UK admits MI5 in ‘serious’ breach of surveillance safeguards
Press TV – May 14, 2019
Britain’s interior minister Sajid Javid has admitted that the country’s main domestic intelligence agency MI5 has breached safeguards on protection of data obtained from citizens during interception operations.
The Guardian newspaper said in a Tuesday report that Javid had sent a letter to members of the British parliament last week notifying them of “serious” breaches in MI5 operations regarding how private data of millions of citizens, including private messages, digital browsing histories and location information, has been handled by the intelligence agency.
That comes after the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO), the official body responsible for overseeing government surveillance practices, sent a team of inspectors to the MI5 to investigate how the secuirty organization had failed to comply with the safeguards regarding how it should use and preserve the data.
The IPCO has said in a report that breaches committed by the MI5 had been “serious and required immediate mitigation”.
Javid has announced that his ministry, the Home Office, had established an independent review to “consider and report back” on the findings of the IPCO report.
The evolving scandal comes as human rights organization Liberty is taking legal action against the government over what it and other rights campaigners allege are excessively intrusive surveillance powers given to the security apparatus.
The new revelations about the MI5 have intensified concerns that the British government is sharing the private data of citizens with foreign intelligence agencies.
“It is possible, from what is known, that millions of innocent people’s data is being shared widely with foreign governments. If the government has its way, we will never know if this is the case,” said Megan Goulding, a lawyer at Liberty.
“If the UK’s surveillance regime is to have a semblance of legitimacy, the public needs to know what happened, and how badly our privacy and the security of our information were put at risk,” Goulding added.
“Saving Syria’s Children”: Response to the HuffPo
Corrections and clarifications to “Keith Allen Thinks The BBC May Have Faked ‘Apocalyptic’ Attack In Syria”
Saving Syria’s Children: Did The BBC Lie? from Robert Stuart on Vimeo.
By Robert Stuart | OffGuardian | May 13, 2019
News and opinion website The Huffington Post has written about my campaign to crowdfund a documentary about the 2013 BBC Panorama programme Saving Syria’s Children.
Keith Allen Thinks The BBC May Have Faked ‘Apocalyptic’ Attack In Syria was published on May 4th 2019. Some notes in response follow.
Stuart says he has spent nearly six years compiling “a mountain of evidence” that shows the BBC’s footage was “faked”. He claims the national broadcaster worked “cheek by jowl with Isis” to produce the Panorama documentary, which was broadcast in September 2013.
Evidence that sequences in Saving Syria’s Children were fabricated is set out on my blog. Readers are free to make their own topographical analogies.
During the programme’s making BBC Panorama reporter Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway were embedded with then ISIS partner group Ahrar al-Sham – a group described elsewhere by the BBC as “hard-line Islamist”. Less than three weeks earlier Ahrar al-Sham, ISIS and other groups together killed over 190 civilians, including women, children and elderly men, and kidnapped over 200 mostly women and children.
In the programme’s climactic scenes of the aftermath of an alleged incendiary attack the BBC crew filmed at close quarters an ambulance prominently bearing the ISIS emblem and its militarily attired occupants, at least one of whom was armed.
In an interview with TalkRadio on Friday, Stuart claimed “the only source of [this attack] is the BBC”. However, the strike was also reported by NBC News who interviewed doctors who described the “apocalyptic” attack in detail, documented in painstaking detail by the Violations Documentation Centre in Syria (VDCS), and confirmed by Human Rights Watch.
The NBC News article cited features an interview with a single volunteer doctor named “Roula”. This is clearly Dr Rola Hallam. Dr Hallam and Dr Saleyha Ahsan were being followed by the BBC Panorama team of reporter Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway as they visited hospitals run by the UK charity Hand in Hand for Syria. As such Hallam was central to the BBC reports in question and cannot be considered an independent commentator. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The Violations Documentation Centre in Syria report cited gives the time of the alleged attack as follows:
On 26 Aug 2013, at 02:00 pm, the Syrian air forces shelled ‘Iqraa’ Institution in Orm Al Kubra in Aleppo, which had been under the Free Army’s control for several months then.
The VDCS report also quotes Mustapha Haid, “Head of ‘Doulati Organization/My State Organization’”:
At 3 in the afternoon, On 26 Aug 2013, I was in Al Atareb City and I heard rumours about a ‘chemical attack’ on Orm Al Kubra and that tens of casualties were brought to Al Atareb Hospital.
However the BBC has categorically stated in complaints correspondence that:
The attack happened on the 26th of August at around 5.30pm at the end of the school day.[5]
The VDCS report quotes a second witness, Issa Obeid, “Head of Nursing Department in Al Atareb Hospital”, who provides a first-hand account of his actions at Atareb Hospital:
We washed the casualties with water and serums after taking off their clothes. We used ‘Florasline’ liniment on the burnt areas and provided the casualties with fluids and some of them were given tranquilizers like Morphine.
However on 26 August 2013 Issa (or Iessa) Obied would appear not to have been present at Atareb but to have been attending a battle first aid training course in Antakia, Turkey. [6]
Iessa Obied has been photographed posing with an arsenal of weaponry including assault rifles, an anti-aircraft gun and a shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile. [7] [8]
The Huffington Post reports that the strike was “confirmed by Human Rights Watch”. However Mary Wareham, Advocacy Director of HRW’s Arms Division, stated in a contemporary (August 2013) article that Human Rights Watch has “not investigated this incident“. [9]
HuffPost UK asked a team of ex-military and medical professionals who teach hostile environment training to view the full Panorama footage to comment on its authenticity.
Questions about Hostile Environment Awareness Training, the company cited by the Huffington Post, are raised by journalist Kit Klarenberg. “With the predictability of Chinese water torture, York’s once again written a propagandistic ad hominem hatchet job on an independent researcher, in this case @cerumol. Leaving aside his puerile insults, the ‘experts’ he apparently consulted are worthy of close investigation…”
They described it as “legitimate” and “consistent with chemical exposure”, adding the select footage in Stuart and Allen’s promotional video had been “cleverly” edited in a way to manipulate the viewer.
The BBC has been at pains to assert “that this was an attack using an incendiary device, rather than a chemical weapon.”
As noted on my blog a GMC registered doctor with burns experience has concluded that the scenes of alleged incendiary bomb victims arriving at Atareb Hospital in Saving Syria’s Children were “an act”. Further sceptical comment by medical professionals, including former UK and US military personnel, plus observations by lay people with experience of burns victims, is collated here. [10]
None of the BBC footage used in the crowdfunding video has been altered in any way, save for basic editing techniques such as freeze frame and fade.
Stuart also takes issue with the fact the documentary makers – reporter Ian Pannell and cameraman Darren Conway – worked alongside the armed Islamist groups that controlled the Aleppo region where Atarib is situated.
When required, all major media organisations negotiate access with whoever controls the area in question. Numerous journalists have risked their lives to report on what is happening inside Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Hamas-controlled Gaza or Boko Haram-controlled Nigeria, for example.
It is clearly in the public interest for BBC audiences to be made aware that a portion of their license fee revenue has apparently been paid to a jihadist group co-founded by “one of Osama bin Laden’s most trusted couriers”.
The BBC rebutted the claims made by Stuart and Allen in a statement to HuffPost UK, saying there is “absolutely no evidence that any part of the programme was fabricated”.
It added: “Any such suggestion is offensive to the victims, medics and reporters.”
This statement was published on Facebook by BBC Panorama editor Rachel Jupp over two years ago in response to challenges made by film, television and radio producer Victor Lewis-Smith.
An RT report based on Stuart’s work was found to be in breach of Ofcom broadcasting rules and described as “materially misleading”.
Some important caveats in Ofcom’s finding against the RT programme in question have been noted by OffGuardian :
To be clear, according to OfCom’s own description of its remit, in the dispute between RT and the BBC, OfCom did not look into the BBC’s accuracy or credibility. Nor did OfCom investigate whether RT’s allegations of fakery were true or false. In fact the Broadcast Bulletin makes it clear OfCom ruled in favour of the BBC based solely on two things:
A) a finding that RT had broken “Rule 7 of the Code”, which requires a broadcaster to allow sufficient right of reply to anyone accused.
B) a finding that RT had infringed “Rule 2.2 of the Code” which requires a broadcaster not to present facts in a way likely to “mislead the viewer” – based on the fact RT had referred to Robert Stuart’s ongoing investigation into the BBC’s Panorama program as a “massive public investigation”, when OfCom thought the size of his investigation did not merit such an epithet.
Anyone can visit Robert Stuart’s website and decide for themselves if his investigation can fairly be described as “massive”, but the extent to which OfCom’s findings are themselves factual inaccuracies I’ll leave for others to explore. The most significant point here is that OfCom has specifically not cleared the BBC of suspicion of wrongdoing, and is not claiming to have done so.
Antisemitism is now a mass movement in Britain
By Gilad Atzmon | May 13, 2019
It seems as if British Jewish pressure groups have achieved their goal: anti-Semitism is now a mass movement in the UK. The rabid Zionist Algemeiner reports that “Antisemitism and virulent Israel-hatred were rife on Saturday at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in London.”
The Jewish press seems to be upset by a pro-Palestinian march that assembled at the offices of the BBC, not too far from a synagogue. I guess that the rationale is simple: once London is dotted with synagogues, human rights enthusiasts will be pushed out of the city. They will have to gather somewhere out of the green belt.
Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished ‘antisemitic badges and placards,’ such as “Israel provokes anti-Semitism.” I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement? If anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism.
Jewish outlets are also upset by images of the Star of David crossed with a swastika. To start with, those who equate Israel with Nazi Germany actually contemplate the memory of the Holocaust and are by no means ‘deniers.’ I guess that the time is ripe for Zionists and supporters of Israel to accept that in consideration of the ongoing Israeli racist crime in Palestine, the Star of David has become a symbol of evil in the eyes of many.
The Jewish press is upset by the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” that calls for Israel’s destruction. I would actually expect Jews who seem to be upset by the Hitlerian concept of an ‘Aryans-only state’ to accept that the concept of a ‘Jews-only state’ is equally disturbing.’ They should support Israel becoming ‘a state of its citizens’ and accept that sooner or later this state will evolve into Palestine, from the river to the sea.
The Jewish press is totally irritated by Jewish Voice for Labour’s Secretary Glyn Secker, who claimed that pro-Israel Labour officials were a “fifth column” in the party and asked, “What on earth are Jews doing in the gutter with these rats?” I would remind my readers that Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is itself a Jewish racist exclusive political body that wouldn’t accept non-Jews into its ranks. I have wondered more than once how it is possible that the anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn is willing to be associated with such a body. However, in his statement (if quoted correctly by the Jewish press), secretary Glyn Secker actually expresses the most disturbing tribal supremacist view. He looks down at a bunch of labour MPs whom he labels ‘rats’ and call for his Jewish brethren to disassociate from these low creatures. Glyn, in practice, sustains the Jew/Goy binary divide. He should actually receive the Kosher weekly award rather than be abused by the Zionist league.
But we can be reassured. Campaign Against Antisemitism has already confirmed that they are “reviewing the evidence that we gathered today. Where crimes have been committed, we will work with the authorities to ensure that there are arrests and prosecutions.”
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist campaign against Corbyn didn’t hurt him, as he is still leading in most national election polls. Branding Nigel Farage as an anti-Semite didn’t touch the man whose party is polling higher than the Tories and Labour combined in the coming European Parliament election. One way to look at it is to argue that Brits are not moved by the Jewish anti-Semitism hysteria. Another way to look at it is to conclude that Brits are actually grossly disturbed by the anti-Semitism frenzy. Being hated by the Zionist lobby has become a badge of honour, an entry ticket to Britain’s political premiership.
Massive demonstration in support of Palestine in London on the 71st anniversary of Nakba
Palestine Information Center – May 12, 2019
LONDON – Thousands of people gathered on Saturday for a demonstration in London, called for by the Palestinian Forum in Britain (PFB) and allied organizations, especially Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), to mark the seventy first anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe), which coincides this year with talk about a new deal that will liquidate the Palestinian issue.
The rally was attended by many important personalities, something which the president of the Manchester branch of PFB, Baha’ Bader, considered to be a reflection of the acceptance of the Palestinian narrative despite the omnipresence of Zionist narrative.
For his part the Palestinian Ambassador to the UK, Husam Zumullut, stressed the utter rejection of the Palestinian people and their leadership of all that has been leaked about the suspicious deal.
In the meantime, the Chairman of PFB, Hafiz Al-Karmi, renewed a call for the British Government to apologize for the historical mistake of what is known as the Balfour Declaration and work for protecting the Palestinians.
The Palestinian student, who came to Britain recently to study, Ahed Al-Tamimi, was present at the rally to stress that she is going to continue her struggle in defense of Palestinian rights.
Labor MP, Richard Burgon, saw in the masses that attended the rally a message of support for the Labor Party’s plans to recognize the State of Palestine and stressed the Palestinians’ right to live in peace.
The spokesman for the PFB, Adnan Humaidan, accused the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, of being biased in favor of the Israeli occupation and of closing her ears to the calls of the demonstrators to stop arming and supporting the occupation while turning a blind eye to its crimes such as the killing of the baby Saba Abu Arrar and thousands of Palestinian children before her.
The demonstrators carried placards against the American President, Donald Trump, and his suspicious plans against the Palestinians and called for support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
The speech of the British Palestinian youth, Leanne Mohamed, was received with a lot of applause. She participates in and speaks at most demonstrations that support Palestinian rights. She was disqualified from participating in the finals of Jack Petchey Speak-out challenge because of her insistence to talk about Palestine.
While another British Palestinian youth, Haneen Khalil, gave a speech in the name of OLIVE for Palestinian Youth. She stressed her rejection to negotiations with Israel before it agrees to the right of return of all Palestinian refugees.
In a message that was read on behalf of the Labor leader, Jeremy Corbyn, at the demonstration he said: “We cannot stand by or stay silent at the continuing denial of the rights and justice of the Palestinian people. The labor party is united in condemning the human rights abuses taking place in Gaza and the Israeli forces shooting unarmed Palestinian demonstrators for simply demanding their rights under international law.”
Misled again by the arbiters of anti-semitism
By Jonathon Cook | May 11, 2019
British comedian David Schneider has become one of the more influential public figures on social media seeking to arbitrate what constitutes anti-semitism. Compared to TV show host Rachel Riley, or even Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, Schneider is an exemplar of moderation and rationality. But, to be honest, the bar has been set pretty low in recent years.
Schneider has now published a guide in the Independent newspaper on “how to talk about Israel without sliding into antisemitism”. Although there are elements to his guide I can agree with, most of his advice is – to put it charitably – simplistic, misleading or downright unhelpful.
Given how polarised public discourse has grown on the issue of anti-semitism, and the degree to which it has been weaponised by those – Jews and non-Jews alike – opposed to a new kind of insurgency politics in the UK and US demanding the right to speak out unequivocally in support of Palestinian rights, Schneider’s blind spots need highlighting.
He rightly notes that the phrase “legitimate criticism of Israel” has become clichéd. But it is more than just a cliché; it has come to serve as a ringfence, ensuring that “legitimate” criticism relates only to Netanyahu and the Israeli right.
Many of us, however, want to point out that there would still be major problems with Israel even if Netanyahu had been replaced at last month’s election by the rival party of generals led by Benny Gantz or if the Israeli Labour party ever managed to revive itself from terminal decline. We want to talk about why Israel was a very problematic kind of state long before anyone had heard of Netanyahu, during a time when a supposed Israeli left ruled the country.
So here I offer an addendum meant to clarify and counter the arguments made in Schneider’s seven-point guide.
The relevant text of his guide is in bold, with my comments below in ordinary type:
1. Avoid saying “Zionist” or “Zionism” when discussing contemporary Israel/Palestine. The terms are too loaded now, too coarse and broad in their application, and too often used by hardcore antisemites to mean simply Jews.
Benjamin Netanyahu is a Zionist, but so are Israeli lawyers and peace activists fighting to achieve justice for Palestinians. You cannot lump them all together. Fair enough when talking historically, as long as you’re informed and precise, but for the present day, I recommend using specific terms instead, such as “the Israeli government” or “Netanyahu”.
Schneider has lost no time in revealing the nub of the problem with his guide. He is a liberal Zionist, and understandably he feels uncomfortable being lumped in with Netanyahu. But the primary goal of Palestinians and their supporters isn’t to make Schneider or other liberal Zionists feel comfortable with their political views or to comply with their demand that “legitimate” criticism of Israel be restricted to Netanyahu.
Yes, some anti-semites may use “Zionist” as code for “Jew”. But Schneider is demanding his cake and eating it in insisting that the core ideology driving Israeli policy towards the Palestinians for more than seven decades be declared largely unmentionable.
Zionism wasn’t just a historical prelude to Israel’s creation, some anachronism to be deposited in a museum. All the major political parties in Israel still firmly define themselves as Zionist. It is at the core of their political programmes, meaning that they share much common ground. The parties are often divided chiefly about how to achieve their political goals, not what those goals are.
Political disagreements in Israel revolve around two camps: Labour Zionists, who founded Israel, and Revisionist Zionists, now represented chiefly by Netanyahu’s Likud party, that have largely ousted Labour Zionists from power since the late 1970s.
The movement Schneider probably identifies most with are the Labour Zionists (now often described as liberal Zionists) whose founders drove 80 per cent of the native Palestinian population off their lands in 1948 in what would today be called an ethnic cleansing operation.
It didn’t end there, though. The Labour Zionists then created a land and residential segregation system inside the new state of Israel that very much persists to this day. In fact, almost all of Israel’s land is reserved exclusively for Jews, with many hundreds of communities using admissions committees to bar the fifth of the population who are Palestinian citizens. The Palestinian minority have been herded into deprived and overcrowded ghettoes on a tiny fraction of the remaining land. All of this is entirely separate from what happens to Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Inside Israel, the state’s control and allocation of land and resources on an ethnic basis is know as Judaisation, and it has been at the heart of state policy for 71 years.
Labour Zionists also established and maintained a rigid system of segregated state education, separating Jewish and Palestinian children – all of them Israeli citizens – in much the same way as occurred in the Jim Crow South in the US.
Outside Israel, the Labour Zionists founded the first settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, which were built in violation of international law and with intent to destroy any hope of a Palestinian state emerging.
Today the Labour Zionists still advocate policies to keep Israel’s Jewish and Palestinian citizens apart, and support the larger settlements, even at the cost of denying the Palestinians any viable right to self-determination. In any other context, we would call them ethnic nationalists, or racists.
In fact, one could reasonably argue that Judaisation and political Zionism – the kind that probably finds favour with 99 per cent of Israeli Jews – are as good as synonyms. Many of the Israeli Jewish lawyers and human rights activists Schneider refers to who are trying to help Palestinians in the occupied territories are still quite ready to back a political system inside Israel that keeps Palestinian citizens separate from Jewish citizens.
These extreme liberal Zionists – small in number though they are – are plagued by concerns about the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories, but all too often because they want Israel out of those territories so it can concentrate on privileging Jews inside Israel, even though a fifth of Israel’s population are not Jewish.
Those who do not feel that way are usually described as anti-Zionists – one reason why the term “Zionist” is such a helpful ideological signpost about where Israel Jews and their supporters stand on core issues like equality inside the state of Israel itself.
The other camp, the Likud Zionists, have not opposed this system of segregation, which closely echoes apartheid South Africa. In fact, they have sought to entrench and expand it. Today, the main difference between Labour and Likud Zionists is the latter’s indifference to how such policies are perceived by the international community.
So, in other words, there is no way to understand or critique Israel’s political system, or the nature of its abuses of Palestinians, or the ideology espoused by its supporters abroad, without analysing Zionism and its aims.
Schneider’s formula makes as much sense as demanding back in the 1980s that “legitimate criticism” of South Africa not address the country’s overarching apartheid ideology but be reserved specifically for P W Botha and his government. Following Schneider’s advice would make useful, reasoned criticism of Israel impossible.
2. Do not slide from anger at the actions of the Israeli state into asserting that Israel is controlling everything or paying money to MPs, celebrities or the media to act as they do. To do so simply echoes far-right antisemitism and centuries-old conspiracy theories about Jews, now rebadged to apply to Israel.
And yes, I know about the documentary The Lobby, where a Labour MP was filmed discussing money with an Israeli embassy official. But unless you have other examples of this, I suggest you avoid it.
Few critics of Israel are actually claiming anything of this sort. Schneider has offered a strawman formulation here. But I suspect he wishes to catch in his trawl net far more than these claims.
It is interesting to consider why it is so contentious to claim that Israel wields power through its lobbies to promote its interests in the US and UK when our political elites are so ready to claim that Russia has been supposedly interfering in superhuman ways in the US and UK to pursue its interests.
It is telling that Schneider, like the British media, wishes to hurry past Al-Jazeera’s documentary The Lobby. The undercover film did not just show a Labour MP discussing money with an embassy official – as Schneider would presumably know if he had watched the documentary. It showed much, much more.
Not least, it showed an Israeli government agent, Shai Masot, who was probably working for the strategic affairs ministry at the time, plotting from within the UK to unseat a British government minister who was seen by Israel as a little too sympathetic to the Palestinians. And it showed pro-Israel activists within the Labour party, led by the Jewish Labour Movement, colluding with the Israeli embassy to damage and oust Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn because he too is seen as overly sympathetic to Palestinian rights. That is the necessary context for understanding the endless claims of a supposed “anti-semitism crisis” in the Labour party, much of it advanced by this same Jewish Labour Movement.
The Lobby – both the UK series and the censored, but leaked, US follow-up – were groundbreaking television. They put flesh on the bare bones of what we already knew about the lobby’s activities in interfering in British and American politics. To dismiss its revelations so casually and quickly is to bury one’s head in the sand – because its findings are too unpalatable for those who wish to place Israel at the core of their identity.
3. Don’t conflate Israel and Jews. It may anger you that the likes of Netanyahu try to do this, so don’t make the same mistake yourself. If you see someone talking about Jews, antisemitism or the Holocaust and find yourself leaping straight to Israel-Palestine, think again.
This would make good sense only if we had not just spent the last three years witnessing the term “anti-semitism” being publicly redefined so as to refer chiefly to criticism of Israel. It wasn’t, after all, Israel’s critics that insisted public bodies and political parties, including the British Labour party, adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s 11 examples of anti-semitism, seven of which refer to Israel.
Here’s a promise. If the accusation of anti-semitism is restricted to examples of hatred, suspicion or fear of Jews, I happily promise to avoid raising the issue of Israel during debates about anti-semitism. But when the term is being weaponised, when its meaning is being altered to defend a state, and one that has been abusing Palestinians for decades without serious censure, then I and others are under a moral responsibility to talk about Israel and remind others that criticism of Israel is not usually anti-semitic.
4. Avoid the terms “Israel lobby” and especially “Jewish lobby” unless you also say “Saudi lobby”, “Russian lobby”, “Hindu lobby” and so on. “Supporters of Israel” is safer language.
As for “Jewish lobby”, they say “two Jews, three opinions”. The idea of us agreeing enough to form a single lobby is as likely as Theresa May fighting the next election as Tory leader.
It is rather surprising that Schneider claims Jews are so disputatious with each other that they could never form a single lobby. Surprising because so many prominent Jews, including Jonathan Freeland of the Guardian, and Schneider himself, I believe, have regularly insisted that Jews are almost entirely of a single mind on at least one issue: that Israel is crucial to their identity as Jews. (This, of course, usually serves as a prelude to warning that any criticism of Israel – apart from the “legitimate” kind they approve of – is evidence of anti-semitism because it undermines Jewish identity.)
Not only is there a very obvious “Israel lobby”, but it is quite unlike the other lobbies Schneider mentions. In the UK, for example, there is no visible public lobby for Saudi Arabia or Russia, and if Hindus are actively and vocally campaigning to prevent criticism of India, or labelling such criticism as anti-Hindu, I must have missed it.
And in one obvious sense, Schneider sabotages his own argument. We have just seen American society waste more than two years hyperventilating about non-existent Russian “collusion” with Donald Trump – a US president supposedly acting as a sort of Trojan horse or Manchurian candidate for the Russia lobby.
Unlike the many conspiracy theories about Russia, the Israel lobby is talked about so much by Israel’s critics because it is so in our faces, and so obviously trying to hijack or manipulate public debate in ways that harm free speech and Palestinian rights.
Right now, more than half of state legislatures in the US have passed legislation to limit their citizens’ fundamental right to free speech – but only in relation to criticism of Israel. Similar legislation is well advanced in Congress too.
This spate of legislation has occurred not because US politicians love Israel more than their own country (which Americans are still free to criticise), but because of the ferocious tactics of an extremely well organised Israel lobby in the US. That lobby is dominated by both rightwing Jewish leadership organisations and rightwing Christian evangelical groups.
None of this is to say that the Israel lobby is supremely powerful, or even unusually powerful, even if it sometimes looks that way. There are lots of other powerful lobbies, from the health and gun lobbies to the arms and financial industries lobbies. And, we could add, the Saudi-oil lobby too.
In fact, one could plausibly argue that many of these lobbies are even more powerful than the Israel lobby because their power is typically wielded far from public view. They are less visible, and therefore their presence less felt by the public. They operate almost entirely in the shadows.
But that is hardly grounds for condemning critics of Israel who are able to identify the Israel lobby’s activities and influence, and its efforts to manipulate public debate, whether it be by misusing the anti-semitism accusation or working actively to violate Americans’ First Amendment rights.
Many of us can see very clearly what the Israel lobby is up to.
It has, for example, also begun actively interfering in British politics. One only needs to see the arch-conservative body the Board of Deputies of British Jews or the Murdoch-owned Times newspaper regularly sticking the knife into Jeremy Corbyn using anti-semitism as their weapon of choice. It is his socialism, not any presumed anti-semitism, that is really driving the agenda of these bodies.
The lobby is seeking to damage our democracies in plain sight, but it is almost impossible to say so without being accused of anti-semitism, as Schneider himself implies here. That’s a wonderful self-rationalising system if you love Israel, but it is simply terrifying if you think the Palestinians should be entitled to rights in their homeland, or that we should at least have the right to discuss whether they are entitled to such rights.
That is why it is so important to keep identifying and exposing the Israel lobby – because, unlike those other lobbies, we don’t need special access to the hidden corridors of power to see it in operation. Even as ordinary citizens we can identify its role and call it out for what it is.
5) Don’t accuse Jews of dual loyalty to Israel and the UK (or whichever country), and certainly not of just being loyal to Israel. It’s another age-old antisemitic standard, as featured in Stalinist show trials and the Dreyfus affair.
And yet, many prominent Jews in the UK and US – as previously mentioned – tell us that Israel is central to their identity, and in the US have been willing to promote a unique violation of First Amendment rights to prevent criticism of Israel.
In fact, some make no secret of their dual loyalty. Here is what I wrote recently in a piece on the lobby:
That pro-Israel lobbyists – as opposed to Jews generally – do have dual loyalty seems a peculiar thing to deny, given that the purpose of groups like AIPAC is to rally support for Israel in Congress.
Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a key backer of Republican candidates for the presidency, has never hidden his passion not only for Israel but specifically for the ultra-nationalist governments of Benjamin Netanyahu.
In fact, he is so committed to Netanyahu’s survival that he spent nearly $200 million propping up an Israeli newspaper over its first seven years – all so he could assist the prime minister of a foreign country.
Similarly, Haim Saban, one of the main donors to Democratic presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, has made no secret of his commitment to Israel. He has said: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.”
6) Don’t compare Israeli actions to the Nazis unless it’s incredibly specific and historically justified (such as a settler calling for Arabs to be gassed). And even then, use extreme caution.
Finally we can agree.
7) Don’t ask every Jew to condemn Israel in every tweet or comment they make. Would you ask every Muslim to condemn Saudi Arabia? I hope, and presume, not.
Well, fair enough – if anyone beyond a few unhinged people trying to get themselves noticed on social media are actually doing this unbidden.
But it’s a little more complex than Schneider cares to make out. Aren’t Schnneider and other prominent Jewish figures who publicly support Israel or Zionism not creating this problem for themselves by specifically tying their Jewishness to an identification with Israel?
If Jonathan Freedland keeps telling us that to criticise Israel too vehemently is to undermine his Jewish identity – and that this is itself a new form of anti-semitism – he can hardly complain when Israel’s critics hone in on his support for Israel and try to assess what exactly he means by it.
Does his Israel-tied Jewish identity allow him to excuse, rationalise or minimise the murder of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza by Israeli snipers? Does he reject Israel’s claim to sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem, which violates international law and was based on the ethnic cleansing of many Palestinian residents living there? Does he accept that all of the West Bank must be handed over to the Palestinians as part of a future agreement? Does he accept that Palestinian refugees, ethnically cleansed from their homeland in 1948 and 1967 by Israel, have a right to return? And is he prepared to condemn unequivocally the apartheid system Israel has created inside its recognised borders that separates the rights of Jewish citizens from Palestinian citizens of Israel?
His and Schneider’s answers to those questions and many others not only help us understand what they mean when they speak of “legitimate” criticism of Israel, but what their view of their Jewish identity really entails – for their approach to human rights generally and their approach to Palestinian rights specifically.
Different when we do it: Why re-voting is ‘dictatorship’ in Turkey & ‘unity’ in EU
EU Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt © Reuters / Eric Vidal
RT | May 7, 2019
The decision to rerun a local mayoral election in Istanbul has sparked scathing criticism in Brussels — ironically, from none other than the EU’s Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt.
Tweeting about the move, which was branded a “coup” by a Turkish opposition newspaper, Verhofstadt said it highlighted that Turkey was “drifting towards a dictatorship” and offered “full support to the Turkish people protesting for their democratic rights.” Along with the verbal slap on the wrist, he said that under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s leadership, talks on Turkey joining the EU are “impossible.”
The irony in Verhofstadt’s outrage, is that the EU itself has a long history of either totally ignoring referendum votes — or just making people vote again until the ‘correct’ result is achieved. But that, of course, does not make the EU a dictatorship. It’s still a “bastion of hope, freedom, prosperity & stability” (as per another recent Verhofstadt tweet). Twitter users wasted no time in pointing out the “irony” and “hypocrisy.”
“How dare [Erdogan] use EU tactics,” one irritated Verhofstadt follower responded, with another saying that the UK itself was currently “battling for its democracy” — a reference to EU officials (including Verhofstadt) who have frequently voiced their personal opposition to Brexit and the ‘Remain’ factions in Britain who have been calling for a re-run of the 2016 referendum.
While there may be at least some merit to the idea of Brexit referendum re-run after two years of failed negotiations and with more accurate information now available to British voters, the idea of simply re-doing EU-related votes is hardly a one-off.
Maybe Verhofstadt should take a trip down memory lane.
France voted ‘no’ to accepting a proposed ‘EU Constitution’ by 54.9 percent in 2005, but the outcome was ignored. The same thing happened in the Netherlands, which rejected it by 61.5 percent. The ‘EU Constitution’ was later repackaged into the Lisbon Treaty and presented to the French parliament where it was adopted, without being put to the people this time (much easier!).
This new Lisbon Treaty was then rejected by Irish voters in 2008, once again sending Brussels into meltdown mode, as the pact needed to be ratified by all member states before taking effect. So, of course, they made some tweaks and asked people to vote again — and got the ‘right’ result the next time. It wasn’t the first time Ireland was asked to re-vote after giving the wrong answer, either. The country also rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001 and accepted it in a second vote a year later.
Greece voted overwhelmingly to reject severe austerity measures desired by the EU in 2015 in exchange for a multi-billion euro bailout. Not long after, under pressure from Brussels, the country’s government agreed to implement even harsher methods — totally ignoring the will of the Greek people.
But way before all that in 1992, Danes, displeased with plans for a single currency, common European defense policies and for joint rules on crime and immigration, rejected the Maastricht Treaty — and were asked to vote again.
Ironically, many European voters voted ‘no’ to these treaties because they were worried that the EU would be turned into some kind of undemocratic superstate where the wills of individual countries and people would be ignored. Being forced to vote until you give the ‘right’ answer doesn’t exactly put those worries to bed. It’s part of the reason why the British voted for Brexit in the first place.
Then there’s Catalonia, where pro-independence leaders were thrown in jail for their role in holding an independence referendum in 2017. One tweeter scolded Verhofstadt and other EU leaders for believing that they have some “moral authority” over Turkey while abuse of pro-independence forces in Catalonia is ignored. “Our leaders are still in prison because they let citizens vote,” they wrote.
With a history like that, maybe it’s a bit rich for Verhofstadt to be going around lamenting the lack of democracy in other countries.
Magna Carta Day: 15 June Should be a Public Holiday Throughout The English Speaking World
By Adam Garrie | EurasiaFuture | 2019-05-05
On the 15th of June in Runnymede, Magna Carta Libertatum (the great charter of the liberties) was agreed by King John, his opposition barons and the Archbishop of Canterbury as the legal document which would form the new basis of rights and privileges throughout England. This document from a feudal age had many opponents in its time and as such Magna Carta’s contents went in and out of legal standing due to the political turbulence of the 13th century.
Today, eight-hundred and four years later, Magna Carta remains a crucial symbol of the long standing battle for freedom against tyranny and moreover the battle for free speech against tyrannical censorship. Magna Carta can be viewed as the first step on a long journey into the sunlit uplands of free speech and freedom from state oppression. The Common Law Writ of Habeas corpus and the First Amendment to the US Constitution each trace their origins to the spirit which underscored the events in 13th century Runnymede.
Therefore, at a time when the wicked hand of tyranny is once again raised against champions of free speech throughout the English speaking world, it is time for those who honour and cherish the heritage of freedom to make the public case for the 15th of June to be a public holiday. This day can be known both as “Free Speech Day” and as “Magna Carta Day”. In addition to honouring the events of 1215, it can likewise be used to honour all of the great sacrifices made in order to defend free speech against the secular, religious and corporate entities that have tried to censor free men and women over the centuries.
As the lights of free speech are darkening across the western world, those in countries including Britain, the United States, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and others should all use the 15th of June to honour and to defend the most sacred right of all, that to speak freely in a non-oppressive atmosphere.
The more free speech comes under threat, the more it must be defended in the most public way possible. Since it is unlikely that the powers that be will grant free speech advocates a day of rest on 15 June, those inspired by the guiding beacon of free speech should use the 15th of June to speak in public places about the importance of Magna Carta and subsequent freedoms and why it is important to never let these freedoms be usurped by evil forces.
UK Foreign Sec supports increased press freedom for all, but not RT
By Simon Rite | RT | May 3, 2019
Britain’s Foreign Secretary says he wants improved global media freedom while at the same time suggesting that RT has a bit more freedom than he’d like.
Jeremy Hunt was marking World Press Freedom Day whilst on a trip to Ethiopia, which may seem like an unlikely setting to work in a dig about a Russian news organisation, but he did it anyway.
He said: “We shouldn’t forget the international context Channels like RT – better known as Russia Today – want their viewers to believe that truth is relative and the facts will always fit the Kremlin’s official narrative. Even when that narrative keeps changing.
After the Russian state carried out a chemical attack in the British city of Salisbury last year, the Kremlin came up with over 40 separate narratives to explain that incident. Their weapons of disinformation tried to broadcast those narratives to the world.”
So what Hunt, actually wants people to think is that there is only one truth and one narrative, and it’s the one the British government tells you.
To prove that, here’s what he said next: “The best defence against those who deliberately sow lies are independent, trusted news outlets. So the British Government is taking practical steps to help media professionals improve their skills.”
Just in case the point needs underlining, Hunt believes the best defence against lies is for independent news outlets to be trained by the British government, who can then be trusted to report the agreed narrative.
During his speech he drew attention to the best of African journalism, particularly highlighting work by BBC Africa. You can see the pattern of what Hunt considers good journalism, which is the stuff he agrees with.
You only need to look at Iraq, Libya and Russiagate to see how facts are being used to fit narratives and none of those have anything at all to do with RT. RT is such an easy target because it is the only real high profile network which can realistically push back on the agreed narratives. The viewer should be able to make up their own mind, but press freedom should always mean a plurality of views and not the domination of an agreed western narrative.
This idea of the independence of the western media has always seemed spurious. In much of the world the major outlets are owned by unaccounted corporate entities, and in Britain, all the national networks have daily government briefings to tell them what the news is, and when the government goes on holiday the media calls it ‘silly season’ because they don’t know what to report. Strange kind of independence.
When it comes down to media freedom, the best advice is not to be a total Jeremy Hunt about it.
Zero Carbon Proposals Slammed As Irresponsible & Arbitrary
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | April 2, 2019
The GWPF has issued this press release in response to the Committee on Climate Change’s new proposals to cutting CO2 emissions to zero by 2050:
Summary
The recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) for a Net Zero emissions target by 2050 is grounded in nothing stronger than irresponsible optimism and arbitrary assumptions about cost and technological feasibility. In point of fact, the technologies seen as necessary, including carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), further expansion of renewable generation, widespread adoption of hydrogen, and the very rapid electrification of the UK’s entire heating and transport systems, are either known failures or are unproven at these scales and would cost two to three times the amounts claimed by the CCC. Attempts to deliver these policies would ultimately fail, but in the attempt the UK would further harm its already declining productivity, and so erode the UK’s ability to compete internationally and thus deliver an acceptable standard of living for its people. This is not a sustainable low emissions strategy, and even if accepted by government is very likely to end only in humiliating and distressed policy correction. A wise government would reject this advice.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is advising the government of the UK to revise and increase the ambitions of the Climate Change Act. The Act already commits the country to an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 as compared to 1990 levels. The new proposal is that it should have ‘Net Zero’ emissions by that year. The UK has, the CCC claims, already reduced its inland consumption emissions by 40% against the 1990 baseline, and it presents the current proposal as a rational continuation of that success story. But this is a selective and misleading history. When the emissions associated with UK consumption through manufacturing in other countries are taken into account, the UK’s carbon footprint was actually still rising up until the 2008 downturn, when it fell because of economic difficulties, and is now showing some signs of returning to the upwards trend as the economy slowly recovers. In essence, the UK simply exported its emissions to other parts of the world, principally China, in substantial part through carbon leakage resulting from high energy costs in the UK, costs which in substantial part were the result of climate policies. This history gives no ground for optimism with regard to the Net Zero target now proposed. Far from being a success on which we can build, UK climate policy has been a failure, resulting only in domestic economic damage and the illusion of reduced emissions.
The overriding problem facing the UK is the comparatively slow growth in productivity. For much of the last century, the UK’s productivity has been below that of the major industrial economies, and the gap has grown in the first two decades of the 21st century. The consequence has been no growth in real wages and incomes, a fact that strains domestic budgets and exacerbates a general reluctance to make the investments required for future economic prosperity.
This deterioration in productivity growth closely follows and is substantially associated with the implementation of policies to reduce energy use and carbon emissions. There are three reasons for this link:
(a) Large amounts of investment and labour have been diverted to capital-intensive renewables, crowding out investment in other infrastructure and sectors with much higher levels of capital and labour productivity.
(b) The resulting increases in energy prices have prompted high-productivity manufacturing and other industries to conclude that they should look elsewhere for growth in both demand and production.
(c) More generally, the efforts and resources of businesses and innovators have been diverted away from improving productivity and towards efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Furthermore, the idea that there is a global opportunity for the UK to grow by exploiting low carbon technologies is demonstrably a myth.
There can be no doubt that these factors have had a major impact on the development of the UK economy in the last two decades. Low carbon growth may be the holy grail, but the reality is almost no growth and slower reductions in carbon emissions per unit of output than in, say, the United States. Yet the CCC is now recommending proposals that are explicitly designed to reinforce this disappointing performance.
If the government accepts the CCC’s proposals, which are marked by a persistent special pleading about the costs and feasibilities, it will immediately sabotage any plan to rectify the UK’s poor productivity performance and weaken international competitiveness. Its recommendations will ensure that the UK suffers from even lower productivity and be still poorer relative to the rest of the world in 2050 than in 2020. At the same time, the slower growth in productivity brought about by these proposals will increase the burden of meeting the CCC’s targets to a level that will not be bearable. The only doubt is how much pain the population will endure, and how much damage will be done, before these infeasible targets are abandoned.
The study that underlies the CCC’s proposals is marked by what can only be called ‘fantasy analysis’. Electricity demand is required to double on present levels, when in fact it is falling due to high prices. The CCC’s plans require that all of that additional electricity must come from low carbon sources, as opposed to under 50% today. The CCC itself admits that CCS is ‘essential’ to its vision for the 2050 target, and must be substantially deployed before 2030, with a significant level by 2026. At present it is non-existent in the UK, and non-viable at scale elsewhere. There must be 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030, and 75 GW by 2050; at present there is 8 GW, all heavily subsidised, with no sign that the industry is in fact able to build offshore wind at market competitive rates.
The CCC believes that petrol and diesel cars and vans must be phased out well before 2040, but admits that even the current eye-catching and over-ambitious plans to mandate electric vehicles by 2035 cannot deliver this transformation. It consequently suggests that new fossil-fuelled vehicles must be outlawed by 2030. Such a ban would in all probability destroy the existing market for domestic car manufacture, as Chinese and other Asian companies using cheap energy and cheap labour will make the UK uncompetitive.
The study notes that the UK’s provision of space and water heating must be converted to electricity and hydrogen, but admits that there is currently ‘no serious plan’ in existence for this revolution. That is correct, but unfortunately, the study does not itself provide one.
The CCC states that there must be very large afforestation schemes to act as carbon sinks, at a rate of 20,000 hectares per year up to 2025, and 27,000 hectares per year thereafter. The CCC itself admits that the current rate has been only about 10,000 hectares per year over the last five years. In any case, the use of forestry as a carbon sink only has a short-term impact unless CCS is applied to wood burning, which is not feasible on a small scale and is unaffordably expensive on a large scale.
Overall, the CCC’s reaction to these manifest failures and difficulties is to conclude that the ‘voluntary approach’ has failed hitherto and would not deliver the new proposals. Implicitly, therefore, the policies that it recommends must be mandatory and state-led. But nowhere does the CCC’s report consider whether the state actually has the administrative or technical competence to successfully deliver these remarkable objectives. Nor does it consider whether the cost of doing so is likely to be tolerable to the public. Indeed, strikingly, though the CCC makes assertions about the cost and benefits of increasing the Climate Change Act target to Net Zero, there is no attempt to actually quantify the marginal costs and benefits of each step necessary – the most fundamental requirement for such an exercise. Indeed, many of the costs actually cited in the report ignore the practical realities of installation, operation and maintenance of technologies that are well-understood and have failed to achieve widespread deployment without large subsidies. Experience tells us that, if adopted, the CCC’s programme will cost anything from three to five times the estimates in this report and will take up to twice as long to implement.
In summary, the Committee on Climate Change has not produced a serious assessment of the practical feasibility and costs of a Net Zero 2050 target. On the contrary, it has simply taken the Net Zero target as a given and made irrationally optimistic and arbitrary assumptions comprising a fictional narrative that magically delivers the emissions reduction goal as the Happy Ending. This is unrealistic, irresponsible, and misleading.
The government should obviously reject the Climate Change Committee’s poorly argued advice, which is economically hazardous and does not offer a sustainable emissions reductions trajectory.
https://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-statement-on-the-proposed-net-zero-2050-emissions-target/
UK Labour leader targeted for accepting ‘Jews control banks’
Press TV – May 1, 2019
Leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party is facing attacks from pro-Israeli lobbies in the country for merely endorsing thoughts of a thinker who suggested a century ago that Jews control the media and political discourse through their dominance on the European financial system.
Labour politicians and other notable political and social figures called on Corbyn on Wednesday to apologize for a foreword he wrote to a book first released in 1902 and re-published in 2011.
In his foreword to John Atkinson Hobson’s ‘Imperialism: A Study’, Corbyn said the economist’s description of how a certain Jewish household controlled banks and newspapers were “brilliant”, “very controversial at the time” and “a great tome.”
The book mainly argues that men of a singular and peculiar race use centuries of financial experience to control finance in Europe. It says that the dominance puts the Jews “in a unique position to control the policy of nations” and gives them a control that “they exercise over the body of public opinion through the press.”
However, pro-Israeli activists and politicians labeled Corbyn’s endorsement of the idea as a clear form of support for antisemitism and asked him to apologize.
“Jeremy Corbyn endorsed book that peddles racist stereotypes of Jewish financiers and imperialism as “brilliant” and a “great tome”,” said former Labour MP Ian Austin.
“The revelation Jeremy Corbyn wrote the foreword for a reportedly deeply antisemitic book is damning and damaging,” said Euan Philipps, of the campaign group Labour against antisemitism.
Corbyn, well known for his support of the Palestinian cause, has repeatedly been described by pro-Israeli lobbies in Britain as a threat to the life of Jews in the country if he takes office. He has denied having anything against the Jews and has sought to sort out differences with the Jewish community in the UK.
A senior Labour lawmaker said on Wednesday that Corbyn’s endorsement of Hobson’s thoughts in economy and politics was not antisemitic.
“I haven’t read the book myself but as I understand it, Jeremy like many politicians, has quoted this relevant political thinker,” said Rebecca Long-Bailey, a Labour frontbencher, adding, “I think he was looking at the political thought within the whole text itself, not the comments that were antisemitic in any shape or form.”
Extinction Rebellion – The Facts
Windows on the World | April 21, 2019
The corporate backed “protest” group Extinction Rebellion fully explained. The main protagonists in this organisation and their links to Agenda 2030, the UN Global Action Plan and template NGO’S are all explained in this fact filled show.
Do listen and look at the information presented in in these two WOTW shows about the ER cult. Listen and check out the info here
The full spectrum dominance of controlled opposition is explained in the show:
Extinction Rebellion – The Facts
Below are the emails between a member of the public who asked the inner core of Extinction Rebellion a few questions and the sinister responses and threats from their “Dragons”
The Dragons of Extinction Rebellion
The same type of “Dragons” were used in the Occupy power structure once it was under the control of George Soros they can be seen in The Puppet Masters of Occupy
Our previous shows on the ER cult gave a lot of information and context to this show. They are linked above, “Fake Protest Extinction Rebellion” and “Globalist Fake Revolution”. The articles on the website contain internal ER documents and screenshots.
Here is an informative article From OYE News
The structure of ER mirrors the George Soros backed takeover of Occupy with its command structure including “Dragons”who threaten and intimidate anyone who asks questions.
We also have e mail threats from the sinister so called “Dragons” who protect the inner core of ER personnel. This all mirrors previous globalist backed protests.
We also look at the organizations linked to ER and how there are hundreds and globally thousands of these NGO template organizations all using the same narratives, all backed by the big financial interests which are pushing the climate change agenda for profit and ultimately control of the world population and all natural resources. The change agents, social entrepreneurs, psychological nudging, Saul Alinsky rules which all appeared as part of David Cameron’s Big Society.
Gail Bradbrook is one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion along with Roger Hallam and George Barda. Their Company is Compassionate Revolution Ltd and the ER protests came through Rising Up an organisation linked to other template type NGO’s which claim to be “grassroots”.
Gail Bradbrook is a consultant at Citizens Online, her profile was removed from the company’s website before the London “protests” Here it is before it was removed.
On the subject of fake protest groups: Demos the Think Tank which influences all media in the UK and is connected to the security services and MI5 stated:
“The New Democracy will work with a combination of government open infiltration and citizen groups taking Direct Action.”
The show looks at the template NGO’s linked to this “protest” and how they are in line with aims of the UN Agenda 2030, its taxation, restrictions and Smart Cities agenda and everything Globalist.
The use of the world “grassroots” has been hijacked to mean “state controlled and agents of the UN, IMF and World Bank.”
Unlike the Fake Protests we receive no funding!
Featured Video
SCOTT RITTER: Russia Retaliation on Europe No Longer In Doubt
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Not Hamas-Israeli conflict: The Palestinian cause belongs to the world
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 15, 2023
This, in his thinking, could only mean one thing: “Never before has Israel stood more honored and revered by the nations of the world.”
Blog Roll
Aletho News- SCOTT RITTER: Russia Retaliation on Europe No Longer In Doubt
- Guatemala Admits U.S. Pressure Over Cuban Doctors
- France investigates possible Israeli company interference in local elections
- Mark Rutte wants to triple military aid to Zelensky, with Western taxpayers footing the bill
- NATO member’s government collapses after Ukrainian drone incident
- Aafia Siddiqui and Pakistan’s bargain with American gulags
- UAE launches Muslim Shia crackdown under cover of ‘Iran-linked terror’ claims
- Trump Visits Beijing In a World Washington No Longer Controls
- Prof John Mearsheimer TRUMP WILL BE FORCED TO CUT A DEAL w/IRAN
- Hantavirus, the WHO, and the Conflicts in Weighing Mortality
- If Americans Knew
- Microsoft fires head of Israeli subsidiary and other managers over surveillance of Palestinians
- The world no longer loves Israel (or, coincidentally, the US) – Daily Update
- Nakba Day is almost here, but every day is also Nakba Day – Daily Update
- Gaza: ‘Doctors Under Attack’ Wins Top Award After Being Shelved by the BBC
- The Nakba at 78: A statistical snapshot of Palestine
- Israel Expels Father Louis Salman from Palestine
- How Israel Turned Eurovision’s Stage Into a Soft Power Tool
- Palestinians in Jerusalem receive only 7% of housing units
- If not stopped, Israel will wipe out Christians from Palestine by 2050: Bethlehem pastor
- Hidden Deep in an NPR Story About a Man Who Threatened to Kill Jews at Cornell… He Admits He Did It to Make People Love Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- German Expert: “No Climate Crisis” …”Warming Generally Better For Humanity”
- New Paleo Research: Modern ‘Climate Change’ Has Had No Apparent Impact On Precipitation Patterns
- 90% Subsidized… Bielefeld Germany’s €7 Million Hydrogen Garbage Truck Fleet Sits Idle
- New Study: Declining Trends In 1980-2023 Tropical Cyclone Frequency, Accumulated Energy
- 46 IPCC Scientists Break Rank, Publicly Challenge Long-Standing Dogmatic Climate Claims
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
Aletho News 