The Mecca pact and the limits of a ‘Muslim NATO’
Divergent threats, US ties, and economic interests leave the collective-defense pact’s real purpose open to dispute.
By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | August 13, 2026
The oil-rich Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and Turkiye, which commands NATO’s second-largest army, signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement on Friday, 7 August. The accord arrived as fighting again intensified in Yemen. Days later, the Ansarallah-aligned Yemeni armed forces (YAF) launched ballistic missiles at Marib and the Red Sea port of Mokha, the latest escalation against Saudi-backed forces.
Iran noted the turn toward regional security arrangements, saying it showed a growing recognition that security cannot be guaranteed by foreign powers. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said the accord reflected a rapidly changing understanding of security across the region.
Pakistan welcomed the accord and said the Mecca agreement stipulates that an attack on any member will be treated as an attack on all. Islamabad described it as a major step toward stronger strategic relations, regional security, and cooperation in mutual defense.
Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar called the accord a defensive document that does not target any one country. Posting on X on 9 August, Dar said it remained open to any regional state willing to commit to its founding principles.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan went further, insisting that neither Iran nor any other country was the pact’s designated target. In an online discussion, he also expressed hope that Egypt would eventually join.
Veteran Pakistani diplomat Riffat Masood offered a narrower reading. In a discussion with Saudi-American researcher Dr Hamza al-Kanani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to Iran and Norway said the phrase “an attack on one is an attack on all” applies specifically to external threats.
“It does not have any regional implications, which means that this clause would apply whenever any country signing this agreement came under attack from Israel, the US, or any external force,” she claimed.
Masood added that the article does not cover intra-regional rivalries involving Iran or the YAF.
Egypt was conspicuous by its absence from the Mecca signing ceremony, despite taking part in months of foreign minister-level consultations with the grouping.
Cairo’s apparent disenchantment rests on the belief that the military agreement is driven more by political alignment than deployable defense capability. Egypt retains positive bilateral relations with the three signatories, but is wary of joining a Saudi-led bloc that could narrow its room for maneuver across the region.
“I expect more countries will join this alliance in the future. The alliance may expand beyond the military sphere to encompass economic and strategic dimensions in the future,” Sajjad Azhar, an Islamabad-based analyst, tells The Cradle.
Riyadh looks beyond Washington
Saudi Arabia’s security partnership with Washington dates to the closing years of World War II, when oil and strategic access became bound up with US protection. But Washington’s shift toward competition with China, coupled with its uneven responses to attacks on Persian Gulf partners, has pushed Riyadh to look for additional options.
The September 2019 attack on Abqaiq and Khurais, claimed by the YAF, temporarily knocked out around half of Saudi oil production. Washington did not retaliate militarily, despite US and Saudi accusations that Iran was responsible. For Riyadh, the episode exposed the limits of the US security umbrella.
The Hamas-led Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on 7 October 2023, and the regional war that followed added to Saudi concerns. Those concerns deepened after Israel’s September 2025 attack on Doha, which targeted Hamas negotiators in the capital of a US-allied Gulf state. Eight days later, Riyadh signed a bilateral defense pact with Pakistan.
The US-Israeli war on Iran launched on 28 February 2026 further exposed Arab states to retaliation without providing them with any clear say over Washington’s war aims. According to Azhar, the conflict reinforced the sense that reliance on a single external guarantor had become increasingly dangerous:
“The attacks launched by Tehran and its allies, including the Houthis [YAF] and Iraqi Shia armed organizations [PMU], against Saudi Arabia changed the situation. In this perspective, an end to recurring Iranian threats seems to have been the main strategic purpose behind the new alliance.”
Collective defense, undefined obligations
At the signing ceremony, the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, and Pakistan displayed copies of the Mecca agreement, but its full provisions have not been made public. Beyond the collective-defense formula contained in the joint statement, analysts still lack details on command structures, activation procedures, force commitments, and the geographical reach of the pact.
Dr Muqtedar Khan, a US-based analyst and professor at the University of Delaware, tells The Cradle that the pact rests on two pillars: a collective-defense commitment and joint deterrence and defense cooperation. The first treats an armed attack against one of the three states as an attack against all three.
“This sets up a mutual-defense duty that is similar to NATO’s Article 5, but the details about how quickly and strongly they will respond are mostly unclear,” he says. The second pillar, he adds, resembles the bilateral Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement signed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan last year.
Khan says the Mecca accord marks an important step in the region’s security evolution, showing how middle powers are seeking greater autonomy and a wider range of partnerships instead of relying almost entirely on the US:
“While it is premature to label it a fully fledged ‘Muslim NATO,’ the pact creates a new framework for collective deterrence and defense cooperation among three of the most consequential Sunni-majority states.”
Its durability and effectiveness, he says, will ultimately depend on how the parties define an “attack,” what each is prepared to do when the commitment is tested, and whether other countries join.
“For now, it functions as both a political signal of reduced dependence on external patrons and a practical platform for deeper military collaboration,” Khan says.
A pact made with Washington’s blessing?
Washington’s public response to the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement has been notably restrained.
For some observers, the pact signals that US partners want to diversify their security arrangements after a succession of regional crises exposed the limits of depending on one external guarantor.
Others argue that, if the agreement produces stronger missile defense, maritime patrols, and a wider sharing of regional security burdens, it could advance Washington’s stated goals rather than threaten them.
The pact may therefore loosen exclusive dependence on the US without displacing the vast American military architecture already embedded in the region.
Retired Pakistani diplomat Abdul Basit, who served as high commissioner to India and as Foreign Office spokesperson, argued in a television interview that the trilateral agreement had Washington’s backing.
“Without US consent, these three regional actors could not succeed in creating a trilateral defense mechanism that challenges the US’s hegemonic security apparatus in the region,” he argued.
Other analysts likewise see an implicit US role in the creation of a large regional force whose likely purpose is not confrontation with Israel but containment of Iranian influence.
Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Islamabad-based Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), tells The Cradle that Washington’s lack of opposition suggests the coalition was formed with at least tacit US approval and a clear assurance that it would not be directed against Israel:
“This alliance doesn’t significantly deter Iran from attacking US bases in Saudi Arabia. Iran is not attacking these countries but only hitting the US bases wherever they exist. As long as these bases remain there, Iran will continue targeting them in one way or another.”
Three states, three threat maps
The pact is also burdened by conflicting threat perceptions. Pakistan and Turkiye are unlikely to enter a direct clash with Israel while maintaining close strategic ties with Washington. This has fed suspicions that the bloc was established with US backing precisely because it does not challenge the regional red lines enforced by Washington.
Gul says the alliance is no uncomplicated marriage. Its central ambiguity remains unresolved: is it primarily a political declaration, or does it impose binding military obligations on its members?
“The three countries have different threat assessments and priorities. Pakistan’s focus is mostly on India and Afghanistan, but Turkiye or Saudi Arabia will not build deterrence for Israel or India due to their strategic and commercial interests. For Saudi Arabia, the emphasis is on maintaining stability in the Gulf area and promoting economic diversification. Turkiye is seeking to sell its military hardware, even though it has obligations as a NATO member.”
Pakistan and Turkiye also stand to gain financially from the pact as both manage strained economies. Turkiye has found a lucrative regional market for drones and aircraft, while Pakistan secures badly needed Saudi financing.
In August 2023, Saudi Arabia signed a record $3 billion deal with the Turkish defense firm Baykar to procure Bayraktar Akinci unmanned combat aerial vehicles (drones).
Saudi Arabia also committed a fresh $3 billion support package to Pakistan. The funding came in addition to $5 billion in Saudi deposits previously placed with Pakistan and extended through 2028. The new support helped Islamabad repay roughly $3.5 billion owed to the UAE later that month.
“The public relations advantages for Pakistan are evident, but only time will reveal whether the alliance will yield any financial benefits that trickle down to the poor masses,” Gul remarks.
For now, the Mecca pact’s signatories have announced collective defense without revealing who would command it, which threats would activate it, or what each capital would actually risk for the others.
Until those questions are answered, the Mecca pact remains more a declaration of intent than a functioning military alliance.
UK withholds files on Israeli firm accused of meddling in Scottish election, citing national security
MEMO | August 12, 2026
The UK government has refused to release information relating to an Israeli influence firm accused of interfering in Scotland’s parliamentary election, invoking national security and warning that disclosure could damage Britain’s relations with other countries, according to a report by The National.
The Scottish newspaper reported that the Cabinet Office withheld all material requested under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation concerning BlackCore, an Israeli firm linked by France’s foreign interference watchdog to an alleged digital influence operation targeting Scottish First Minister John Swinney and the Scottish National Party (SNP).
The controversy follows findings by Viginum, France’s service for protection against foreign digital interference, which said in June that it had identified BlackCore-linked operations affecting elections in Scotland, France, New York City, Angola and Togo.
In Scotland, Viginum identified the “mobilisation of at least 256 accounts” which posted around 1,400 comments, primarily targeting Swinney, the SNP and the Scottish Government. Of those, 652 targeted Swinney personally, according to the French investigation.
BlackCore removed its online presence after being publicly identified, while the identity of those behind the alleged campaign has not been established publicly.
Following the revelations, The National reported that it submitted identical FOI requests to the UK and Scottish governments seeking “any correspondence (including emails and letters) mentioning the French government agency Viginum and discussing its findings regarding alleged Israeli-linked influence operations affecting Scotland or Scottish elections”.
The UK government initially delayed its response, telling the newspaper: “We have established that your request engages Section 24 of the [FOI] act, which relates to information that must not to be disclosed in order to safeguard national security.”
The Cabinet Office subsequently refused to release any of the requested information, citing national security as well as the need to protect relations with foreign governments.
According to The National, officials said that withholding the documents was necessary to “avoid giving offence to other nations and retain the trust of our international partners”.
The Cabinet Office stated: “We have weighed these public interests against a very strong public interest in safeguarding national security. It is important that this sensitive information is protected, as disclosure of information would damage national security. This interest could only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.
“Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we have determined that the balance of the public interest favours withholding this information.”
The refusal leaves unanswered questions over what the UK government knew about the alleged Israeli-linked operation, when it became aware of it and what action officials took before or after the Scottish election.
The Scottish Government also withheld some documents on national security grounds but, unlike Westminster, released other correspondence, according to The National.
Scottish ministers and officials are thought to have learned about BlackCore through media reports rather than receiving advance warning from the UK government or security agencies.
In one email released under the request, an official wrote: “You might not have seen this (both [REDACTED] and I only had sight this morning) but, given the link to the recent Scottish Elections, I thought it best you were sighted.”
Revealing that details of the influence campaign were passed on to First Minister John Swinney, John Webster, principal private secretary to the first minister, said: “I have shared this with FM – anticipating that he will want to understand more about this report, what we/UKG and security apparatus know/knew about it, and what actions remedial and future / proactive are being taken.”
Other correspondence showed Scotland’s Europe Minister Stephen Gethins requesting a letter to the UK defence secretary concerning “the Israeli tech firm accused of targeting FM”.
One document said: “This is an update on action taken in response to the report by Viginum, the French Disinformation Service.” The substance of that update was redacted on national security grounds.
Scottish Greens co-leader Gillian Mackay described the allegations as potentially a serious attack on Scottish democracy.
“These allegations of meddling in elections from BlackCore represent a potentially extremely serious attack on Scotland’s democracy,” Mackay told The National.
“It is also deeply concerning to see reports that the Scottish Government appears to have learned about them through the press, while the UK Government is refusing to disclose what it knew on grounds of national security and international relations.
“The public deserves to know whether warnings were missed before polling day, and what action has been taken since. All governments should do their part to provide clear assurances that Scotland’s democratic processes are being protected.”
New Book Reveals How The Israel Lobby Destroyed U.S. Diplomacy With Iran
Eli Clifton and Ian Lustick Reveal How The Israel Lobby Paved The Way For A U.S. War On Iran
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | August 11, 2026
Investigative journalist Eli Clifton and political scientist Ian Lustick have released a detailed history of the Israel lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy titled “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”.
The book contains a detailed history of the Israel lobby’s influence over various U.S. administrations going back to its creation.
Among the book’s most interesting revelations is how the Israel Lobby pushed anti-Iran propaganda in the United States in order to destroy U.S. diplomacy with Iran.
This campaign- the book noted- began when the Obama administration was negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, aka the JCPOA.
The authors note that Israel Lobby groups attempted to end the deal with Iran, writing “The Republican Jewish Coalition, whose board included Sheldon Adelson and Home Depot cofounder Bernie Marcus, immediately attacked Obama as ‘misguided’ and ‘giving cheer to Tehran’s rogue regime and causing alarm among our friends in the region, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and most other Gulf States.’”
The Republican Jewish Coalition, the book noted, was joined by other Zionist lobby groups, such as The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) in trying to prevent U.S. diplomacy with Iran.
The authors wrote, “The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a heavy promoter of the Iraq War and the Global War on Terror before that, followed suit the next day, opposing the proposed deal as ‘a gamble on Western optimism.’ It was joined by a shadowy pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). ‘Tonight’s events are a disappointment for those of us who have worked to pressure Iran’s economy and impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran—the same sanctions that brought the regime to the negotiating table,’ its statement said. ‘Those touting this agreement do not appear to understand the fragility of sanctions, or the dangers of rolling them back and easing the economic pressure on Iran.’”
These groups, the book noted, were “funded by a small, overlapping set of donors with deep ties to Israel”.
United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) it noted, “according to a 2013 document, received $500,000 from the Adelsons that year alone. Another $843,000 was contributed by a series of trusts controlled by billionaire precious metals speculator Thomas Kaplan, a citizen of the United States, France, the Republic of the Seychelles, and the United Arab Emirates, and his wife, Daphne Recanati, the daughter of Israeli financier Leon Recanati.”
The book noted that Thomas Kaplan told former Israeli Prime Minister and Jeffery Epstein’s Israeli handler Ehud Barak that “A nuclear Iran ‘represents a psychological threat that will have untold consequences on the Israeli economy and population flows’” in a leaked email.
As for the FDD, the book noted that it was “formed originally in 2001 as Emet (‘Truth’ in Hebrew) with a mission that included ‘provid[ing] education to enhance Israel’s image in North America.’ That name and mission, while submitted to the IRS in its founding documents, was nowhere to be found on its website. By the time the JCPOA debate was occurring, the group had also removed evidence of its advocacy for the Iraq War. Articles with statements including ‘that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction cannot be seriously doubted’ and language claiming ‘we know Saddam Hussein is making weapons of mass destruction’ were long removed, focusing attention on the alleged threat posed by Iran instead. Al Jazeera hidden cameras captured Sima Vaknin-Gil, the director general of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, speaking in blunt terms about Israel’s relationship with the FDD. ‘We have FDD. We have others working on’ projects including ‘data gathering, working on activist organizations, money trail,’ said Vaknin-Gil to an audience of American pro-Israel advocates in 2016. ‘This is something that only a country, with its resources, can do the best’”.
The Israel Lobby cutout, the book noted, “wasn’t just a producer of research papers and op-eds advocating against the JCPOA and for more sanctions and military threats against Iran. It also served as an important element of an echo chamber informing the public and Congress about Middle East policy,” noting that, “In an eighteen-month period preceding and immediately following the signing of the JCPOA in 2015, FDD staff and fellows provided congressional testimony opposing the deal seventeen times.”
The FDD was also primarily funded by Israel’s first billionaire donors, the book noted, writing “a misfiled document revealed that Bernie Marcus contributed $10.7 million, Paul Singer contributed $3.6 million, and Sheldon Adelson contributed $1.5 million in a five-year period ending in 2011. The three men were the three largest donors to the FDD in that time frame, the only period in which the group’s top donors have been disclosed.”
Meanwhile, the book documented how AIPAC’s messaging became more explicitly anti-Iran.
In 2010, the book noted, “AIPAC-contracted telemarketers were directed to say: ‘Iran is rejecting international calls to end its nuclear pursuit.’”
It added, “By 2014, the emphasis had shifted to warning about Iranian president Rouhani’s diplomatic engagement with US and European diplomats. The script read: ‘Regional dangers continue to grow for Israel. In Iran, President Rouhani’s rhetoric continues to charm world leaders, while the regime has not slowed its nuclear pursuits.’”
This was ramped up further in the following years.
The book noted that, “the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon continued to appear in AIPAC’s fundraising scripts even as the group worked against the JCPOA—a joint agreement with the US and other world leaders that sought to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment with verifiable safeguards and put in place provisions to extend Iran’s breakout time to produce enough highly enriched uranium or plutonium for a nuclear weapon from two to three months to one year or more” with the 2015 AIPAC script reading, “Iran continues to pose a grave threat of attaining a nuclear weapons capability”.
The book added that, “After the signing of the JCPOA in 2015, the fundraising scripts became even more vivid in the violence and existential threats described and either ignored or stood in direct opposition to the foreign policy agenda undertaken by the Obama administration. The 2016 script read: ‘… and Iran continues to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking the U.S.’”
The authors added that, “Iran had not in fact developed such a missile”.
While the Zionist lobby did not initially get its way on the Iran deal, the book documents how the lobby made inroads with the Trump 2016 campaign, eventually getting him to rip up the deal.
The book meticulously documented how Trump in 2016 changed his platform after massive funding from pro-Israel donors.
“ (Sheldon) Adelson told reporters that Trump ‘will be good for Israel.’ Trump’s support for Israel was not mentioned in Adelson’s endorsement of Trump later that month in a Washington Post op-ed. But he once again acknowledged the centrality of US policy in the Middle East as a driving motivation for his political engagement, characterizing himself as ‘hawkish on Israel’ and having ‘waged battles’ over the Iran nuclear deal, ‘an issue of paramount importance to me personally and to many others around the world.’ In an email sent to fellow Republican Jewish leaders, Adelson urged them to support the presumptive nominee, saying he was convinced Trump would be a ‘tremendous president when it comes to the safety and security of Israel.’”, the book noted.
The book noted how Trump changed his 2016 platform after major donations from the Israel Lobby, writing, “The Adelsons and Marcus quickly came around, donating $25 million and $7 million, respectively, to support Trump’s general election candidacy. That flow of support from the pro-Israel billionaires came alongside a flurry of movement from the campaign to bring Trump’s platform in line with that of his new biggest donors. Just before the July GOP convention and Trump’s formal nomination, the Republican Platform Committee unanimously omitted any reference to a two-state solution from the party’s Israel planks. Trump met with Netanyahu in September and promised that, if elected president, he would ‘recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel.’ The campaign reported that Trump agreed with Netanyahu that peace between Israelis and Palestinians required ‘the Palestinians [to] renounce hatred and violence and accept Israel as a Jewish State.’ Six days before the election, Trump’s ‘Israel Advisory Committee’ published a position paper proposing a break from the Israel policy of previous Republican and Democratic administrations, celebrating ‘the unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel’ based on ‘shared values of democracy, freedom of speech, respect for minorities, cherishing life, and the opportunity for all citizens to pursue their dreams.’”
The book added, “As for ‘never Trump’ pro-Israel donors who held out on endorsing Trump, even Paul Singer, who had warned that Trump’s policies would lead to a ‘widespread global depression,’ ultimately made amends with the new president-elect. Singer donated $1 million to the president-elect’s inaugural committee.”
Trump, during his first term, enacted every policy these pro Israel donors demanded, including by ripping up the Iran deal, the book noted, writing, “Trump, in his first term, enacted a series of wish-list items for Israel, including a unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and, at the repeated urging of the Adelsons, the promised move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.” (Emphasis: Mine)
The destruction of U.S. diplomacy with Iran, bought by Zionist donors like Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Bernie Marcus and Paul Singer, eventually led to the U.S. war on Iran for Israel.
By Normalizing Ties With Israel, Delcy Rodriguez Betrays The Bolivarian Revolution
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | August 11, 2026
Delcy Rodriguez, the “interim president” of Venezuela installed by the United States after kidnapping President Nicolas Maduro, is destroying and spitting in the face of the political revolution started by Hugo Chavez’s election in 1999, dubbed the Bolivarian Revolution after Simon Bolivar.
Anti-imperialism was always at the forefront of Hugo Chavez’s and Nicolas Maduro’s agenda, first and foremost, solidarity with the Palestinians suffering under Israeli occupation.
In 2009, after Israel’s bombardment in Gaza dubbed Operation Cast Lead, which killed 1,400 Palestinians – including 300 children, and which a UN inquiry called “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population”, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez severed “ties with Israel in protest against its war in the Gaza Strip”, with Chavez saying, “Venezuela … has decided to break off diplomatic relations with the state of Israel given the inhumane persecution of the Palestinian people”.
Throughout his presidency, Chavez continued to end all diplomatic relations with Israel and stood by the besieged Palestinians, saying in 2009, “It is not that the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians. They are doing it openly. Remember the last Israeli aggression against Gaza. What is it if not genocide? I think that’s hard to believe. It was a savage attack against an innocent people. The Israelis were seeking an excuse to exterminate the Palestinians. I think we must condemn this aggression and impose sanctions against Israel”.
This solidarity was continued by his successor, Nicolas Maduro, who, as the Miriam Adelson-funded Israel Hayom newspaper complained, “continued the anti-Israeli line with even more intensity.”
Palestine was such an important cause for Maduro that he shouted “long live free Palestine!” as he cast his vote in the 2024 election.
Even as Trump was ramping up his campaign to kidnap Nicolas Maduro, he reiterated his support for the Palestinian cause in November of 2025, saying, “We will not abandon this sacred cause until the ultimate goal is achieved: Palestine will rise, free and independent. We will only reach real peace when justice is served for the crimes and genocide committed. Only then can we begin to recover from the rubble and devastation”.
For this reason, Israel – increasingly trying to spread its influence in South America – supported the U.S. regime change campaign in Venezuela.
Middle East Eye noted in 2019 that “Israel wants to see Maduro overthrown in Venezuela,” noting that “Solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for self-determination was at its height during the Chavez years up until today, with the leadership making outspoken criticism of Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. Venezuela severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009 over its military campaign in Gaza”.
As Israel Hayom complained, “Venezuela, which previously maintained warm relations with Israel and even purchased security technologies from it, became a center of hostile propaganda toward Zionism and the Jewish state”.
Israel made connections with the CIA asset in the Venezuelan opposition, Maria Corina Machado, because, as Israel Hayom boasted, she “promises to change her country’s attitude toward Israel from one extreme to another, and doesn’t hide her sympathy toward us. In recent years, she spoke about her intention to establish Venezuela’s embassy location in Jerusalem and stood with the Jewish state after the October 7 massacre, while Maduro supported Hamas”.
Israel, however, seemed to have made the same deal with interim president Delcy Rodriguez.
Israel used the devastating earthquake in Venezuela as a opportunity to get the country to abandon it’s long held solidarity with the Palestinians, sending IDF militants to the country under the guise of helping rebuild from the devastation caused by the earthquake, who were welcomed and even praised by Delcy Rodriguez.
Benjamin Netanyahu praised the delegation for carrying out a “rare strategic objective by assisting an estranged government” with the goal of “restoring relationships”.
The Israeli newspaper Ynet boasted that “The dispatch of the Israeli delegation has already created a kind of diplomatic breakthrough, including the first phone call in years between a senior Venezuelan official and a senior Israeli representative. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil spoke with the head of the Israeli aid mission, Yoed Magen, Israel’s designated ambassador to Mexico, who also handles the Venezuela portfolio at the Foreign Ministry”.
Venezuela’s chief Rabbi, Yitzhak Cohen, who played a large role in bringing the Israeli delegation to Venezuela, hoped that this would lead to normalization of ties between Israel and Venezuela, saying, “We offered the president of Venezuela the possibility of having the Israeli delegation come to assist in the disaster. She gladly accepted our assistance and gave all the necessary approvals for the delegation’s arrival. This was the first step. Although there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries, Israel took a wonderful step by providing humanitarian aid to Venezuela …We hope, and are almost certain, that this will move another step forward. There is no doubt that this was a moving gesture”.
Venezuelan political scientist Carlos Eduardo Pina argued that these moves were done to appease Israel and its lobby in the U.S., writing, “Maria Corina Machado, the leading opposition figure and Rodriguez’s main rival, has built a strong alliance with Israel over the years, especially with Prime Minister Netanyahu. If Rodriguez can win Netanyahu over at Machado’s expense, Machado could lose one of her most important sources of support, both internationally and in Washington, where pro-Israel lobbying networks hold significant influence. To this end, Rodriguez has adopted increasingly Israel-friendly positions while courting sectors of Venezuela’s Jewish community with strong ties to Israel”.
Israel’s goals seem to have succeeded in Venezuela, with the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela releasing a statement saying:
The Governments of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the State of Israel announce that, following the visit of the Israeli humanitarian delegation to Venezuela in response to the double earthquake that occurred on June 24, and in follow-up to discussions held between high-ranking officials of both countries, the two nations have agreed to allow the continuation of bilateral technical cooperation stemming from the emergency and recovery efforts following the double earthquake. Furthermore, the two nations agree to establish a coordination mechanism to facilitate the provision of consular services to their respective citizens residing in the other country, as needed. Both governments recognize the importance of the bond between the State of Israel and the Jewish community residing in Venezuela, which constitutes a significant historical bridge of friendship between the two countries.
Venezuelanalysis reported that this statement came after a meeting between Venezuelan foreign minister Félix Plasencia and Yitzhak Cohen, where Cohen “requested that Venezuela reestablish diplomatic ties with Israel.”
While Chavez cut off diplomatic relations with Israel over its 2009 slaughter in Gaza, Delcy Rodriguez had taken the first steps to normalize relations with Israel, and it continues its genocide in Gaza, expansion in the West Bank, and ethnic cleansing of Lebanon.
Israel seems to have gotten exactly what it wanted by supporting regime change in Venezuela.
Given Chávez and Maduro’s long-standing solidarity with Palestine, it is hard to see these moves as anything but a betrayal of the Bolivarian revolution.
Israeli ‘double-tap’ strike targets rescuers in Nabatieh
Al Mayadeen | August 11, 2026
An Israeli drone strike on the city of Nabatieh wounded two civilians, the Emergency Operations Center of Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health announced.
The strike was carried out in two successive rounds, with the second targeting an ambulance team from the Islamic Health Authority, Islamic Message Scouts Association, and other medical personnel that had arrived at the scene to evacuate the wounded. The strike damaged an ambulance.
The Ministry renewed its condemnation of the continued Israeli targeting of ambulance crews, describing it as an unacceptable violation of international humanitarian law and all international norms.
Lebanese health authorities have reported multiple “double-tap” and “triple-tap” Israeli airstrikes targeting emergency medical and civil defense crews in southern Lebanon. The secondary and tertiary strikes reportedly hit rescuers as they arrived at the scene to evacuate and treat people wounded in earlier attacks.
Israeli strikes targeted Nabatieh, other areas in southern Lebanon
Earlier today, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported that Israeli occupation forces carried out a powerful mass demolition in the town of Majdal Zoun, southern Lebanon.
The IOF also dropped explosive materials on the al-Dabsha area in the Nabatieh district, causing raging fires.
Meanwhile, an Israeli drone reportedly dropped explosive and incendiary materials near the University District on the outskirts of Kfar Rumman.
The town of Zawtar al-Sharqiyah was also subjected to intermittent artillery fire, alongside machine-gun fire from invading Israeli units toward residential areas. At dawn, Israeli artillery shelled Wadi al-Hujeir and the Ali al-Taher Heights.
This comes amid continued Israeli attacks across southern Lebanon, including the demolition and destruction of homes, the leveling of cemeteries, the burning of wooded areas, as well as artillery shelling and drone strikes.
The Israeli aggression has persisted despite a framework agreement and direct negotiations between the Israeli occupation and Lebanese governments.
Israeli Shin Bet ‘Disappears’ Russian-Israeli Historian Who Was Critical Of Zionism
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | August 10, 2026
The Israeli Shin Bet has apparently forcibly disappeared Artyom Kirpichonok, a Russia-based historian with Israeli citizenship who has been critical of Zionism.
According to friends of Kirpichonok, “Kirpichonok arrived in Israel last week on a flight from Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, to attend an event to which he had been invited. After landing, however, he did not contact any of them and has not been heard from since. Reports indicate he arrived at Ben Gurion Airport from Yerevan on Aug. 2.”
Ynet noted that, he , “was born in St. Petersburg and immigrated to Israel in the 1990s. He graduated from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and returned to live in Russia about 15 years after moving to Israel. He later adopted a strongly critical stance toward Israel and frequently wrote against the country and Zionism.”
Apparently, Artyom Kirpichonok’s disappearance was due to an arbitrary arrest and detention by the Israeli Shin Bet.
The former Russian lawmaker Daria Mitina alleged that “Our worst fears have been confirmed… Artem Ivanovich Kirpichenok is in prison, in the hands of the Israeli secret police Shabak”.
One friend and colleague of Artyom Kirpichonok, Nika Dubrovsky, wrote in Counterpunch that “What we know is that he was arrested by the Shin Bet, Israel’s secret police. There has been no contact with him since. There has been no official reason for his detention.”
According to Dubrovsky, “On August 2nd, Kirpichenko landed in Tel Aviv. A lawyer hired by his friends has since confirmed that he is being held by the Shin Bet — Israel’s internal security service” adding , “it’s so obvious he posed no danger to the authorities whatsoever: he wasn’t a member of any party, he never took any practical action on anything — partly because he was an extremely impractical person.
His only crime was his opinion on various political questions. A thoughtcrime, in other words: ‘the essential crime that contained all others in itself,’ as Orwell wrote.”
She added that many had attacked his blog posts critical of Israel, including “Ukrainian and Russian expats, former Soviet citizens living in Israel, who apparently couldn’t leave his blog alone”.
The researcher Volodymyr Ishchenko raised the possibility that Artyom Kirpichonok was even lured to Tel Aviv by the Shin Bet under the guise of a “fake invitation to an event”.
What is clear is that the Israeli Shin Bet disappeared a historian with Israeli citizenship simply because he was critical of Zionism.
Israel is going all out to stop Turkey from getting F-35s
Despite the pressure, President Trump seems to be moving closer to approving Ankara’s reentry into the fighter jet program
By Fatih Kocaibiş | Responsible Statecraft | August 10, 2026
For the first time in years, Washington is discussing Turkey’s return to the F-35 program as a serious possibility.
At the NATO summit in Ankara last month, President Donald Trump said he would lift the CAATSA sanctions that the U.S. imposed on Turkey after Ankara purchased Russian S-400 missile defense systems in 2019. Trump added that he was “certainly” considering restoring Turkey’s access to the F-35 program, which was also suspended at the time..
Notably, a separate sale of American engines for Turkey’s domestic KAAN fighter jet has advanced through congressional review. Ankara is also reportedly exploring the transfer of its S-400 batteries to a Gulf state, a step Washington has demanded for years.
But the Russian system is no longer the only source of resistance. Israel argues that Turkish F-35s would, in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s words, “destroy the power balance” in the region. The phrase invokes Israel’s “qualitative military edge,” a provision in U.S. law according to which Washington cannot sell weapons to Middle Eastern states if those arms would give them capabilities on par with Israel’s own weaponry.
Yet these rules have never been formally applied to Turkey, which is, after all, a U.S. treaty ally. What is being tested is thus not only an arms sale, but whether Israel’s claim to regional primacy can restrict American policy toward a NATO ally.
How Turkey was pushed out
Turkey’s search for a long-range air defence system predates the crisis by a decade. In 2009, the Obama administration approved a sale of Patriot missile defense munitions to Turkey, but the deal broke down over questions of price, technology transfer and local production. Ankara turned to a Chinese system in 2013, cancelled it in 2015, and signed with Moscow in 2017. A late American offer in 2018 came too late to reverse the Russian deal, and the first S-400 components arrived in July 2019.
But the S-400 decision was never simply the product of a failed arms negotiation. When Turkey downed a Russian jet in November 2015, it became the first NATO member to do so since the 1950s. As pressure from Moscow mounted, Ankara had to face it largely alone. The withdrawal of American and German Patriot batteries that same winter, even though armed groups in Syria still posed a threat, hardened Turkey’s sense of exposure.
The July 2016 coup attempt turned mistrust into a political rupture, particularly given that Fethullah Gülen, who Turkish authorities accused of orchestrating the coup, was living in the United States at the time.
Russia exploited the opening, filling Turkey’s defense gap while widening the rift with its NATO allies. Turkish officials justified the purchase as an urgent requirement.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gave it a second meaning. The real issue, he said, was not to the S-400 but to Turkey acting on its own will. Elsewhere he refused to retreat, saying Turkey was “not a slave.” Repeated at rallies, Erdogan’s rallying cry about the missile defense system turned it into an emblem of strategic autonomy, making the purchase as hard to reverse politically as militarily.
This has now become a political liability for Erdogan. In Turkey today, commentators and the main opposition describe the purchase as an act of stubbornness — one that left the S-400 rusting in a hangar and wasted the $1.5 billion Turkey had already paid for the F-35 program.
Turkey remains the only participant expelled after paying in, and the six aircraft it financed were never delivered. Its air force depends on an aging F-16 fleet, with Eurofighter Typhoons serving as a stopgap. The domestic KAAN fighter is the long-term answer, but its first batch is set to fly using American F110 engines under a $700 million sale that drew organized opposition in Congress before clearing review in July.
How Israel built a case against Turkey’s return
Within 72 hours of the Ankara summit, Netanyahu took his objections to three American networks, arguing that Erdoğan was “not a friend” and could not be trusted.
The centerpiece of Israel’s case against Turkey was a remark by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. Asked on CNN Türk whether Turkey was among Israel’s targets, the foreign minister said Israel had become a problem for the world and that, with these policies and this mindset, “these men have become a burden that humanity can no longer bear.” The reference to “these policies” and “this mindset” pointed to the Netanyahu government, and the same judgment about Israel’s isolation has surfaced in European capitals and at senior levels of the U.S. administration, from Trump to Vice President JD Vance.
But Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar recast the remark as dehumanizing Jews and calling for Israel’s erasure, and this framing became the dominant account in Israeli commentary. Netanyahu carried it further on Fox, telling American viewers that Fidan had said the Jewish state must basically be wiped out.
The framing slotted Turkey into an existing category, the state that denies Israel’s right to exist. But that is the language of Iranian state rhetoric, repeated by senior officials and inscribed on missiles. Turkey has never pursued such a policy; in fact, it supports a two-state solution and has recognized Israel diplomatically since 1949. Yet Israeli leaders, eager to drive a wedge into Ankara’s relationship with Washington, appear determined to cast Turkey as the next Iran.
Balance for whom?
The most revealing element of Netanyahu’s argument was his definition of the regional balance. By telling Washington that Turkish F-35s would “destroy the power balance,” he equated regional stability with continued Israeli superiority. Israel operates 48 F-35s and is contracted for 100, while Ankara’s immediate effort centers on the six aircraft it already paid for. Turkey’s return to the program would not erase Israel’s advantage; rather, it would modestly narrow an asymmetric order built around Israeli air power and freedom of action.
Israel’s concerns about Turkey are difficult to reconcile with Tel Aviv’s own increasingly preventive and attack-oriented doctrine. While Israeli officials like Netanyahu frame Turkish F-35s as evidence of “aggressive aspirations,” Israeli aircraft have struck targets in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Qatar, and Gaza. In Ankara, this is seen as hypocrisy; Netanyahu’s “balance” is, in this reading, less about mutual restraint and more about preserving Israel’s air superiority and freedom to strike.
Nor are the objections unique to Turkey. Since 2008, American law has required arms sales to Middle Eastern states be certified as preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge, a standard Israel has invoked against countries including Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Nor is this only the position of Netanyahu. Naftali Bennett, his top rival in the coming election, told CNN that Israel cannot allow its Turkish “enemies” such advanced weaponry.
But applying the qualitative military edge doctrine to Turkey does not make sense for U.S. interests. Ankara is not a Middle Eastern buyer seeking parity with Israel but a NATO member whose air force anchors the alliance’s southeastern defense, and its deterrent capacity is a European security question as much as a Middle Eastern one. Extending an Israeli veto over what Washington sells its own allies would put that doctrine in direct tension with NATO’s requirements.
Israel’s concern extends beyond the military effect of a stronger Turkish air force. Despite his best efforts, Netanyahu is unlikely to easily reverse Trump’s broader opening to Ankara. By appointing his longtime associate Tom Barrack as ambassador there, Trump opened a new phase in Turkish-American relations. As Trump said when asked about Netanyahu’s opposition to giving F-35s to Turkey, “nobody tells me what we should be selling or not.”
Unless Ankara takes a step that directly threatens Israel’s security — an unlikely scenario — Trump has little incentive to abandon a relationship he finds useful. That relationship, more than the aircraft, is what Israel is working to prevent.
Fatih Kocaibis is a Turkey-based journalist and political analyst covering U.S. foreign policy, transatlantic relations, and European security, and their implications for Turkish foreign policy.
Malaysia seizes ‘Israel’-bound cargo container violating export bans
Al Mayadeen | August 10, 2026
Malaysian authorities have intercepted a shipping container at the Port of Tanjung Pelepas in Johor over suspicions that its cargo was intended for export to “Israel” in breach of the country’s trade restrictions, local media reported.
The Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency (AKPS) carried out the operation on Friday after receiving intelligence concerning the shipment, prompting officers to inspect the container.
According to a statement cited by Berita Harian, initial findings suggested that the shipment may have violated Malaysia’s customs regulations governing exports to “Israel”.
“Based on preliminary checks, the shipment is suspected of not complying with Item No 15, Second Schedule, Customs (Prohibition on Export) Order 2023, which provides for the prohibition of direct or indirect export of goods to ‘Israel’,” AKPS stated.
Authorities are now seeking to determine the exact nature and specifications of the cargo, its intended purpose, and how it should be legally classified.
The investigation will also examine whether the shipment contains strategic goods falling under Malaysia’s Strategic Trade Act, which regulates exports of sensitive and dual-use items.
“Any attempt to export goods directly or indirectly to ‘Israel’ that is against the law and government regulations will be dealt with strictly,” the agency added.
Anwar praises enforcement action
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim welcomed the seizure, saying it reflected Kuala Lumpur’s determination to prevent Malaysian territory and infrastructure from facilitating trade that could benefit “Israel”.
“Congratulations to AKPS for the swift action in seizing a container suspected of carrying strategic trade cargo intended for export to ‘Israel’ at the Port of Tanjung Pelepas,” Anwar wrote on X. “This action demonstrates Malaysia’s firm stance to ensure that our country will never serve as a conduit for trade that could support or contribute to the Israeli regime’s atrocities against the Palestinian people.”
The prime minister said the move was consistent with measures Malaysia introduced in December 2023, as well as with its commitments as a member of The Hague Group.
Malaysia’s earlier measures included barring vessels owned by the Israeli shipping company Zim from docking at its ports, prohibiting Israeli-flagged ships from entering Malaysian waters, and preventing vessels headed for “Israel” from loading cargo at Malaysian ports.
The latest case indicates that enforcement is extending beyond restrictions targeting particular ships or maritime operators to include individual shipments suspected of reaching “Israel” through direct or indirect trade routes.
The Hague Group welcomes seizure
The Hague Group, a coalition of states seeking to prevent transfers of weapons, ammunition, military fuel, military equipment, and dual-use goods to “Israel”, also welcomed the Malaysian authorities’ action.
The group said the interception represented practical implementation of states’ international legal obligations, pointing to the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 Advisory Opinion and UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24.
Those measures, according to the group, require states not to provide aid or assistance that contributes to maintaining the unlawful situation arising from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
“The defence of humanity is won at ports, courts, and factories, not from the podium. Law that goes unenforced is no law at all,” said Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla, Executive Secretary of The Hague Group. “By halting this cargo, Malaysia has upheld the obligations that bind every UN member state under international law. We invite all states to join The Hague Group and do the same.”
The contents of the seized container and its ultimate destination have not yet been formally established, with Malaysian authorities saying the investigation remains ongoing.
Netanyahu rejects Trump’s post-genocide 15-point plan for Gaza
Press TV – August 9, 2026
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel has rejected US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace 15-point plan and will not withdraw forces from the territory until the Palestinian resistance group Hamas fully disarms.
“Israel rejects the 15-point document,” Netanyahu said at a cabinet meeting on Sunday, referring to a US-backed Gaza peace plan.
The Israeli army “will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is genuinely disarmed and will continue to thwart threats against our forces”, he added.
“And when I say disarm Hamas, that means heavy weapons, less-heavy weapons, all weapons. And we are talking about real disarmament, not a fictitious disarmament,” Netanyahu said.
This comes days after the US-backed board made Israeli withdrawal from the blockaded Palestinian territory conditional on Hamas’s complete disarmament, in a move that runs counter to the terms of last year’s agreement, even as Israel has yet to fulfill its own withdrawal commitments.
In a statement last week, the board said Israeli forces would not withdraw beyond the so-called “Yellow Line” until the Palestinian resistance movement had fully completed the decommissioning of its weapons.
Meanwhile, Hamas on Sunday reaffirmed its commitment to a roadmap agreed upon with mediators and the Board of Peace to complete the second phase of the plan for Gaza.
In a statement, the Palestinian movement said it remains serious about “responsibly engaging” in the implementation of the 15-point plan and establishing a clear timetable for its execution.
“The priority at this stage must be to ensure the implementation of all phases and obligations of the agreement,” Hamas said.
The group added that the process should lead to a complete ceasefire, an end to Israeli attacks, the completion of Israel’s withdrawal, the reopening of crossings, the entry of humanitarian aid and shelter supplies, the start of reconstruction, and the enabling of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza to begin its duties.
Hamas called on the mediators, guarantors and the Board of Peace to “shoulder their responsibilities,” ensure that all parties comply with the agreement, and prevent violations that could obstruct its implementation or undermine the ceasefire.
Under last year’s agreement, the “Yellow Line” was designated as the initial withdrawal boundary for Israeli occupying forces, with further pullbacks to take place alongside the gradual decommissioning of resistance weapons.
Israeli forces, however, did not carry out the planned withdrawals. Instead, they continued their military aggression, moved beyond the “Yellow Line” and established permanent military positions after Washington launched the initiative in October 2025.
Meanwhile, the Hamas resistance movement has announced that it would dissolve the emergency committee administering Gaza but declined to disarm its military wing.
Palestinian resistance groups have made clear that surrender is not an option in the face of the US-led effort to reshape Gaza’s future.
Reconstruction has barely begun across most of Gaza, with only a fraction of the estimated $17 billion in pledged funds actually secured. Wealthy donors have largely refused to finance projects in areas still under Israeli control, viewing such efforts as legitimizing the occupation.
Israel has continued to carry out near-daily deadly attacks across the besieged Palestinian strip since agreeing to a ceasefire with Hamas last October.
The Israeli genocide has already killed more than 73,375 Palestinians, wounded over 171,000, and destroyed around 90 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure, according to Gaza authorities.
Since the so-called ceasefire deal was signed, at least 1,250 Palestinians have been killed and another 4,110 injured in Israeli attacks, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 reported on July 4 that Israel could resume a full-scale military offensive in Gaza within two months.
Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani military alliance shaped by fear of Israel, not Iran: Analyst
Press TV – August 9, 2026
Underlying regional calculations behind the new military alliance between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan have been shaped by fear of Israel, not Iran, says an analyst.
Speaking to the Press TV website, Anusar Farooqui, a US-based writer and commentator who is also the founder and CEO of Systematic Portfolios LLC, said the newly signed “Mecca Joint Defense Agreement” is aimed at the Israeli regime.
“The alliance politics of the Sunni Arab powers is driven by fear of Israel, not Iran,” he said.
“The Saudis and especially the Turks are very fearful of Israeli plans,” he added, noting that Israeli discussions about confronting Turkey, including talk of a possible surprise attack intended to cripple the Turkish air force, had contributed to Ankara’s concerns.
The agreement was signed on Friday in Mecca by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
The three countries said an armed attack against any one of them would be regarded as an attack against all, while describing the pact as a means of strengthening collective deterrence and regional stability.
The agreement did not specify the practical obligations of its members. A Turkish official said it was not directed against any particular actor, remained open to other regional countries and did not replace existing bilateral or multilateral arrangements.
Farooqui said the absence of Egypt from the initial agreement was particularly significant.
“The important thing about the announcement is the conspicuous absence of Egypt,” he told the Press TV website, adding that the possibility of a Turkish-Egyptian military pact was central to understanding the regional balance.
“The Egyptian question is paramount: why has it taken a pass,” the analyst asked.
He added that such a pact would represent a much stronger counterweight to Israel and said the United States understood the implications.
“So it seems to have intervened to prevent the nightmare from happening,” he said.
Egypt’s position, however, has not been presented as permanently outside the arrangement. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said Saturday Egypt could eventually join the pact after several technical issues were resolved.
He described Egypt as Ankara’s “natural partner” and said other countries had also expressed interest in joining, although the founding members were still discussing how expansion should be handled.
The new military alliance comes amid US-Israeli destabilizing actions in the region. Since October 2023, Israel has waged a genocidal war on Gaza, invaded southern Lebanon and occupied territory in Syria, while also launching two wars of aggression with the United States against Iran that triggered massive retaliatory strikes against US and Israeli assets in the region.
Meanwhile, the regime’s bellicose agenda has raised concerns about the so-called “Greater Israel” scheme that regards Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories as well as parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon as part of the Zionist entity.
Israeli regime prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in October 2025 that he feels a deep connection to “this vision”, describing it as “a historical and spiritual mission.”
On the other hand, some analysts have linked the growing Turkish-Israeli rivalry to a broader contest over regional influence. Turkey and Israel have maintained diplomatic relations since 1949 and their strategic and commercial ties have survived tense rhetoric.
Yet tensions seem to have intensified recently over Gaza, Syria, energy routes, maritime issues and Ankara’s expanding regional role.
Pakistan’s position has added another dimension to the emerging security alignment.
Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said on Saturday, following the signing of the agreement, that Israel was “a threat to the entire Muslim world” and called for “a united military front” against it, while noting that the regime poses a direct threat to countries across the region.
The broader security environment has also been affected by changes in the US military posture. Washington has reportedly withdrawn warplanes and other military equipment from countries including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates following Iranian retaliatory strikes.
Asked whether the new alliance could eventually contribute to a region without US military presence and with Israel more contained, Farooqui said the current arrangement is insufficient.
“Not without Egypt,” he told the Press TV website. “The Saudi-Turkish-Pakistan pact is mostly for show. By itself, it is not an effective balancing coalition against Israel.”
Featured Video
Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
A short history of British torture
ICC | December 2005
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- NATO-backed Kosovo separatist ‘responsible for war crimes’
- US destroying international space law
- SCO Calls for Binding Global Deal to Prevent Arms Race in Space
- Iran & Its Allies Are Threatening Every Route for Saudi Oil
- ‘40,000 tons of bombs’: Report shows Trump planning ‘largest bomb transfer in modern US history’ to Israel
- Amazon says cloud infrastructure in Bahrain, UAE ‘beyond saving’
- How Europe became an accessory to CIA torture
- Trump says Iran urgently seeks deal, Tehran sets conditions for talks
- The Andean Shadow Army
- Russia Wants to End Ukraine Conflict – Lavrov
- If Americans Knew
- Groups urge Americans to support Van Hollen legislation on Israel’s killing of Americans & Palestinians
- Trump administration plans to send 40,000 tons of bombs to Israel: report
- Sanctions Target Iran’s Government, But Kill Hospitalized 23-Year-Old Woman
- An alternative view on the book “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”
- Ed Sheeran’s band Beoga, other opening acts quit tour after Macklemore was dropped over his pro-Palestinian comments
- The assassination attempt on President Trump in Butler and the various Israeli connections to it
- “We Want That the Whole Land Be Jewish”
- BREAKING: Building collapse in Gaza kills at least 20 as they sleep – Daily Update
- ‘School is Life’: 1.5 Million Palestinian Children Face Fourth Year of Shattered Education
- Pentagon admits Iran war caused ammunition shortages, cost US $33.4bn
- No Tricks Zone
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
Aletho News 