Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Trump: Madman strategy or madman actions?

By Dr Mohammad Makram Balawi | MEMO | February 11, 2025

As expected, during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit, the American president surprised everyone with reckless, unrestrained and illogical positions that align with the “madman strategy” he followed in his first term. However, this time, many people are convinced that the man is not merely feigning this strategy, but rather it is an intrinsic part of his reality. One of the most prominent indicators of this, or what cemented this belief for many, is his reckless statements about Gaza, his intention to relocate its population to neighbouring countries, seize the land and build a large tourist resort resembling the French Riviera on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

This development even shocked the most ardent supporters of ethnic cleansing – not only because it aligns with these criminal proposals that violate international law, United Nations resolutions, and are deemed crimes against humanity by international courts, but also because such a claim requires tools for execution and practical measures that do not exist on the ground. Undoubtedly, the forced displacement of more than two million people is no simple matter, especially given that Israeli efforts to carry out displacement through all forms of violence have failed miserably. So how does Trump intend to implement these insane ideas without sufficient forces on the ground and without possessing a greater destructive capacity than that of Israel?

Israel deployed approximately 300,000 soldiers and is believed to have lost around 2,000 military armed vehicles in Gaza. So, in the absence of military forces, how can Trump achieve this unless he intends to commit another crime against humanity; starving the population to death? While such a notion is not far-fetched for a mindset of this kind, we have already seen direct rejection from the countries he mentioned as destinations for displacement, foremost among them Egypt and Jordan.

Moreover, when Trump provided clarifications regarding the rebuilding of Gaza and transforming it into another Riviera, he claimed that the Arab states, which have abundant wealth, would be the ones funding the project. This attitude reflects unprecedented arrogance and disdain, as he not only seeks to displace the Palestinian people into Arab countries and threaten their national security, but also expects Arabs, particularly Saudi Arabia, to finance a plan that would undermine their own security and potentially ignite a larger and more violent round of conflicts and confrontations. This explains the strong Saudi and Arab reaction, which categorically rejected this initiative. Saudi officials, especially Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, linked any potential diplomatic relations with Israel to the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, in accordance with the Arab Peace Initiative — which was originally a Saudi initiative.

Netanyahu’s response to this was nothing short of outrageous, as he suggested that Saudi Arabia should establish a Palestinian state on its own territory. In a continuation of the arrogance and condescension previously exhibited by Trump, these positions are not merely obstacles to Saudi-Israeli normalisation and, by extension, broader Arab and Islamic normalisation, but they could also deal a severe blow to Saudi-American relations. These relations were expected to flourish under Trump’s presidency, particularly given his demands — or rather, commands — for a trillion dollars from Saudi Arabia.

Whether Trump realises it or not, his stance represents a complete dismantling of his own foreign policy doctrine, which was ostensibly based on ending wars and exerting soft pressure. In reality, it may mark the beginning of a series of major events, next to which the 7 October war could seem like a mere excursion. Having clashed with nearly everyone, Trump now resembles an elephant in a glass shop, making it crucial for Arab states to rethink their policies — not only toward Israel but also toward its Western supporters, particularly the United States — if they wish to preserve their existence.

Needless to say, successive Israeli policies have inflicted immense suffering on the region — displacing an entire people from their homeland, occupying Arab territories, including Islamic and Christian holy sites, and denying the rights of an ancient people with a history spanning thousands of years. These policies continue to generate further suffering and tragedies, rooted in a supremacist ideology that does not recognise human equality, but rather applies one moral code to the weak while allowing the strong to enforce their own rules as they see fit.

Israel’s attacks on Syria following the collapse of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime and the destruction of its military capabilities were crimes beyond imagination, costing perhaps billions of dollars, under the pretext of “pre-emptive strikes”. Israel has now assumed the right to hold others accountable for mere intentions, as seen in the Iranian nuclear project, granting itself the right to defy all logic and reason so long as it enjoys protection and support from the international community, particularly the United States, which remained silent about these crimes.

Time and again, events have proven what we have long asserted: halting cooperation with Israel, which considers itself above the law, is imperative. This policy of complicity with Israel is dragging the entire world into an endless cycle of violence that could threaten global peace, not just regional stability. The Palestinian cause has always served as a mirror for the world to see itself, yet the world has persistently chosen to turn away in favour of its own interests.

February 12, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gaza Under Siege: Aid Cut off as US President Trump’s Remarks Threaten Ceasefire

Al-Manar | February 11, 2025

As the drained Gaza Strip faces severe restrictions on humanitarian aid, including the blocking of vital fuel supplies, US President Donald Trump’s recent statements add further tension to an already volatile situation.

An article in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper describes Trump’s recent statements and interventions as ‘tempting fate’, warning that they could derail the ceasefire agreement in Gaza and disrupt the prisoner exchange process.

Zionist analyst Amos Harel, writing for Haaretz, refers to Trump as an “unpredictable force” whose actions risk intensifying the crisis. Trump’s call for the release of prisoners in a single batch, diverging from the previously agreed incremental approach, represents a radical shift in negotiations that could have dangerous consequences.

While many in the Zionist entity, particularly those supporting the prisoner exchange deal, had placed their hopes on Trump, Harel notes that they now share the “painful frustration” previously felt by critics, especially those from the right-wing factions.

Rising Right-Wing Optimism and Potential Fallout

The article further highlights how right-wing factions in the Zionist entity have embraced Trump’s remarks, seeing them as an opening for Zionist Prime Minister Netanyahu to retract his commitments and take military action against Hamas. However, Harel cautions that such action could lead to the deaths of dozens of prisoners still held in Gaza.

In conclusion, Harel dismisses the right-wing optimism surrounding Trump’s intervention, stressing that military force is unlikely to change Hamas’s stance, particularly as the group has nothing left to lose.

He suggests that Trump’s motivations may include securing a significant regional achievement, such as ending the Gaza conflict, facilitating normalization with the Israeli enemy’s regional neighbors, or even securing a Nobel Peace Prize.

Limited Aid and Severe Shortages

In a blatant escalation of restrictions, Israeli occupation forces have blocked the entry of commercial fuel into Gaza, despite clear stipulations in the humanitarian protocol.

Sources within Gaza confirmed to Al-Jazeera that the occupation has also halted the supply of fuel for essential services, including civil defense and municipal vehicles required for crucial road repairs and debris removal.

Additionally, no commercial fuel has been allowed to enter the enclave, exacerbating the ongoing humanitarian crisis.

The same sources revealed that only around 53,000 tents have been allowed into Gaza out of the agreed 200,000, and none of the 60,000 caravans required for shelter have been delivered. They also noted that only 4 heavy vehicles have been permitted to enter for debris removal and body retrieval, despite the sector’s need for 500 such vehicles.

In addition, the Israeli occupation has prevented the entry of construction materials needed for rebuilding hospitals and civil defense centers. Gaza’s Rashid Street remains closed to vehicles, and crossing checks continue on Salah Al-Din Street following the expiration of the 22-day deadline. No power station equipment has been allowed to enter, hindering repairs and the restoration of the power grid.

February 12, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Revisionist History and Sherman’s War Crimes Sherman

By Wanjiru Njoya  • Mises Wire • 02/07/2025

In his article “Why They Raped, Pillaged, and Plundered,” Tom DiLorenzo reviews the evidence of war crimes in “General William Tecumseh Sherman’s famous ‘march to the sea’ at the end of the War to Prevent Southern Independence,” observing that: “The Lincoln cult – especially its hyper-warmongering neocon branch – has been holding conferences, celebrations, and commemorations [of the march to the sea] while continuing to rewrite history to suit its statist biases.” The dominant historical narratives admire Sherman’s “total war” policies as a corollary of their admiration for Lincoln’s war. Sherman’s war crimes are well-documented, and the aim of this article is not to revisit the evidence of his war crimes but to examine some of the justifications that are often advanced to exonerate Sherman.

The fact that burning civilian towns and homes is a war crime is well understood, and should be obvious to anyone familiar with what Walter Brian Cisco calls the “code of civilized warfare.” In his book, War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, Cisco explains:

Through the centuries, by common consent within what used to be called Christendom, there arose a code of civilized warfare. Though other issues are covered by that term, and despite lapses, it came to be understood that war would be confined to combatants… breaking the code on one side encourages violations by the other, multiplying hatred and bitterness that can only increase the likelihood and intensity of future wars.

Cisco reports that despite this “code of civilized warfare,” some principles of which had been enshrined in the Lieber Code, Sherman insisted that it was necessary to treat civilians in the South as combatants. Cisco explains:

Yet warring against noncombatants came to be the stated policy and deliberate practice of the United States in its subjugation of the Confederacy. Shelling and burning of cities, systematic destruction of entire districts, mass arrests, forced expulsions, wholesale plundering of personal property, even murder all became routine… Abraham Lincoln, the commander in chief with a reputation as micromanager, well knew what was going on and approved.

The Lincoln cult, far from regretting the horrors of that war, continues to view the burning of the South as worthy of celebration. The triumphalist view of Lincoln’s war is reflected in an opinion piece published in the New York Times in 2015, which argued that Sherman’s war crimes were intended “to widen the burden and pain of the war beyond just rebel soldiers to include the civilian supporters of the Confederacy, especially the common folk who filled the ranks of the rebel armies.”

That is depicted as a necessary price to pay to meet Lincoln’s goal of saving the Union: “the March to the Sea reveals the moral ambiguity of war and the extent to which Americans are willing to go when our national existence is at stake.” Sherman himself is exonerated: “the burning of the South Carolina capital was in reality a result of confusion, misjudgment and simple bad luck. It was, in sum, an accident of war.” This moral ambiguity presumes that the morality of war varies according to which side one supports—a blatantly vacuous morality.

Some triumphalists rationalize their celebration of Sherman’s crimes by arguing that war crimes are in some sense “worth it” to bring war to a swift conclusion. David Gordon traces the roots of the view that brutality helps to end war, a view held by people who believe a “humane” war would only drag on needlessly:

As I have already mentioned, the antiwar movement of that time wanted to end war, not make it more humane, and indeed Tolstoy was sometimes tempted to go further. In War and Peace, Prince Andrei suggests that soldiers in battle should act as ruthlessly as possible, for example killing enemy prisoners out of hand. Increasing the horror of war might make it more likely that people would end it. By no means was this view confined to fictional characters; Tolstoy himself was of this opinion, though he later withdrew it, and the great Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz spoke in similar terms. Moyn lists a number of examples, but one should be added as well: General William Sherman, who justified his tactics of wanton destruction with this same argument.

The argument that Sherman’s atrocities were necessary to end the war is also associated with the perception that if a war is just, and is fought for a “righteous cause,” or what is sometimes described as “the right side of history,” it follows that any atrocities committed to advance that cause are also just. Such theories appeal to those who believe the end always justifies the means. That is a convenient ruse deployed in the service of brutal regimes, but in any case, it must also be asked: what “righteous cause” was Sherman engaged in? As DiLorenzo observes, “The reason Lincoln gave for launching a military invasion of the South was to save the Union.” Saving the Union cannot be a righteous cause for wars of aggression. Wars of aggression are always wrong, as a just war is one fought in defense. As for apologists who argue that Sherman should not be blamed for the devastation caused to civilians by his own troops, because he did not specifically order them to pillage, rape, and murder, that too must be rejected. If this argument were accepted, there would be little way of ever holding army officers morally responsible for the outrages committed by their men.

Another version of the “end justifies the means” argument focuses on the abolition of slavery, arguing that the end of slavery is sufficient justification for not being too concerned about the war. This argument ignores the repeated insistence of both Lincoln and Sherman that they were not fighting for abolition of slavery. Both men were perfectly happy for slavery to continue, and only wanted to prevent secession of the Confederate States. Sherman’s views on the inferiority of black people were so well-known that no one could be under the illusion that he was fighting to promote black welfare. According to the New Georgia Encyclopedia:

During the Atlanta campaign of May-September 1864, General Sherman opposed Black enlistment with word and deed. An avowed white supremacist and a reluctant liberator at best, Sherman made no effort to conceal his contempt for African Americans or to disguise the racist dogma behind his opposition to Black soldiers. Such phrases as “niggers and vagabonds,” “niggers and bought recruits,” and “niggers and the refuse of the South” filled his personal letters. Anxious to employ Black workers as laborers, Sherman was determined that the forces under his command would remain exclusively white. On June 3, 1864, he issued Special Field Order No. 16 forbidding recruiting officers to enlist Black soldiers who were employed by the army in any capacity.

Some people argue that even though Sherman repeatedly defended slavery, we should treat that as irrelevant because all that matters is that slavery was, in fact, abolished. So what if Sherman was a “reluctant liberator at best”? Suffice it that liberation followed. They would argue that abolition by itself constitutes an ex post “righteous cause” for the war that can also be attributed to Lincoln and Sherman even though they did not endorse it—they see this as a welcome, albeit unintended, consequence of the war. This argument assumes that slavery would never have ended had the war not happened—an argument that is purely speculative, and makes no attempt to link the war causally to the ending of slavery. For example, it does not explain why other countries in the West were able to end slavery without waging deadly wars.

A final illustration of the abject moral failure of Sherman’s defenders comes from those who now simply ignore the entire war, treating Sherman’s crimes as inconsequential. The New York Times 1619 project, which aims to “reframe American history” as one shaped by slavery, pays scant attention to the reasons for the war or its conduct. Lincoln and Sherman play only a minor role as “white allies” in this version of revisionist history, which asserts that slaves emancipated themselves. Union soldiers are seen as allies of slaves, while Confederate soldiers are cast as enemies of slaves. In this cartoonish view of history, the process of reframing history “requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story.”

Accordingly, it is the activities of black Americans—rather than the Radical Republicans, Lincoln, or Sherman—that are presented as central to the emancipation story. The war is reframed as having been fought by hundreds of thousands of slaves freed from the rebel states by Lincoln’s Emancipation Declaration, who joined the Union army and fought to liberate their brethren still held captive. The justification given for this fictitious framing is that “by acknowledging this shameful history [of slavery], by trying hard to understand its powerful influence on the present, perhaps we can prepare ourselves for a more just future.” But no “just future” can be founded on fairy tales. A just future can only be built on the truth. As David Gordon puts it, “The 1619 Project wants to replace what actually happened with an ideological myth.”

February 12, 2025 Posted by | Book Review, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Ohio Northern Sues Professor Scott Gerber for Defending His Rights in Court

By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | February 9, 2025

Ohio Northern University (ONU) is facing legal battles on multiple fronts after firing Professor Scott Gerber following his outspoken opposition to the school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. The controversy has now escalated into a federal lawsuit, with the university suing Gerber after he took legal action to challenge his dismissal.

Gerber, a tenured professor and longtime critic of ONU’s DEI initiatives, became the subject of an administrative investigation in January 2023. Despite repeated requests, ONU refused to disclose the specific accusations against him. When he was finally informed of his alleged failure to maintain “collegiality,” free speech advocacy group FIRE argued that this charge resembled retaliation for his views on DEI, potentially violating ONU’s commitment to academic freedom.

In April 2023, ONU ordered campus police to remove Gerber from his classroom and escort him to the dean’s office, where he was pressured to resign immediately. Gerber refused, and the university terminated his employment. A state judge later criticized ONU’s “callous disregard for due process” and allowed Gerber’s breach of contract case to proceed to trial, citing the school’s “troubling” lack of justification for his termination.

Instead of addressing concerns raised in court, ONU responded by suing Gerber in federal court on Jan. 20, alleging that his lawsuit was a “perverted” effort to “unleash political retribution” against the university. The lawsuit accuses Gerber of attempting to “manufacture outrage” and claims his legal challenge constitutes an unlawful “abuse of process.”

A key aspect of ONU’s complaint is Gerber’s public statements regarding his firing. The university objects to his writings in The Wall Street Journal and a press release from his attorneys at America First Legal, dismissing them as a “manufactured narrative.” However, Gerber and his legal team maintain that their statements rely on ONU’s own records and policies, which the state court has deemed sufficient to warrant trial.

Critics have condemned ONU’s lawsuit as a classic example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)—a legal tactic intended to silence dissent by burdening individuals with costly litigation. By forcing Gerber to defend himself in federal court while preparing for his state trial, ONU’s actions raise broader concerns about the use of legal intimidation against faculty members.

“Professors should not have to go to court to defend their right to free speech,” said a spokesperson for FIRE. “And universities should not be using litigation to silence their critics.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) notes:

“Disturbingly, the crux of ONU’s complaint rests on Gerber’s protected speech. The university faults Gerber for expressing accurate information about his ordeal in the Wall Street Journal and through a press release published by his attorneys at America First Legal, maligned by ONU as a “manufactured narrative” designed to “manufacture outrage.” Yet Gerber and America First Legal cite the university’s own words and policies to make his case, which a state court has allowed to proceed by rejecting ONU’s efforts to dismiss his claims.”

February 11, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Bigger Than USAID Scandal? Clinton Probe to Expose Gates, Soros and Epstein Links

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 11.02.2025

The fall of the House of Clinton would trigger a domino effect, upending globalist entities like Bilderberg, billionaires such as Bill Gates & George Soros, and their bought politicians worldwide, says Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel.

How Could the Clinton Foundation Probe Expose Globalists?

  • Ortel calls CF the largest unprosecuted fraud. If true, its trustees, executives and donors – both US and foreign – could face IRS and legal probes at home and abroad.
  • Hundreds of billions in grants could be returned to US and foreign governments if fraud is proven, according to the analyst.

What Countries, Entities, and Private Funds Have Donated to the Clintons?

  • Australia, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, the UK, Ukraine and others funded CF, public records show.
  • The largest known donor is UNITAID (WHO), which has sent hundreds of millions more than CF has reported to the IRS since 2006.
  • Other suspicious donors: DFID, AusAID, NORAD and aid agencies from Canada, Ireland and Sweden, Ortel says.
  • Private foundations also funded Clinton frauds. The Gates Foundation has donated since 2005 – while convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein collaborated with Bill Clinton. George Soros is another key donor.

Who Promoted the Clintons’ Globalist Web?

  • Harvard, Yale and Columbia University gave credibility to Clinton charity frauds, Ortel says.
  • Legacy media & publishers boosted Clinton Global Initiative events, ignoring that none were legally registered charities.

Investigation Into the Clinton Charitable Work

  • A full probe into CF and its offshoots is needed ASAP, Ortel says.
  • A 2018 hearing revealed CF owes $2.5 billion to the US government for acting as a foreign agent instead of a nonprofit.
  • But the scandal exceeds $2.5 billion – Bill Clinton used charity as a front, with no honest accounting for AIDS, climate, or Haiti’s missing $10 billion, Ortel concludes.

February 11, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Trump to ‘clean out’ and own Gaza?

Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 9, 2025

I had a conversation with Alexander Mercouris and Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi (advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team) about Trump’s recent comments about ethnically cleansing Gaza and the US seizing ownership over the territory. It is said that Trump should not be taken literally as much of his talk is either a negotiation tactic or he is simply improvising. Trump’s comments could have been aimed to ensure Israeli compliance with the ceasefire, to keep Netanyahu in power, or to have been part of a wider retrenchment strategy as the US must appear strong at a time when it is pulling back and shifting priorities.

February 11, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

USAID and NGOs for Narrative Control and War

By Professor Glenn Diesen | February 10, 2025

President Trump’s decision to cut funding to USAID revealed the extent to which the US government has been financing media, protests and other means to hijack the civil society around the world. In Ukraine, USAID had a key role in toppling President Yanukovych in 2014 and has since financed between 85-90% of Ukrainian media to ensure narrative control. The Georgian Prime Minister has also been warning that Western NGOs have been activated to topple the government and convert Georgia into a second front against Russia. There is also overwhelming evidence that the US government established “non-governmental organisations” (NGOs) since the 1980s that are financed by the US government, staffed with people linked to the US intelligence community, and pursue US geopolitical interests under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights. One of these “NGOs” is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) established by Reagan to take over some of the tasks of the CIA. These organisations are instruments for the US to govern the societies of other nations and pursue regime change when necessary.

Subverting Democracy and Pursuing War

When Zelensky won a landslide victory in the 2019 presidential election on a peace platform, the US activated its NGOs to ensure that Zelensky would reverse and abandon his peace mandate. Zelensky had won 73% of the votes by promising to engage in talks with Donbas, make peace with Russia, and implement the Minsk peace agreement. Furthermore, Zelensky argued in favour of preserving language rights and religious rights to prevent divisions in society. Immediately, protests emerged with NGOs presenting Zelensky’s peace platform as “capitulation”.

One of the US-financed “NGOs” was the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre which had been established allegedly to “promote the development of a self-sufficient Ukrainian state and society”, something I would certainly support. However, this is yet another NGO created by the US to subvert society and prevent peace from breaking out.

The Ukraine Crisis Media Centre threatened Zelensky, and warned him against delivering on his election promises: “As civil society activists, we present a list of ‘red lines not to be crossed’. Should the President cross these red lines, such actions will inevitably lead to political instability in our country and the deterioration of international relations”.[1]

These red lines included “holding a referendum on the negotiations format to be used with the Russian Federation and on the principles for a peaceful settlement”; conducting negotiations without the Western states; “making concessions to the detriment of national interests”; failing to implement the security and defence policies of the former government; “delaying, sabotaging, or rejecting the strategic course for EU and NATO membership”; “initiating any actions that might contribute to the reduction or lifting of sanctions against the aggressor state by Ukraine’s international partners”; attempting to review the language law or supporting the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine; “ignoring dialogue with civil society” etc. Simply put, the peace platform supported by the overwhelming majority of the population or the NGOs would make sure Zelensky was also ousted from power.

This threat from the US-financed NGO was countered with death threats from US-financed far-right groups. Zelensky eventually abandoned the peace mandate, ignored the Minsk peace agreement and fell in line with US policy.

The donors to the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre that financed the cancellation of Zelensky’s peace mandate include USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the US embassy, and various Nordic governments. On the list of donors is also The Institute for Statecraft, the discredited organisation behind the Integrity Initiative, which was caught in the covert operations of creating “clusters” of loyal politicians, journalists and academics to manufacture the impression of an established consensus to control the narrative. The integrity initiative was also working with UK intelligence agencies to target dissent in politics and the media.

My Encounter with these “NGOs”

USAID, NED and other NGOs also operate in countries allied with the US to prevent dissent and preserve bloc discipline. The Ukraine Crisis Media Centre wrote an entire article smearing me in its project of “shady horses of Russian propaganda”, which listed false accusations such as being a “defender of Russia’s aggression”. The evidence for the absurd accusations included conversations with Professor John Mearsheimer and former US Senator Ron Paul, which are labelled Kremlin “mouthpieces”.[2] The Norwegian government (my own government) is also listed as a donor to this project of intimidation and smears.

The US foreign ministry, the National Endowment for Democracy, and my own government also finance the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, another “human rights NGO”, which has pursued a project of systematic intimidation against me for the past 4 years. Their tactics against me include regular smear pieces in the media, almost weekly tweets labelling me a propagandist for Russia, letters and phone calls to the head of my university to end my position as a professor, calls on other academics to go against me, efforts to cancel me from events where I have been invited to speak, etc. After successfully whipping up hatred in the public, the police advised me to hide my address and phone number. At this point, an employee at the Norwegian Helsinki Committee published a picture of my house on social media. These are the activities that my own government finances under the guise of supporting an “NGO” that promotes democracy and human rights. In response to the purge of academic freedom, I am now in the process of acquiring another citizenship to relocate to a country where civil society is not outsourced to fake NGOs pushing war propaganda and censorship.

What was my great crime? I have been deeply critical of NATO’s policies towards Ukraine since the NGO-backed “Orange Revolution” in 2004. For years I criticised the efforts to pull Ukraine into NATO’s orbit when only a small minority of Ukrainians wanted to join the military alliance, and NATO was aware it would likely trigger a war. I criticised the EU’s rejection of Ukraine’s proposal for a trilateral EU-Ukraine-Russia agreement in 2013 that would have made Ukraine a bridge rather than a frontline. I warned that the NGO-backed toppling of Yanukovych in 2014 would result in Russia’s seizing Crimea and war. For 7 years, I insisted that sabotaging the Minsk peace agreement would result in a military solution to the conflict. Since 2022, I have argued that the sabotage of the Istanbul peace agreement and the boycott of all diplomacy and negotiations would result in Russia destroying Ukraine in a war of attrition. From my perspective, these are pro-Ukrainian arguments that would have preserved Ukrainian sovereignty, territory and lives.

The people who advocated for the policies that created this disaster have a monopoly on the media, and all dissent is crushed with smears, censorship and cancellation. We have more newspapers than I can count, yet they all write the same thing and cite the same “NGOs”. Even now, it is still considered controversial and suspicious to argue for peace negotiations, even as the majority of Ukrainians want negotiations, the war has been lost, and Ukraine suffers greatly with the loss of men and territory every day. Criticism of the NATO war narratives is not met with counterarguments, rather it is met only with accusations of having evil intentions, being “controversial” and “pro-Russian”, legitimising the invasion, not caring about Ukrainians, spreading propaganda etc. These crude and pathetic attacks do not have to be substantiated as the assault on free speech and academic freedom are always wrapped in moralistic language and claims about defending democracy.

Everything I have argued played out as predicted, including why the sanctions were destined to fail. I can confidently argue why my analyses have been correct and why my policy recommendations would have prevented this disaster. However, I do not live in an open society with the free exchange of ideas. I live in a society where government-sponsored smears, censorship and cancellation are permitted as long as an NGO is used as a middleman.

[1] Joint statement by civil society representatives on the first political steps of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky | UACRISIS.ORG

[2] Kremlin Shady Horse’s: Glenn Diesen – Russian propaganda aligned rhetoric, defender of Russia’s aggression, blames NATO for expansionism | UACRISIS.ORG

February 10, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

Trump claims US will ‘buy and own’ Gaza, says Palestinians have ‘no alternative’

The Cradle | February 10, 2025

US President Donald Trump said he is “committed to buying and owning” the Gaza Strip and expelling the two million Palestinians living there, amid condemnation from Palestinians and the UN.

“I’m committed to buying and owning Gaza. As far as us rebuilding it, we may give it to other states in the Middle East to build sections of it. Other people may do it through our auspices. But we’re committed to owning it, taking it, and making sure that Hamas doesn’t move back,” Trump said while speaking to reporters during a flight on Air Force One on 9 February.

Trump did not explain who he would buy Gaza from or how the US would own it.

“There’s nothing to move back into. The place is a demolition site … The remainder will be demolished … But we’ll make it into a very good site for future development by somebody,” the US president declared.

Trump promised to “take care of the Palestinians.”

He said, “We’re going to make sure they live beautifully and in harmony and peace and that they’re not murdered … They don’t want to go back to Gaza. They only go back because they have no alternative.”

Trump did not mention who might murder Palestinians or why they might not have an alternative to return to their lands and destroyed homes.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s proposal as “revolutionary and creative” despite the plan being met with severe international backlash.

Israel relentlessly bombed Gaza for 15 months, killing at least 48,000 Palestinians, before the ceasefire went into effect on 19 January. Some estimates suggest Israeli forces may have killed over 200,000 Palestinians, largely with the help of US-supplied bombs.

As part of the so-called Generals’ Plan beginning in October, Israeli forces attempted for several months to besiege, starve, and bomb hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in north Gaza to forcibly expel them to the strip’s south.

Trump stated that people from all over the world would be able to move to Gaza, adding that he might allow regional countries to be involved in rebuilding parts of the territory and that he would make sure the Palestinian refugees would “live beautifully.”

The US president’s political allies in Israel, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and former national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir, openly advocate ethnically cleansing Gaza of Palestinians, confiscating the strip’s land, and relocating Jewish settlers there.

Both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the resistance movement Hamas condemned Trump’s plan.

“The rights of our people and our land are not for sale, exchange or bargaining,” the PA Foreign Ministry said, adding that “The Israeli government and Prime Minister Netanyahu are trying to cover up the crimes of genocide, forced displacement, and annexation which they have committed against our people.”

Hamas political official Izzat al-Rishq affirmed that “Gaza is not a property to be sold and bought. It is an integral part of our occupied Palestinian land.”

The UN Human Rights Office warned that any forcible transfer in, or deportation of, people from occupied territory was strictly prohibited under international law.

US voters are also skeptical of Trump’s plan. A CBS poll showed that 47 percent of US citizens believe that US control of the Gaza Strip is a “bad idea,” only 13 percent think it is a good idea, and 40 percent say they are not sure.

Trump also told journalists while flying on Air Force One that he was “losing patience” with the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas after seeing footage of the resistance movement releasing Israeli captives over the weekend.

“They look like Holocaust survivors. They were in horrible condition. They were emaciated … I don’t know how much longer we can take that … at some point, we’re going to lose our patience.”

At the same time, freed Palestinian prisoner Sami Jaradat told Anadolu Agency that he and other Palestinian prisoners were terrorized and subjected to humiliation, severe beatings, and deliberate starvation.

“I have lost more than 30 kilograms of my weight,” Jaradat said.

Palestinian prisoners and detainees are also often tortured and raped by their Israeli captors.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) alleges that Prime Minister Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant have committed war crimes by using starvation as a weapon against Palestinians.

The ICC issued arrest warrants for the Israeli leaders in November, who imposed a “total siege” on Gaza at the beginning of the war in October 2023, blocking food, water, and fuel from entering the enclave.

February 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Spending 5% of GDP on military now would be absolutely nuts

By Marcus Stanley | Responsible Statecraft | January 24, 2025

As a brand new Congress and administration settles in, the groundwork is being laid for a historic increase in military spending that could lead to catastrophic implications for the federal budget.

Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), the new head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is calling for a $120 billion hike over the next two years, and other key Republicans are calling for an increase of up to $200 billion. This follows a rise of some $160 billion over the four years of the Biden Administration.

But the accounting of annual dollar figures amid the technicalities of the budget reconciliation process today is perhaps less important than the conceptual and practical sea change in the long term approach to military budgeting being planned. Sen. Wicker is advocating setting a new floor for military spending at 5% of the national economy – a scheme apparently endorsed by President Donald Trump at Davos yesterday when he called for “all NATO nations” (presumably including the United States) to spend at least 5% of GDP on defense.

The implications of spending at least 5% of the entire national economy on the military each year are striking. The first is the sheer dollar figures involved. In 2024, a 5% floor would have led to approximately $1.45 trillion in military spending as opposed to the actual level of $886 billion — a difference of over $550 billion or some 60%.

That level of spending won’t happen overnight. The scale of the increase implied by a 5% floor is such that it can’t be accommodated in one or even two to three years. The additional funds are so great that the entire U.S. military-industrial complex would need to be scaled up to absorb them. But the long-run budgetary implications of such an increase are extremely concerning.

In recent work for the Quincy Institute, Steve Kosiak, a former senior White House defense budget official, projects that by 2034 a 5% of GDP floor on military spending would lead to an almost 90% increase in real (inflation adjusted) spending as compared to the current path for Pentagon spending.

A sustained expansion in military spending of this size would have a tremendous impact on the ability of the government to pursue other national priorities. This is especially true since the Trump Administration also appears committed to a major tax cut (far larger than any new revenues brought in by potential tariffs).

As Kosiak’s work documents, the combination of a massive boost in Pentagon spending and tax breaks would require either major cuts in central entitlement programs like social security or health care, or a long-term explosion in the Federal debt to levels two to three times the highest levels ever previously recorded. While it’s become fashionable to claim that “deficits don’t matter,” expanding the Federal debt to such unprecedented levels carries significant risks to economic growth.

Besides the implications for spending and deficits, a commitment to spend at least 5% of national economic production on the military would change the essential nature of military budgeting. Instead of setting the budget by assessing actual concrete needs for national defense — a process that already leads to a significant degree of waste and abuse— a spending floor would require spending to mechanically increase as the size of the economy grows, regardless of documented military needs.

The effect would be like a “military tax” on the U.S. economy, requiring a nickel of each additional dollar of production to go to the Pentagon.

The policy would also have significant effects globally, as it would tend to hard-wire an arms race dynamic into the world economy. With the U.S. and close allies increasing military spending each year as their economies grew, U.S. rivals would also feel pressure to spend more in order to keep up. Global military expenditures, already at the highest levels ever recorded, would likely spiral upward. This in turn would feed the U.S. justification for continuing to increase military spending.

While rivals that are significantly poorer than we are, such as Russia, Iran, or North Korea, would certainly feel stress to their economy in trying to keep up with our spending, a wealthier manufacturing power like China has a great deal of ability to boost military spending in response to a U.S. buildup. Estimates of Chinese military spending vary, but are generally at around 2% of GDP, leaving substantial room for growth.

At various times, when the economy was much smaller, the U.S. has certainly spent more than 5% of GDP on the military. But today, this would represent a much higher absolute level of military expenditure. More importantly, it is not necessary to actually defend the American public or secure vital national interests.

Sen. Wicker’s defense spending plan claims that the U.S. confronts “the most dangerous threat environment since WW2” due to facing an “axis of aggressors” that includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. It claims that America needs to budget for fighting at least two active and protracted wars simultaneously, one to defeat China and another to defeat a second aggressor in another part of the world, while maintaining additional military forces in reserve to intimidate other potential aggressors.

Further, it insists that during such a conflict we must assume that America could not rely on effective military assistance from its alliance network.

Rather than assuming that it is necessary to prepare for this terrifying and extreme scenario of an isolated America fighting a two-front global war against multiple nuclear powers, we should ask whether it can be averted by less risky and expensive means than almost doubling our military budget over the next decade.

The decision to prepare for a “nuclear WW3” scenario would require major economic sacrifices for the entire American population. Unfortunately, it appears that many in Washington wish to take us in this direction.

Marcus Stanley is the Director of Studies at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Prior to joining the Quincy Institute, he spent a decade at Americans for Financial Reform. He has a PhD in public policy from Harvard, with a focus on economics.

February 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | | Leave a comment

Blocking Iran’s oil exports unattainable dream: Minister

Press TV – February 9, 2025

Iran’s Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad has said that the United States will never achieve its dream of cutting Iran’s oil exports to zero as touted by its new president Donald Trump.

“Blocking Iran’s oil exports is an unattainable dream,” said Paknejad on Sunday while reacting to Trump’s recent signing of an executive order to impose maximum pressure on Iran’s oil industry.

He insisted that Iran will always come up with solutions to circumvent US bans on its oil exports.

“The more the restrictions increase, the more complicated our solutions will be,” said the minister, adding that the experts and staff working in the Iranian petroleum industry have the capacities to deal with problems caused by US sanctions to the country’s production and exports of oil.

He said the US once experienced the futility of its maximum pressure policy on Iran during Trump’s first term in office in 2016-2020.

“They want to test it one more time and they will fail again,” said the minister.

The comments came several days after Trump announced he would use Washington’s unilateral regime of sanctions to disrupt Iran’s oil flows to markets in Asia and elsewhere.

Trump enacted a first round of sanctions on Iran’s oil exports in 2018, causing the country’s oil exports to drop for a brief period in late 2019 and in early 2020.

However, Iranian oil exports have gradually returned to pre-sanctions levels in recent years with estimates suggesting that the country is shipping more than 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil, mostly to customers in China.

That comes as Iran’s oil exports had reached as low as 0.3 million bpd in 2019 when Trump removed sanction waivers granted to major Iranian oil customers.

February 10, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Senior Ansar Allah official on why Yemen fought for Gaza

The Grayzone | February 9, 2025

Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, welcome back to the Gray Zone. The Gaza ceasefire has finally been achieved after 15 months of gruesome fighting. And Western commentators, many of them referred to Ansar Allah as mad or insane for its refusal to back down in the face of U.S. and U.K. and Israeli airstrikes.

And to end its blockade of the Red Sea, its naval blockade. Why was Ansar Allah willing to risk so much to attempt to force a ceasefire in Gaza? And was the price worth it?

In the name of God, the most merciful, we in the Ansarullah movement act based on religious and moral principles, not agendas or self-interest.

That is why we were prepared to make every sacrifice to defend the oppressed in Gaza. We successfully pressured the US and the Zionist entity, ultimately leading to a ceasefire. Our operations became the most significant leverage for the Palestinian resistance. Without them, I feared the Palestinian people would have suffered even greater losses and the war would still be ongoing today. Yemen has endured immense suffering due to American and British policies. The price we paid was heavy, but it is insignificant compared to our duty toward Hamza. Our ultimate goal is to help establish a global order based on justice for all peoples of the world.

Many in the Gaza Strip, after the ceasefire was declared, profusely thanked Ansar Allah and the people of Yemen. That was the first party that they thanked, as well as Abu Abaydah, the spokesman for the Al Qasem Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas. What message do you want to send back to them?

We consider what we did a moral, religious and humanitarian act. We consider the Palestinian people the first line of defense for the Arab and Muslim nations, as well as the nations of all those who are oppressed given the sacrifices they have made in the pursuit of justice.

For that reason, they are more deserving of gratitude than we are. They are confronting a global alliance of oppression and injustice.

Israel lobby-connected think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said last October that the Houthis are stronger, more technically proficient, and more prominent members of the axis of resistance than they were at the war’s outset. At the same time, the U.S. government, Tel Aviv, Even Riyadh, Doha have said that the axis of resistance as a whole has been significantly weakened by Israeli attacks. So what is your message to them? Is the axis of resistance still intact? What’s your message to those who say it’s been defeated?

Al-Khan al-Sahyuni wa-Hulafaa.

The Zionist entity and its allies failed to achieve their objectives. The Hamas movement not only endures, but has grown more popular than ever. Not just in Palestine, but across the Arab and Muslim world. Additionally, global awareness has increased significantly. The Zionist entity is built on lies and deception and its defeat in the arena of public opinion is a major blow. Yemen’s military operations inflicted significant costs on the US and its allies by draining financial resources, undermining the security of the entity and weakening the credibility of their military presence in the region. the american navy despite its overwhelming strength was forced to yield to us as a result the losses suffered by global zionism and its allies far outweigh those of the axis of resistance while syria was a significant loss for the axis the zionist alliance has suffered even more especially in the battle of global awareness.

Well, we’ll get to the issue of Syria, but first I want to ask you, what did you do when Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced his intention, the intention of the Israeli military, to assassinate the leadership of Ansar Allah, including Abdul Malik al-Houthi and yourself? You appeared on a public Israeli kill list.

What did you do and do you believe Israel still has the intention to assassinate you and other leaders of Ansar Allah?

We have made it clear to the US and the Zionist entity that we are ready for modernism. Our message has also been clear that any targeting of leadership in Yemen will be met in an equal retaliation, whether that be in the US, the UK or in the entity. We are serious.

If they want this war to become one of assassinated leaders, we are ready. We would advise them to focus on maintaining the ceasefire rather than further escalation of the war. An escalated war and a war of assassinations will not go in their favor. We are ready for all options. The ball is in their court.

The new U.S. President Donald Trump is clearly driven by rabid Zionist forces.

Some of the most extreme forces on the political spectrum in Israel support Donald Trump. which leaves open the possibility of a U.S. war with Iran, which has been Netanyahu’s top objective. Now, if that happens, what will Ansar Allah do? Will you intervene, for example, by opening a front against American Gulf interests, attacking oil facilities, which has been put on the table by other members of the Axis?

First, we are focused on achieving stability in the region. We want peace for the region and the whole world. We will never start a war. We do not believe in pre-emptive strikes even if we know that the Trump administration will escalate. That said, in the case that one member of the Axis is targeted, we will not leave them alone and we will support them exactly like we supported our brothers in Gaza. We consider that the American foreign policy and that of its allies aims to break each member of the resistance individually.

We won’t let that happen. Are you concerned after the devastation of the war and with a new president in Washington, that the plans for the Abraham Accords and normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states could go ahead, could be reignited. And what will be the consequences for Ansar Allah if this takes place and what would you do to prevent it?

We are always advising Arab and Muslim nations not to normalize or design this entity, as this will not be in their own interest. This goes against their duties towards their people in Gaza, especially considering that the Zionist entity is backed by powerful and rich countries. But if the Saudis and the Emiratis continue with further normalization,
we send them nothing but the advice. We will never escalate militarily against them unless they attack us first.

You had warned that Syria was the weakest link in the axis of resistance. How damaging to the axis was the loss of Syria to Mohammad al-Jolani’s NATO-backed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham forces? And why do you think the Syrian government folded so quickly along with its Iranian and Russian allies?

Yes, I had mentioned that Syria was the weakest link. I also advised that the Syrian government should have opened a front against the Zionist entity. That would have made Syria the strongest link. But sadly, the Syrian government made the wrong calculations. The enemies of Syria and the enemies of the resistance were able to focus their efforts on Syria, while the rest of the Axis was preoccupied with its engagements with the United States, the United Kingdom and the Zionist entity. The Syrian army was also struck on many occasions, strikes that went without retaliation, which I believe weakened morale on the army. Also, we can’t forget the massive support that Al Jawlani’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham received from the United States and its allies, and especially Turkey. Al Jolani’s people learned some lessons from their handlers and they pretended to offer amnesty to all their former rivals in Syria. This eased their consolidation of power, but now we are seeing that these initial actions were fake and those who believed them are paying the price.

What does it mean for the Axis to lose an ally like Syria? Does it fundamentally cripple Hezbollah because it loses the land bridge with Iran? Where does the Axis stand today without Syria?

The Syrian front was an important one for the Axis for two reasons. The first, because it was an important path for delivering supplies and arms to the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements. And the second, because it was the last sovereign Arab nation that shared their border with Palestine. No such state exists any longer. Lebanon’s government is not sovereign. Therefore, the loss of Syria cannot be understated.

Still, we must also remember that Syria had become a huge burden on the Axis in the last years. Syria’s loss is not the end of the Axis. The Axis will adjust to this loss. The losses of the Axis, as large as they were, are minute in comparison to the losses of the Americans and their allies.

More close to home in Yemen, Ansar Allah unilaterally released 153 war detainees, detainees from the Yemeni Civil War, in a good faith gesture to your adversaries in the south. This took place obviously in the wake of the ceasefire. So what message are you trying to send to southern Yemen and to the quote-unquote international community?

Our decision to unilaterally release the hostages had nothing to do with Gaza or the ceasefire. In the past, we have done dozens of similar unilateral overtures as a message to all that we aim to turn the page on the practice of hostage-taking on both sides. However, it is evident that our internal opponents did not return the favor.

At the end of the day, we would not have any of their hostages if they did not have any of ours. We strive to turn the page on the practice.

And southern Yemen state media is calling for the purification of the country from the sectarian Houthi militia. They’re using this sort of language. They’re accusing you of all sorts of crimes, of using human shields, pointing fingers. What’s your response to the… to these accusations? And have you considered actually just seceding and declaring independence given the seeming intransigence?

The mercenary leadership in southern Yemen no longer holds a popular mandate, nor does it represent the Yemeni people. They represent our oppressors in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Everyone knows that the Saudis and their allies picked this mercenary government that is represented by Rashad Al Alimi and his leadership council.

They do not in any way represent the interests of the Yemeni people. Therefore, we are not surprised that this is their stance. For us, we still advocate for the unification of Yemen and a political solution that deals with the territorial and political concerns of all parties.

We are open to all solutions that address the interests of all the Yemeni governorates including the southern ones. And we must emphasize that the overwhelming majority of the Yemenis from the southern and eastern governorates are against secession. They equally desire the reunification of the country, especially after what they witnessed in terms of abuses from the militias that are supported from the outside, especially the militias that are controlled by the United Arab Emirates.

The forces of imperialism from Washington to Tel Aviv to the Wahhabi Gulf states are bringing enormous amounts of power down on Ansarallah and Yemen, seeking to dislodge you from power. And these are very powerful forces. Have you considered or undergone any process to reach out to China or Russia or any
other BRIC states to offset the impact of this imperial pressure?

Radical Islamic ideology exists in the world, but it is limited and weak. The problem is that the United Kingdom and the United States supported these radical movements, and on top of them, the Wahhabi movement, that considered all other Muslims infidels. The United Kingdom and then the United States benefited from these radicals.

They weaponized them against their opponents in the Muslim world and the rest of the globe. These radical forces were weaponized against the leftist movements in the Arab world. and the movements of Arab nationalism.

And most recently, they have been weaponized against the members of the axis of resistance in the name of a Sunni versus Shia sectarian war. They were also weaponized against countries that have stood by the Palestinian people historically, such as the USSR, as represented by Russia, and China, and even India.

We have sadly now lost India and its support in the struggle, and it is now one of the strongest allies of the United States and the Zionist entity. The victims of America and her politics are numerous. They include the Russians and the Chinese. Of course, there must be a form of an alliance between them and all the other victims of the United States around the globe, an alliance that could help each withstand the threats, external or internal, imposed by the United States. The United States today is the force that controls radicalism, whether that be by ISIS or Al-Qaeda.

Of course, it controls them indirectly through its Saudi and other Gulf puppets. Still, we emphasize that any alliance between said allies must be built on a strong foundation of humanitarian and ethical grounds. This is a sacred priority for us. And as I mentioned before, according to our military doctrine, we only engage in defensive military action, or military action to support the oppressed. We do not believe in preventative war. There are many shared interests that we can unite for with other nations of the resistance. Still, there are many shared interests that we can unite under with all the other nations that are equally suffering from American policies.

And finally, I asked you this question during our last interview, which took place at a different time in the midst of war. What is your message to the American people at the dawn of the second Trump administration?

My message to the American people and the people of the West in general is that every civilization is built on a set of foundational pillars. And when a civilization loses these pillars, it crumbles. Today, Western civilization is dangerously close to collapse due to its abandonment of many of its moral and ethical foundational values.

The ethical and moral values of the West seem to exclude the Palestinians and deprive them of their rights while excusing all the crimes of the Israelis and offering them no accountability. This is a massive problem for the Western mentality. Also, they must recognize that the peace that will come by way of Trump and his Abraham Accords is not a real peace, but a submission. Every time the West speaks of stability and security, they mean security and stability only for them and their people. We see how the Zionist entity is aiming to achieve a ceasefire for only one side. They want to keep targeting Gaza, the south of Lebanon, and the West Bank with impunity and without a response. That’s why we must all re-examine our moral and humanitarian ideology and worldview. Our ideologies must be built on the foundation that everyone deserves peace, everyone deserves freedom, and everyone deserves human rights. Not human rights, freedom, peace, for some, at the expense of others.

Okay, well, Mohammed Al-Bukhaiti, spokesman for Ansar Allah, thank you for joining us again at the Grey Zone. Best of luck.

Thank you, Max, for all that you do in this fight for the rights of the Palestinian people. We count on voices like yours to achieve real change in the world, in America and in the West.

Absolutely. And I look forward to talking again with you.

February 10, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Report Contradicts Telecom Industry Claim That Wireless Radiation Is Safe

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 6, 2025

The basis for the wireless industry’s claim that radiation is safe for humans is scientifically erroneous, according to the author of a new peer-reviewed scientific report.

Paul Héroux, Ph.D., authored the report, which was published Jan. 30 in Heliyon, one of Elsevier’s journals on its ScienceDirect platform.

Héroux, an associate professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and a medical scientist in McGill University Health Center’s surgery department, has years of experience in physics and electrical engineering.

He is also vice chair of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), a “consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers” who study wireless radiation and make recommendations for wireless radiation exposure guidelines “based on the best peer-reviewed research publications.”

Héroux told The Defender :

“Industry’s most important argument to deny the health impacts of electromagnetic radiation has been that these health effects are impossible based on solid physics, specifically that the radiation is ‘non-ionizing.”

Héroux detailed the scientific faultiness of that argument:

“Ionization by the radiation itself is irrelevant because life processes produce ionization within the body itself.

“In fact, the basic laws of physics (Maxwell’s Equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) together with established biology confirm that health effects of electromagnetic radiation are in fact inevitable, and at levels much lower than those considered safe by industry.”

Dr. Robert Brown, a diagnostic radiologist with more than 30 years of experience and the vice president of Scientific Research and Clinical Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust (EHT), praised Héroux’s report.

Brown said the report “effectively outlines a mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can disrupt the biology of living systems” — even at levels much lower than what’s needed to heat tissues.

Fariha Husain, manager of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program, called the report “groundbreaking.”

“Héroux’s report fundamentally challenges the flawed ‘thermal-only paradigm,’ which falsely claims that non-ionizing radiation — including radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, smart meters and cellphones — can harm biological tissue only via excessive heating,” Husain said.

The report is novel in that it systematically breaks down the flawed industry arguments used to justify the thermal-only paradigm.

“But the truth of the matter is that the harm caused by RF radiation has been known for decades,” Husain said. “Unfortunately, this knowledge has been intentionally suppressed by industry.”

The wireless industry and regulatory agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), contend that harm can occur only at radiation levels high enough to cause tissue heating.

Lawyers with CHD and EHT in 2021 successfully showed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the FCC ignored massive scientific evidence suggesting that RF radiation has negative biological effects at levels currently allowed by the FCC.

CHD and EHT’s historic case alleged that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current RF exposure guidelines — which haven’t been updated since 1996 — adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to RF radiation.

The FCC has yet to comply with the court’s mandate to explain how the agency determined that its current guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against the harmful effects of exposure to wireless radiation.

Studies on dead tissues can’t detect health effects

In the report, Héroux provides a scientific rationale for why biological harm occurs at non-thermal levels of RF radiation.

Brown summarized key parts of that rationale:

“Héroux initially explains the difference in physical distance between redox reactions occurring in inorganic matter and those occurring in living systems. The ongoing processes of glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation require electrons and protons to continually engage long pathways in mitochondria to produce chemical energy from the breakdown of sugars.

“He clearly details why it is this increased distance that makes living systems vulnerable to the effects of non-ionizing radiation.

“I believe Dr. Héroux has presented a compelling case that non-ionizing radiation can impact the path of these charged particles and affect not only the efficiency of energy production in the cell but also increase the production of reactive oxygen species, which can lead to cellular oxidative stress.”

Oxidative stress due to RF radiation exposure has been “clearly documented” in the scientific literature, Brown added.

Héroux said his report also shows that the FCC’s safety assessments of RF radiation failed to consider basic physics in addition to its biological effects.

The current regulatory limits “completely ignore” this science, Husain said. “The expansion of wireless technology is in direct conflict with protecting public health and the environment and it is long overdue for regulators to acknowledge the growing body of evidence and take immediate action to establish safety standards that protect both human health and the environment.”

The report also explains why health effects from non-ionizing radiation cannot be detected in experiments performed on dead tissue.

“No electron transport occurs in dead tissue, regardless of whether or not it is ‘fresh.’” Brown said. “Research performed on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on dead tissue has led to erroneous conclusions in many in vitro scientific studies.”

Scientists call out WHO-funded study for ‘serious flaws’

Héroux published his report just weeks after he and other scientists with ICBE-EMF published a scathing letter to the editor of Environmental International criticizing a recent systematic review funded by the World Health Organization (WHO) that claimed it found no link between cellphone use and brain cancer.

The study — part of a WHO-commissioned series of scientific reviews of the possible health risks of wireless radiation — was available online Aug. 30, 2024, in Environmental International.

In their letter, the IBCE-EMF scientists said the WHO’s study had “serious flaws” that undermined the validity of the study’s conclusions.

“It is dishonest to assure the public that cell phones and wireless radiation are safe based upon such a flawed review,” said Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., in an ICBE-EMF press release.

Moskowitz is director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, and an ICBE-EMF member.

The WHO commissioned 10 systematic reviews on the evidence of the health risks from wireless radiation, according to the ICBE-EMF.

So far, nine have been published. All “suffer from serious methodological problems and seem biased to dismiss the substantial evidence of heart risk reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,” Moskowitz said in a Sept. 30, 2024, presentation.

Once all 10 are published, the WHO plans to use the reviews as the basis for updating its 1993 “Environmental Health Criteria Monograph” on RF-EMF, ICBE-EMF said.

“A monograph is a report which overviews the scientific evidence on biological effects, identifies gaps in knowledge to direct future research and provides information for health authorities and regulatory agencies regarding public health,” according to ICBE-EMF.

In a post on his Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website, Moskowitz noted that all of the WHO’s scientific review teams have one or more ICNIRP members.

ICNIRP, which Moskowitz called a “cartel,” is a German nonprofit that issues RF radiation exposure limits “produced by its own members, their former students and close colleagues.”

According to EHT, ICNIRP is an invite-only group with “deep industry ties” and no oversight.

Scientists in 2020 sent a letter to the WHO’s leadership asking how the research teams were selected but did not receive a response, according to EHT.

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

February 9, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »