This week’s “breakthrough” in ceasefire negotiations to end the genocidal campaign against Gaza came, according to regional sources, after a single intervention by US president-elect Trump’s designated envoy Steve Witkoff in which he ordered Netanyahu’s government to capitulate. While we might be skeptical of Trump’s habit of claiming credit for any progress, it was corroborated by the far-right members of the Netanyahu government erupting into the kind of tantrum for which they are now world-famous, framing the deal as a disaster imposed on “Israel” by the incoming administration.
While a welcome relief, the imposition of the ceasefire on “Israel” by Trump also brings into stark focus the pointlessness of the last year and a half of slaughter as well as the regionalization of the war to the occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen.
In the aftermath of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Biden, while parroting “Israel’s” atrocity propaganda about beheaded infants in ovens, gave Netanyahu a carte blanche to declare total war on the people of Gaza. As the unique scale of the atrocities in the Strip became clear, Biden proceeded, through his spineless UN ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, to provide diplomatic cover for the genocide at the Security Council. Breaking even with its European surrogates, the US vetoed every resolution that called for an end to the butchery, clearly straining to invent new objections to deflect global outrage at such cold-blooded cynicism.
The free rein given by the American government only emboldened the Israeli regime to widen the scope of the war. It achieved this to great effect through its airstrike on the Iranian consulate in the Syrian capital Damascus. In addition to violating every rule of modern (and ancient) diplomacy, the attack killed several high-ranking Iranian officials, guaranteeing that Tehran would retaliate directly, which it did with the largest volley of drones in military history (thus far) against “Israel”.
As was clear from the warning Tehran issued as the attack unfolded, it was deliberately calibrating its response to avert further escalation. By this point, the urgent need for a ceasefire was indisputable. It was, however, to presage the most shameful chapter of the US administration’s complicity.
Shortly afterward, in June, Biden lied that a ceasefire deal had finally been reached, that it was at the initiative of the Netanyahu government, and that the Israeli leadership had accepted it. Secretary of State Antony Blinken clownishly trumpeted this falsehood, along with the claim that the only impediment to the ceasefire was Hamas’ refusal of its terms. It was well known at the time to be a lie, but the breakthrough of the last week confirms it beyond all doubt.
The Biden Administration’s refusal from that point on to impose a ceasefire cleared the path for the Israeli regime to massively escalate the war by assassinating Hamas’ political leader Ismail Haniyeh in the Iranian capital Tehran, which, along with its flagrant campaign of terrorism against Lebanon, culminating in the assassination of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, compelled Tehran to forcefully retaliate with a further massive drone and ballistic missile barrage against Israeli military targets.
Seizing the opportunity, Netanyahu used the response to his own provocations to launch a cynical war of choice against Lebanon in the vain belief that Israeli infiltration had “decapitated” Hezbollah. This most destructive war in Lebanon’s recent history displaced more than a million Lebanese and obliterated civilian infrastructure in the South, Beirut, and the Beqaa Valley, killing at least 4,000 civilians and wounding nearly 17,000. Despite this blitzkrieg, Israeli ground forces found themselves unable to advance as much as one kilometer along the entire stretch of the south Lebanese border. Along with a mounting casualty rate, “Israel” was forced to accept a ceasefire, albeit one that has given it cover to continue detonating villages on the border and launching drone and air strikes against Lebanese targets.
Throughout the entirety of this catastrophic year, US voters were shamelessly gaslit by the Democratic Party. First, they were fed the laughable falsehood that Biden was being repeatedly “deceived” by the Israeli leadership and that he personally detested the Israeli Prime Minister. Clearly, it was never to the extent that he would even consider withholding the deluge of armaments without which Tel Aviv could not prosecute the genocide or its spill-over in more than half a dozen other regional theatres. Secondarily, we were admonished, even by supposed supporters of Palestine, that to not vote for Vice President Kamala Harris would be to see the genocide intensify in a second Trump presidency.
While there is more than ample cause for skepticism, the ease with which the US president-elect has forced the Israeli leadership to fall into line has torched the last fig leaf of justification that the Democrats were ever interested in doing anything but stalling for time so that Tel Aviv could ‘finish the job,’ even at the cost of losing the election to what they claimed is the “Hitler of our time.”
Even as the Palestinians may take comfort that the last year has thrown their cause to the forefront of the global agenda; it has nonetheless come at a still uncalculated cost in life and property. When the true toll is eventually calculated, as well as the fascists of Tel Aviv, every drop of blood will be on the heads of the now-former Biden administration that so willingly offered up an entire region for slaughter.
I had a conversation with Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Alexander Mercouris about the possibility of Trump delivering peace in the Middle East and Ukraine. Trump recently posted a video of Professor Sachs criticising the presentation of international conflicts as a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. In the video, Professor Sachs also scolded Netanyahu and blamed Israel for America’s wars in the Middle East over the past 30 years (Netanyahu will reportedly not attend Trump’s inauguration). Trump has also recognised that NATO expansionism was the source of the proxy war in Ukraine, and has been vocal about his desire to end the proxy.
These actions give some reason for cautious optimism that peace can be achieved at a time when the world appears to be heading toward major wars. The false narratives that conflict in the world derives from a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism create a dangerous Manichaean worldview. Peace then requires good defeating evil, while compromise and workable peace are derided as appeasement. Anyone contesting the Manichaean worldview can be accused of betraying liberal democratic values. Trump has many flaws, but his greatest strength is his ability to say what he wants and break away from the West’s ideological narratives and Manichaean worldview. By recognising the security interests of rival powers (a big taboo in the West), Trump can also mitigate these concerns as the foundation for any durable peace.
Jeffrey Sachs, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen on the Duran:
As Israel accuses Egypt of military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula, tensions between the two states – bound by their 1979 normalization treaty – are reaching a boiling point. Israeli officials and allied neoconservative think tanks are now actively escalating rhetoric alleging Cairo’s breach of the peace treaty while hinting at Tel Aviv’s ambitions to expand into Egyptian territory.
In September 2024, the Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) published a report accusing Egypt of allegedly aiding Hamas through tunnels leading into Gaza to enable the Palestinian resistance movement to build its military capabilities. The charges are a stretch, given Cairo’s long-held acrimony toward Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations.
Sinai standoff intensifies
These claims were further contradicted by recently leaked documents showing Egypt’s aggressive measures to destroy over 2,000 tunnels between 2011 and 2015. Senior Egyptian military officials even explored the construction of a canal to obliterate these underground networks.
Also in September, Israeli military analyst Alon Ben-David admitted on Channel 13 News that “no single open tunnel has been found in the Egyptian territory. No single usable tunnel has been discovered under the Philadelphi Corridor.”
However, Tel Aviv’s allegations did not end there. Israel’s former ambassador to Egypt, David Govrin, has now accused Cairo of violating the normalization treaty by strengthening its military presence in the Sinai. He was quoted by Yedioth Aharonoth as saying, “after all these years, and even after 7 October 2023, questions remain about Egypt’s genuine recognition of Israel within its 1948 borders.”
On 7 January, the occupation state formally demanded explanations from Egypt regarding its military activities in Sinai, citing treaty violations related to demilitarization. The US, which brokered the 1979 treaty, joined the chorus, withholding $95 million in military aid to Egypt – a recurring tactic used to exert pressure on Cairo.
Washington then redirected those funds to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), echoing similar cuts in 2023 when Egypt-bound aid was diverted to Taiwan. The move ties with intensified pressure on Beirut, aiming to coerce and incentivize compliance with US influence over its internal affairs, especially with newly-elected President Joseph Aoun.
While Egypt’s human rights violations have been copiously documented, this is a card that the US government will routinely roll out when they want to see their North African ally play ball. It is worth noting that Egypt has historically been the second-largest US foreign aid recipient after Israel.
Stand-off in the Sinai
In 2005, following Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to its periphery, an agreement was reached allowing 750 Egyptian security personnel to enter the Sinai Peninsula.
At the time, Yuval Steinitz, then chairman of Israel’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, vehemently opposed the deal, calling it a “black day” and cautioning:
“We are inviting the cat to keep the cream. This is a solar eclipse that has befallen the government, which is giving up on demilitarizing Sinai in exchange for a lentil stew of compliments and gestures.”
Since then, Cairo has submitted hundreds of requests to deploy additional forces and equipment into Sinai, most of which were approved by Tel Aviv, especially after the rise of a takfiri insurgency in 2013. In 2018, the New York Times revealed that Israel had conducted airstrikes inside Sinai at the request of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to counter the insurgent activity.
In the aftermath of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, relations between Cairo and Tel Aviv began to sour significantly. The occupation state initially proposed that Egypt facilitate ethnic cleansing via a mass expulsion of Gaza’s population into Sinai, creating a buffer zone between Gaza and occupied Palestine. President Sisi outright rejected the plan, sparking further tensions.
By early 2024, the occupation military had intensified its invasion of Gaza, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaling an assault on Rafah, Gaza’s southernmost city. Egypt swiftly issued warnings against any attempt to reclaim the Philadelphi Corridor, a border area that separates Egypt and Gaza, arguing that such actions would breach the 1979 normalization treaty.
In a dramatic escalation on 6 May, Israel launched its Rafah offensive on the same day Hamas agreed to a ceasefire proposal. This offensive, which included the seizure of the Rafah Crossing and the Philadelphi Corridor, drew condemnation even from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who described it as “a blatant violation of the peace agreement with Egypt.” Despite threats from Cairo to annul the treaty, Sisi’s primary response was to join South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
When Israeli tanks first entered the Rafah Crossing, they desecrated the area and taunted the Egyptian guards stationed there. Later that same month, a clash broke out, and Israeli soldiers killed an Egyptian soldier. Israel then launched a series of airstrikes in June against targets in the Sinai Peninsula.
The Zionist vision for expansion into Egypt
Last year, uncovered documents in the British National Archives shed light on Israel’s historical campaign to legitimize its claim over the Sinai Peninsula. During Israel’s occupation of Sinai following the 1967 war, pro-Israel lobbyists and think tanks in the west disseminated narratives to delegitimize Egyptian sovereignty over the strategic region.
Only two years after the occupation of the Sinai, which had come as a result of Israel’s war of aggression in June of 1967, the Jewish Observer and Middle East Review published an article that featured a provocative front cover, “Sinai without the Egyptians — a new look at the past, present and future.”
The Zionist Federation of Britain even argued that since Sinai had been under Turkiye’s control until 1923, it should have been incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine, laying the groundwork for Israel’s claims to the territory.
Fast forward to today, similar arguments have resurfaced to justify Israel’s expansionist ambitions. On 6 January, Israeli-Arabic social media accounts published a map showcasing the supposed territories of the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel, sparking condemnation from Jordan and the Persian Gulf states. While these claims overtly target Jordanian, Lebanese, and Syrian lands, they also subtly include parts of modern Egypt, particularly Sinai.
In July of last year, Israel’s Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu, retweeted a post made on X that called for the occupation army to occupy the Sinai Peninsula, along with southern Lebanon, southern Syria, and eventually part of Jordan.
Back in September, as Israel was launching its assault on Lebanon, the Jerusalem Post ran an article entitled ‘Is Lebanon part of Israel’s promised territory?’ that was later removed after considerable backlash.
An existential threat for the WANA region
At this current moment, Israel is openly talking about remaining in southern Lebanon even after the 60-day ceasefire implementation period, as it currently expands its occupation further into Syrian territory by the day. It also seeks an imminent annexation of the occupied West Bank. All of these moves are indicative of Israel’s seriousness in expanding its undeclared borders.
In March 2023, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly displayed a “Greater Israel” map, fueling speculation about the Zionist leadership’s long-term goals. The “Greater Israel” vision encompasses parts of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
Israeli leaders employ fluid justifications – historical, religious, and political – to advance these claims, a strategy the late Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah warned would continue unabated unless confronted by a unified Arab resistance.
Israeli media says the regime’s ministers have met to discuss a classified plot to promote the division of Syria after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government.
The news outlet Israel Hayom reported that Israel’s minister of military affairs Israel Katz chaired a small ministerial meeting on Tuesday that discussed an Israeli plan under which Syria would be divided into provincial regions, or cantons.
The report sells the plot as a way to “safeguard the security and rights of all Syrian ethnic groups,” including the Druze and Kurdish populations.
The meeting also reportedly discussed the Turkish involvement in the Arab country and alleged concerns about the intentions of Syria’s de-facto leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who has said that Damascus “will not engage” in a conflict with Tel Aviv.
The meeting was held before an upcoming discussion with prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The plan of Israel, which was a main supporter of the anti-Assad militancy that erupted in the country in 2011, was already existing before the fall of the government, the report said.
Last month, regional security sources briefed on the plot were quoted as saying that before Assad’s fall, Israel planned to divide Syria into three blocks and to establish military and strategic ties with the Kurds in Syria’s northeast and the Druze in the south, leaving Assad in power in Damascus.
The plot, which appears the same as the one discussed on Tuesday, was alluded to in a speech by Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar last November.
Saar said Israel needed to reach out to the Kurds and the Druze in Syria and Lebanon. “We must look at developments in this context and understand that in a region where we will always be a minority we can have natural alliances with other minorities.”
Foreign-backed militants, led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), took control of Damascus on December 8 and declared an end to President Assad’s rule in a surprise offensive that was launched from their stronghold in northwestern Syria, reaching the capital in less than two weeks.
Following the fall of President Assad’s government, Israel invaded Syria from the Golan Heights, a Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967. The Israeli forces have invaded a UN-patrolled buffer zone in southwestern Syria, taking over the Syrian side of Mount Hermon as well as a number of Syrian towns and villages.
The Israeli army also launched massive airstrikes against Syrian military installations in recent weeks, drawing widespread condemnation for violating Syria’s sovereignty.
Lebanese lawmakers have elected army chief Joseph Aoun as Lebanon’s new president, putting an end to a two-year-long political deadlock in the crises-hit Arab country.
Legislators on Thursday chose Aoun after two rounds of voting in the 128-member parliament of the small Mediterranean country, which has been without a president since the end of the tenure of former president Michel Aoun, who is not associated with the newly-elected president, in October 2022.
Political neophyte Aoun, 60, is widely regarded as the favored candidate of the United States and Saudi Arabia, on whose financial support Lebanon relies as it works to recover from a 14-month bombardment by Israel mostly against the Arab country’s southern parts where the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement is based.
Hezbollah, which had exchanged daily fire with the occupying regime from October 2023 until a ceasefire in November, had previously supported Suleiman Frangieh, the leader of a small Christian party in northern Lebanon, as its preferred candidate.
However, Frangieh announced his withdrawal from the race on Wednesday and threw his support behind Aoun, seemingly paving the way for the army commander.
Aoun secured 99 out of 128 votes in Lebanon’s deeply divided parliament, with support from across the political spectrum, including Hezbollah legislators and their rivals. His election ended a prolonged leadership vacuum that had stalled key reforms and heightened fears of a broader collapse amid the nation’s multiple crises.
Following his election as president on Thursday, Aoun, who had served as the 14th Commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces since 2017, formally stepped down from his military role. He entered parliament to take the oath of office dressed in civilian attire.
Aoun will need to oversee the implementation of the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon while also establishing a new government capable of addressing postwar reconstruction.
In November, the World Bank provided a preliminary assessment estimating the war’s physical damage and economic losses at $8.5 billion.
However, any rebuilding efforts will be hindered by Lebanon’s severe economic crisis, a five-year downturn that commenced with a liquidity crisis in Lebanese banks. Since then, the country’s GDP has contracted by over a third.
Before Thursday’s parliamentary sessions, 12 attempts to elect a president had failed over the past two years.
Since October 2022, the small Mediterranean country has been functioning without a formal government, which has worsened a financial crisis that prompted Lebanon to default on $30 billion in Eurobond debt some five years ago.
Lebanon’s divided sectarian power-sharing system is often susceptible to deadlock due to both political and procedural challenges. The country, which is currently struggling with its crises, has experienced multiple prolonged presidential vacancies, including the longest one, which lasted nearly two and a half years from May 2014 to October 2016, ending with the election of former President Aoun.
President-elect Donald Trump shared a video featuring Columbia professor Jeffery Sachs sharply criticizing US Middle East policy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanahu’s role in leading the US into wars.
In the video, Sachs says Netanyahu is “a deep, dark son of a bitch” who led the US into multiple follies in the Middle East and now wants America to fight a war with Iran on Israel’s behalf. “Netanyahu had, from 1995 onward, the theory that the only way we’re going to get rid of Hamas and Hezbollah is by toppling the governments that support them. That’s Iraq, Iran and Syria. The guy is nothing if not obsessive.” The professor continued, “He’s gotten us into endless wars and because of the power of all of this in U.S. politics, he’s gotten his way.”
In 2002, Netanyahu gave an address to Congress to help sell Americans on going to war in Iraq. “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,” the Israeli Prime Minister said. “And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone.”
The Iraq War would result in hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi civilians, thousands of dead Americans, trillions of dollars spent, and a government in Baghdad more aligned with Tehran. Additionally, the power vacuum created by the fall of Saddam’s government led to the rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State.
As of 2019, a majority of Americans believed the war in Iraq was not worth fighting and a mistake.
After the US disposed of Saddam, the Iraqi people elected a Shi’ite-led government that favored strong ties with Tehran. Washington and its Middle East allies then became concerned that there now existed a “Shi’ite Crescent” in the region stretching from Iran to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Professor Sachs explains that President Barack Obama then ordered the CIA to launch an operation that supported Sunni militant groups in Syria attempting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. At the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency warned that the CIA’s support for Sunni groups could result in the creation of an Islamic Caliphate.
Sach’s criticisms of US foreign policy and Israel’s influence in Washington’s politics have resulted in attacks from high-ranking Israeli officials. Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli said Sachs was in a group of “fringe Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, and blood libel enthusiasts who oppose the State of Israel.”
In the video, a two-minute compilation of a longer interview posted by Wall Steet Apes, Sachs slams the US media for failing to cover the CIA’s support for the opposition to Assad, noting the New York Times only mentioned the operation, dubbed Timber Sycamore, three times.
Trump has labeled himself as the “best friend” of Israel and has promised to increase support for the Jewish State after he returns to the White House.
French multinational retail giant Carrefour has announced the suspension of its operations in Oman, just two months after closing all its branches in Jordan in response to a global anti-“Israel” campaign denouncing the occupation entity’s decades-long crimes against Palestinians.
Carrefour, one of the largest supermarket chains worldwide, confirmed its decision through a statement on its official Instagram account on Tuesday: “Effective from January 7, 2025, Carrefour operations will be discontinued in the Sultanate of Oman.”
The closures were attributed to significant financial losses and reputational damage resulting from a widespread and creative boycott campaign. Majid Al Futtaim, which holds the exclusive rights to operate Carrefour in the West Asia region and the Arab world, publicized the decision.
The campaign, led by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) as part of the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, began in December 2022 in response to the French global retail group’s complicity in Israeli crimes against Palestinians.
The #BoycottCarrefour campaign has gained momentum over the past two years, with protests staged outside Carrefour outlets globally, despite efforts in some countries to suppress such activism.
Calls for a boycott intensified further following the outset of “Israel’s” war on Gaza, with critics accusing Carrefour branches of supporting war crimes by providing gift packages to Israeli soldiers and running donation campaigns to support soldiers involved in the war on the Palestinian enclave.
Additionally, Carrefour has reportedly signed agreements with Israeli technology firms and banks implicated in human rights violations and war crimes against Palestinians.
Futtaim Group’s semi-annual report for 2024 revealed a 47% decline in retail sector profits, citing reduced consumer confidence due to the “geopolitical conflict in the region.”
The report highlighted the impact of the extensive boycott campaign, which has gained traction across the region, from Jordan to Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
The incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz said the Trump administration would target Iran in the Middle East and crack down on pro-Palestian protesters in the US to support Israel.
In an interview with Mark Levin, Waltz explained the “philosophy” of the incoming administration for the Middle East. “The problems in the Middle East by and large originate from Tehran, not from Tel Aviv. We’re going to stand by and support our greatest ally in the Middle East,” he said. “We’re aligned from a national security, intelligence and values standpoint.”
Waltz described this policy as instituting a “complete philosophical, wholesale national security shift.”
“We’re going to align with our ally Israel, we’re going to realign the common interests of the Gulf Arab states with Israel in opposing Iran’s aggression, we’re going to reinstate maximum pressure, we’re going to stop them from selling their illegal oil that has been funding terrorism,” he said. Adding that the US military is “getting worn out shooting missile after missile from this ragtag bunch of Houthis. We’re going to get that under control.”
President Joe Biden has provided Israel with $22 billion in military aid since the October 7 attack. On Friday, Axios reported that Biden was planning to approve a final $8 billion arms sale to Israel. The current White House has also protected Tel Aviv at the UN Security Council and fought a war against the Houthis in Yemen to defend Israel.
Additionally, the Biden administration increased the Trump-era sanctions on Iran and refused to return to the Obama-era nuclear agreement. The White House deployed its most advanced air defense systems to Israel to protect it from a potential Iranian missile attack.
Still, Republicans in Washington and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have attacked Biden for not providing Israel with enough support. The current administration has pushed Tel Aviv to allow most aid into Gaza.
However, Tel Aviv has largely defied Washington’s requests to allow more aid into Gaza. In December aid shipments sunk to 71 trucks per day, far below the number, 500, aid agencies say is needed to prevent deaths of deprivation in Gaza. Gazan children have begun to freeze to death at night as their families shelter in tents.
CNN reports that the incoming administration will be more amenable to Israel’s policies of further restricting aid shipments to Gaza and will further cut deliveries once Trump returns to office.
Waltz went on to say the Trump administration would crack down on pro-Palestinian protesters. The US government will “look at mosques, individuals, universities, professors – you name it – that post a threat to the United States and are radicalizing individuals to harm the United States.” He continued referring to pro-Palestinian campus protesters, people “here on a student visa, with the privilege to study in our universities – you don’t get to protest and radicalize. You’re going to go back home real fast.”
Some of Trump’s America First supporters may view doubling down on US support for Israel as a violation of that policy. Waltz said he believes Trump will be convinced to follow through on the policy points he explained to Levin.
Deals, such as expanding the Abraham Accords, is “what gets President Trump so excited and that’s what makes all of these historic disagreements that have perpetuated for decades, if not centuries, smaller and smaller,” he explained.
On Monday, Trump made remarks to radio host Hugh Hewitt that would suggest Waltz is correct. “Well, I’m the best friend that Israel ever had. You look at what happened with all of the things that I’ve gotten, including Jerusalem being the capital, the embassy getting built,” he stated, adding the provision of military aid to Israel would be “uninterrupted” during his administration.
As the Gaza ceasefire talks stall yet again, some analysts argue that Donald Trump’s inauguration could be the key. However, the prospects for ending the war are dependent upon a variety of other factors that are making an Israeli victory impossible.
Despite the recent progress towards securing a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the Zionist regime has again employed its delaying tactics in order to find the opportune moment. While the Resistance in Gaza has proven flexible on the fine details of a prisoner exchange and cessation of hostilities, it has also proven steadfast on the battlefield, making an Israeli victory declaration implausible.
The popularly accepted analysis at this stage is that with the start of Donald Trump’s second term in office, the possibility of a Gaza ceasefire will increase greatly. It is believed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could even present the implementation of such a deal as a gift to Trump; kick-starting his Presidency with a diplomatic breakthrough.
It is also true that the Zionist Entity’s richest billionaire, Miriam Adelson, had pledged 100 million dollars to the Trump campaign, with the quid pro quo that in return for bankrolling his presidential bid, he would permit an Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank.
What Could Make or Break A Gaza Ceasefire
The reality that must be accepted when it comes to the Israeli approach to a Gaza ceasefire/prisoner exchange agreement is that the United States will not use its leverage to secure one and instead only seeks to support the Zionist entity towards securing the best possible deal. Therefore, arguments presented about the possibility of the Trump administration actually using Washington’s leverage are ludicrous and should be discarded as fanciful.
The reason why Donald Trump could make a difference in this case comes down to two major factors: His support within the Zionist regime and his willingness to permit them to completely crush the idea of a so-called “Two-State solution”.
There is no one that commands quite as much public support amongst Israelis as Donald Trump, in fact, he is more loved by them than his own population in the United States. This means that his word carries weight and him throwing his support behind the Netanyahu-led coalition could force the more fundamentalist elements of his government to fall into line. In addition to this, there will be no hesitancy when it comes to permitting an Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank.
These two components are essential for ensuring that a Gaza deal will not collapse the current Israeli coalition. If the Israeli PM is going to secure the support he needs for such a ceasefire, he needs the extremists on his side and can only do this by fulfilling the pledge to annex the West Bank.
Another major issue, besides the domestic Israeli political divisions is the activity and risk of battle across a variety of fronts. In order to annex the West Bank, the Israeli military will need to deploy enormous numbers of soldiers, private security forces and occupation police into the territory. In the event of mass civil unrest, or even a worse scenario for them like the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, they will need to send a force that could amount to hundreds of thousands of fighters, into the territory in order to control the situation.
Already the Zionist military is in a State of exhaustion, with many of its soldiers refusing to show back up when called upon to redeploy into the Gaza Strip. They have tens of thousands of wounded fighters and countless others suffering from psychological disorders, all of which place a burden on the regime alone. There’s also a deficit that has to be filled in the rank and file that the Israelis need in order for their military to function at proper capacity, which has led to desperate attempts to draw in new reserve soldiers and force the Ultra-Orthodox population to draft their young.
In the best case scenario for the Israelis – when carrying out their annexation – they will still need to dedicate a tremendous amount of resources and manpower to fulfilling the task properly. This is essential to understanding why the annexation will prove extremely difficult in the event that one of the various war fronts expands, particularly the Lebanon or Syria fronts.
While the future of resistance inside Syrian territory is unclear and not certain, if such a force does manage to rise and challenge the occupation of their territory in the south, it will require major investments to combat it and will be greatly draining for the Zionist armed forces. Although this appears to be the least likely of the fronts to again deteriorate into war, it is certainly still a question mark.
Then we have Lebanon. The Israelis have not respected the ceasefire for a single day since its announcement, committing hundreds of violations. The Zionist regime is not only continuing to maintain its presence in southern Lebanon, but has even penetrated further into the country during this period, forcing their way into territories that they couldn’t reach due to the fierce resistance against them.
The Israelis now discuss re-occupying southern Lebanon, blow up homes, mosques and other infrastructure daily, murder civilians, bomb targets deeper into the country and provocatively fly their flags in the south. Such a situation has not occurred since Hezbollah kicked the Zionist regime out of their nation in 2000, battering the Israelis again in 2006 and liberating their land. There is no conceivable way that the situation in Lebanon can remain like this, either the Israelis decide to leave the country altogether, or they will eventually face a response from Hezbollah.
If these fronts ignite, or tensions escalate with Iran, annexation will prove a difficult task for the decision makers in “Tel Aviv”, as they will be faced with a potentially dangerous predicament. Again, without the annexation of the West Bank, it is hard to imagine the Zionist regime being able to conclude a Gaza ceasefire.
On top of this, the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza has shocked everyone and is not only continuing to fight, it still possesses the rocket capabilities to strike occupied Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. In fact, the last burst of long-range rockets from the Gaza Strip towards occupied Jerusalem were fired from Beit Hanoun, an area in the besieged enclave that the Israelis have been stationed in throughout almost the entirety of the war.
Palestinian Resistance fighters continue to kill and injure Israeli soldiers, destroy and damage their military vehicles, while also firing rockets and drones. This is happening almost 15 months into the fighting and with no known supply lines to Gaza. Yet, the people continue to remain steadfast, while the resistance continues to recruit more fighters and manufacture new weapons.
Because of the refusal of the people of Gaza to lessen their cause, they have thwarted several attempts to impose a new rule upon them. Despite suffering through a Genocide and losing everything around them, they have not allowed for a foreign regime and fighters to be imposed. Also, the Zionists have not come up with any valid strategy to allow for a takeover of the Palestinian territory, having failed to destroy Hamas.
This is another issue that rears its head, what will the day after look like? There is no clear answer to this question yet and none of the proposals on the table will give the Zionists the image of a full victory that they have proposed from the start.
Recent revelations prove the primary reason for America’s 2003 unprovoked invasion of Iraq was because Israel wanted seven Muslim nations destroyed to allow for its expansion. This war was part of a plan for Greater Israel. This Zionist plan to massively expand Israel was ignored by sane people for decades because it is unrealistic and would require the ethnic cleansing of tens of millions of native Arabs.
The key proponent of this plan is long-time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. There is no doubt that he is mostly responsible for the 2003 American invasion of Iraq. Netanyahu is now demanding the corrupt American government make Greater Israel possible by helping destroy Lebanon and Iran.
“One way to counter Iran’s aggression. Change the map of the Middle East”; Fox News Opinion; Michael Makovsky; December 28, 2017; https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/one-w…
“Worth the Price?” New Film Shows How Biden Played Leading Role in Push for U.S. to Invade Iraq; Democracy Now; February 18, 2020; • “Worth the Price?” New Film Shows How…
The Syria story, it seems, is not so simple as ‘President Assad fell’ and the ‘technocratic Salafists’ rose to power.
At one level, the collapse was predictable. Assad was known to have been influenced by Egypt and UAE for some years past. They had been urging him to break with Iran and Russia, and to shift to the West. For some 3-4 years he had been incrementally signalling and implementing such a move. Iran especially faced increasing obstacles over operational matters in which they were co-operating with Syrian forces. His shift was meant as a message to Iran.
The financial situation of Syria – after years of U.S. Caesar sanctions, plus the loss of all agricultural and energy revenues seized by the U.S. in occupied north-east Syria – was catastrophic. Syria simply had no economy.
No doubt, reaching out to Israel and Washington was presented to Assad as the only practical exit to his dilemma. ‘Normalisation’ could lead to the lifting of sanctions, they implored him. And Assad, according to those in touch with him, (even at the eleventh hour before the HTS ‘invasion’) was believing that Arab States close to Washington would have opted for his continued leadership, rather than see Syria fall prey to Salafist zealots.
To be clear: Moscow and Tehran had warned Assad that his army (as a whole) was too fragile, too underpaid, and too penetrated and bribed by foreign intelligence services, to be expected to defend the state effectively. Assad also was warned repeatedly about the threat from Idlib jihadists planning to take Aleppo, but the President not only ignored the warnings – he rebutted them.
He was offered a very large external military force not once, but twice, even in ‘the last days’, as Jolani’s militia were advancing. Assad refused. “We are strong”, he told an interlocutor on the first occasion; yet shortly afterwards, on a second occasion, he admitted: “My army is running away”.
Assad was not abandoned by his allies. It was by then too late. He had flip-flopped once too often. Two of the principal actors (Russia and Iran) were frustrated and rendered unable to help – absent Assad’s consent.
A Syrian who knew the Assad family, and who spoke with the President at some length just prior the Aleppo invasion, had found him surprisingly sanguine and unflustered – assuring his friend that there were forces enough (2,500) in Aleppo to deal with Jolani’s threats, and hinting that President Sissi might be ready to step in with aid for Syria. (Egypt of course feared Muslim Brotherhood Islamists taking power in a former secular Ba’athist state).
Ibrahim Al-Amine, editor of Al-Akhbar, noted a similar perception by Assad:
“Assad seemed to have become more confident that Abu Dhabi was capable of resolving his problem with the Americans and some Europeans, and he heard a lot about economic temptations if he agreed to the strategy of exiting the alliance with the resistance forces. One of Assad’s workers, who stayed with him until the last hours before he left Damascus, says that the man was still hoping for something big to happen to stop the armed factions’ attack. He believed that “the Arab and international community” would prefer that he remain in power, rather than Islamists take over the administration of Syria”.
Yet, even as the Jolani forces were on the M5 highway linking to Damascus, the wider Assad family and key officials were making no efforts to prepare for a departure, or to warn close friends to think about such contingencies, the interlocutor said. Even as Assad was heading to Hmeimin en route to Moscow, no advice to ‘get out’ was sent to friends.
The latter said that they did not know after Assad’s silent departure to Moscow who exactly, or when, ordered the Syria army to stand down and to prepare for transition.
Assad briefly visited Moscow on 28 November – a day after the HTS attacks in Aleppo province and their swift advance south (and a day after the ceasefire in Lebanon). The Russian authorities have said nothing about the content of the President’s meetings in Moscow, and the Assad family said that the President had returned tight-lipped from Russia, too.
Subsequently, Assad departed finally to Moscow (either on 7 December, after despatching a private plane on multiple flights to Dubai, or on 8 December) – again telling virtually nobody in his immediate and family circle that he was departing for good.
What caused this out-of-character mindset? No one knows; but family members have speculated that Bashar Al-Assad had been seriously disorientated emotionally by the grave illness of his wife, Asma, to whom he is devoted.
Put frankly, whilst the three main players could see clearly the direction events were heading (the fragility of the state was no surprise), nevertheless, Assad’s denial mindset and the consequent speed of the military dénouement was the surprise. That was the true ‘black swan’.
What triggered events? Erdogan has for several years demanded that Assad firstly negotiate with the ‘legitimate Syrian opposition’; secondly that he re-draft the Constitution; and thirdly that he meet face-to-face with President Erdogan (something Assad consistently refused to do). All three powers pressed Assad to negotiate with the ‘opposition’, but he would not, and nor would he meet with Erdogan. (Both loathe each other). Frustration on these counts was high.
Erdogan now indisputably ‘owns’ ‘former-Syria’. Ottoman irredentist sentiment is ecstatic and demanding more Turkish revanchism. Others – the more secular city dwellers of Turkey however – are less enthused by the display of Turkish religious nationalism.
Erdogan however, may well be (or may soon be) experiencing buyer’s remorse: Yes, Turkey stands tall as Syria’s new landlord, but he is now ‘the responsible’ party for what happens next. (HTS is plainly exposed as a Turkish proxy). Minorities are being killed; brutal sectarian executions are accelerating; sectarianism becoming more extreme. There is still no Syrian economy in sight; no revenues, and no fuel for the gasoline refinery (previously supplied by Iran).
Erdogan’s espousal of a re-branded and westernised al-Qaeda always risked proving to be paper-thin (as the sectarian killings are cruelly demonstrating). Will Jolani manage to impose his al-Qaeda-in-a suit makeover across his heterodox followers? Abu Ali al-Anbari, al-Baghdadi’s top aide at the time (2012-2013), gave this scathing appraisal of Jolani:
“He is a cunning person; two-faced; adores himself; does not care about his soldiers; is willing to sacrifice their blood in order to make a name for himself in the media – glows when he hears his name mentioned on satellite channels”.
In any event, one clear outcome is that Erdogan’s ploy has re-ignited formerly (and mostly) quiescent Sunni sectarianism and Ottoman imperialism. The consequences will be many and will ripple across the region. Egypt is already anxious – as is King Abdullah in Jordan.
Many Israelis see themselves as the ‘winners’ from the Syrian up-ending – since the Axis of Resistance supply line has been severed at its middle. Israeli security chief Ronan Bar was most likely briefed by Ibrahim Kalin, Turkish Head of Intelligence, when they met in Istanbul on 19 November on the expected Idlib invasion – in time for Israel to institute the Lebanon ceasefire, and to obstruct the passage of Hizbullah forces into Syria (Israel immediately bombed all the border crossings between Lebanon and Syria).
Nonetheless Israelis may discover that a re-kindled Salafist zealotry is not their friend – nor ultimately to their benefit.
Iran will sign the long-awaited defence accord with Russia on 17 January 2025.
Russia will concentrate on the war in Ukraine and stay aloof from the Middle East quagmire – to focus on the slow global restructuring that has been happening, and on the Big Picture attempt to have Trump in due course come to acknowledge Asian ‘Heartland’ and BRICS security interests, and to agree on some frontier to the Rimland (Atlanticist) security sphere, such that cooperation on issues of global strategic stability and European security can be agreed.
We had several other people in the country (USA), even among the Jews,the Zionists particularly, who were against anything that has to be done if they couldn’t have the whole of Palestine and everything handed to them on a silver plate so they wouldn’t have to do anything. It couldn’t be done. We had to take it in small doses. You can’t move 5 or 6 million people out of a country and fill it up with 5 or 6 million more and expect both sets of them to be pleased….don’t think that the decision to recognize Israel was an easy one. I had to make a compromise with the Arabs and divide Palestine.”
President Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953
The Palestinian catastrophe in the United States began with the 33rd president and has continued with the 47th.
And then there was one, or two—one country, two systems. The political, economic, military and intelligence “interests” of the United States and Israel have become intertwined and often indistinguishable since President Truman decided to officially recognize Israel in 1948.
President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated, “I am a Zionist.” With that avowal, he placed the government and the American people firmly in the Israeli camp, linking the United States to apartheid, genocide and crimes against humanity.
Fifty-seven years ago, the United States chose to inextricably link its interests with an apartheid entity. And since then, for Biden and many in Washington, Israel has become a religion. Very few American politicians, especially since the 1990s, have had the mettle to challenge Israel’s dominance over US policy in the Middle East.
Israel’s leaders are well-practiced in manipulation. They have a long history of insolence toward their number one patron. Americans and US policy in the Middle East have been seen as naive and easily exploited, said Uri Dromi, who served as spokesman for the regimes of Yitzhak Rabin (1974-77; 1992-95) and Shimon Peres (1984-86).
American presidents engage in public rebukes and short-term responses to Israel’s brutal actions, but rarely, if ever are there consequences. The following encounters are just a limited edition of instances when US politicians have buckled under Israeli pressure.
The interactions, for example, between President Ronald Reagan (1981-89) and Prime Minister Menachem Begin (former Irgun terrorist) were fraught. On June 7, 1981, Israel used US warplanes to destroy Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor without informing President Reagan.
Instead Begin called Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, to inform him of the impending attack. Begin and his Likud Party had been cultivating ties to evangelical leaders like Falwell to build the alliance between US evangelical Christians and Israel. Today there are more than 30 million Christian Zionists in the United States.
As a US “ally,” Reagan expected Israel to consult when planning measures that would impact US strategic interests in the region. The administration temporarily suspended the delivery of additional F-16 jets and supported a UN Security Council resolution denouncing the attack on an International Atomic Energy Agency-approved nuclear reactor. Despite Begin’s rejection of US proposals and refusal to apologize, the White House lifted the suspension of the F-16s deliveries in August 1981.
Reagan faced another affront a few months later in December 1981, when again, without informing the president, Begin illegally annexed the captured Syrian Golan Heights. The slight came shortly after the two countries had signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on strategic cooperation, written specifically so that Israel would no longer surprise the United States.
In response to the annexation, the United States suspended the MoU and imposed limited economic sanctions on Israel. Begin then accused the United States of anti-Semitism and “pointed out” that the United States had a strong Jewish community and millions of Christians supportive of Israel. The underlying message of electoral consequences was not lost on Reagan. Like measures taken after the Osirak attack, the penalties imposed on Israel were merely temporary window dressings.
George H.W. Bush, who succeeded Reagan in 1989, experienced his measure of clashes with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (former Zionist leader of the right-wing Stern Gang) and Benjamin Netanyahu, who was deputy foreign minister at the time.
The Bush administration was the last to “seriously” negotiate peace. Pro-Israel lobbies, both Jewish and Christian, in the United States did their best to sabotage the 1991 comprehensive peace conference in Madrid.
Bush’s secretary of state, James A. Baker, came under fire for negotiating directly and officially with Palestinians. He was also criticized for leveraging US aid to stop Israel’s expanding colonization of the occupied West Bank and for calling on Israel to lay aside its expansionist policies and unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel.
Frustrated by Israeli intransigence, Baker reportedly referred to Tel Aviv’s stalwart supporters in the US Congress as “the little Knesset.”
The Madrid Conference failed to produce results. Although Palestinians were essentially asked to negotiate with their Israeli occupiers, little was asked of Israel. To get Shamir to attend, the United States accepted Israel’s conditions that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) be excluded, that the Palestinian delegation be subject to Israeli approval, and that Palestinian independence and statehood not be addressed.
The famous confrontation in 1991 over US loan guarantees to Israel was yet another example of its insouciance about bypassing the executive to achieve its aims.
Shortly after America’s war against Iraq in 1991, Israel sought an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees from Washington to help populate Palestinian land with Jewish emigres from the former Soviet Union. The White House wanted assurances that the money would not go toward the building of additional “settlements,” and threatened to withhold funds until it received guarantees.
Recalling the event years later, Baker explained that the clash between the two governments resulted because Prime Minister Shamir had threatened that if the administration did not provide the funds, he would bypass the executive and take his case directly to Congress. Baker said he responded, “you’re damn well not going to do that. You can’t go around the President of the United States.”
The Jewish right to this day views Baker as toxic. The Jewish Press, a religiously conservative pro-Israel newspaper, described him as one of the most “reviled” public figures in Israel and among American Jews.
Although the administration eventually yielded on the loan issue, President Bush remained convinced he lost re-election in 1992 because of the pro-Israel lobby campaign against him.
The willingness to enter into political struggles with Israel’s leaders and their Washington supporters and to seriously ask something of Israel essentially came to an end with the election of President Bill Clinton (1993-2001).
The Madrid Conference paved the way for the Oslo Accords (1993 and 1995) negotiated during the Clinton presidency. For the Palestinians, it was a sham. For Israel, it consolidated domination over Palestinians and their land.
Israel can be more thoroughly understood by observing the conduct of incumbent prime minister and international fugitive, Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been his mission since the early 1990s to expand illegal colonies in occupied Palestine, prevent the creation of a Palestinian state and crush Palestinian resistance.
Netanyahu thinks of the United States as gullible. A former Israeli minister who worked with him remarked that in cabinet discussions whenever someone raises the question of how America would act, Netanyahu says “Leave the Americans to me.”
To show America who’s the boss, Netanyahu has embarrassed presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
One of Netanyahu’s first acts as prime minister in 1996 was to sabotage the Oslo Accords, antagonizing President Clinton who had helped negotiate the agreement. After his first meeting with Netanyahu, Clinton let loose, saying “Who the f**k does he think he is? Who’s the f***ing superpower here?”
By the time Netanyahu’s first term ended in 1999, the Oslo agreements had collapsed and Zionist colonies were firmly entrenched.
Netanyahu’s contemptuous approach toward the United States was in full view in a secretly recorded video of a conversation he had with colonists in their house in the occupied West Bank in 2001. In it, he bragged that he had deceived Clinton into believing that he was implementing the agreement, that he knew how to manipulate Americans, and that he had essentially put an end to the Oslo Accords.
The video was taped during the second intifada (Palestinian uprising) when the Israeli military was crushing the resistance. Netanyahu talked about hitting Palestinians “hard” many times so that “the price will be unbearable.”
A skeptical colonist asked him if he worried about what the United States and the world would think and say of Israel “hitting Palestinians hard.” Netanyahu responded:
“The world will say nothing… that we are defending ourselves… I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved… moved in the right direction. The Americans will not bother us. Let’s suppose that they will say something… So they say it. Eighty percent of Americans support us. It’s absurd. We have such support there!”
Netanyahu’s belligerence intensified during the presidency of Barack Obama. His flippancy toward Obama was unabashed during a tense public meeting in the Oval Office in May 2011.
The meeting took place a day after Obama had attempted to revive the stalled peace process, where he stated that the borders between Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines, with some adjustments for existing Zionist colonies.
Netanyahu bluntly responded, “It’s not going to happen,” Israel would never return to 1967 borders, warning Obama not to chase “illusions” of peace. He then brazenly lectured the president on the history of the region. After the meeting, Obama’s national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said: “I have never seen a foreign leader speak to the president like that, and certainly not in public… ”
Netanyahu used the Oval Office exchange during his 2019 campaign by releasing a campaign video in which he boasted of how he stood up to Obama and stared him down.
An additional insult came on 3 March 2015. On that date, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of the US Congress (for the third time), excoriating the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy initiative—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal. He had come to Washington at the invitation of then-Republican House Speaker John Boehner. The White House was not informed of the arrangements.
Although the relationship between the two leaders was fraught, Obama was one of the most pro-Israel presidents, giving it more money and arms than any of his predecessors. Before leaving office, Obama approved one of the largest military aid packages yet: $38 billion for the next ten years.
Netanyahu repaid President Obama’s favors with a number of slights. During his campaign for re-election in 2012, for example, he endorsed the president’s opponent, Republican Mitt Romney. In addition, Netanyahu also embarked on a very public and intense campaign to sabotage the Iran nuclear agreement. That was finally accomplished in May 2018, when President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA.
With the election of Biden in 2021, the pro-Zionist/pro-Israel sentiment of the US regime has become more pronounced.
In service to Israel, the Biden administration has spent more than $22 billion on military aid and made more than 100 military aid transfers and weapons sales to Israel from October 7, 2023, to September 30, 2024. Another $680 million arms sales deal was recently approved. And for the fourth time (November 20, 2024), the administration vetoed UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Our history reveals that some American politicians in the past exhibited the ethical and moral courage necessary to speak and write on the pitfalls of following Israel uncritically. There have not been many. Among the few, Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright stands out. In his 1989 book, The Price of Empire, he wrote:
“The (Israel) lobby can just about tell the president what to do when it comes to Israel. Its influence in Congress is pervasive and, I think, profoundly harmful to us and ultimately to Israel itself… So completely have many of our principal officeholders fallen under Israeli influence that they not only deny today the legitimacy of Palestinian national aspirations, but debate who more passionately opposes a Palestinian state…,” adding,
“AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and its allied organizations have effective working control of the electoral process. They can elect or defeat nearly any congressman or senator that they wish, with their money and coordinated organizations. They are the really important power to negotiate within the Middle East if you want an agreement.”
Senator Fulbright served for 30 years, 15 of those as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Another critic of Israeli arrogance was Admiral Thomas Moorer. He was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974. Republican Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois recalled Moorer’s comments on page 161 in his book, They Dare to Speak Out:
“I’ve never seen a president… stand up to them (the Israelis)… They always get what they want. The Israelis know what’s going on all the time… If the American people understood what grip those people have on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on.”
The political climate in Washington has gone from bad to worse since Findley served in Congress from 1961 to 1983. His recollections on page 84 of his book are noteworthy:
“Today, on Middle East issues at least, independence and courage are almost unknown… Since the establishment of modern Israel in 1948, only a handful of senators have said or done anything in opposition to the policies of the government of Israel. Those who break ranks find themselves in difficulty.”
George Ball, US Under Secretary of State (1961-1966), also spoke frankly when he discussed Israel and its relationship with US politics and American politicians. In a 1988 CBS “60 Minutes” report on AIPAC influence on US politics, he remarked: “Practically every congressman and senator says his prayers to the AIPAC lobby.”
Amnesty International, in December 2024, released its well-documented 293-page report, “You Feel like You Are Subhuman: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza.” In a warning to all, it stated: “Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community: “This is genocide. It must stop now.”
The State Department’s response to the report: “What I can say as a spokesperson for the US government and as a spokesperson of this administration is that the findings of the accusations of genocide, we continue to believe those to be unfounded.” The non-response bears witness to America’s complicity in genocide and the continuous catastrophe for Palestinians.
Caveat lector: As long as Israel and its lobbies have ownership over America’s Middle East policy, Palestinians will experience more of the same indifference and injustice, the region will be thrown into more chaos, the American public will continue to be red-pilled and international law will become worthless.
Dr. M. Reza Behnam is a political scientist specializing in the history, politics and governments of the Middle East.
Peter Gøtzsche reviewed every randomised mammography screening trial ever conducted for the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane’s headline is that, assuming a 15% mortality reduction, one woman in 2000 avoids dying of breast cancer over ten years. Ten are overdiagnosed and treated. Two hundred experience false alarms.
But that headline assumes the reduction. When Gøtzsche looked only at the trials with adequate randomisation — the higher-quality ones — the reduction disappeared. No effect on breast cancer mortality. No effect on all-cause mortality.
This is the Cochrane finding, published in the establishment’s own database of systematic reviews.
No woman being asked to consent to a mammogram this week knows it.
That is why the new Unbekoming paperback exists. … continue
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.
Aletho News 