The leader of Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement, Abdul Malik al-Houthi, announced on 7 March a four-day grace period for Israel to resume ceasefire talks and lift its blockade on humanitarian aid for Gaza, threatening to resume Sanaa’s naval operations against Israeli-linked ships.
“We meet the siege with a siege,” Houthi emphasized, adding that Yemen “cannot stand by and watch the Israeli enemy’s aggressive approach in starving the Palestinian people in Gaza.”
“We do not just issue statements, but we can support the Palestinians in several areas,” the Ansarallah leader said, pointing out that “in the course of implementing the ceasefire in Gaza, it was clear that the Israeli enemy was procrastinating in fulfilling its obligations, especially those related to the humanitarian file.
The Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) ceased military operations in support of Palestine following the start of a US-sponsored ceasefire in Gaza earlier this year. Since November 2023, the YAF repeatedly targeted US, UK, and Israeli-linked commercial ships and western warships in the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea.
Sanaa’s efforts to stop the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza prompted an illegal war initiated by Washington and London, resulting in hundreds of airstrikes in the Arab world’s poorest nation.
Despite the western onslaught, the YAF were undeterred in their military campaign and forced several US aircraft carriers and European warships out of the Red Sea. The country has also downed 15 US MQ-9 Reaper drones and recently fired its air defenses on a US F-16 jet.
A year ago, the former US Special Envoy for Yemen, Timothy Lenderking, admitted that “there is no military solution” for Yemen.
“I don’t think people really understand just kind of how deadly serious it is what we’re doing and how under threat the ships continue to be,” Commander Eric Blomberg with the USS Laboon told US media last year.
Houthi’s warning comes almost a week after Israel reimposed a total blockade on humanitarian aid shipments for Gaza after obstructing the ceasefire agreement from moving forward by demanding an extension of the first phase.
Hamas has rejected any extension of phase one and is demanding strict adherence to the agreement and international pressure on Israel.
“The resumption of war on Gaza will be met with the entire [Israeli] enemy entity coming under fire … If the war returns to Gaza, we will intervene with support through various military means,” Houthi warned on Sunday.
In an interview on Fox News this week, America’s top diplomat Marco Rubio made a damning admission. He called the conflict in Ukraine a proxy war between the United States, its NATO allies and Russia.
Stop the press. In one fell swoop, the narrative justifying the NATO-backed war for the past three years was exposed as a naked lie. It is not about “defending Ukraine” from alleged Russian unprovoked aggression. It is a proxy war. That means it has deeper causes and responsibilities.
This is what Moscow and many other international observers have been saying all along. To recognize the conflict as a proxy war is to begin admitting wider culpability for it and to start addressing the root causes for a genuine peaceful settlement.
Secretary of State Rubio went on to emphatically call for an end to the war to spare lives. He claimed the conflict was in a stalemate, not quite bringing himself to utter the word, “defeat”. But defeat is what this debacle is.
Rubio decried how the previous Biden administration and Congress (including himself as a Senator) had fueled the conflict along with other NATO members in a futile campaign. It is now time to bring the conflict to an end, he said.
Appropriately, the U.S. foreign minister appeared on television with a prominent Lenten cross of ash marked on his forehead. Christians around the world begin preparations for Easter by donning ashes as a sign of repentance. Rubio’s “confession” of a failed U.S. policy of proxy war against Russia in Ukraine may be seen as a belated recognition in Washington that it needs to cease, desist and make amends for peace.
Not so the European leaders, however, who this week persisted in their lies about a noble purpose in Ukraine.
Following the humiliating rebuke of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky by U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, the European politicians have been rallying their support for the Kiev regime.
Trump aides ejected Zelensky from the White House last Friday because he testily refused to comply with a U.S. initiative for peace in Ukraine. This week, the chastened Zelensky wrote a letter to Trump appealing for forgiveness – and more U.S. military aid. It’s not clear if the Ukrainian redundant president has convinced the Trump administration that he is ready to sign a peace deal.
In the meantime, the White House has now cut off military aid and intelligence sharing with the Kiev regime. Again, proving the reality of a proxy war.
That move has thrown the European allies into a quandary and existential crisis. It is a crisis of their own making.
An emergency EU leaders’ summit was convened to drum up more military support for Ukraine. The EU 27 could not agree on a package because Hungary vetoed it. Another summit is to be called on March 20, when it is intended to bypass Hungarian objection to funding the war in Ukraine.
European leaders are desperate. The about-turn in U.S. policy to walk away from the failed proxy war in Ukraine has left them holding a dead-end hand of cards. Rather than folding, they are doubling down on their worthless chips.
Trump upbraided Zelensky in the Oval Office by telling him, “You don’t have the cards” to keep this war going.
The same advice can be leveled at the European governments, including the British, who strangely have wormed their way back into calling shots in Europe despite exiting the bloc five years ago.
This war has been lost with appalling losses. Three years of the biggest war in Europe since World War Two has resulted in over one million deaths – mainly on the Ukrainian military side – and hundreds of billions of dollars and euros wasted, which the American and European public will pay over generations through debts.
This war is an abominable crime perpetrated by Washington and its European allies. All the more so because it could have been avoided if Russian diplomatic efforts in late 2021 had been reciprocated to deal with Moscow’s legitimate security concerns over NATO’s expansion. But no, the Western imperialists wanted to strategically defeat Russia and they used a NeoNazi regime in Ukraine as their pawn following the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014 against an elected president.
Western leaders must be held to account for their nefarious machinations and the colossal damage in Ukraine and Russia. Russian civilians have been killed by NATO weapons and over $300 billion in Russian assets have been confiscated. Russia has the right to seek massive war reparations.
At least, to their credit, the Trump administration has realized that the evil of this fraudulent war must stop.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy on Ukraine, also this week referred to the war as a proxy war that needs to end.
The Americans are calling on the Europeans to stop funding the war with military aid. This is an amazing turn around. Since WWII, the Americans have been the diehard warmonger with the European lackeys following suit. Now it’s the other way around. The European elites want the war in Ukraine to continue – albeit with the lie that they are seeking “lasting peace.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently said that if the Western powers stopped funneling weapons into Ukraine, the conflict would quickly stop. And then diplomacy could begin for dealing with the root causes and establishing mutual, sustainable peace.
Vice President Vance rightly pointed out that the Europeans by puffing up Zelensky as a hero “freedom fighter” are prolonging the slaughter and destruction of Ukraine as well as provoking the risk of a wider war.
The problem is that whereas the Americans have adopted realism and common sense (at last), the Europeans are continuing to persist in the lies and delusions about the proxy war against Russia.
This week, French President Emmanuel Macron echoed other European political figures by calling Russia a threat to Europe. The French, British and others are insisting on fueling the dead-end war by racking up astronomical debts and proposing to send “peacekeeper” troops to Ukraine. Moscow has warned that such a move would mean direct war.
So desperate is Macron that he is engaging in nuclear saber-rattling, offering to deploy French nuclear weapons to “defend” Europe. Why don’t Macron and other European elites simply engage in diplomacy like the Americans?
The insane recklessness of the Europeans stems from multiple sources: their incorrigible Russophobia, ties to the military industrial complex, chagrin over their American patron dumping the Ukraine war mess on them, and in their existential need to keep lying about the war as some noble cause instead of it being a sordid proxy war against Russia.
The Europeans are so full of lies, duplicity, guilt, and ultimately impotence that they will likely persist in their delusions of grandeur. To repent would be politically fatal. Thus persisting in their lies, the European Union and its military arm NATO are being destroyed.
Napoleon, Hitler, and now the elitist European leaders have all fallen into oblivion from miscalculations over Russia.
President Donald Trump has floated trilateral US-Russia-China talks on cuts to strategic nuclear weapons stockpiles. Sputnik reached out to one of Russia’s foremost experts on strategic security issues to discuss what’s behind the proposal, and its chances for success.
“Nuclear weapons are precisely one of the areas where competitors outpacing the United States is very visible,” says Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of research at the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.
“Chinese and Russian nuclear arsenals combined provide two times preponderance over the United States, or will make two times preponderance in the observable future,” Suslov stressed.
Nuclear talks are the “alternative” for the US to bankruptcy stemming from high defense spending and unsustainable debt, particularly as the US nuclear arsenal is stuck in the 80s and lags far behind competitors, especially Russia, and would take immense resources to modernize, the observer said.
Instead, Trump “wants to channel competition into some other areas, into the areas where the United States largely have advantages,” according to Suslov, from high-precision conventional arms to his “Golden Dome” proposal for a space-based SDI 2.0.
“This is an attempt to reduce competition in the area where the United States is not competitive and to channel the competition into the areas where the United States is competitive, has comparative advantages, technological advantages, in the opinion of the Trump administration,” the expert noted.
Will Trump’s Nuclear Negotiations Push Succeed?
“Complete denuclearization is impossible,” Suslov stressed, since nuclear weapons serve as the “ultimate guarantee which prevents war among great powers.”
“The only [reason] why NATO and the United States have not started a direct war against Russia yet in the context of the Ukraine war is nuclear weapons,” he said.
Russia and China will be unlikely to agree to trilateral talks, the expert believes, since their relations are built on partnership, not deterrence.
As for bilateral Russia-US talks, these are possible, “but also [face] huge impediments,” including the need to include the French and British nuclear arsenals into account.
“Basically, Macron made it absolutely clear that the purpose of French nuclear weapons is to deter Russia. This is against Russia. The purpose of British nuclear weapons is also against Russia. And they plan explicitly nuclear operations, potential nuclear operations against Russia,” Suslov noted.
Accordingly, Russia’s strategy will continue revolving around insisting “on a comprehensive approach and taking all the factors which impact strategic stability into account,” Suslov predicts.
President Donald Trump restated his desire to abolish nuclear weapons during a White House presser on Thursday.
“It would be great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons. [I know] Russia and us have by far the most,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office. “China will have an equal amount within four to five years. It would be great if we could all de-nuclearize because the power of nuclear weapons is crazy.”
Currently, nine countries – the US, UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel – possess nuclear weapons. With global tensions on the rise, several nations, including the US, are adding to their strategic capability.
According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, Beijing is working to ramp up its production of nuclear weapons. Last year, the agency predicted that China could have over 1,000 nuclear weapons. However, that would still give Beijing a far smaller arsenal than Washington and Moscow, which each have around 1,500 deployed nuclear weapons and thousands more in storage.
Shortly after returning to the White House in January, Trump said he spoke with President Vladimir Putin about denuclearization during his first term, and that the Russian leader was receptive to the idea. “We were talking about denuclearization of our two countries, and China would have come along. China right now has a much smaller nuclear armament than us, or field, than us, but they’re going to be catching [up] at some point,” Trump said.
“I will tell you that President Putin really liked the idea of cutting back on nuclear, and I think the rest of the world, we would have gotten them to follow, and China would have come along too. China also liked it,” he added. “Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about. It’s too depressing.”
Trump has also discussed negotiating a deal with Moscow and Beijing that would see all three countries drastically cut military spending.
However, while Trump has at times voiced support for demilitarization and denuclearization, during his first term in office he scrapped two major arms control agreements, the Open Skies and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force treaties.
Additionally, Trump refused to engage in bilateral discussions with Russia on extending the last nuclear arms control agreement between the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals, the New Start Treaty. He insisted that Moscow must pressure Beijing to make it a trilateral deal, a demand that almost led to the downfall of the landmark deal.
Though President Joe Biden was able to reach an agreement with Putin to extend the treaty for five more years in 2021, it is set to expire next year without another extension.
As the United States and Russia are engaging in talks to avoid the possibility of an uncontrollable escalation, the European Union and NATO keep doing the exact opposite. Brussels wants the war to continue, including by pushing for the deployment of its troops in Ukraine. Worse yet, as the diverging interests of the new Trump administration and the EU/NATO become more evident, the latter is now trying to appease Washington DC by portraying this as a “peace initiative”.
On the other hand, Trump and his team understand that the world is drastically different to what it was in the aftermath of the (First) Cold War. This is precisely why they’re far less belligerent toward Moscow (at least in terms of rhetoric) than was the case with the previous administration.
The EU/NATO is terrified of the prospect of being left to face Russian military power in Ukraine (and possibly beyond) on its own. To prevent that, Western European powers are now looking to escalate tensions in hopes of drawing the US back into a crawling confrontation with the Kremlin. However, as the Trump administration is still showing no interest to get involved, the EU/NATO is now pushing for a strategic escalation.
This is particularly true for French President Emmanuel Macron who is now talking about placing the “old continent” under the French nuclear umbrella. On March 5, he tried to justify this by claiming that “[President Vladimir] Putin is now threatening all of Europe” and declared that “Russian aggression knows no borders”.
“We are entering a new era. If a country can invade its neighbour in Europe and go unpunished, nobody can be sure of anything. Beyond Ukraine, the Russian threat is real – it affects the European countries,” Macron stated in a televized address, adding: “President Putin is violating our borders to assassinate opponents, manipulate elections.”
For decades, “evil dictator and bloodthirsty tyrant Putin” has been the political West’s go-to bogeyman for both foreign and domestic policy issues. Whether it’s elections, political instability, price hikes or even personal problems, look no further than Vladimir Putin. The “evil, bear-riding Russians” are coming for you and “the only way” to prevent it is to go to war with them, preferably thermonuclear.
According to the mainstream propaganda machine, if you think this sounds like total madness, you must be a “Putin troll”. Unfortunately, this is how the EU/NATO is trying to portray the ongoing crisis, which is why it’s effectively impossible for Russia to find anyone remotely reasonable to talk to in Europe. And they keep proving this each passing day.
Macron insists that the EU/NATO “need to prepare”. It would seem he’s trying to fill the power vacuum as the US is looking to shift its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific. The endemically and pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom seems to be supporting this initiative, as it falls perfectly in line with its strategy of pushing continental powers against each other.
This is why there have been numerous meetings and conferences in support of not only continuing but also escalating the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. However, conventional capabilities of Western European powers are nowhere near enough to match that of Russia (not even in Ukraine, let alone when the entire Russian military is taken into account).
“I want to believe that the US will stand by our side, but we have to be ready for that not to be the case,” Macron complained, adding: “France has to recognize its special status – we have the most efficient, effective army in Europe.”
He then stressed that his country “has nuclear weapons to provide to the broader Western alliance if called upon”. Macron went on to explain that he’s considering the possibility of expanding the French nuclear umbrella to all of Europe. He also cited the words of Germany’s (most likely) upcoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who recently stated that he wanted to discuss the possibility of extending French and British nuclear umbrellas to also include Germany.
It should be noted that Berlin already has American nuclear weapons stationed on its territory as part of NATO’s nuclear sharing policy. However, with the recent shift initiated by the new US administration, European member states still loyal to the anti-Trump Deep State seem to be looking for viable alternatives.
“We need reforms, we need to make choices, and we need to be brave,” Macron stated, adding: “[Merz] has called for a strategic debate on providing that same protection to our European allies… whatever happens the decision will be in the hands of the president of the Republic and the heads of the army.”
He also said there will be a meeting of the EU/NATO army chiefs in Paris next week, hinting this could be one of the matters they will be discussing. Besides the US, the UK and France are the only member states who have their own nuclear weapons. It should be noted that this initiative also means that the EU/NATO is fully aware that nuclear weapons are the only way to “even the playing field” with Russia’s conventional military power.
However, what this also means is that Moscow would be forced to respond with its own nuclear arsenal – by far the largest and most powerful in the world. In fact, the difference between the number of thermonuclear warheads in Russia and the US is larger than the combined arsenal of the UK and France (around 500).
London and Paris both have SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), with the latter also operating nuclear-capable aircraft. This is a lower level of deterrence than in countries like Russia, China, India and the US who have nuclear triads (aircraft, submarines and land-based missiles), without even considering the size of Moscow’s strategic arsenal which is upwards of a dozen times larger than the combined Franco-British stockpile.
It’s still unclear what exactly Macron has in mind when talking about extending this arsenal to the rest of the EU/NATO. If he’s talking about replicating (or even replacing) the US nuclear sharing policy, the Kremlin might not react immediately, as this would change little in terms of the strategic balance of power.
However, if Macron wants to deploy these weapons close to Russian borders, this changes the calculus entirely, as it would force Moscow to either reactivate some of the non-deployed warheads or make new ones (if not both, depending on how far the EU/NATO would go). What’s more, the Russian military also operates non-nuclear strategic weapons, specifically hypersonic missiles such as the new “Oreshnik”.
The entire political West lacks remotely similar systems, including the US (which, as previously mentioned, is slowly shifting its strategic focus away from Europe). In other words, the EU/NATO cannot match Russia even on a tactical or operational level, let alone strategic. However, it keeps poking the Bear and pushing for escalation on all three fronts.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Iran has refuted British officials’ accusations that Tehran poses a national security threat to the UK, saying they blame the Islamic Republic for something they “excel in and master”.
Britain said on Tuesday that it would require the Iranian state to register everything it does to exert political influence in the UK, subjecting Tehran to an elevated tier of scrutiny in light of what it said was increasingly aggressive activity.
“It is absurd to blame Iran for something you excel in and master: illegal interference in other nations’ internal affairs!” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei responded in a post on X Thursday.
Baghaei touched on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s remarks in November that he did not believe Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and Britain’s role in the 1953 coup against Iran’s democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.
“UK government seems to be doubling down on its irrational hostile mentality regarding Iranians only to deflect from their own culpability, both as ‘genocide denier’ and as supporter of anti-Iran terrorism (tracing back to 1953 coup against Iran’s democratically-elected govnt for which UK’s guilt never disappears).
“However, this is no longer the 19th century; any government that makes unfounded accusations and takes hostile actions against the Iranian nation shall be held accountable,” he said.
Addressing parliament on Wednesday, UK security minister Dan Jarvis announced that he would put Iran’s state, its security services and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps into the enhanced tier of an upcoming registration scheme designed to protect against covert foreign influence.
Like in many countries, the political ruthlessness of Victorian expansionism has left Britain with an unhappy legacy of distrust in Iran.
Iranians generally blame Britain for the “Great Famine and Genocide” of 1917–1919 in Iran where approximately 2 million people and by some accounts 8-10 million out of a population of 18–20 million died of starvation and disease.
The famine took place after Iran, despite declaring neutrality during World War I, was occupied by British and Russian forces.
You don’t have to be a genius to work out that if you exclude Russia and just look at the three groups who are vying for war, or whining for peace, that no one is being very honest about their intentions. Previously, I tackled head on how Trump is not being very honest when he talks of peace as he has the means to enforce it at the drop of a hat, but chooses to drag his feet and hold out for deals. This is not simply Trump Basic who we all know well – where’s the deal? – but also Trump playing out a longer game with Russia, looking at where the sweet spot could be. Trump’s tour de force is always to create a crisis and then position himself to be the only person on the planet who is capable or willing to resolve it. His personality is always paramount to everything.
And so the stunt in the White House needs to be seen in the correct context. Zelensky was not honest in coming to the White House in the first place as it was believed that he was to meet Trump and JD Vance to sign a mineral deal which he agreed to and retracted from signing a number of times leading up to the visit. This became apparent when he met with Trump behind close doors and so the Plan B was to lower Zelensky into a trap and make him look ungrateful, arrogant and entirely impossible to work with. But what’s the real story behind Zelensky’s decision? Again, we see the puppet Zelensky having his strings pulled by others. Is it a coincidence that just days earlier British PM Keir Starmer arrives in the White House where, just a matter of hours earlier he announces in the British parliament that defence spending will be increased, in line with Trump’s demands for European members of NATO? Was it merely that Starmer needed to show some goodwill to Trump even to get the meeting, or was Starmer preparing for choppier waters to come, when Trump would finally hear the rumours? According to some reports, Zelensky has sold all the mineral rights already to the UK, so he was playing a game with Trump all along.
But there are more lies and games to come.
If we look at Zelensky’s European partners can we honestly say they are being honest with the public which elected them? While Macron announces a no-fly zone rule, Starmer tells his own people that Britain will send its own troops to Ukraine. Has the world gone mad, or are these leaders actually serious about their intentions? How many of UK soldiers, airmen and sailors could Starmer actually send out of a total of barely 150,000 in uniform? In reality, probably only a third at best. And presumably this move would be without the support of the U.S., who would keep out of it? If that isn’t the craziest batshit idea, there is more madness to follow. Zelensky, since arriving in the UK for the emergency meeting of mostly EU leaders who support him – including Erdogan of Turkey – has started saying some very odd things to the press, while he picks up these huge checks for military support. He keeps talking about getting a peace deal with Russia.
As Starmer prepares to send British troops to Ukraine, he continues to jail people for posting nasty messages in Facebook, in particular when they slur his own party members – an irony that only Joe Stalin would appreciate, as it’s straight from the dictators’ handbook. Starmer preaches about supporting a free and democratic Ukraine while persecuting anyone who doesn’t agree with his views or uses social media to complain about the state of Britain. In reality it’s one despot supporting another and it’s hard to see how many days this could last with body bags coming back to the UK while pensioners get plain clothed policeman come to their houses and threaten them with imprisonment – or even more cuts to the poor. Of course the body bags will be hidden by a tawdry deal struck between the government and the British press, just as so many ‘no-go zones’ were agreed beforehand. But citizen journalism will call them out as the families won’t stay quiet. Starmer and Macron seem to think that just as Churchill pulled a few stunts to draw the U.S. into the Second World War, that European soldiers on Ukrainian soil will override any agreement that the U.S. and Russia could pull off. The move by Starmer is so idiotic that it leaves many wondering whether he is being controlled by Mossad or the Obamas, comes from the same camp which so fabulously made so many poor predictions from the beginning – namely Russian sanctions.
There is only one conclusion to it, although it leaves Trump and Putin with two options, neither particularly edifying. One, to let the Europeans go ahead with their stunt and watch the collapse of NATO as a credible organization worthy of its funding; or two, to pull the rug out from under the feet of Zelensky and force presidential elections, where of course Trump will install his own puppet to replace the incumbent one. The huge mistake Starmer is making is that he is assuming British troops need not be sent to the front line, but can encircle Kiev to show political support for Zelensky. Yet, each day Russian troops will gain ground and move closer to the Ukrainian capital. For Trump to attempt regime change will be harder of course with a strong contingent of European soldiers on the ground as the State Department and all its dirty tricks doesn’t normally encounter such resistance. Is Zelensky’s ‘we want peace’ mantra a trick so that time can be bought to re-arm? Likely. Monty Python would have had a lot of fun with these clowns. Blessed are the peace brokers.
I had the great pleasure of speaking with Karin Kneissl and Alexander Mercouris about Europe’s decline and tendency to double down on failed policies. Kneissl is the former Foreign Minister of Austria. We discussed why NATO’s defeat in the Ukraine proxy war will fragment the alliance, why the Europeans are no longer capable of engaging in diplomacy with Russia, how strategic thinking was replaced with ideological slogans, why unity and democracy within the EU is weakening, and why the economic decline will be difficult to reverse. Removing the dividing lines in Europe and restoring peace with Russia, as the largest state in Europe, would be an important part of reversing Europe’s growing irrelevance. However, the Europeans appear to be preparing for a showdown against Russia instead.
I had the great pleasure to discuss with Judge Napolitano the efforts by Trump to pressure Zelensky into starting negotiations to end the war. Trump is challenging the legitimacy of Zelensky and even cutting military support to push him to the negotiation table. It is very possible that Trump will also start to mount pressure on the Europeans as they are seen to also oppose his peace plan. By cutting military spending, Trump hopes to also deprive Zelensky and the Europeans of the alternative to keep the war going. The war summit in Paris organised by the Europeans demonstrates that they are not able to mobilise the political will and unity required to replace the US. The Europeans also do not have the money or military power to continue the war, yet they do not have the political imagination beyond doubling down on a failed war. If the Europeans continue to resist Trump’s peace efforts, then NATO itself could end up being dissolved.
As the British state harasses and arrests a growing number of activists and dissident journalists, including the author of this piece, UN rapporteurs delivered a forceful letter of protest to London condemning its abuse of counter-terror legislation.
In December 2024, a quartet of UN rapporteurs focused on “peaceful assembly and of association” and the “right to privacy” delivered a strongly-worded letter to the British government. Expressing grave concerns about the potential “misapplication of counter-terrorism laws” to arrest, detain, interrogate and surveil dissident activists and journalists, including The Grayzone’sKit Klarenberg, they demanded clarity on a number of serious issues. Given 60 days to respond, London remained suspiciously silent.
As a result, the UN’s correspondence with the British government has now been made public. The rapporteurs were clearly disturbed by reports of Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, and Schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which covers “hostile” state threats, “being used to examine and obtain data from journalists and activists Johanna Ross, John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray and Richard Medhurst in circumstances where they appear to have no credible connection to ‘terrorist’ or ‘hostile’ activity.”
While awaiting a reply that never came, the UN “urged” British authorities to undertake “interim measures” to prevent any recurrence of potential human rights breaches under counter-terror legislation, and “ensure the accountability” of anyone responsible for “alleged violations.” Evidently undeterred by pressure from the UN, Britain has continued to escalate its war on dissidents.
The UN letter focused on how “powers under counter-terrorism legislation have been used on multiple occasions to examine, detain, and arrest journalists and activists, particularly at the UK border.” Individuals “who are critical of Western foreign policy in the context of the conflict in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine war are especially affected by the reported misuse of these powers,” the rapporteurs wrote.
Ominously, the UN rapporteurs suggested this could amount to “over-use [or] misuse” of British counter-terrorism legislation “to target legitimate freedom of expression and opinion, including public interest media reporting, and related freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and political dissent or activism.”
“Vague and broad” laws mean mass-persecution
The UN rapporteurs were especially scathing in their critique of the powers used to harass and potentially incarcerate targets. They charged that Schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act “may be unjustifiably used against journalists and activists who are critical of Western foreign policy.” In each case they investigated, detentions under this legislation were “premeditated [and] examination, confiscation of devices, and DNA prints were conducted despite the apparent absence of a credible ‘terrorist’ connection” with the individual in question.
Such promiscuous application of ostensible counter-terrorism laws creates the unavoidable “risk of intimidating, deterring, and disrupting the ability of journalists to report on topics of public importance without self-censorship” in Britain. This “serious chilling effect,” the rapporteurs cautioned, could extend well beyond media, and “unjustifiably interfere with the rights to freedom of expression and opinion and participation in public life” across “civil society and legitimate political and public discourse.”
The UN took repeated aim “at the vagueness and overbreadth” of the 2000 Terrorism Act’s criminalisation of “expressing an opinion or belief…supportive of a proscribed organisation.” The legislation’s terms provide no definition whatsoever of the term “support”, an “ambiguous” deficiency that “may unjustifiably criminalize” legitimate opinions “not rationally, proximately or causally related to actual terrorist violence or harms.” They noted this prohibition “goes well beyond the accepted restrictions on freedom of expression under international law concerning the prohibition of incitement to violence or hate speech.”
Indeed, “speech that is neither necessary nor proportionate to criminalize, including legitimate debates about the de-proscription of an organization and disagreement with a government’s decision to proscribe” could be categorized as “supporting” a terrorist group under the 2000 Terrorism Act’s sweeping terms. This is especially problematic given certain factions proscribed by Britain, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, may be “de facto authorities performing a diversity of civilian functions, including governance, humanitarian and medical activities, and provision of social services, public utilities and education”:
“Expressing support for any of these ordinary civilian activities by the organization could constitute expressing support for it, no matter how remote such expression is from support for any violent terrorist acts by the group.”
Working for “hostile” governments without knowing
Similar alarm was sounded about the wording of Schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-Terrorism and Border Act, under which The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg was detained upon returning to his home city of London in May 2023. It stipulates that anyone entering British territory suspected of “hostile activity” on behalf of a foreign power can be held against their will and interrogated for up to six hours, while the contents of their digital devices are seized and stored. Non-compliance automatically results in arrest.
See the notice of detention issued by British state security to journalist Kit Klarenberg under Schedule 3 of the UK’s Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act of 2019 here.
Ever more disturbingly, Schedule 3 is suspicionless. Under the legislation’s terms, “it is immaterial whether a person is aware that activity in which they are or have been engaged is hostile activity, or whether a state for or on behalf of which, or in the interests of which, a hostile act is carried out has instigated, sanctioned, or is otherwise aware of, the carrying out of the act.” In other words, no conspirator in a suspected conspiracy has to have consented to potentially illegal activity.
“Hostile acts” are defined as any behavior deemed threatening to London’s “national security” or “economic well-being.” Again, the rapporteurs condemned this language as “vague and over-broad.” They concluded the phrasing granted British authorities “extraordinary discretion” to engage in “unnecessary, disproportionate or otherwise arbitrary interferences in the rights to liberty and privacy” of individuals detained under these powers. Moreover, as the Act’s targets are not formally under formal criminal investigation or arrest, or suspected of having committed any offense, they have no right to remain silent.
The UN branded this distinction as “artificial… given the punitive sanctions for non-compliance,” branding it as “inconsistent with the accepted meaning of ‘arrest’ or ‘detention’” under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The “extreme breadth” of Schedule 3 also “enables unnecessary, disproportionate, arbitrary or discriminatory interference with an individual’s rights, including freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of movement…and the rights to leave and enter one’s own country.” Article 17 of the ICCPR also states:
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on [their] honour and reputation.”
This is explicitly contrary to Klarenberg’s May 2023 experience at Luton airport. There, as the rapporteurs documented, he was “fingerprinted, subjected to oral DNA swabs, and photographed by the examining officer,” while asked excessively invasive questions about his financial affairs, personal and professional relationships, and living situation in his adopted home country of Serbia. His belongings were extensively “searched and he was compelled to provide the passwords to his digital devices, which included a smartphone, tablet, and two cameras.”
Not only was all data on these devices copied, but “the memory cards and SIM cards of the electronic devices were copied outside the interrogation room” and “retained by the police.” As of the letter’s dispatch, one of Klarenberg’s memory cards had “been retained for a period exceeding a year and five months” by British authorities, suggesting he “remains under criminal investigation” for uncertain offenses he did not knowingly or willingly commit.
The rapporteurs noted Klarenberg was among several journalists detained by British border officials whose “electronic devices [were] confiscated for a significant period of time and have not been updated on the use, retention or destruction of their data, or advised in relation to their personal data protection rights.” In many cases, these seized items have never been returned, without satisfactory explanation or seeming legal justification.
New British laws further criminalize dissent
In closing, the UN rapporteurs “encouraged” London to repeal legislation under which dissidents have been persecuted, or “amend it to protect freedom of expression, and…develop prosecutorial guidelines for its appropriate use to avoid the unnecessary or disproportionate incrimination of political dissent.” They further implored London to “indicate how the application of counter-terrorism laws” against activists and journalists “is consistent with international human rights law, and an appropriate application of the law,” while providing “an update on the retention of data taken from the journalists.”
They went on to “urge” the British government to “consider the growing number of instances” where laws purportedly intended to deal with violent terrorist threats “may have been inappropriately directed towards journalists and activists, and to consider addressing this through amendments to the legislation, guidance for relevant officials, and training of border security officers.” Britain’s failure to respond to the UN’s letter, and ever-ratcheting attacks on domestic dissent subsequently, amply indicate these entreaties have fallen on determinedly deaf ears.
In December 2023, Britain rammed through a new round of draconian legislation reinforcing and further codifying the “vague and over-broad” terms of the laws condemned by the UN, under the auspices of the National Security Act. Its terms introduce a number of completely new criminal offenses with severe penalties, and wide-ranging consequences for freedom of speech. Explicitly enacted to neutralize investigative journalism and prevent the emergence of a new WikiLeaks, the Act is so expansive, individuals will almost inevitably break the law without wanting to, intending to, or even knowing they have.
British journalist Johnny Miller seeks asylum in Russia following campaign of harassment
At almost exactly the same time when UN rapporteurs complained to the British government about its abuse of “counter-terror” legislation to persecute dissidents, independent journalist Johnny Miller was granted asylum in Russia. Miller, a British citizen, had reported from the front lines of the Ukraine proxy war for two-and-a-half years. During this period, supporters of the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky subjected him to a campaign of intensive harassment, hacking his digital devices and Telegram account, bombarding him and his family with anonymous death threats, and publicly stalking him.
Miller told The Grayzone he’s not sure who or what was ultimately behind the campaign of harassment, but strongly suspects British and/or Ukrainian intelligence played a role. He says it was evident from the start of 2024 his movements in Moscow were being closely tracked while he travelled around the city, and seemingly in advance. At repeated meetings with friends and sources in bars, cafes and restaurants in the Russian capital, individuals would be waiting there for him, staring at him menacingly:
“It might sound crazy, but I think that’s the point. The purpose was to drive me insane, and make me look insane if I ever spoke up about this publicly. But these intimidating encounters from afar happened too many times to be a coincidence, and were witnessed by those I met with. One of them was George Dusoe, a US diplomat who quit out of protest over Gaza, after growing disillusionment with US government policy, and then moved to Russia.”
Miller met with Dusoe for a coffee a day before a formal interview. Afterwards, as they headed for the central Moscow metro, Dusoe quietly informed him they were being followed by multiple people. “He’d not only experienced that personally while posted abroad, but was specially trained in how to spot and evade it,” Miller noted. While the pair eventually eluded their stalkers, losing them in the metro, the experience shook Miller.
To this day, he can’t help but wonder, “what if I was alone, and this happened at night?,” citing the example of Adrian Bocquet. A French military veteran, he travelled to Ukraine in April 2022, witnessed Kiev’s forces commit countless grave war crimes, publicly testified to these atrocities while disputing Western claims of Russian atrocities in Bucha after returning home, then was stabbed in Turkey by Ukrainian nationalists. Miller is understandably relieved to finally be granted a degree of legal protection, personally and professionally:
“Their aim was to make me so scared for my life I stopped my work, and they almost succeeded. The psychological impact was massive, it was a form of warfare, and it stressed me like nothing I’ve ever experienced before,” he commented. “It’s a sick irony that one of the main reasons I sought asylum in Russia is [in order] to apply for a new passport, I would’ve had to give the British embassy in Moscow my address. No way!”
While detained in Luton airport in May 2023, The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg was not only forced under threat of arrest and prosecution to provide British counter-terror police his apartment address in Belgrade, but its location within the building, how much he paid for rent, and whether energy bills were included in that price. To what malign ends this information was put isn’t clear. From Miller’s point of view, British intelligence is determined to harass dissidents wherever they are, inside the country or thousands of miles away.
They (the Euro-élites) don’t have a chance: “If Trump imposes this tariff [25%], the U.S. will be in a serious trade conflict with the EU”, the Norwegian Prime Minister threatens. And what if Brussels does retaliate?
“They can try, but they can’t”, Trump responded. Von der Leyen has, however, already promised that she will retaliate. Nonetheless, the combined suite of the Anglo administrative forces is still unlikely to compel Trump to put U.S. military troops on the ground in Ukraine to protect European interests (and investments!).
The reality is that every European NATO member – to varying degrees of self-embarrassment – admits publicly now that none of them want to participate in securing Ukraine without having U.S. military troops provide ‘backstop’ to those European forces. This is a palpably obvious scheme to inveigle Trump into continuing the Ukraine war – as is Macron and Starmer’s dangling of the mineral deal to try to trick Trump to recommit to the Ukraine war. Trump plainly sees through these ploys.
The fly in the ointment, however, is that Zelensky seemingly fears a ceasefire, more than he fears losing further ground on the battlefield. He too, seems to need the war to continue (to preserve continuing in power, possibly).
Trump calling time on the Ukraine war that has been lost has seemingly caused European elites to enter some form of cognitive dissonance. Of course, it has been clear for some time that Ukraine would not retake its 1991 borders, nor force Russia into a negotiating position weak enough for the West to be able to dictate its own cessation terms.
“Trump has torn a huge rip in the interface layer of the fantasy bubble … the governing élite [in the wake of Trump’s pivot] can see not just an electoral setback, but rather a literal catastrophe. A defeat in war, with [Europe] left largely defenceless; a de-industrialising economy; crumbling public services and infrastructure; large fiscal deficits; stagnating living standards; social and ethnic disharmony – and a powerful populist insurgency led by enemies just as grave as Trump and Putin in the Manichean struggle against vestiges of liberal times – and strategically sandwiched between two leaders that both despise and disdain them …”.
“In other words, through the tear in the fantasy bubble, Europe’s elites see their own demise …”.
“Anybody who could see reality knew that things would only get worse on the war front from autumn 2023, but from their fantasy bubble, our élites couldn’t see it. Vladimir Putin, like the ‘Deplorables’ and ‘Gammons’ at home, was an atavistic daemon who would inevitably be slain on the inexorable march to liberal progressive utopia”.
Many in the Euro ruling-strata clearly are furious. Yet what can Britain or Germany actually do? It has quickly become clear that European states do not have the military capacity to intervene in Ukraine in any concerted manner. But more than anything, as Conor Gallagher points out, it is the European economy, circling the drain – largely as a result of the war against Russia – that is dragging reality to the forefront.
The new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has shown himself to be the most implacable European leader advocating both military expansion and youth conscription – in what amounts to an European resistance model mounted to confront Trump’s pivot to Russia.
Yet Merz’s winning CDU/CSU achieved only 28% of votes cast, whilst losing significant voter share. Hardly an outstanding mandate for confronting both Russia – and America – together!
“I am communicating closely with a lot of prime ministers, and heads of EU states and for me it is an absolute priority to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible, so that we achieve independence from the U.S., step by step”, Friedrich Merz said.
Second place in the German election was taken by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) with 20% of the national vote. The party was the top vote getter in the 25-45 year-old demographic. It supports good relations with Russia, an end to the Ukraine war, and it wants to work with Team Trump, too.
Yet AfD absurdly is outcast under the ‘firewall rules’. As a ‘populist’ party with a strong youth vote, it becomes automatically relegated to the ‘wrong side’ of the EU firewall. Merz has already refused to share power with them, leaving the CDU as pig-in-the-middle, squeezed between the failing SPD, which lost the most voter share, and the AfD and Der Linke, another firewall outcast, which, like AfD, gained voter share, especially among the under-45s.
The rub here – and it is a big one – is that the AfD and the Left Party, Die Linke (8.8%), which was the top vote getter in the 18-24 demographic, are both anti-war. Together these two have more than one third of the votes in parliament – a blocking minority for many important votes, especially for constitutional changes.
This will be a big headache for Merz, as Wolfgang Münchau explains:
“For one thing, the new Chancellor had wanted to travel to the NATO summit this June, with a strong commitment to higher defence spending. And even though the Left Party and the AfD hate each other in every other respect, they agree that they won’t give Merz the money to strengthen the Bundeswehr. More important, though, is the fact that they won’t support a reform to the constitutional fiscal rules (the debt brake) that Merz and the SPD are desperate for”.
The Rules are complicated, but in gist dictate that if Germany wants to spend more money on defence and aid to Ukraine, it had to be saved from elsewhere in the budget (most likely from social spending). But politically, saving on social spending to pay for Ukraine hasn’t played well with the German electorate. The last coalition failed on precisely this issue.
Even with the Greens, Merz still will be short of the two-thirds majority necessary to make constitutional changes, and the ‘Centre’ just doesn’t have the fiscal space for challenging Russia without U.S. funding. Von der Leyen will try to ‘magic’ money for defence from somewhere, “but German youth are voting against the Establishment parties who are hated. They can build a few Leopards if they want. They won’t get recruits”.
Whilst the EU and Britain are proposing to raise billions to arm themselves against some imaginary Russian invasion, it will be done against the backdrop of Trump saying explicitly – on the threat of a Russian invasion of NATO – “I don’t believe that; I don’t believe it, not one little bit”.
Another Euro-shibboleth ripped by Trump.
Thus, how will the European public, which has largely soured on the Ukraine war, react to higher energy costs and more tax and social service cuts, in order to pursue an unwinnable war in Ukraine? Starmer already has been warned that the (government debt) ‘bond vigilantes’ will react badly to yet more UK government debt as the fiscal situation wobbles precariously.
There are no obvious solutions to Europe’s current predicament: It is, on one hand, an existential conundrum for Merz. And on the other, it is the same one that dogs the EU as a whole: To get anything done, a parliamentary majority is a basic necessity.
The ‘firewall’, though primordially intended to protect the ‘Centrists’ in Brussels from Rightist ‘populists’, was subsequently turbo-charged in Brussels by Biden’s issuing of a foreign policy determination to all U.S. foreign policy ‘actors’ to the effect that populism was a ‘threat to democracy’ and must be contested.
The practical outcome however, has been that across the EU, blocking coalitions were formed of odd (minority party) bed-fellows agreeing to keep the Centrists in power, but which rather has led to endless stasis and an ever increasing detachment from ‘we, the people’.
Angela Merkel governed in this way, kicking the can of reform down the road for years – until the situation ultimately became (and still is) insoluble.
“Can another coalition of short-sighted centrists arrest the decline of the economy, fix the failure of leadership, and free the nation from its pernicious political trap? I think we know the answer”,writes Wolfgang Münchau.
There lies a bigger problem however: As Vance very explicitly warned at the recent Munich Security Forum, Europe’s enemy lies not with Russia; It lies within. It derives, Vance implied, from the fact of having a permanent bureaucracy, assuming to itself the exclusive prerogative of autonomous governing power, yet incrementally becoming ever-more remote from its own base.
Tear down the firewalls, Vance advocated, in order to return to the (abandoned) principles of that earlier democracy originally shared between the U.S. and Europe. Implicitly, Vance is targeting the Brussels Administrative (Deep) State.
The Eurocrats see in this new front an alternate American-supported attack on their Administrative State – and perceive therein their own demise.
In the U.S., there is acknowledgement that there is an “institutional resistance to Trump” in the DOD, DOJ and the FBI. It proves, Margot Cleveland argues, that those touting the need for “institutional resistance” and the supposed independence from the executive branch, are the opponents to democracy – and to Trump.
Given the close nexus between the U.S., the British and European Deep States, the question arises as to why there is such strong parallel resistance to Trump amongst European leaders also.
Ostensibly, it is not in Europe’s interest to mount a concerted resistance against the U.S. President over a failed war. Is the European frenzy then fuelled by a wider (U.S.) Deep State desire to neuter the ‘Trump Revolution’ by demonstrating, in addition to the U.S. domestic opposition at home, that Trump is causing havoc amongst the U.S.’ European allies? Is Europe being pushed further down this path than they would otherwise have chosen to venture?
For Germany to change course – albeit unthinkable for Merz – it would require only a minimal amount of imagination to envision Germany again linked to Eurasia. The AfD gained 20% of the vote on just such a platform. Really, there probably is little other option.
On January 20, 2024 Hamas, the Palestinian Resistance Movement, issued a 16-page document entitled “Our Narrative–Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” that explains their plans and actions.
This helps to answer the question some Americans ask: Why did Hamas launch the attack?
As Americans read and consider the following, perhaps they will consider an equally important question: Why did we allow our government to enable Israel’s violent, decades-long ethnic cleansing project against Palestinians?
To see the full document and its images, click the PDF here. Below is the document’s text (IAK has bolded some portions and added a few editor’s notes).
TEXT:
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Our steadfast Palestinian people,
The Arab & Islamic nations;
The free peoples worldwide and those who advocate for freedom, justice and human dignity
In light of the ongoing Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and as our people continue their battle for independence, dignity and breaking-free from the longest-ever occupation during which they have drawn the finest displays of bravery and heroism in confronting the Israeli murder machine and aggression. We would like to clarify to our people and the free peoples of the world the reality of what happened on Oct. 7, the motives behind, its general context related to the Palestinian cause, as well as a refutation to the Israeli allegations and to put the facts into perspective.
Why Operation Al-Aqsa Flood?
1. 1- The battle of the Palestinian people against occupation and colonialism did not start on Oct. 7, but started 105 years ago, including 30 years of British colonialism and 75 years of Zionist occupation. In 1918, the Palestinian people owned 98.5% of the Palestine land and represented 92% of the population on the land of Palestine.
While the Jews, who were brought to Palestine in mass immigration campaigns in coordination between the British colonial authorities and the Zionist Movement, managed to seize control of not more than 6% of the lands in Palestine and to be 31% of the population prior to 1948 when the Zionist Entity was announced on the historic land of Palestine. [Editor’s note: See this]
At that time, the Palestinian people were denied from the right to self- determination and the Zionist gangs engaged in an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinian people aimed at expelling them from their lands and areas. As a result, the Zionist gangs seized control by force of 77% of the land of Palestine where they expelled 57% of the people of Palestine and destroyed over 500 Palestinian villages and towns, and committed dozens of massacres against the Palestinians which all culminated in the establishment of the Zionist Entity in 1948. Moreover, in continuation of the aggression, the Israeli forces in 1967 occupied the rest of Palestine including the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem in addition to Arab territories around Palestine.
2. 2- Over these long decades, the Palestinian people suffered all forms of oppression, injustice, expropriation of their fundamental rights and the apartheid policies. The Gaza Strip, for example, suffered as of 2007 from a suffocating blockade over 17 years which turned it to be the largest open-air prison in the world. The Palestinian people in Gaza also suffered from five destructive wars\ aggressions all of which “Israel” was the offending party.
The people in Gaza in 2018 also initiated the Great March of Return demonstrations to peacefully protest the Israeli blockade, their misery humanitarian conditions and to demand their right-to-return. However, the Israeli occupation forces responded to these protests with brutal force by which 360 Palestinians were killed and 19,000 others were injured including over 5,000 children in a matter of few months. [Editor’s note: See this]
3. According official figures, in the period between (January 2000 and September 2023), the Israeli occupation killed 11,299 Palestinians and injured 156,768 others, the great majority of them were civilians. Unfortunately, the US administration and its allies did not pay attention to the suffering of the Palestinian people over the past years but provided cover to the Israeli aggression.
They only lamented the Israeli soldiers who were killed on Oct. 7 even without seeking the truth of what happened, and wrongfully walked behind the Israeli narrative in condemning an alleged targeting of Israeli civilians. The US administration provided the financial and military support to the Israeli occupation massacres against the Palestinian civilians and the brutal aggression on the Gaza Strip, and still the US officials continue to ignore what the Israeli occupation forces commit in Gaza of mass killing. [Editor’s note: see this.]
4. The Israeli violations and brutality were documented by many UN organizations and international human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and even documented by Israeli human rights groups. [See this.]
However, these reports and testimonies were ignored and the Israeli occupation is yet to be held accountable. For example, on Oct. 29, 2021, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan insulted the UN system by tearing up a report for the UN Human Rights Council during an address at the General Assembly, and threw it in a dustbin before leaving the podium. Yet, he was appointed in the following year – 2022 – to the post of vice-president of the UN General Assembly.
5. The US administration and its western allies have always been treating Israel as a state above the law; they provide it with the needed cover to maintain prolonging the occupation and cracking down the Palestinian people, and also allowing “Israel” to exploit such situation to expropriate further Palestinian lands and to Judaize their sanctities and holy sites. Despite the fact that the UN had issued more than 900 resolutions over the past 75 years in favor of the Palestinian people, “Israel” rejected to abide by any of these resolutions, and the US VETO was always present at the UN Security Council to prevent any condemnation to “Israel’s” policies and violations. That’s why we see the US and other western countries complicit and partners to the Israeli occupation in its crimes and in the continued suffering of the Palestinian people. [See this.]
6. As for “the peaceful settlement process”. Despite the fact that the Oslo Accords signed in 1993 with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) stipulated the establishment of a Palestinian independent state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; “Israel” systematically destroyed every possibility to establish the Palestinian state through a wide campaign of settlements’ construction and Judaization of the Palestinian lands in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem. The backers of the peace process after 30 years realized that they have reached an impasse and that such process had catastrophic results on the Palestinian people.
The Israeli officials confirmed at several occasions their absolute rejection to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Just one month before Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a map of a so-called “New Middle East,” depicting “Israel” stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea including the West Bank and Gaza. The entire world at that – UN General Assembly’s – podium were silent towards his speech full of arrogance and ignorance towards the rights of the Palestinian people.
7. After 75 years of relentless occupation and suffering, and after failing all initiatives for liberation and return to our people, and also after the disastrous results of the so-called peace process, what did the world expect from the Palestinian people to do in response to the following:
♦ The Israeli Judaization plans to the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, its temporal and spatial division attempts, as well as the intensification of the Israeli settlers’ incursions into the holy mosque.
♦ The practices of the extremist and right-wing Israeli government which is practically taking steps towards annexing the entire West Bank and Jerusalem into the so-called “Israel’s sovereignty” amid plans on the Israeli official table to expel Palestinians from their homes and areas.
♦ The thousands of Palestinian detainees in Israeli jails who are experiencing deprivation of their basic rights as well as assaults and humiliations under direct supervision of the Israeli fascist minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
♦ The unjust air, sea, and land blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip over 17 years.
♦ The expansion of the Israeli settlements across the West Bank in an unprecedented level, as well as the daily violence perpetrated by settlers against Palestinians and their properties.
♦ The seven million Palestinians living in extreme conditions in refugee camps and other areas who wish to return to their lands, and who were expelled 75 years ago.
♦ The failure of the international community and the complicit of superpowers to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
What was expected from the Palestinian people after all of that? To keep waiting and to keep counting on the helpless UN! Or to take the initiative in defending the Palestinian people, lands, rights and sanctities; knowing that the defense act is a right enshrined in international laws, norms and conventions.
Proceeding from the above, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on Oct. 7 was a necessary step and a normal response to confront all Israeli conspiracies against the Palestinian people and their cause. It was a defensive act in the frame of getting rid of the Israeli occupation, reclaiming the Palestinian rights and on the way for liberation and independence like all peoples around the world did.
Second
The events of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and responses to the Israeli allegations
In light of the Israeli fabricated accusations and allegations over Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on Oct. 7 and its repercussions, we in the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas clarify the following:
1. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on Oct. 7 targeted the Israeli military sites, and sought to arrest the enemy’s soldiers to pressure on the Israeli authorities to release the thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli jails through a prisoners exchange deal. Therefore, the operation focused on destroying the Israeli army’s Gaza Division, the Israeli military sites stationed near the Israeli settlements around Gaza.
2. Avoiding harm to civilians, especially children, women and elderly people is a religious and moral commitment by all the Al-Qassam Brigades’ fighters. We reiterate that the Palestinian resistance was fully disciplined and committed to the Islamic values during the operation and that the Palestinian fighters only targeted the occupation soldiers and those who carried weapons against our people. In the meantime, the Palestinian fighters were keen to avoid harming civilians despite the fact that the resistance does not possess precise weapons. In addition, if there was any case of targeting civilians; it happened accidently and in the course of the confrontation with the occupation forces. [Editor’s note: when the barrier that had been imprisoning Gaza for over 20 years was breached, many people not part of Hamas’ trained fighters, including other armed groups not under Hamas, also escaped.]
Since its establishment in 1987, the Hamas Movement committed itself to avoiding harm to civilians. After Zionist criminal Baruch Goldstein in 1994 committed a massacre against Palestinian worshippers in the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in occupied Hebron City, the Hamas Movement announced an initiative to avoid civilians the brunt of fighting by all parties, but the Israeli occupation rejected it and even did not give any comment on it. The Hamas Movement also repeated such calls several times, but received by a deaf ear from the Israeli occupation which continued its deliberate targeting and killing of Palestinian civilians.
[Editor’s note: The precursor to Hamas was different from extremist groups that we think of today, like Al-Qaeda or ISIS. It started out by focusing on social welfare programs, providing education, food and other social services to Palestinians. It eventually began to engage in resistance activities against the Israeli occupation and expanded land theft, such as attacks on military posts and capturing Israeli soldiers. After an extremist Israeli killed 29 Palestinians while they were praying, Hamas also began targeting civilians. See this and this and this and this.]
3. Maybe some faults happened during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’s implementation due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the border areas with Gaza.
As attested by many, the Hamas Movement dealt in a positive and kind manner with all civilians who have been held in Gaza, and sought from the earliest days of the aggression to release them, and that’s what happened during the week-long humanitarian truce where those civilians were released in exchange of releasing Palestinian women and children from Israeli jails. [Editor’s note: For how this was reported to Americans see this.]
4. What the Israeli occupation promoted of allegations that the Al-Qassam Brigades on Oct. 7 were targeting Israeli civilians are nothing but complete lies and fabrications. [Editor’s Note: See this] The source of these allegations is the Israeli official narrative and no independent source proved any of them. It is a well-known fact that the Israeli official narrative had always sought to demonize the Palestinian resistance, while also legalizing its brutal aggression on Gaza.
Here are some details that go against the Israeli allegations:
♦ Video clips taken on that day – Oct. 7 – along with the testimonies by Israelis themselves that were released later showed that the Al-Qassam Brigades’ fighters didn’t target civilians, and many Israelis were killed by the Israeli army and police due to their confusion. [See this.]
♦ It has also been firmly refuted the lie of the “40 beheaded babies” by the Palestinian fighters, and even Israeli sources denied this lie. Many of the western media agencies unfortunately adopted this allegation and promoted it.
♦ The suggestion that the Palestinian fighters committed rape against Israeli women was fully denied including by the Hamas Movement. A report by the Mondoweiss news website on Dec. 1, 2023, among others, said there is lack of any evidence of “mass rape” allegedly perpetrated by Hamas members on Oct. 7 and that Israel used such allegation “to fuel the genocide in Gaza.” [See this.]
♦ According to two reports by the Israeli Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper on Oct. 10 and the Haaretz newspaper on Nov. 18, many Israeli civilians were killed by an Israeli military helicopter especially those who were in the Nova music festival near Gaza where 364 Israeli civilians were killed. The two reports said the Hamas fighters reached the area of the festival without any prior knowledge of the festival, where the Israeli helicopter opened fire on both the Hamas fighters and the participants in the festival. The Yedioth Ahronoth also said the Israeli army, to prevent further infiltrations from Gaza and to prevent any Israelis being arrested by the Palestinian fighters, struck over 300 targets in areas surrounding the Gaza Strip.
♦ Other Israeli testimonies confirmed that the Israeli army raids and soldiers’ operations killed many Israeli captives and their captors. The Israeli occupation army bombed the houses in the Israeli settlements where Palestinian fighters and Israelis were inside in a clear application of the Israeli army notorious “Hannibal Directive” which clearly says that “better a dead civilian hostage or soldier than taken alive” to avoid engaging in a prisoners swap with the Palestinian resistance.
♦ Furthermore, the occupation authorities revised the number of their killed soldiers and civilians from 1,400 to 1,200, after finding that 200-burnt corpses had belonged to the Palestinian fighters who were killed and mixed with Israeli corpses. This means that the one who killed the fighters is the one who killed the Israelis, knowing that only the Israeli army possesses military planes that killed, burned and destroyed Israeli areas on Oct. 7.
♦ The Israeli heavy aerial raids across Gaza that led to the death of nearly 60 Israeli captives also prove that the Israeli occupation does not care about the life of their captives in Gaza.
5. It is also a matter of fact that a number of Israeli settlers in settlements around Gaza were armed, and clashed with Palestinian fighters on Oct. 7. Those settlers were registered as civilians while the fact is they were armed men fighting alongside the Israeli army.
6. When speaking about Israeli civilians, it must be known that conscription applies to all Israelis above the age of 18 – males who served 32 months of military service and females who served 24 months – where all can carry and use arms. This is based on the Israeli security theory of an “armed people” which turned the Israeli entity into “an army with a country attached.”
7. The brutal killing of civilians is a systematic approach of the Israeli entity, and one of the means to humiliate the Palestinian people. The mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza is a clear evidence of such approach.
8. The Al Jazeera news channel said in a documentary that in one month of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, the daily average killing of Palestinian children in Gaza was 136, while the average of children killing in Ukraine – in the course of the Russian-Ukrainian war – was one child every day.
9. Those who defend the Israeli aggression do not look at the events in an objective manner but rather go to justify the Israeli mass killing of Palestinians by saying there would be casualties among civilians when attacking the Hamas fighters. However, they would not use such assumption when it comes to the Al-Aqsa Flood event on Oct. 7.
10. We are confident that any fair and independent inquiries will prove the truth of our narrative and will prove the scale of lies and misleading information in the Israeli side. This also includes the Israeli allegations regarding the hospitals in Gaza that the Palestinian resistance used them as command centers; an allegation that was not proven and was refuted by reports of many western press agencies. [See this]
Third
Towards a transparent internationalinvestigationrd
1. Palestine is a member-state of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and it acceded to its Rome Statute in 2015. When Palestine asked for investigation into Israeli war crimes committed on its territories, it was faced by Israeli intransigence and rejection, and threats to punish the Palestinians for the request to ICC. It is also unfortunate to mention that there were great powers, which claim to be holding values of justice, completely sided with the occupation narrative and stood against the Palestinian moves in the international justice system. These powers want to keep “Israel” as a state above the law and to ensure it escapes liability and accountability.
2. We urge these countries, especially the US administration, Germany, Canada and the UK, if they are meant for justice to prevail as they claim, they are ought to announce their support to the course of the investigation in all crimes committed in occupied Palestine and to give full support for the international courts to effectively do their job.
3. Despite having doubts from these countries to stand by justice, we still urge the ICC Prosecutor and his team to immediately and urgently come to occupied Palestine to look into the crimes and violations committed there, rather than merely observing the situation remotely or being subject to the Israeli restrictions.
4. In Dec. 2022, when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution seeking opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of “Israel’s” illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, those (few) countries who back “Israel” announced their rejection to the move that was approved by nearly 100 countries. And when our people – and their legal and rights groups – sought to pursue prosecutions against the Israeli war criminals in front of the European countries courts – through the system of universal jurisdiction – the European regimes obstructed the moves in favor of the Israeli war criminals to remain running free.
5. The events of Oct. 7 must be put in its broader context, and that all cases of struggle against colonialism and occupation in our contemporary time be evoked. These experiences of struggle show that in the same level of oppression committed by the occupier; there would be an equivalent response by the people under occupation. [See this.]
6. The Palestinian people and peoples across the world realize the scale of lies and deception these governments that back the Israeli narrative practice in their attempts to justify their blind bias and to cover the Israeli crimes. These countries know the root causes of the conflict which are the occupation and the denial of the right of the Palestinian people to live in dignity on their lands. These countries show no interest towards the continuation of the unjust blockade on millions of Palestinians in Gaza, and also show no interest towards the thousands of Palestinian detainees in Israeli jails held under conditions where their basic rights are mostly denied.
7. We hail the free people of the world from all religions, ethnicities and backgrounds who rally in all capitals and cities worldwide to voice their rejection to the Israeli crimes and massacres, and to show their support for the rights of the Palestinian people and their just cause.
Fourth
A reminder to the world, who is Hamas?
1. The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds.
2. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
3. The Palestinian people have always stood against oppression, injustice, and the committing of massacres against civilians regardless of who commit them. And based on our religious and moral values, we clearly stated our rejection to what the Jews were exposed to by the Nazi Germany. Here, we remind that the Jewish problem in essence was a European problem, while the Arab and Islamic environment was – across history – a safe haven to the Jewish people and to other peoples of other beliefs and ethnicities. The Arab and Islamic environment was an example to co-existence, cultural interaction and religious freedoms. The current conflict is caused by the Zionist aggressive behavior and its alliance with the western colonial powers; therefore, we reject the exploitation of the Jewish suffering in Europe to justify the oppression against our people in Palestine.
4. The Hamas Movement according to international laws and norms is a national liberation movement that has clear goals and mission. It gets its legitimacy to resist the occupation from the Palestinian right to self-defense, liberation and self-determination. Hamas has always been keen to restrict its fight and resistance with the Israeli occupation on the occupied Palestinian territory, yet, the Israeli occupation did not abide by that and committed massacres and killings against the Palestinians outside Palestine.
5. We stress that resisting the occupation with all means including the armed resistance is a legitimized right by all norms, divine religions, the international laws including the Geneva Conventions and its first additional protocol and the related UN resolutions e.g. The UN General Assembly Resolution 3236, adopted by the 29th session of the General Assembly on Nov. 22, 1974 which affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including the right to self-determination and the right to return to “their homes and property from where they were expelled, displaced and uprooted.” [See this.]
6. Our steadfast Palestinian people and their resistance are waging a heroic battle to defend their land and national rights against the longest and brutalist colonial occupation. The Palestinian people are confronting an unprecedented Israeli aggression that committed heinous massacres against Palestinian civilians, most of them were children and women. In the course of the aggression on Gaza, the Israeli occupation deprived our people in Gaza of food, water, medicines and fuel, and simply deprived them from all means of life. In the meantime, the Israeli warplanes savagely struck all Gaza infrastructures and public buildings including schools, universities, mosques, churches and hospitals in a clear sign of ethnic cleansing aimed at expelling the Palestinian people from Gaza. Yet, the backers of the Israeli occupation did nothing but kept the genocide ongoing against our people. [See this.]
7. The Israeli occupation’s use of the “self-defense” pretext to justify its oppression against the Palestinian people is a process of lie, deception and turning the facts. The Israeli entity has no right to defend its crimes and occupation but the Palestinian people who have such right to oblige the occupier to end the occupation. In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave an advisory opinion in the case concerning the “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” which stated that “Israel” – the brutal occupying force – cannot rely on a right of self-defense to build such wall on the Palestinian territory. Furthermore, Gaza under the international law is still an occupied land, thus, the justifications for waging the aggression on Gaza is baseless and lacks its legal capacity, as well as lacks the essence of the self-defense idea.
Fifth
What is needed?
Occupation is occupation no matter how it describes or names itself, and remains a tool to break the will of the peoples and to keep oppressing them. On the other side, the experiences of the peoples\nations across history on how to break away from occupation and colonialism confirm that the resistance is the strategic approach and the only way to liberation and ending the occupation. Have any nation been liberated from occupation without struggle, resistance or sacrifice?
The humanitarian, ethical and legal imperatives necessitate all countries around the world to back the resistance of the Palestinian people not to collude against it. They are supposed to confront the occupation crimes and aggression, as well as to support the struggle of the Palestinian people to liberate their lands and to practice their right to self-determination like all peoples across the globe. Based on that we call for the following:
1. The immediate halt of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, the crimes and ethnic cleansing committed against the entire Gaza population, to open the crossings and allow the entry of the humanitarian aid into Gaza including the reconstruction tools.
2. To hold the Israeli occupation legally accountable for what it caused of human suffering towards the Palestinian people, and to charge it for the crimes against civilians, infrastructure, hospitals, educational facilities, mosques and churches.
3. The support of the Palestinian resistance in the face of the Israeli occupation with all possible means as a legitimized right under the international laws and norms.
4. We call upon the free peoples across the world, especially those nations who were colonized and realize the suffering of the Palestinian people, to take serious and effective positions against the double standard policies adopted by powers\countries that back the Israeli occupation. We call on these nations to initiate a global solidarity movement with the Palestinian people and to emphasize the values of justice and equality and the right of the peoples to live in freedom and dignity.
5. The superpowers, especially the US, the UK and France among others, must stop providing the Zionist entity with cover from accountability, and to stop dealing with it as a country above the law. Such unjust behavior by these countries allowed the Israeli occupation over 75 years to commit the worst crimes ever against the Palestinian people, land and sanctities. We urge the countries across the globe, today and more than before, to uphold their responsibilities towards the international law and the relevant UN resolutions that call for ending the occupation.
6. We categorically reject any international or Israeli projects aimed at deciding the future of Gaza that only serve to prolong the occupation. We stress that the Palestinian people have the capacity to decide their future and to arrange their internal affairs, and thus no party in the world has the right to impose any form of guardianship on the Palestinian people or decide on their behalf.
7. We urge for standing against the Israeli attempts to cause another wave of expulsion – or a new Nakba – to the Palestinians especially in the lands occupied in 1948 and the West Bank. We stress that there will be no expulsion to Sinai or Jordan or any other place, and if there is any relocation to the Palestinians, it will be towards their homes and areas they were expelled from in 1948, as affirmed by many UN resolutions.
8. We call for keeping the popular pressure around the world until ending the occupation; we call for standing against the normalization attempts with the Israeli entity and for a comprehensive boycott to the Israeli occupation and its backers.
The verbal shootout at the Oval Office last Friday brought out President Vladimir Zelensky’s fury that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are very close to a deal on Ukraine, while the conclave in Lancashire House in London on Sunday involving 18 European leaders messaged that Zelensky is in good company.
Connecting the dots, the incisive mind of Stephen Bryen, a leading expert on security, strategy and technology who previously held senior positions in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill, wrote on Substack: “Trump invited [French president] Macron and [UK prime minister] Starmer to Washington to brief them, which he apparently did. The French went away fairly unhappy, but Starmer seemed to be in general agreement. Starmer made a pitch to include Article 5 and NATO in any deal; Trump rejected that appeal. Putin, meanwhile, talked to [Chinese president] Xi by telephone and sent Sergei Shoigu (who heads Russia’s Security Council, something like the NSC) to Beijing to meet with Xi.
“Trump invited Zelensky. The cover for Zelensky’s appearance in Washington was the “Minerals Deal” which the two leaders were supposed to sign… The real reason for the Zelensky visit was to brief him on the Putin negotiations and to gain his support.”
In the event, Trump could neither brief Zelensky on the Ukraine deal nor sign the “Minerals Deal” because the Ukrainian president took great exception to any negotiations with Putin. He did this in public, to Trump’s face, and in front of the press. The result was there was no private meeting and Trump told Zelensky, “he would be welcomed back only when he was ready for peace.”
This is where things stand. The strategy session that Trump is due to take later today with his top advisors will signal what happens next. There is a strong likelihood that Trump may cut off arms deliveries and/or financial assistance to Ukraine.
Now that the Rubicon has been crossed, Trump is unlikely to change course on Russia — unless, of course, Zelensky falls in line in abject surrender, which seems unlikely too. Russians of course welcome his ouster.
It is highly unlikely that Trump will be cowed by the temper tantrums of the EU or impressed by Britain’s grandstanding. Germany is without a government for the next several weeks; itweakens the Europeans’ punch.
Indeed, the back channel communication between Moscow and Washington has gained traction. Moscow assesses that Trump has the upper hand. This is reflected in the growing optimism in Putin’s remarks last Thursday while addressing the Board of the Federal Security Service (collegium of Russia’s top foreign intelligence officials.)
Putin began by saying that the world and the international situation are changing rapidly and “the first contacts with the new US administration inspire certain hopes.”
He said: “There is a reciprocal commitment [with Trump] to work to restore interstate relations and to gradually address the enormous amount of systemic and strategic problems in the global architecture which once provoked the crises in Ukraine and other regions… Importantly, our partners demonstrate pragmatism and a realistic vision of things, and have abandoned numerous stereotypes, the so-called rules, and messianic, ideological clichés of their predecessors.”
Putin estimated that conditions exist for a dialogue “on bringing a fundamental solution to Ukraine crisis… a dialogue on creating a system that will truly ensure a balanced and mutual consideration of interests, an indivisible European and global security system for the long term, where the security of some countries cannot be ensured at the expense or to the detriment of the security of other countries, definitely not Russia.”
However, Putin also flagged that sections Western elites “are still committed to maintaining instability in the world, and these forces will try to disrupt or to compromise the newly resumed dialogue” and, hence it is vital that “every possibility offered by dialogue and special services to thwart such attempts” needs to be leveraged.
Indeed, the New York Times disclosed today that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered U.S. Cyber Command to halt offensive operations against Russia “as part of a larger re-evaluation of all operations against Russia.” Equally, reports have appeared that Putin has given similar instructions restraining the Russian agencies.
What lends enchantment to the view is that many of the US’ most sophisticated operations against Russia are run out of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters, the storied intelligence agency that broke the Enigma codes in World War II. Suffice to say, the US seems to be cutting itself free from longstanding joint operations with Britain directed against Russia.
A Guardian newspaper report has separately corroborated the Times disclosure of a shift in the US policy. It added that the warming of US-Russia relations is apparent also in certain recent other incidents which indicate that the US is “no longer characterising Russia as a cybersecurity threat.”
The paper claimed that analysts in the super secret Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) of the United States spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity that theywere “verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency.”
Quite obviously, a crisis of confidence has arisen in the US-UK “special relationship” — or, to put it differently, the Trump administration is taking steps to sequester the Cisa from rogue operations.
There is a Cold War history of rogue operations by spy agencies. One of the most celebrated cases was the incident on 1st May, 1960 when an American U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers flying [‘unbeknownst’ to Eisenhower] at an altitude of 80,000 feet was shot down over Soviet air space triggering a diplomatic crisis that caused the collapse of a summit conference in Paris between then US president Dwight Eisenhower and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev — and the sudden death of the two leaders’ closely nurtured dream of détente.
An analogical situation exists today. Both Washington and Moscow are conscious of it. The need for such a veil of secrecy around the high level dialogue between the Kremlin and the White House is self-evident. There are too many detractors in the collective West who won’t settle for anything short of a Russian defeat in Ukraine and would rather keep the war going.
In such a fraught scenario, on the Russian side, the Kremlin’s writ ultimately prevails despite whatever dissenting voices exist in the military-industrial complex or amongst super hawks with revenge mentality. But that is not the case in the US where remnants of the old regime still hold sensitive positions, as the Guardian report vividly brings out. In the final analysis, therefore, it may well turn out that — to quote Stephen Bryan — Trump “will let Ukraine collapse but may seek a deal with Putin on Ukraine once Zelensky is gone.”
The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.
Dr. Toaff is uniquely qualified to write this book, being thoroughly familiar with the derivative literature in English, French, German and Italian, as well as the original documentary sources in Latin, Medieval Italian, Hebrew and Yiddish. This is not something he worked on in secret. On the contrary, he worked on it openly with his university students and colleagues in Israel for several years; one of his students was even going to publish a paper on the subject. The author is extremely careful about what he says, and his conclusions must be taken seriously. It reads like a detective story.
If it had been published in Israel, in Hebrew, no one would have cared. There are large bodies of literature in Hebrew that Jews do not wish Gentiles to know about. But Dr. Toaff’s announcement of its publication in Italy, in Italian, raised a worldwide firestorm of fury.
Under unbearable pressure, the book was withdrawn from publication. Come in out of the darkness, and strike a blow for the light.
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.
The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.
Aletho News 
