”. An analysis of statistics before the start of the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign shows that, although Trump made it more difficult for Iran to earn money from exporting oil and metals, he failed to reduce them so much that a brave and persistent Iran had to change its policy.

“Iran produces strategically important goods”, Abolfat explained. “As long as there is demand, these products will find their market. Although Iran no longer sells oil to Europe, it has begun supplying it to China, as evidenced by increased sales to that country, which is resisting pressure and US hegemony. The same principle applies to the export of Iranian metals”.

There is no doubt that Trump and Biden have created great difficulties for Iran, but did they manage to achieve their goals? Absolutely not. Iran’s uranium enrichment rate has increased from 3% to 60% and its military potential has expanded significantly over the past seven years. Moreover, Tehran is successfully developing friendly ties with its neighbours and has managed to create a so-called Axis of Resistance, which successfully opposes the United States and Israel in the region.

As for domestic needs, Iran has successfully reduced its dependence on European partners and former allies (such as Korea and Japan) by finding alternative suppliers. The departure of European automakers has led to a sharp increase in Chinese car imports, making Iran a major market. In addition, Iranian engineers and experts have independently completed projects to develop gas and oil fields that previously depended on Western cooperation. This self-confidence eventually spread to other industries previously dependent on imports, such as the food industry and medicine.

Sanctions and nothing else?

Central to Trump’s policy in the Middle East from 2017 to 2021 was an unsuccessful attempt to drive a wedge between Arab countries and Iran, while simultaneously positioning Israel as a key regional security partner.

Now this approach is much less viable. Iran’s improved relations with countries, such as Saudi Arabia, and ongoing efforts to normalise ties with others, such as Egypt, undermine this strategy. In addition, the successful Hamas operation on October 7 completely dispelled all notions of Israel’s invincibility and the actions of the Israeli regime to destroy the Palestinians made the continuation of the normalisation agreements concluded within the scope of Trump’s ‘Abraham Accords’ unlikely.

Experts believe that the only other untested option – the military option – to which hotheads in the United States and Israel are inclined, is fraught with enormous risk. Such actions could lead to devastating consequences for the West, potentially widespread disruption of oil supplies, attacks on Western bases in the Middle East and fundamental changes to Iran’s nuclear policy. Ultimately, Washington must recognise that enormous pressure alone will not help it achieve its goals with regard to Iran. To solve the US’ problems, Iran’s problems must also be acknowledged. It is only through returning to the JCPOA and sitting at the negotiating table that the most difficult tasks in the region can be solved. Iran is ready for this and has expressed this more than once. Is the ‘peacemaker’ Trump ready for this or is he only thinking of using force?

November 26, 2024 Posted by aletho | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Sanctions against Iran, Saudi Arabia, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

Israel Strikes Four Bridges in Homs Province, Central Syria – Reports

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 25.11.2024

The Israeli military has dramatically ramped up its aggression against Syria in recent months, targeting the country repeatedly amid its ongoing regional war against Hamas, Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi militia. In April, an Israeli strike targeted an Iranian Embassy building in Damascus, provoking a major Iranian retaliation.

Israeli fighter jets struck a number of bridges in the province of Homs, central Syria, SANA reported on Monday.

Four bridges were damaged in the city of Al Qusayr, southwest of Homs, as the result of the strike, a correspondent told the Syrian news agency.

Syrian Foreign Minister Bassam Sabbagh told a meeting of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations that firm and immediate measures must be taken by the international community to stop Israeli aggression across the region.

“The Israeli occupation forces are intending to expand the scope of their aggression on countries of our region, by targeting brotherly Lebanon. This coincided with its launch of almost daily attacks on Syrian territory, targeting buildings and residential neighborhoods that include headquarters, diplomatic missions and offices of the United Nations, economic facilities and vital infrastructure, not to mention the occupying entity’s deliberate targeting of border crossings, roads and bridges connecting Syria and Lebanon, which are used by hundreds of thousands of people coming from Lebanon to escape the Israeli killing machine,” the Syrian top diplomat said.

“Syria renews its firm stance in support of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, returning to their homeland, establishing their independent state, and ending the Israeli occupation of all Arab lands occupied since June 1967, including the occupied Syrian Golan,” Sabbagh emphasized.

November 25, 2024 Posted by aletho | Militarism, War Crimes | Israel, Middle East, Syria, Zionism | Leave a comment

A Week from Hell

By Philip Giraldi | Unz Review | November 22, 2024

Unfortunately, a machine has not yet been developed that can take one back in time and undo terrible mistakes being made due to lack of appreciation of possible downstream consequences of certain actions. If Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary had been somewhere else other than in Sarajevo back in June 1914 Serbian Gavrilo Princip might never have been able to assassinate him and the European system of military alliances might never have been triggered to start World War I. Going through the subsequent history of wars since the Great War, there are certainly any number of historical mistakes or omissions that might have been rectified to stop those wars from starting in the first place.

Unfortunately, one must concede that many of the wars without any raison d’etre were initiated or expanded by the United States of America, which came into being as a constitutional republic in part to overturn the tendency of Europe’s monarchs to go to war for any or no reason. With that in mind, one must consider the truly awful decision-making being initiated by the current governing regime of Democratic Party President Joe Biden now that the November 5^th election is over and Republican Party candidate Donald Trump has won convincingly. Now comes the reaction by Biden and his cohorts, where farce becomes tragedy, as Biden seeks to do whatever he can to limit the foreign policy and national security options that Trump will be able to exercise when he assumes office on January 20^th. It is politics at its most sordid in addition to being a formula for disaster with consequences that might easily lead to a nuclear World War 3 erupting both in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East.

Let’s examine for a moment what Biden has done, as well as the exacerbating factors linked to Trump’s actions that could produce an abrupt escalation of hostilities both in Ukraine and in Palestine/Israel. Biden has enhanced his presumed “war powers” and done so in spite of the fact that he has no constitutional authority for starting or sustaining wars at all except in the case of an imminent attack. Authorizing war is a responsibility relegated to Congress by the Constitution though America’s many wars since World War 2 have all been fought without any declaration of war. Biden has served as an instigator from the beginning, acting as an enabler and escalator of both conflicts currently taking place, supplying Israel and Ukraine with weapons and money. Most international law authorities consider the US active role to be that of a belligerent in those wars, which has included the stationing of US military in both Israel and Ukraine, a fact that is denied regularly in the case of Ukraine. US troops are openly present in Israel, possibly to serve as a trip wire if Iran should attack to create a pretext for a US war against the Mullahs.

Biden’s moves concerning Ukraine/Russia might rightly be regarded as bizarre. In spite of the fact that nearly all military authorities consider that there is a high probability that Ukraine will have to surrender, possibly before Biden leaves office, the White House has, on November 17^th, dropped objections to the Ukrainian use of state-of-the art ATACMS missiles provided by and to a certain extent manned and controlled by the US, that are capable of striking two hundred miles into Russia. Russia has declared that such action has “qualitatively” altered the nature of the conflict, making it indisputably an act of war, crossing a red line that would trigger the Kremlin’s use of all resources available to it to counter the threat. “All resources” clearly includes nuclear as well as missile attacks on the United States itself as well as on NATO states. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky quickly took advantage of the newly available weapon by launching an attack against the Bryansk region in Russia on November 19^thin which six missiles were launched, five of which were intercepted. Russia retaliated on November 21^st by destroying a Ukrainian military base near Dnipro apparently using an RS-26 Ruzhek advanced medium-range hypersonic ballistic missile, described by Kiev as an “ICBM,” which was carrying a conventional warhead, though capable also of being fitted with a nuclear device.

Only one brave congressman, Tom Massie of Kentucky, has objected to Biden’s action, posting on X that “By authorizing long range missiles to strike inside Russia, Biden is committing an unconstitutional Act of War that endangers the lives of all US citizens. This is an impeachable offense, but the reality is he’s an emasculated puppet of a deep state.” Indeed, did Joe Biden seriously consider whether his move, which will not alter the outcome of the war in Ukraine, is supportive of the interests of the American people? I think it has been demonstrated that the hobbled and befuddled thinker currently in the White House would be incapable of such a consideration. Biden followed up on his folly by allowing the Ukrainians to deploy US supplied land mines, a weapon whose use has been condemned as a war crime by more than 140 nations worldwide, and he also gave the green light to British supply of their own version of the upgraded Storm Shadow missile to Ukrainian forces. Biden has also authorized the Treasury Department to support Ukraine with the $7 billion that is still sitting in the US government coffers as Ukrainian aid after being budgeted. Biden appears to want to make sure that it is all gone by the time Trump is in power. In other words, he is making sure that the war will go on after he is gone, but the tragic end result could be that a containable conflict has now become something quite different, particularly if other NATO countries follow the British lead and get into the fight. The expanded war will have the potential to go global and nuclear.

And then there is Israel. It was, of course, a Biden decision in mid-October to send US Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense antiaircraft missiles (THAAD) plus their US military crews to Israel. And there was also a warning by Biden made on October 13^th, giving Israel 30 days to take steps to remedy the starvation policies in Gaza or the US would consider cutting back on arms shipments. Well, the 30 days have come and gone and, if anything, Israel has tightened its grip on food and medicines going into Gaza, yet and predictably Biden and the criminal gang that he leads have done nothing but lie about what Israel is up to. In fact, they have further protected Israel by vetoing a UN Security Council resolution on November 20^th regarding Gaza that demanded “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire to be respected by all parties, and further” repeats a “demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” American negotiators had previously indicated that Israel had supported the resolution, but that was not the case, hence the flip-flop US vote in support of Netanyahu. The voting was 14 in favor and only the United States opposed, demonstrating once again how the US has shot itself in the foot vis-à-vis its standing in the world due to its support of what is an openly declared and carried out genocide. Biden’s veto comes in spite of the fact that he and his accomplices keep whining how they want the fighting to stop by way of a ceasefire. It demonstrates both the basic dishonesty of Biden and also tells one who is in charge, that when Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu says “No”, Biden can be expected to jump to his feet and salute the force majeure.

The other unfortunate thing about the one-sided relationship between Israel and the US is that the pander to the Jewish state is likely to continue, as is evident from the strongly pro-Israeli cabinet that President-elect Trump has been assembling. Trump accepted a $100 million political donation from casino magnate Miriam Adelson and in exchange will likely support Israeli annexation of all what is left of historic Palestine on the West Bank. He has also been encouraging the Israelis to “finish the job” on the Palestinians. He has committed himself to making sure the weapons procurement system will no longer experience any delays or restrictions when it comes to Israel. That means that the remaining Palestinians will either be killed or driven from their homes into exile in some undesignated location, if they are lucky, and Trump will likely look the other way.

So there’s plenty of bad news, but there was one item of good news on November 20^th, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his recently removed Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over the clearly demonstrated issue of Israel’s deliberate starving the Gazans. That means that if either of them travels to any one of the 124 countries that recognize the jurisdiction of the court (the US and Israel do not) there is an obligation on the part of those nations to have the accused arrested. Several European countries have already indicated that they will act on the warrant. Two Hamas leaders, one of whom is dead, also were indicted. Netanyahu has already denounced the decision as based on “antisemitism.” Republicans predictably also reacted sharply to the news. Florida Congressman and incoming Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz slammed the issuance of the warrants on the following day, saying the international court has “no credibility… These allegations have been refuted by the US government. Israel has lawfully defended its people & borders from genocidal terrorists. You can expect a strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC & UN come January.” Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton called the ICC a “kangaroo court” and called Prosecutor Karim Khan “… a deranged fanatic. Woe to him and anyone who tries to enforce these outlaw warrants. Let me give them all a friendly reminder: the American law on the ICC is known as The Hague Invasion Act for a reason. Think about it.”

I applaud the court for its courage to go after these war criminals in spite of threats from folks like Cotton and Senator Lindsay Graham to go after the court members’ families as well as a warning of sanctions against the court itself coming from the new Republican Speaker of the Senate John Thune. Personally speaking, I am disappointed only because I want to to make the story even better. I long to see an ICC investigation, indictment, arrest, conviction and imprisonment of Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Lloyd Austin and Jake Sullivan for their warmongering and material support for and complicity in Israel’s crimes against humanity. I would also like the American public and media to understand that what those individuals have done might well be considered to be treason since they swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, a document that they have deliberately trashed.

November 22, 2024 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Human rights, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Ukraine, United States, Zionism | 1 Comment

Against Rubio

By Connor Freeman | The Libertarian Institute | November 17, 2024

Marco Rubio’s foreign policy vision is the antithesis of America First as he advocates for wars and increased military spending in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific. During the 2015/2016 GOP presidential primaries, Rubio was a fervent supporter along with Hillary Clinton, of a no-fly-zone in Syria which could have sparked World War III. “The United States should work with our allies, both Arab and European, to impose a no-fly zone over parts of Syria,” Rubio said.

Rubio has been on the America Last side of every foreign policy issue since he took office, he was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton’s disastrous regime change war in Libya and he opposed Barack Obama’s modest troop withdrawal in Afghanistan after his surge accomplished nothing besides making the Taliban stronger and getting more American soldiers killed.

More recently, Rubio has insisted that Israel should attack Iran “disproportionately” which is a direct call for an all out war with Iran and risks the safety of US troops in the region.

Rubio co-authored an amendment to the 2024 NDAA with Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s former running mate, that would prevent Donald Trump or any future president from exiting the free-riding, war-seeking NATO alliance without Senate approval or an Act of Congress.

Regarding Beijing, he has boasted, “We need a military focused on blowing up Chinese aircraft carriers.”

Moreover, Rubio supports keeping American troops in harm’s way in Iraq indefinitely and even opposed repealing the outdated 2002 AUMF which unconstitutionally authorized the catastrophic Iraq War. Likewise, he backs the open-ended illegal US occupation of roughly a third of Syria, launched by Obama, which Trump attempted to end and finally bring our troops home.

November 17, 2024 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Wars for Israel | Afghanistan, China, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Middle East, NATO, Syria, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

The Islamic world reorganizes the strategy in Riyadh

By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 15, 2024

On 11 November, an emergency Arab-Islamic summit on the question of Palestine was held in Riyadh. It was an extremely important event, from which the directives of the coming months for the Middle Eastern Islamic world and beyond will take their course. A shared international strategy emerged, even if contradictions and risks are not entirely absent.

A necessary window for dialogue

On Monday, 11 November, Riyadh invited the 22 countries of the Arab League and the 50 or so states that make up the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to take part in a summit dedicated to the ongoing conflicts in the region. The meeting focused on ongoing conflicts in the region, with a particular focus on Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office.

At the opening of the summit dedicated to Israel’s wars in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman used the term ‘genocide ’ to describe Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip: ‘We call on the international community to assume its responsibility […] by immediately ending Israeli attacks against our brothers in Palestine and Lebanon’.

The assembled Arab and Muslim leaders took the same stance towards Israel, condemning the horrific and shocking crimes committed by the Israeli army in Gaza, denouncing torture, executions, disappearances and outright ethnic cleansing, as stated in the final communiqué of the meeting.

Mohammed bin Salman also called on Israel to ‘respect the territorial sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran” and to ”refrain from attacking its territory’. Most members of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation will support these very firm statements. Although there are big differences between the countries that have normalised relations with Israel and those that oppose it, starting with the Islamic Republic of Iran. MBS explicitly said that not only the very existence of Palestine is now in question, but also the fate of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the second holiest shrine in Islam after Mecca, a statement reminiscent of the name of the Hamas operation entitled ‘Storm Al-Aqsa’. Evidently, Hamas leaders expected that such an emergency Arab-Islamic summit would convene much earlier, for instance soon after the start of Israel’s ground operation in Gaza.

In this regard, the Crown Prince referred to Iran as a ‘sister republic’, which made the press throughout the Islamic world rejoice, signalling a detente in relations between the two countries. Diplomatic relations were officially reopened in March 2023, after a seven-year blockade, thanks to an agreement brokered by China, and after the infamous 7 October 2023, dialogue resumed and intensified. Iran supports the Palestinian Islamist movement, while Saudi Arabia tries to contain the spread of the conflict.

At the summit, Iran’s First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref called Israel’s assassination of the leaders of Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah ‘organised terrorism’, adding that ‘Operations misleadingly described as “targeted killings”, in which Palestinian elites and leaders of other countries in the region are killed one by one or en masse, are nothing but organised terrorism’. Similarly expressed by Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, who called on the international community to continue sending aid to Lebanon. It should be noted that Mikati spoke a few days ago of ‘interference by Iran’ in Lebanon, an accusation rejected by Tehran.

It is worth noting the simultaneous involvement of Assad and Erdogan. Only recently, such crossovers were impossible. The government in Ankara has spoken increasingly strong and clear words against the extermination that Israel is perpetrating, certainly favouring a round table with the neighbouring Islamic countries, at least from the point of view of positive intentions.

Why only now?

There is almost nothing left of the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah. This is a fact to be confronted with. Such a summit would have been very different if the leaders of the Resistance were still alive.

The reason for this delay is perhaps the American elections. While the BRICS+ summit in Kazan had paved the way and pointed in a direction of international cohesion in condemning Israel’s actions and the need to restore Palestinian autonomy, it is true that the final placet was missing to move from theory to action.

Donald Trump’s victory must be framed from an Arab-Islamic perspective. Trump is a supporter of right-wing Zionism, that of Netanyahu and certain radicals such as Smotrich, Ben Gvir and Rabbi Dov Lior, who have never shied away from proclamations of massacres, sacrifices and religious destruction. For Zionists, Jerusalem is as important as Al Quds for Islamists (Al Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem). In the election campaign, Trump never gave an inch about his pro-Zionist position and support for the government in Tel Aviv. It was he who proposed moving the capital of the Zionist entity to Jerusalem and it was he who ordered the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. Trump’s election strengthened the prospects for US-Israeli collaboration, so much so that Smotrich immediately declared his intention to attack the Palestinians in the West Bank and blow up the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Trump has accelerated these processes. The next goal, which he personally supported and financed, is the construction of the Third Temple, an eschatological keystone for the entire American neocon world. The physical destruction of all of Israel’s enemies is not a side effect or minor harm, but a duty inherent in Jewish messianism.

The emergence of the Islamic pole in the multipolar world is acquiring an increasingly recognisable and identifiable form. Of course, there are still many problems to be solved: Saudi Arabia and Turkey do business with the US and Israel, continue to play on opposing sides, and are historically unreliable. The countries of South East Asia still have to define their position with regard to international relations with the West, in order to definitively emancipate themselves and make themselves safe from blackmail and retaliation.

The questions many are asking themselves are various: will the next American president commit himself to ending the ongoing conflicts as he has promised? Or will he be an unconditional supporter of Israel, both in the war and in his plans to torpedo any prospect of establishing a Palestinian state? Saudi Arabia makes any normalization with Israel conditional on the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The two-state solution is supported by much of the international community as a means to resolve the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arab and Muslim leaders hold firm to the position, in accordance with UN resolutions and the 2002 Arab peace plan, that Israel must return all territories occupied since 1967.

The Abrahamic agreements are no longer enough. This time, however, the US can no longer decide the entire future of the Middle East on its own, because the chessboard has changed and the new positions taken by the Islamic countries will force Washington to weigh up more elements. Russia and China will not let the multipolar project be compromised. Not even the African countries, where the Palestinian cause is a deeply felt and shared issue of freedom, identity and anti-colonialism, are going to give way in the fight against this historic injustice.

The Muslim population of Islamic countries, seeing the passivity of the rulers, will not tolerate the ongoing extermination and attack on the holy places of their religion much longer.

Probably, only a common war against a common enemy can unite Muslims. And that could happen very soon.

November 16, 2024 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | Africa, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Zionism | 1 Comment

There are no “Easy Wars” left to fight, but do not mistake the longing for one

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 15, 2024

Israelis, as a whole, are exhibiting a rosy assurance that they can harness Trump, if not to the full annexation of the Occupied Territories (Trump in his first term did not support such annexation), but rather, to ensnare him into a war on Iran. Many (even most) Israelis are raring for war on Iran and an aggrandisement of their territory (devoid of Arabs). They are believing the puffery that Iran ‘lies naked’, staggeringly vulnerable, before a U.S. and Israeli military strike.

Trump’s Team nominations, so far, reveal a foreign policy squad of fierce supporters of Israel and of passionate hostility to Iran. The Israeli media term it a ‘dream team’ for Netanyahu. It certainly looks that way.

The Israel Lobby could not have asked for more. They have got it. And with the new CIA chief, they get a known ultra China hawk as a bonus.

But in the domestic sphere the tone is precisely the converse: The key nomination for ‘cleaning the stables’ is Matt Gaetz as Attorney General; he is a real “bomb thrower”. And for the Intelligence clean-up, Tulsi Gabbard is appointed as Director of National Intelligence. All intelligence agencies will report to her, and she will be responsible for the President’s Daily briefing. The intel assessments may thus begin to reflect something closer to reality.

The deep Inter-Agency structure has reason to be very afraid; they are panicking – especially over Gaetz.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have the near impossible task of cutting out-of-control federal spending and currency printing. The System is deeply dependent on the bloat of government spending to keep the cogs and levers of the mammoth ‘security’ boondoggle whirring. It is not going to be yielded up without a bitter fight.

So, on the one hand, the Lobby gets a dream team (Israel), but on the other side (the domestic sphere), it gets a renegade team.

This must be deliberate. Trump knows that Biden’s legacy of bloating GDP with government jobs and excessive public spending is the real ‘time bomb’ awaiting him. Again the withdrawal symptoms, as the drug of easy money is withdrawn, may prove incendiary. Moving to a structure of tariffs and low taxes will be disruptive.

Whether deliberate or not, Trump is keeping his cards close to his chest. We have only glimpses of intent – and the water is being seriously muddied by the infamous ‘Inter-Agency’ grandees. For example, in respect to the Pentagon sanctioning private-sector contractors to work in Ukraine, this was done in coordination with “inter-agency stakeholders”.

The old nemesis that paralysed his first term again faces Trump. Then, during the Ukraine impeachment process, one witness (Vindman), when asked why he would not defer to the President’s explicit instructions, replied that whilst Trump has his view on Ukraine policy, that stance did NOT align with that of the ‘Inter-Agency’ agreed position. In plain language, Vindman denied that a U.S. president has agency in foreign policy formulation.

In short, the ‘Inter-Agency structure’ was signalling to Trump that military support for Ukraine must continue.

When the Washington Post published their detailed story of a Trump-Putin phone call – that the Kremlin emphatically states never happened – the deep structures of policy were simply telling Trump that it would be they who determine what the shape of the U.S. ‘solution’ for Ukraine would be.

Similarly, when Netanyahu boasts to have spoken to Trump and that Trump “shares” his views regarding Iran, Trump was being indirectly instructed what his policy towards Iran needs to be. All the (false) rumours about appointments to his Team too, were but the interagency signalling their choices for his key posts. No wonder confusion reigns.

So, what can be deduced at this early stage? If there is a common thread, it has been a constant refrain that Trump is against war. And that he demands from his picks personal loyalty and no ties of obligation to the Lobby or the Swamp.

So, is the packing of his Administration with ‘Israel Firsters’ an indication that Trump is edging toward a ‘Realist’s Faustian pact’ to destroy Iran in order to cripple China’s energy supply source (90% from Iran), and thus weaken China? – Two birds with one stone, so to speak?

The collapse of Iran would also weaken Russia and hobble the BRICS’ transport-corridor projects. Central Asia needs both Iranian energy and its key transport corridors linking China, Iran, and Russia as primary nodes of Eurasian commerce.

When the RAND Organisation, the Pentagon think-tank, recently published a landmark appraisal of the 2022 National Defence Strategy (NDS), its findings were stark: An unrelentingly bleak analysis of every aspect of the U.S. war machine. In brief, the U.S. is “not prepared”, the appraisal argued, in any meaningful way for serious ‘competition’ with its major adversaries – and is vulnerable or even significantly outmatched in every sphere of warfare.

The U.S., the RAND appraisal continues, could in short order be drawn into a war across multiple theatres with peer and near-peer adversaries – and it could lose. It warns that the U.S. public has not internalized the costs of the U.S. losing its position as the world superpower. The U.S. must therefore engage globally with a presence—military, diplomatic, and economic—to preserve influence worldwide.

Indeed, as one respected commentator has noted, the ‘Empire at all Costs’ cult (i.e. the RAND Organisation zeitgeist) is now “more desperate than ever to find a war it can fight to restore its fortunes and prestige”.

And China would be altogether a different proposition for a demonstrative act of destruction in order “to preserve U.S. influence worldwide” – for the U.S. is “not prepared” for serious conflict with its peer adversaries: Russia or China, RAND says.

The straitened situation of the U.S. after decades of fiscal excess and offshoring (the backdrop to its current weakened military industrial base) now makes kinetic war with China or Russia or “across multiple theatres” a prospect to be shunned.

The point that the commentator above makes is that there are no ‘easy wars’ left to fight. And that the reality (brutally outlined by RAND) is that the U.S. can choose one – and only one war to fight. Trump may not want any war, but the Lobby grandees – all supporters of Israel, if not active Zionists supporting the displacement of Palestinians – want war. And they believe they can get one.

Put starkly and plainly: Has Trump thought this through? Have the others in the Trump Team reminded him that in today’s world, with U.S. military strength slipping away, there no longer are any ‘easy wars’ to fight, although Zionists believe that with a decapitation strike on Iran’s religious and IRGC leadership (on the lines of the Israel’s strikes on Hizbullah leaders in Beirut), the Iranian people would rise up against their leaders, and side with Israel for a ‘New Middle East’.

Netanyahu has just made his second broadcast to the Iranian people promising them early salvation. He and his government are not waiting to ask Trump to nod his consent to the annexation of all Occupied Palestinian Territories. That project is being implemented on the ground. It is unfolding now. Netanyahu and his cabinet have the ethnic cleansing ‘bit between their teeth’. Will Trump be able to roll it back? How so? Or will he succumb to becoming ‘genocide Don’?

This putative ‘Iran War’ is following the same narrative cycle as with Russia: ‘Russia is weak; its military is poorly trained; its equipment mostly recycled from the Soviet era; its missiles and artillery in short supply’. Zbig Brzezinski earlier had taken the logic to its conclusion in The Grand Chessboard (1997): Russia would have no choice but to submit to the expansion of NATO and to the geopolitical dictates of the U.S.. That was ‘then’ (a little more than a year ago). Russia took the western challenge – and today is in the driving seat in Ukraine, whilst the West looks on helplessly.

This last month, it was U.S. retired General Jack Keane, the strategic analyst for Fox News, who argued that Israel’s air strike on Iran had left it “essentially naked”, with most air defences “taken down” and its missile production factories destroyed by Israel’s 26 October strikes. Iran’s vulnerability, Keane said, is “simply staggering”.

Kean channels the early Brzezinski: His message is clear – Iran will be an ‘easy war’. That forecast however, is likely to be revealed as dead wrong. And, if pursued, will lead to a complete military and economic disaster for Israel. But do not rule out the distinct possibility that Netanyahu – besieged on all fronts and teetering on the brink of internal crisis and even jail – is desperate enough to do it. His is, after all, a Biblical mandate that he pursues for Israel!

Iran likely will launch a painful response to Israel before the 20 January Presidential Inauguration. Its riposte will demonstrate Iran’s unexpected and unforeseen military innovation. What the U.S. and Israel will then do may well open the door to wider regional war. Sentiment across the region seethes at the slaughter in the Occupied Territories and in Lebanon.

Trump may not appreciate just how isolated the U.S. and Israel are among Israel’s Arab and Sunni neighbours. The U.S. is stretched so thin, and its forces across the region are so vulnerable to the hostility that the daily slaughter incubates, that a regional war might be enough to bring the entire house of cards tumbling down. The crisis would pitch Trump into a financial crisis that could sink his domestic economic aspirations too.

November 15, 2024 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

West Asia reacts to Trump’s dalliance with Zionism

By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | November 14, 2024

The election victory of Donald Trump in the November 5 election is being perceived in the West Asian region with growing anxiety as presaging the US aligning one hundred percent with the Zionist project for Greater Israel.

Although Trump has kept out vociferous neocons from his government positions, the same cannot be said for pro-Zionist figures. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims he has spoken three times with Trump already since the election and they “see eye-to-eye regarding the Iranian threat and all of its components.”

The “components” implies that Netanyahu hopes to get a blank cheque from Trump to accelerate the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, for annexation of West Bank, violent reprisals against Palestinians and, most important, to carry the war right into Iranian territory.

Three events in as many days this week show the first signs of a backlash building up. On Monday, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei gave Tehran’s first official reaction to Trump’s election victory. Baqaei took a nuanced line saying, “What matters to us in this region is the United States’ actual behaviour and policies regarding Iran and the broader West Asia.”

Notably, Baqaei expressed “cautious optimism that the new [Trump] administration might adopt a more peace-oriented approach, reduce regional hostilities, and uphold its commitments.” (Tehran Times) Baqaei also refuted the recent allegation by Washington that Iran was involved in plots to assassinate Trump. He called the Biden Administration’s allegation as “nothing more than an attempt to sabotage relations” between Tehran and Washington by “laying traps to complicate the path for the next administration.”

Baqaei also held out an assurance to the incoming US administration that Tehran firmly adheres to a nuclear programme for peaceful purposes. He announced that Rafael Grossi, head of International Atomic Energy (IAEA) was due to arrive in Tehran on Wednesday night.

Taken together, Baqaei’s remarks suggest that Iran hopes there’s still daylight possible between Trump and Netanyahu. The clincher here would have been the remark that Trump slipped into his victory speech with great deliberation on November 6 that “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

Trump was on record during his election campaign that “I don’t want to do damage to Iran but they cannot have nuclear weapons.” Tehran’s consultations with Grossi responds to Trump’s concern. This is smart thinking. Iran’s non-provocative stance would mean there is no alibi for attacking Iran.

That said, however, the “known unknown” still remains — namely, Iran’s retaliation to the Israeli attack on October 26. On November 2, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a video released by Iranian state media, promised “a crushing response” to Israeli attack. Conceivably, the period till January 20 when Trump is sworn in, is going to be critical.

Meanwhile, this week witnessed that Iran and Saudi Arabia have given verve to their detente, which is now manifesting as Riyadh’s solidarity and open support for Iran in its growing confrontation with Israel.

Amidst the growing tensions in the region, the chief of staff of Saudi Arabia’s armed forces, Fayyad al-Ruwaili, visited Tehran on November 10 and met with his Iranian counterpart General Mohammad Bagheri. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian spoke on the phone with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on the phone in the context of a summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – Arab League in Riyadh on November 11-12. Iran has extended an invitation to MbS to visit Tehran!

Two hugely significant highlights of the Riyadh summit have been, first, the Saudi prince’s inaugural address where he warned Israel against hitting Iran. This marked a historic turn by Riyadh toward Tehran-Israeli conflict, and away from US-supported normalisation with Jerusalem.

MbS told the summit that the international community should oblige Israel “to respect the sovereignty of the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran and not to violate its lands.”

Again, Saudi Arabia accused Israel for the first time of committing “genocide” in Gaza. MbS told the leaders who gathered in Riyadh, that the kingdom renewed “its condemnation and categorical rejection of the genocide committed by Israel against the brotherly Palestinian people…”

Trump has been put on notice that he’s meeting a radically different geopolitical landscape in West Asia compared to his first term as president. The Trump transition team is keeping its cards close, offering NatSec Daily a boilerplate statement that Trump will take “necessary action” to “lead our country” and “restore peace through strength.” But warning bells are ringing.

The key pillars of Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy against Tehran — isolating Iran and ramping up economic pressure while maintaining a credible threat of military force as deterrent — have become wobbly.

On the other hand, the massive Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel on October 1 and the colossal failure of the Israeli air strike on Iran twenty-six days later convey a loud message all across West Asia that Israel is no longer the dominant military power it used to be — and there is a new sheriff in town. Trump will have to navigate the fallout of both sides of this issue with diminished US diplomatic and geopolitical capital at his disposal.

Meanwhile, Tehran is also deepening its cooperation with Russia, which adds a giant new Ukraine-sized complexity to Trump’s Iran policy. While in Eurasia, the US has allies, Trump is navigating in West Asia pretty much alone.

The US’ stark isolation comes home dramatically by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s announcement on Wednesday that Turkey, a NATO member country, has severed all ties with Israel. Erdogan disclosed this to journalists aboard his plane after visiting Saudi Arabia. A regional trend to ostracise Israel is visible now and it is destined to expand and deepen.

The summit in Riyadh witnessed the African Union joining hands with the Arab League and OIC to sign a tripartite agreement on Tuesday to establish a mechanism to support the Palestinian cause, which will be coordinated through the three organisations’ secretariats as a game changer to strengthen their influence in international forums. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan noted that the three organisations will now onward speak with one voice internationally.

Even as the summit concluded in Riyadh, Crown Prince Salman had a call on Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin readout stated that the two leaders “reaffirmed their commitment to continue the consistent expansion” of Russian-Saudi ties and specifically “stressed the importance of continuing close coordination within OPEC Plus and stated the effectiveness and timeliness of the steps being taken in this format to ensure balance on the global energy market.”

On the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Kremlin readout noted with satisfaction that “the principled approaches of Russia and Saudi Arabia with regard to the Middle East settlement are essentially identical.”

MbS’ initiative to re-invigorate his conversation with Putin can only be seen against the backdrop of the profound misgivings in Riyadh regarding the Trump-Netanyahu bromance and the spectre of a possible regional war haunting the region stemming out of Israel drawing encouragement from the seamless US support expected through the coming 4-year period for the Zionist cause.

November 14, 2024 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Wars for Israel | Iran, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, United States, Zionism | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

NEW FAUCI EMAILS EXPOSE ATTACK ON NATURAL IMMUNITY

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

Fourteen Incredible Facts About 9/11

By Kevin Ryan | Dig Within | August 8, 2015

… What is known about 9/11 is that there are many incredible facts that continue to be ignored by the government and the mainstream media. Here are fourteen.

An outline of what was to become the 9/11 Commission Report was produced before the investigation began. The outline was kept secret from the Commission’s staff and appears to have determined the outcome of the investigation.
The 9/11 Commission claimed sixty-three (63) times in its Report that it could find “no evidence” related to important aspects of the crimes.
One person, Shayna Steiger, issued 12 visas to the alleged hijackers in Saudi Arabia. Steiger issued some of the visas without interviewing the applicants and fought with another employee at the embassy who tried to prevent her lax approach.

Continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,406 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,293,867 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

January 2026

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

« Dec
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
9/11 Afghanistan Africa al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

January 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

	Bill Francis on European leaders’ shift in the…
	seversonebcfb985d9 on Villains of Judea: Philip Esfo…
	loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr…
	Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas…
	loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the…
	loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as…
	John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F…
	Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee…
	seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee…
	Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur…
	loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione…
	loongtip on Israeli agricultural export co…

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Featured Video

From the Archives

By Kevin Ryan | Dig Within | August 8, 2015

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Recent Comments

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info