Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Lindsey Graham was a monster, but not exceptional

By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | July 12, 2026

Lindsey Graham is dead. And if we were to apply the old Spartan and then Roman adage “about the dead, nothing but the good,” then this is where this text would have to end.

Some readers may find this shocking or unkind. But it is a fact that there is no way to write about the intriguingly sudden end of the long-term US senator from South Carolina in a ‘balanced’ manner and stay honest.

Graham was an almost cartoonishly evil man and since he was also very powerful, his moral depravity made a big difference to the lives of all too many. Downplaying that fact out of misplaced piety would be perverse; it would mean to disrespect the many victims of perfidious and brutal US and, in fact, Israeli policies of vicious violence and outrageous injustice that Graham promoted with every fiber of his being for his whole political life.

During the Gaza genocide, when challenged specifically about the Israeli mass killings of civilians, including women and children, Graham launched into what can only be called a psychopathic rant comparing the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians with American warfare against Germany in Japan in World War II (an intriguing comparison in and of itself, but that is another matter) and drawing the conclusion that Gaza should be flattened, including with nuclear weapons. Gaza has been flattened, and to his dying day, Graham never showed an ounce of compassion for those slaughtered by his Israeli friends and did everything he could to support that slaughter.

That is, of course, also why internationally wanted war criminal – really genocidaire – Benjamin Netanyahu rushed to offer his public condolences.

Speaking of Graham’s obvious subservience to Israel, the senator was, unsurprisingly, also a great fan of going to war with Iran, tirelessly calling for attacking it as violently as possible. He spread the Orwellian lies that Iran was about to pose a nuclear threat to the US and that its ballistic missile arsenal was a tool of reckless aggression, all to produce domestic support for yet another criminal American war. Himself addicted to hiding his foul character behind a bigoted and utterly fake Christian piety, Graham compared Iran’s leaders to Hitler and called them “religious Nazis,” thereby not merely offending brave men towering above him in moral and intellectual terms, but also helping to drum up propaganda for murdering them.

It is an irony of history or, maybe, divine justice that he lived just long enough to see the US follow his insane and corrupt advice and suffer a geopolitically catastrophic defeat for it.

Yet Graham was a monster long before the Gaza Genocide and the US-Israeli war against Iran. He was obsessed with brutalizing as many other countries and societies as possible. He could not see an opportunity for a war and not do his worst to make it happen. Graham’s record of warmongering is so extensive that it is hard to reproduce it in its entirety. Just shortly before his end, he had been calling for more US violence in Cuba, Lebanon, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Yemen – apart, obviously, from his eternal compulsion to scream for, in effect, more dead Palestinians and Iranians.

In true American fashion, if being Graham’s target was terrible, being his ‘friend’ was no better. Ukraine has come to stand for that experience. Even while pretending to be its ardent supporter, Graham was always among those most brutally open about using Ukraine and its people for the geopolitical and commercial interests of the US. He praised opportunities to rob Ukraine of crucial raw materials and he clearly considered pumping money into its ultra-corrupt Zelensky regime a great deal as it produced dead Russians (and, he failed to mention, Ukrainians, too, of course).

There is no other way of putting it. Lindsey Graham was an infernally bad man. And he was a revolting man: his viciousness was glaringly obvious. Graham was not a complicated case, a conflicted character, a man of light and dark. He was among the closest to pure, unadulterated, and shamelessly brazen evil many of us will ever lay eyes on.

That is why it is telling – but not surprising – to see who is lining up to let us know how much they’ll miss him, that they were buddies with him, or what a wonderful person he was. Apart from Netanyahu, for instance, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, NATO’s Trump bellboy Mark Rutte, Ukraine’s authoritarian leader Vladimir Zelensky, and, of course, AIPAC.

What these often abject condolences show is not merely the moral failure – polite term – of those who offer them. There is a more general and, in its way, worse point: Horrible as Graham was, he was also representative of the elites of the US and the West. Normal people would be ashamed to be seen with Graham, dead or alive; Western elites are boasting of their intimacy with him.

Graham was explicit in displaying his genuine, sick joy in inflicting pain and misery on as much of the world as he could. Indeed, one way to describe him would be as an openly, enthusiastically sadistic imperialist. Graham was a depraved pervert of power who let it all hang out. But apart from his lack of filter, he was not an exception but typical.

Graham was the ugly and all too realistic face of much of the West and its leaders in Washington. He is gone, everyone and everything else is still in place.


Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.

July 12, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Islamophobia, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , | Comments Off on Lindsey Graham was a monster, but not exceptional

Rahm Emanuel’s Critique of Israel: Signs of Change or a Desperate Plea?

By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | July 11, 2026

Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s recent address at Tel Aviv University, delivering a sternly worded warning to the Israeli public, has captured a lot of attention. Although it has been interpreted otherwise, the speech was an appeal to strategic moderation and not a signal of fundamental change amongst an element of Washington’s establishment – the context behind his words will explain precisely why.

What Rahm Emanuel said to an audience in Tel Aviv has largely been consumed on social media in the form of short soundbites, thus triggering many to draw various conclusions about a decline in the Democratic Party establishment’s support for Israel. While it is undoubtedly true that the vast majority of Democratic voters do hold unfavorable views of the Israeli government, a trend that has clearly also taken hold amongst American Jews, this is not the conclusion that the likes of Emanuel have drawn.

The most viral clips from his 33-minute address feature the former White House official bluntly outlining just how isolated the Israelis are on the world stage, noting that Tel Aviv has become a global pariah and that as a result the US-Israel relationship itself is at a crossroads. Another key moment was a call for an end to US unconditional aid to Israel.

In its full context, it is blindingly obvious that Emanuel is not expressing his own negative views towards Israel, as he repeatedly makes the point of noting his Zionist credentials, including his own family’s involvement in building the Israeli State. Understanding where he is coming from and what he is getting at is the most important element of the speech, because it grants the viewer an insight into the mindset within the Democratic Party establishment.

A direct criticism of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is offered, yet it is not one that you would most likely hear expressed from the average American democrat, but rather Israeli Labor Party old-timers. He builds upon a narrative that blames Hamas for causing division between Palestinians and Israelis, arguing that the movement’s goal has been to prevent a peaceful settlement. It then goes on to claim that Netanyahu has bolstered the arguments presented by Hamas and fallen into their trap by implementing a violent solution with no day-after plan in Gaza.

This argument is not new; in fact, it is quite outdated. So too is Emanuel’s proposed solution, which involves Israel simply expanding its normalisation agreements with the Arab World in exchange for halting the Greater Israel Project. He does not, however, even call for a viable Palestinian State, something that makes his position less rational than that of Biden administration officials like Antony Blinken.

For reference, former Secretary of State Blinken made a similar call for Israeli moderation during one of his final speeches in 2024, to the Atlantic Council. The Biden Administration official, like Rahm Emanuel, espoused the typical Zionist talking points during the beginning of his speech, later to assume a more sober line that urged the Israelis to pursue diplomacy and moderation, and warned that a refusal to pursue the path of reaching a two-State settlement would mean inevitable disaster.

Emanuel’s solution is to do precisely what the Biden administration did prior to October 7, 2023, in prioritizing Israeli regional integration, while refusing to respect or hear out the calls for Palestinian sovereignty.

Some would then argue that he has assumed a more radical posture through his call for ending the unconditional military aid and not treating Israel as an interdependent, to which the answer is simple: calling for the end of foreign aid to Israel is no longer a radical position; it is simply a tactic.

The Heritage Foundation – regarded as the most influential think tank over the Trump administration – published a policy blueprint for phasing out aid to Israel over a 19-year period in order to make it fully independent. Netanyahu’s own Likud Party has even advocated this policy themselves. It has been recognized by the Israel Lobby in Washington that the dramatic shift in American public support for the Israelis will eventually make it difficult for pro-Israel bills, especially those approving billions in military aid, to pass through Congress in the future.

A solution to this problem has been a proactive push by the Israel Lobby to use its current support in Congress and the Senate to forward a merger of the US and Israeli defense industries. This, therefore, bypasses the issue of requiring favorable votes on foreign aid handouts. The House version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), under the title “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative”, aims to do just this.

One way to interpret Rahm Emanuel’s speech is that the pro-Israel Democratic Party establishment is beginning to sober up to the reality facing Tel Aviv. He himself has clearly identified the issue with Israel’s aggressive pursuit of the Greater Israel Project and is arguing for strategic moderation. It is clear desperation. But even in his pursuit to save the Zionist project from itself, his deeply ingrained hatred of Palestinians blinds him from the fact that going back to the pre-October 7 status quo is not going to be Israel’s saving grace.

In other words, he is communicating a failure to recognize that the root of the problem is not Hamas, Netanyahu, or the corruption of the Palestinian Authority, as he claims; it is that the Palestinian people remain Stateless and have now been subjected to a full-scale genocide. If Emanuel was capable of seeing past his own biases, in order to truly pursue a path that could indeed ensure the Zionist project’s longevity, he would be calling for a Palestinian State in the pre-June 1967 borders. That is actually the pro-Israeli solution that could potentially take them off their current trajectory.

At the root of all of this is the US establishment’s inability to see Palestinians as equal human beings. This lies at the core of the Zionist belief system – the idea that it is never Israel’s fault; at best, the Israelis can make mistakes and, in some instances, be equally as liable as the people they are actively annihilating.

There are two competing sides of the pro-Israel Lobby in the United States: one that supports the Greater Israel Project and the other that clings to the ideas espoused by the Israeli Labor Party in the 1990s. The Democratic Party is aligned primarily with the latter, while the former has the most sway with the Republican Party establishment.

Times are changing and what the Israelis have done cannot be undone, so this requires a change. But Rahm Emanuel’s fairytale vision of Israel solving all its problems by halting further settlement expansion in the West Bank in exchange for expanding the circle of normalization is a non-starter.

He blames the Arab nations for refusing to hold the Palestinian leadership to account during the Oslo years, claiming that the solution to Israel’s problems is getting a declaration of normalisation from the Arab League. This indicates that he, and many others around him, are simply stuck in the past. Israel has committed genocide; it has failed to defeat its adversaries and must concede defeat by signing a comprehensive deal/s or keep fighting until its inevitable disintegration. We have long passed the point of no return.


Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Comments Off on Rahm Emanuel’s Critique of Israel: Signs of Change or a Desperate Plea?

Here’s JD: The Unbearable Lightness of VP Vance: A VERY Short Primer

By Ilana Mercer • Unz Review • July 11, 2026

DEVOUTLY AND LOUDLY do various media organs of the establishment—CNN, The War Street Journal, The Hill, Politico or Israel’s Axios—dazzle you with flattering depictions of JD Vance’s foreign-policy stance, almost always based on unnamed sources, which have conveniently slithered out of dank corners, at this point of the election cycle. Experts in untruths, these media tell you that Vance, vice president in the Trump regime, has all-along roared about foreign-policy restraint.

If he has, it’s the least leonine roar ever heard in this neck of the woods.

Or, the most “private” political protest ever, as Politico would counter. “Private” is how this particular Deep-State tool dubs VP Vance’s foreign policy bent.

In short, Vance confines his “subversive” murmurs to carefully leaked and curated after-the-fact comments, credited mostly to unnamed sources.

The following facts need to be stated, too:

Juvenile quips from craven politicians like Vance notwithstanding, the United States of America continues to play planet to Israel’s sun. Israel’s genocides in the Levant are Made-in-America. Not once in the course of Israel’s carnage in Gaza, in the West Bank and in Lebanon, all ongoing, have two genocidal administrations, Democrat and Republican, budged in materially directing resources to the missions of mass murder currently conducted by Israel.

America underwrites Israeli evil financially and diplomatically, running diplomatic cover for the Israeli executioners. To that end, the US even sanctions and persecutes countries and individuals who dare disagree with its Israeli deity’s mass murder; dare agitate for justice, or demand that the laws of the land be levied against the Serial Killer State.

The US has even sanctioned judicial and UN officials tasked with investigating the crimes of U.S. or Israeli nationals. “Sanction” is a weasel way to frame America’s theft of their assets, banning of their travel, and restriction of their rights to trade with American business.

In all, Israel remains the holy of holies for American politicians.

With the reverence reserved for that country, VP Vance’s administration has never stopped the Jewish State from en masse execution of civilians and from the eradication of entire communities who refuse to submit to American and Israeli hegemony.

The next fact probably also bears repeating: Not once has JD Vance ever personally conveyed to his constituents a principled objection to the crimes of his administration and for those of Israel. No revulsion or reservations from VP Vance. His most coruscating critique of genocide has amounted to strategically intoning about “Israel’s right to defend itself,” a synonym for the practice of state-sponsored terrorism. From this stupid line, Vance has not strayed.

To hear VP Vance tell it, Israel has a bad hand to play. You know—nudge-nudge, wink-wink—it must deal with the caprices of the People of the region. “A ceasefire in that region of the world just means they’re shooting a little bit less at each other than they were before,” the jocular, pompous Vance told the presstitutes present at a June 18 presser. There, Vance also boasted about sending the Iranian economy into “a freefall,” and causing “a trillion dollars of damage to their industrial base over the last three months.”

Again, I have never heard JD Vance utter a meaningful, principled word in opposition to any depravity, much less Israeli depravity. I have, however, heard Vance echo Trump, the genocidaire. Without demarcation, Vance has blended into an administration that is terrorizing the world financially, economically and militarily. From Greenland, to Latin America to West Asia to Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

Vance should repulse you, down to the garish eyeliner, which only enhances the “degeneracy of manners and morals” he and his administration represent.

With respect to the criminal, collaborative assault on Iran, Vance has been a “servile cheerleader for the war his boss … launched alongside Israel,” as more honest comment has characterized the Vance stance. Throughout Trump’s many ceasefire farces—all a fig leaf for US-Israel resolve to slowly dissolve Iran, and with it the Axis of Resistance—Vance has eagerly played his part, seconding Trump’s venomous genocidal threats against the Islamic Republic, as well as aping Trump’s idiotic atavistic aggression against other countries.

The insubstantial JD Vance might direct stale, totem words of warning toward those Israelis who speak ill of the Butcher of DC, Trump. But, for the Butcher of Tel Aviv Vance reserves the velvet glove: He took care to exempt Bibi from this particular wrongdoing, during the same June 18 presser, where Vance assured the presstitutes present that he speaks regularly with Bibi and has good rapport with him.

Essentially, Vance and Bibi are solid partners in vice.

Nonchalantly, VP Vance might opine, as he has, that Israel “can’t kill its way to security.” But that’s the extent of it. The carefully choreographed dance that American and Israeli “leaders” do for the benefit of the perfect American fools who vote for them continues uninterrupted.

A plurality of Israelis, on the other hand, are tickled pink by Bibi’s genocides in Lebanon and Palestine. As the brilliant Diana Buttu gloomily reported, Israeli political candidates are running on a plank of who can inflict more pain on their barely surviving Palestinian victims.

So don’t be swept to sea again, this time by Vance whom the irremediable corporate media (as well as some in the alternative media, regrettably) is portraying as a strident opponent of the war on Iran and wars for Israel. It’s nonsense on stilts.

What the VP is doing now is what he has done since the auspicious start of his political career:

Vance launched his career with a smug, self-aggrandizing book, in which he slimed his hillbilly relatives, even naming names. The book was very badly received by authentic “hillbillies.” The Establishment, however lapped it up and loved its author. Still does.

During the 2024 campaign, and before he was tapped by Trump, Vance did the same. He made the right noises, ones the voters wanted to hear, against “costly and unsuccessful interventions,” as he put it.

Stoutly strategic, in suiting-up for the 2028 race, Vance has dropped a book about his Catholicism. Nothing if not theologically inventive, the triangulating candidate has coopted his Catholic faith as a reason for his fealty to … Israel.

Israel is another exigency of the moment. Vance is reading the room again. America is just not that keen on Israel any longer—although, sadly for their souls, Americans have yet to turn on the Jewish State completely and altogether.

While opinion of Israel has undeniably plummeted in the US, the “bottom line,” sums Gallup soberly, is that “Americans retain a more positive view of Israel, with 46% viewing it favorably, than of the Palestinian Territories, at 37%”:

‘… Americans still have a more favorable view of Israel, as a country, than of the Palestinian Territories, though views of Israel are among the least favorable Gallup has measured historically. Meanwhile, views of the Palestinian Territories are the most positive to date, albeit still negative overall.’ (Gallup, February 26, 2026)

In all, don’t let your imagination run fevered with respect to Vance. Don’t get played again (and again, and again). When the powers that be, their sub-par publications and their strategists, pool their power to portray JD Vance as something other than what (as opposed to who) he is—one would hope your psychological-warfare antennae begin to transmit robust signals.

The reason I say that Vance is a “what”, not a “who”—that “what” is the better syntactic determiner to attach to VP Vance—is because the VP is a political production, not a real person. A production of the worst pedigree.

Vance is a creation of a tech billionaire PAC, a “tech-aligned super political action committee.”

Vance is the personal creation of Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal. Thiel was/is his mentor. Together, the wild-eyed Thiel and the ugly in-and-out Alex Karp founded, still manage, Palantir Technologies. How intimate are the Israel Genocidal Forces and the “CIA-backed” Palantir?

Conjugally intimate.

If the gateway to the internet is Google, and it is; not even Google—algorithmically set to defend Israel at all costs—can conceal the bonds that bind Palantir to the Serial Killer State’s crimes. Put it this way, Google (an aggregator for Zionism) and pro-Palestine sources are in agreement over the Palantir-IDF connection.

Palantir works closely with the IDF’s notorious Unit 8200, which is comprised of a select group of mama’s boys and girls, who snoop, hack, and assassinate in code and in practice. Unit 8200’s killer AI algorithms both calibrate and codify mass murder into the SS IDF’s military’s legal code. They have given themselves imprimatur to Press Kill on locating a single resistance fighter, amid up to 100 non-combatant family members, friends and neighbor. It’s not in violation of Israeli law. The individual is impugned by the flimsiest evidence.

Instead of in the dock, in the Hague, these computer killers, you should know, are also found in Silicon Valley, Boston’s high-tech corridor, and, presumably, in Washington State’s techno-town. These characters will certainly be coming to a community near you, near me, when JD’s friends and sponsors facilitate the assimilation of this human detritus into our communities, as they flee future International Criminal Court subpoenas.

Israel and Unit 8200 are the face of this global death industry. The SS IDF’s Artificial Intelligence products, out of Unit 8200, have, in particular, perfected the auto-kill computer systems known as “Lavender,” Daddy’s Home, and The Gospel, whose killer code has been applied to Gaza and Lebanon.

Palantir works with Unit 8200, on “war-related missions.” Coward Karp, Thiel’s partner, has proudly spoken of his company as being involved in “crucial operations in Israel.”

In backing Vance, co-founder Thiel and CEO Karp are joined by former tech executive and podcaster David Sacks, an influencer in the Vance orbit. Sacks is close, too, to censor-for-Zionism Elon Musk. Both backed Vance. AI-traders Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz hobnob too in the Vance hood.

Speaking of Google, Vance’s venture capitalism company, Narya Capital, was sponsored by both Thiel and Google’s Eric Schmidt. So, it’s pointless asking Vance to ease up the Google algorithms.

Vance’s Deep Tech billionaire backers are anathema to human flourishing. Theirs is a system of plunder. They are princes who pauper the universe by their deadly fiat pursuits, financial, technocratic, environmental, military. These people and their necro-industries move humanity further away from community, from the locality; from honest industry, from real knowledge and production and into a consumer, bubble-driven technocracy, anchored in illiteracy, gambling, speculation, buying and selling intangible derivative products.

As if American communities are not already distressed; the infrastructure for AI promises to suck the life out of their natural environment, leaving bereft the communities in whose midst these hideous “data centers” are planted. AI Data centers are an assault-on-the-eye and on ethics. Their stratospheric costs as always are socialized; their profits privatized.

As I say, VP Vance is a slick production. The man is a particularly oleaginous political product, astroturf down to the (alleged) rug on his head.

Lest I forget, in his new book Vance cites Charlie Kirk, a mention that was probably focus-group tested. Metaphorically speaking, Vance is boiling the bones of poor murdered Mr. Kirk to make soup. Mr. Kirk is being exploited posthumously to shape discourse in politically advantageous ways.

**********

https://ilanamercersfpvresistance.substack.com

Ilana Mercer, paleolibertarian author, essayist and theorist, has been writing up an anti-war, anti-woke storm since 1998, starting in Canada. On arriving in the US, in 2002, her weekly column was right away syndicated. Mercer’s national syndication fell through shortly after due to writing in strident opposition to the war in Iraq. ILANA is described as “a system-builder. Distilled, her modus operandi has been to methodically apply first principles to the day’s events.” She’s Jewish, grew up in Israel ages five to nineteen, and left, at 19, never to return. She had refused to serve in the IDF, Israel’s compulsory military. Ilana’s focus since October of 2023 has been the genocide. A war against civilians is a war on civilization.

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Comments Off on Here’s JD: The Unbearable Lightness of VP Vance: A VERY Short Primer

IRGC Navy: Strait of Hormuz closed until US ends regional intervention

Press TV – July 11, 2026

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy has announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz “until further notice,” saying the waterway will remain closed until the United States ends its intervention in the region.

In a statement on Saturday, the IRGC Navy said the measure had been taken “in light of the security situation resulting from the unlawful intervention of foreign powers.”

“The Strait of Hormuz has been closed until further notice and will remain closed until the United States ends its intervention in the region. No vessel will be permitted to transit the strait,” the statement said.

Warning against further enemy aggression

The IRGC Navy warned against any additional military aggression against the Islamic Republic under the pretext of the closure of the waterway, for which the enemy, itself, has been responsible.

“Should the aggressor enemy exploit this development, which it, itself, has caused, as a pretext for committing another act of aggression against us, it will be met with a forceful response, and additional enemy bases in the region will be targeted,” the statement added.

It added that responsibility for the consequences would lie with the United States, the Israeli regime, and countries hosting military facilities used for violations against Iran.

Earlier, the IRGC Navy reported having been forced to fire a warning shot at a vessel after several ships ignored its instructions regarding navigation through the strait.

Describing the incident involving the trespassing vessel, the force said the ship had switched off its onboard systems, therefore, posing a threat to maritime safety.

The force, meanwhile, reminded how it had previously warned that “foreign interference and unlawful designation of shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz would prompt a decisive response from us and disrupt the increasing volume of maritime traffic through the strait.”

Iran shut down the chokepoint to enemies and their allies after February 28, when the US and the Israeli regime began their latest bout of wholesale unprovoked aggression against the Islamic Republic.

It began exercising far stricter controls after Donald Trump announced continuation of an illegal naval blockade of Iranian vessels and ports in spite of a ceasefire that the US president, himself, had declared on April 7.

In May, Iran officially launched a new mechanism for governing maritime traffic through the strategic strait, with the Islamic Republic warning vessels against refusing to coordinate their pending transits with Iranian authorities and using routes other than the supervisory management zone defined by Tehran.

In June, Iran and the United States reached an understanding aimed at ending the cycle arising from the unprovoked aggression. Washington then alleged to have lifted the blockade, but would still continue military interference in the waterway.

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on IRGC Navy: Strait of Hormuz closed until US ends regional intervention

Ro Khanna says Israeli settlers held US delegation in West Bank

Al Mayadeen | July 11, 2026

US Democratic Representative Ro Khanna said armed Israeli settlers prevented his delegation from leaving a Palestinian area in the occupied West Bank, an incident he said exposed the realities of Israeli occupation and settler violence.

Khanna, who is considering seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, told Reuters that settlers carrying US-manufactured M4 rifles surrounded the group’s vehicle on Wednesday near Khirbet Zanuta in the southern West Bank.

The California congressman had been touring the remains of a Palestinian community whose residents were driven out following repeated attacks by Israeli settlers.

“We were at a village that Israeli settlers had destroyed, they had destroyed the school, they had destroyed that village, and we were just looking at it,” Khanna said.

“And these hoodlums come in with machine guns – M4, an American-made machine gun – and they detain us. They block off the road. And then they call the IDF and the IDF is on their side, not on the side of the Americans,” he added.

Cameron Kasky, an aide traveling with Khanna, said the delegation remained blocked for more than an hour and contacted the US Embassy in al-Quds seeking assistance. Police officers later arrived and cleared the way for the group to leave, according to Kasky.

The Israeli military acknowledged that settlers had obstructed vehicles near Khirbet Zanuta, saying troops and police were dispatched after receiving a report from the area.

“Upon their arrival, the troops dispersed the Israeli civilians and allowed the vehicles to continue on their way,” the military said.

West Bank trip shapes possible 2028 bid

Khanna’s visit comes as divisions over US support for “Israel” deepen inside the Democratic Party, particularly amid the ongoing genocide in Gaza and escalating settler attacks across the occupied West Bank.

He is the second possible Democratic presidential contender to visit the region this week. Former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said during a visit to Tel Aviv that Israeli policies toward Palestinians were weakening public support for the US-Israeli alliance.

Asked whether he intended to seek the presidency in 2028, Khanna said, “I’m strongly considering it and I’m more resolved to consider it after this trip.”

The lawmaker chose not to visit Israeli officials during the trip, instead taking part in a Palestinian-led program focused solely on the occupied West Bank.

Khanna said the decision was intended to provide a direct view of the consequences of the occupation without the tightly managed itinerary often arranged for visiting US politicians.

“If you’re unwilling to speak up for Palestinian human rights, if you’re unwilling to speak up against the genocide in Gaza, the apartheid in the West Bank, then you are morally compromised,” Khanna said.

From the outskirts of Turmus Ayya, a Palestinian town where many residents hold US citizenship, Khanna also criticized senior figures within his party for failing to understand the political significance of Palestine among Democratic voters.

He said the Democratic establishment was “clueless about how much of a moral test Palestine, Gaza and Israel have become.”

Democratic support for ‘Israel’ declines

Public backing for “Israel” among Democratic voters has fallen considerably in recent years. A Reuters/Ipsos poll cited in the report found that its favorability rating among Democrats dropped from 59% in 2018 to 22% in May.

The shift has begun influencing Democratic primary races, with several lawmakers facing challenges over their support for the Israeli regime and Washington’s continued military assistance.

A growing number of Democratic members of Congress have called for restrictions or an end to US weapons transfers to “Israel,” which receives approximately $3.8 billion in annual American military aid.

That support includes funding for firearms such as M4 rifles, as well as missile interception systems used by the Israeli occupation during its war on Iran.

US-supplied weaponry involved in armed settler violence

Khanna’s comments drew a direct connection between US-supplied weaponry and armed settler violence in the West Bank, where Palestinians are subjected to attacks, forced displacement, land seizures and restrictions on movement.

Approximately three million Palestinians live in the occupied West Bank alongside around 500,000 Israeli settlers.

The United Nations and most governments consider Israeli settlements illegal under international law, particularly under provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territory.

The Israeli government rejects that position and describes the West Bank as disputed land, while Palestinians regard the territory, together with the Gaza Strip and occupied eastern al-Quds, as part of their future state.

Khanna’s trip signals that opposition to Washington’s unconditional support for “Israel” could become a central issue in the Democratic presidential contest ahead of 2028.

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Comments Off on Ro Khanna says Israeli settlers held US delegation in West Bank

US Strategy and the shift to NATO 3.0

A shorter declaration masks deeper tensions, as Washington pushes to reshape NATO’s role from Europe to West Asia and Asia-Pacific.

By Mehmet Ali Guller | The Cradle | July 11, 2026

The six-point final declaration of the NATO Ankara Summit is among the shortest in recent years, similar to last year’s five-point declaration from The Hague. In contrast, the 2021 Brussels Summit declaration contained 79 points, Madrid in 2022 had 22, Vilnius in 2023 included 90, and Washington in 2024 featured 38.

The sharp reduction reflects ongoing tensions between the US and Europe. The declaration is brief because areas of agreement remain limited. The debate over NATO as a “paper tiger” has not been resolved, only set aside.

In the declaration, this issue is temporarily addressed through the slogan “a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.”

Ankara Declaration targets Russia and Iran

The first article of the six-point Ankara declaration reaffirms commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, while the final article offers thanks to the host country.

The remaining four articles center on Russia, outline a $70 billion support package for Ukraine, expand defense spending, reference $50 billion in arms deals, and briefly touch on Iran.

The Donroe Doctrine and NATO 3.0

Washington is seeking to adapt NATO to what it frames as a new strategic phase, described here as NATO 3.0. The so-called Donroe Doctrine centers on consolidating dominance in the Western Hemisphere, shifting more responsibility onto allies in Europe and elsewhere, and encircling China in the Asia-Pacific through partnerships.

In practice, this takes three forms:

  1. Europe assumes primary responsibility for its own security, including taking the lead in supporting Ukraine against Russia.
  2. A new order is established in West Asia under Israeli hegemony, requiring normalization between NATO member Turkiye and Israel, as well as between Israel and Syria and the Gulf states, while weakening Iran as the principal obstacle.
  3. NATO deepens cooperation with its Asia-Pacific partners—the IP4 countries: Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—integrating them into its arms supply chain and gradually extending NATO’s reach into Asia.

The political economy of NATO 3.0

Washington views militarization as the lever for the transformation of NATO 3.0. It has two key objectives: raising NATO members’ defense spending to 5 percent of GDP and building a new arms production chain. The first step was initiated in The Hague last year, and the second advanced in Ankara.

Pushing defense spending to 5 percent would generate a vast financial pool within a few years. Including NATO partners such as Japan would further expand the scale, creating a market that draws broad interest. The US aims to distribute this pool in a way that sustains the NATO 3.0 framework.

Alongside this sits the effort to construct a new arms supply chain. The approach is to retain control over core components while distributing subcomponent production across allies, linking them to one another and ultimately to Washington.

The $50 billion arms deals referenced in the declaration mark an initial step. The $10 billion NATO–South Korea agreement, which grants Seoul access to NATO’s joint defense procurement market, fits within this model.

A new military-industrial economy

For the Erdogan government, securing a share of expanding defense spending has become a priority. Ankara sees this as an opening for its defense sector, particularly through the state firm ASELSAN and the private company BAYKAR.

The Defense Industry Forum, long held as a side event at NATO summits, was included in the official program in Ankara for the first time, reflecting that shift.

Countries seeking a share of this expanding market and Washington’s effort to allocate that share in line with its strategy have converged.

The idea of a NATO Defense Bank is also on the agenda. Nine countries laid its groundwork during the Ankara summit. If realized, it would tie a military-industrial model more closely to financial capital.

Turkiye 3.0: NATO’s central frontline state

For Turkiye, NATO 3.0 also signals a new phase.

NATO 1.0 covers the period from the alliance’s founding to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In that time, Turkiye was integrated into US strategy, diluting its founding emphasis on independence and anti-imperialism, eroding aspects of its secular character through the Green Belt project, and absorbing its human capital within anti-communist programs.

NATO 2.0 spans the period from 1991 to 2026. In these years, NATO expanded toward Russia, dismantled Yugoslavia, and intervened across West Asia. Turkiye’s role was again shaped within US strategy, this time through “moderate Islamism.”

NATO 3.0 is defined by Europe taking on security responsibility against Russia, the pursuit of a West Asian order under Israeli dominance, and a strategic shift toward the Asia-Pacific.

Within this framework, Turkiye is positioned as a security enforcer for Europe, encouraged to normalize relations with Tel Aviv to secure a place in the regional order, and drawn into efforts aimed at countering Iran.

In effect, Turkiye is being placed at the center of NATO’s frontline. The naval command under construction in the Bosphorus is directed toward Russia, while the new NATO Corps headquarters in Adana is oriented toward West Asia and Iran.

Washington’s ‘Asian NATO’ objective

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte effectively represents US leadership within the alliance. His statements reflect Washington’s position rather than Europe’s.

His remarks before and during the summit pointed to a longer-term objective. Rutte argued that Russia was working closely with North Korea, China and Iran, adding that NATO “cannot be naive” and had to remain united.

At its core, NATO 3.0 reflects an effort to use the alliance first against Beijing’s partners—Russia and Iran—and, over time, against China itself. The push to reorient NATO toward Asia follows from this.

For the past four years, leaders of the IP4 countries have been invited to NATO summits. In Ankara, discussions with these states focused on expanding cooperation in defense industries and advanced technologies.

Washington is pressing these partners toward closer military alignment, at times resembling a sub-alliance—an “Asian NATO.” Proposals to open a NATO liaison office in Tokyo—though contested, notably by France—form part of this effort.

Washington, however, has continued to push for a broader NATO role in Asia. As Rutte put it, “The security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific are closely interconnected,” reinforcing efforts to extend the alliance’s focus beyond its original geographic remit.

Expectations from NATO 3.0

Following the Ankara Summit, NATO 3.0 is expected to serve different priorities:

  • For the US: aligning NATO with its Asia-Pacific strategy.
  • For Europe: maintaining US involvement in European security even as direct support shifts.
  • For Turkiye: expanding a military-industrial growth model.

For countries across the Global South, NATO is widely viewed as an outdated military alliance whose role has run its course.

 

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Sinophobia, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on US Strategy and the shift to NATO 3.0

Somaliland jails musician without trial over al-Quds song

Al Mayadeen| July 11, 2026

Security forces in the breakaway region of Somaliland have detained young musician Khalid Mohamud Abdillahi, widely known as Khalid Kamil, after he recorded a song about occupied al-Quds, Hiiraan Online reported, citing his family.

Kamil has been held without trial for the past two weeks, his brother, Abdimajid Mohamud Abdillahi, said Thursday.

Abdimajid said intelligence officers arrested the musician at his home in Hargeisa before transferring him to the Criminal Investigation Department. He said Kamil was later moved to the central prison.

“They arrested Khalid at his home,” Abdimajid said. “The intelligence accused him of singing a song about Jerusalem that he had not yet released.”

Family questions basis for arrest

Abdimajid said authorities informed the family that Kamil was being detained because of the song but maintained that its content was unrelated to Somaliland.

“The security services told us that Khalid was being held for a song, but since the song was not about Somaliland, but about Jerusalem, we saw that someone was pushing or behind the arrest,” Abdimajid stressed.

Opposition party condemns detention

Somaliland’s opposition KAAH party denounced the arrest on Thursday, describing it as an infringement on fundamental freedoms and part of a broader campaign to suppress criticism of the breakaway government’s policy toward “Israel”.

“The arrest of artists, journalists and citizens for expressing their views and creativity undermines the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the constitution,” the party said.

KAAH urged the government to release Kamil immediately and halt intimidation targeting artists and members of the creative community.

The party added that democratic governance should be grounded in respect for the rule of law and freedom of expression rather than arrests and repression.

Previous arrests linked to ‘Israel’ recognition debate

Somaliland has previously detained religious leaders, traditional elders, journalists, and youth activists who opposed the prospect of Israeli recognition of Somaliland. Several of those detained were later released without trial.

The song, which has not been officially released but has circulated on social media, praises occupied al-Quds and highlights the city’s religious importance.

According to Kamil’s brother, the lyrics include lines stating that al-Quds “has been stolen” and criticizing those who remain silent about this crime.

Arrest follows opening of ‘Somaliland mission’ in al-Quds

The detention comes after Somaliland opened a diplomatic mission in occupied al-Quds in June, six months after “Israel” reportedly recognized Somaliland as an “independent state”.

The mission, located in a technology hub in the western part of occupied al-Quds, was inaugurated during an official visit by the regional president of the breakaway region of Somaliland, Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillahi, to “Israel”.

During the visit, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there was a “deep spiritual connection” between the two sides.

Somalia’s federal government, which regards Somaliland as part of its territory, condemned the engagement with “Israel” and said any contact with the separatist administration violated Somalia’s sovereignty.

Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991 but has not secured broad international recognition. Somalia continues to maintain that Somaliland remains part of the Federal Republic of Somalia.

July 11, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Comments Off on Somaliland jails musician without trial over al-Quds song

Prof John Mearsheimer – Iran Hardliners Proven Right

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026

IRAN GOT NOTHING FROM the MoU – Nima Alkhorshid

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Prof John Mearsheimer – Iran Hardliners Proven Right

British charities promoting Israeli army training programs, visits to illegal settlement

The Cradle | July 10, 2026

UK-registered charities are promoting programs that allow participants to visit illegal Jewish settlements in occupied Palestine, train with the Israeli army, stay in settlements, and take part in Zionist education initiatives linked to migration to Israel, according to an investigation by Middle East Eye (MEE) published on 10 July.

The United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) promotes Israeli gap-year programs run by organizations such as Aardvark and Bina, which include visits to occupied Palestinian territory, including Hebron, the Golan Heights, and locations throughout the occupied West Bank.

UJIA-promoted programs also connect participants with the Israeli army through the Marva course, an army-run program that allows participants to live on a military base for six to eight weeks, undergoing basic training and meeting soldiers.

The investigation examined Bnei Akiva, a religious Zionist youth movement supported by UK charities. It runs activities and gap-year programs in Israel to foster commitment to the Jewish people, Land of Israel, and Torah.

Bnei Akiva’s Mechina Olamit program houses participants in Migdal Oz, an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank, and also provides preparation for military service, including physical training and military activities.

Bnei Akiva promotes migration to Israel through “Zionist education” and Aliyah initiatives, with Aliyah referring to Jewish migration to Israel.

The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) told MEE that the activities raise legal concerns, adding that sending participants to settlements or treating them as part of Israel’s  territory violates international law, while describing the Marva program as resembling “pre-enlistment military training rather than cultural exchange.”

In a separate investigation, a UK charity named Friends of Yeshivat Shavei Hevron was revealed to have directly funded the expansion of a religious school in an illegal settlement within the Palestinian city of Hebron, with the charity sending over $260,000 to the school between 2029 and 2024.

These cases reflect broader concerns raised by UK government officials and MPs, who have identified dozens of British-registered charities funneling millions of pounds into illegal settlements.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , | Comments Off on British charities promoting Israeli army training programs, visits to illegal settlement

The U.S. controls who can participate in UN activities

By Eduardo Vasco | Strategic Culture Foundation | July 10, 2026

In 2025, Donald Trump’s administration once again imposed travel restrictions on citizens of various countries, particularly in Africa, the Middle East, and the Caribbean. The measures have already produced concrete effects on international events hosted in the United States. One of the best-known cases was that of Somali referee Omar Abdulkadir Artan, who was prevented from entering the country and, consequently, from officiating at the 2026 World Cup despite having been selected by FIFA.

Beyond their impact on sports, the restrictions raised even greater concerns at the United Nations, whose headquarters are located in New York, as they may hinder the participation of diplomats and representatives of member states in the organization’s work. Indeed, the Trump administration revoked or denied visas to Mahmoud Abbas and around 80 members of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO before the opening of the 2025 annual session of the General Assembly. Several members of the Somali delegation were also denied visas, preventing their participation in the meeting.

Shortly after the White House announced the travel restrictions, UN Secretary-General spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric washed his hands of the matter and, in practice, sided with Trump by stating that it is up to each country to decide how it controls its borders and who may enter its territory. No one is naïve enough to believe that if Somalia or Palestine had adopted such measures, and the affected representatives were Americans, Dujarric’s position would have been the same.

According to him, the executive order indicated that diplomats, holders of G4 visas, and United Nations personnel were exempt from the new restrictions. He added that the United States, as the host country of the UN headquarters, has obligations arising from international treaties to facilitate the movement of the organization’s personnel and delegates, noting that these responsibilities were contemplated in the presidential decree.

But this is not new. The United States has long denied entry to representatives of undesirable countries. Although Trump’s travel restrictions are particularly outrageous, previous administrations also denied or limited access for representatives of member states.

Over the decades, diplomats from countries subject to sanctions or restrictions, such as Sudan, Iran, and Venezuela, have faced delays or denials in obtaining visas to attend UN meetings. These practices have effectively thrown the 1947 Headquarters Agreement into the trash, despite its requirement that the United States, as host country, allow accredited representatives of member states to enter.

In the late 1940s, the United States barred members of nongovernmental organizations linked to the Italian Communist Party, which was part of Italy’s government. In 1988, during Ronald Reagan’s administration, Yasser Arafat was prevented from entering the country to address the UN General Assembly on the grounds of national security concerns. In response, the Assembly held its session devoted to the Palestinian question in Geneva, with Arafat present—the leader of the PLO, an organization already recognized at that time as the representative of Palestine at the UN.

The United States also denied entry to Iranian diplomat Hamid Aboutalebi, who in his youth had participated in the hostage crisis at the American embassy in Tehran. Years later, when he was appointed Iran’s ambassador to the UN, he was denied entry.

Over the last few decades, cases involving the issuance of visas to citizens of Cuba, Russia, and Venezuela have become frequent. Washington has been accused of using visa applications as a tool to restrict diplomatic access to UN headquarters in New York, thereby violating its legal obligations as host country.

Cubans are among the diplomats who have most frequently denounced violations of the UN Headquarters Agreement.

An emblematic case occurred in 2006. Diplomat Rodolfo Benítez, then a counselor at Cuba’s mission to the UN, received authorization to participate in a seminar for diplomats from permanent missions to the UN held at West Point. Although approximately 40 diplomats from various countries were authorized to attend, the United States denied travel authorization to the Cuban representative. Cuba denounced the measure before the UN Committee on Relations with the Host Country, arguing that the decision was discriminatory and harmed the normal functioning of the mission.

In 2007, Washington again denied authorization for two Cuban diplomats to leave the restricted 25-mile area around Columbus Circle in Manhattan in order to participate in an informal meeting of the Working Group on the Crime of Aggression held at Princeton University. Havana formally protested before the UN.

Furthermore, for decades Cuban diplomats—as well as North Korean and Syrian diplomats—accredited to the UN were subject to severe travel restrictions within the United States, being allowed to circulate only within a limited area around New York City. The General Assembly repeatedly adopted resolutions calling for the removal of these restrictions.

During Barack Obama’s administration, the Sudanese delegation accused Washington of violating the Headquarters Agreement by denying a visa to then-Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. He was supposed to lead Sudan’s delegation during the annual General Assembly debates. The United States argued that the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court would oblige American authorities to arrest him if he were allowed to enter the country. However, the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and has received various officials subject to ICC arrest warrants, including, more recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In 2024, under Joe Biden’s administration, China’s representation to the UN informed the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, a body linked to the General Assembly, that Washington had repeatedly denied visas to personnel responsible for maintaining the facilities of China’s mission.

The Chinese representative drew attention to General Assembly Resolution 78/116, emphasizing that the privileges and immunities of delegations and diplomatic missions cannot be restricted because of the bilateral relations of the host country. The diplomat urged the United States to fulfill its obligations and issue the visas without delay.

Complaints from diplomats and the public increased significantly during the first Trump administration. In 2019, Russia and Iran went so far as to disrupt the work of certain General Assembly committees in protest against the denial of visas to diplomats from both countries. Iran stated that 58 representatives faced restrictions on participating in the Assembly’s annual opening session, while Russia reported that 18 diplomats still lacked visas.

Preventing delegates from participating in UN activities seriously undermines the foreign policy of the affected countries. According to experts, countries currently included on Trump’s restriction lists may obtain visas for only a limited number of representatives, making it more difficult for them to participate simultaneously in different meetings. The diplomatic missions of these countries also face difficulties in bringing technical experts, reducing the quality of participation in specialized debates. Furthermore, the senior leaders of the affected nations become unable to conduct bilateral and multilateral meetings and negotiations, and it is well known that behind-the-scenes conversations are among the most valuable activities at meetings held under the auspices of the United Nations.

Somalia illustrates this problem. Currently an elected member of the United Nations Security Council, the country appears on Trump’s restriction list. In February 2025, it even voted in favor of a United States-sponsored resolution on a “path to peace” regarding the war in Ukraine—that is, not even bowing to American dictates enabled the African country to escape the sanction. A Somali diplomat told the PassBlue website that the country already faced strict controls on the issuance of visas to diplomats and that the new measures could also harm Somali students and business people.

In 1947, the United States signed the Headquarters Agreement, committing itself to allow the entry of persons essential to the functioning of the UN. Subsequently, however, the U.S. Congress added a clause preserving the country’s right to deny entry on national security grounds. The UN challenged this addition, arguing that it was not part of the original agreement.

The controversy persisted until an understanding was reached with then Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. It was agreed that the United States would notify the Secretary-General in advance if it intended to deny entry to representatives of any member state. This arrangement worked until 1988, when Yasser Arafat was denied a visa on national security grounds.

Larry Johnson, former adjunct professor at Columbia Law School and former UN Assistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, told PassBlue that the United States argued in 1988 that, by failing formally to object to the confidential invocation of national security clauses since the early 1950s, the UN had effectively accepted the practice.

UN member states and the UN Secretariat have responded in different ways to visa denials over the years. The most forceful response occurred precisely in the Arafat case in 1988, when the General Assembly transferred its entire session on Palestine to Geneva as a form of public protest.

The episode involving Arafat also led to the creation of the General Assembly’s Committee on Relations with the Host Country, tasked with dealing with visa-related problems and other issues between the United States and the other UN member states.

However, after the collapse of the USSR and the imposition of U.S. domination over the globe, the countries of the UN bowed to Washington’s will. Instead of immediately resorting to direct confrontational measures such as boycotts or relocating meetings, the Secretariat began encouraging countries to submit their complaints to the Host Country Committee. This body can recommend resolutions, request advisory opinions, or even initiate arbitration proceedings to address disputes, which in practice produces no results.

Deciding who can and cannot participate in UN activities in New York is not the only diplomatic and geopolitical advantage of hosting the world’s principal international organization. The main advantage is that virtually all heads of state, foreign ministers, ambassadors, and negotiators regularly pass through New York.

This allows the United States to maintain direct and constant contact with almost every government on the planet, hold bilateral meetings alongside UN activities, monitor diplomatic trends in real time, and exert informal influence over international negotiations. Even countries that do not maintain close diplomatic relations with Washington end up maintaining some level of contact on American territory—their representatives are more easily spied upon and co-opted.

Although this is an aspect rarely emphasized publicly, the concentration of foreign diplomatic missions in New York is a valuable source of information for American intelligence services. Historically, agencies such as the CIA and the FBI have devoted significant resources to monitoring diplomatic activities linked to the UN. Physical proximity facilitates the observation of negotiations, informal contacts, recruitment of sources, and collection of information about foreign governments.

Even without officially controlling the UN, hosting the organization also gives the United States important logistical advantages. Washington can organize side events, receive delegations at American institutions, involve universities, research centers, and foundations, and promote political propaganda through its media outlets.

Of course, all this is considered perfectly normal by the propagandists of American imperialism. But what would they say if the UN headquarters were moved to Moscow or Beijing?

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The U.S. controls who can participate in UN activities

The Zionist Plan for a Concentration Camp in Gaza

By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | July 9, 2026

Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chełmno. These should be destinations Israeli Jews remember and abhor, and yet we are told, by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (PDF), that a concentration camp in the works on the ethnic cleansed ruin of Rafah is somehow not only moral, but the most moral concentration camp in the world.

The support given by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the criminal plan being promoted by Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, involving the construction of a “humanitarian city” on the ruins of Rafah, which would incarcerate all the enclave’s residents, is a moral and historic nadir for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. No matter how they try in Israel to wrap this move with laundered epithets, they are talking about a concentration camp.

The Zionist state, according to Katz, plans to herd 600,000 Palestinians currently forced to shelter in tents and makeshift homes within the coastal al-Mawasi area of southern Gaza to an area in the ruins of Rafah city. “Eventually, the entire civilian population of over two million in Gaza would be confined to this small ‘city,’” the Middle East Eye reports.

Katz said that once concentrated in the new city, Palestinians would be encouraged to “voluntarily” leave the Gaza Strip for other countries, as part of an “emigration plan” he said “will happen”.

In July, 2025 the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) proposed a “Humanitarian Transit Area” where Gaza residents would “temporarily reside, deradicalise, re-integrate and prepare to relocate if they wish to do so,” Al Jazeera reported. GHF operated food distribution sites outside the United Nations system.

Humanitarian aid organizations and UN-affiliated experts say GHF previously violated humanitarian principles by directing civilians to hazardous militarized aid sites instead of establishing a neutral network. The BBC reported that more than 500 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid since the GHF began operating in May, 2025. Oxfam and Save the Children report Israeli forces and armed groups “routinely” fired on Palestinians seeking aid. GHF ended its operation in late 2025.

In March, the RAND Corporation published Pursuing Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration in Gaza: A Critical Pathway to a Durable Peace. The white paper follows a Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) three-stage strategy used by UN Peacekeeping to transition war-torn societies to peace.

The RAND report does not take into account Israeli policies of settlement expansion, collective punishment, arbitrary imprisonment, and periodically “mowing the grass,” that to say conducting violent raids into Gaza. Decades of Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians naturally perpetuates radicalization and determined resistance.

The Strategic Hamlet Program

In 1962, the administration of Ngo Dinh Diem, in collaboration with the Kennedy administration, initiated the counterinsurgency Strategic Hamlet Program in South Vietnam. This rural pacification initiative involved relocating South Vietnamese villagers into barbed-wired “protected hamlets,” distancing them from their ancestral lands and inhibiting any support for the National Liberation Front (NLF), commonly referred to as the Viet Cong. US advisors forcefully put them to work building the internment “villages.” The concept of fortifying villages and hamlets originated from the British Army. They had effectively implemented it in Malaysia. Sir Robert Thompson, the head of the British advisory team to Ngo Dinh Diem, recommended it.

The French constructed “protective villages” in Tonkin, later known as agrovilles, under commander François de Linares in 1952. The effort was underwritten by the United States and eventually interned three million Vietnamese. Vietnam War correspondent Bernard Fall said, “the French strategic hamlets resembled British [Malayan] prototypes line for line.”

The Malaysian strategic villages were established in the 1950s under the Briggs Plan, a British counterinsurgency population-control and resettlement program devised by Lt‑Gen. Sir Harold Briggs during the Malayan Emergency of 1948–1960. The villages were designed to break the link between the Min Yuen, a civilian support network, Malayan Communist Party (MCP) guerrillas.

The Briggs Plan villages led to extensive forced resettlement, identity registration, curfews, supervised relocations, coordinated civil-military administration, and the recruitment of home guards among settlers. This initiative played a significant role in the ultimate defeat of the MCP insurgency.

The exploitation experienced in Malaysia during the colonial era was closely associated with the economic extraction methods employed by the British, particularly in the rubber and tin industries. This system was characterized by oppressive labor practices, land dispossession, and legal arrangements that benefited colonial corporations and administrators.

The Strategic Hamlet Program in Vietnam failed due to its rapid implementation, inadequate defense, corruption, poor execution, and alienation of the rural population it aimed to win over. The fundamental strategic mistake was that the program prioritized physically separating people from the Viet Cong without first making the government more appealing than the communists.

British Concentration Camps in South Africa

During the Second Boer War in South Africa (1900-1902), the British implemented concentration camps to eliminate support for Boer guerrillas and to suppress resistance during the conflict. “While civilian internment in South Africa was not intended to be genocidal, it resulted in a significant loss of life and enduring resentment among Boer descendants,” writes Garth Benneyworth from the Department of Historical Studies at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

A minimum of 40 concentration camps were established, interning approximately 150,000 Boer refugees, predominantly women and children. Estimates suggest that Boer fatalities ranged from about 18,000 to 28,000, with children constituting the majority of the casualties. Overcrowding and unsanitary conditions resulted in outbreaks of diseases, including typhoid, malaria, measles, and dysentery.

The camps were created following the British failure to subdue the Boer South African Republic and the Orange Free State, as well as to gain control over the profitable Witwatersrand gold mines. In reaction to the Boers’ resistance, the British implemented a scorched earth strategy that methodically destroyed crops, contaminated water sources, burned homesteads and farms, and interned Boer and African men, women, and children.

Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz’s “New Rafah” plan is a high-tech version of previous concentration camps. In a similar fashion to the Strategic Hamlet Program and the Boer camps in South Africa, “New Rafah” is primarily intended to separate Palestinian civilians from Hamas and prepare for the forced migration of two million people (despite the fact few if any countries are willing to take ethnically cleansed Palestinians). The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reports the Israeli plan

constitutes a clear violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the absolute prohibition on the forced transfer and mass detention of protected populations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It falls within the scope of forced displacement, persecution, and apartheid, which are patterns of policies and practices that individually amount to crimes against humanity under international law.

Zionist Israel, however, has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for international law in regard to the protection of civilians. “Rather than abide by these rules, Israel has openly defied international law time and again, inflicting maximum suffering on civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory and beyond,” notes the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.

The “humanitarian city” proposed by Katz follows previous violations, including illegal settlements, annexations, military watchtowers and barbed-wire fences on Palestinian land, refusal to allow the right of return for refugees, numerous deadly sieges in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and the breach of over 30 UN Security Council resolutions.

July 9, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on The Zionist Plan for a Concentration Camp in Gaza

Congress Aims to Give Israel Leverage Over America

By Harrison Berger | The American Conservative | July 5, 2026

Amid record-high public hostility toward Israel and the wars taxpayers are financing on its behalf, the Israel lobby has mobilized to pass a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2027 which includes language designed to sustain the years long wealth transfer from Americans to Israelis and cement that relationship in ways that would be less transparent and more difficult to challenge through democratic processes.

At the same time, a coalition led by outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has launched a counteroffensive to block a separate track of funding for Israel’s wars, targeting the transfer of $3.3 billion to Israel embedded within the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027, which is also up for vote this summer.

The first bill—the NDAA—was highlighted by The American Conservative earlier this month. It includes language within its Section 224 (since renumbered Section 219 in the House) that would direct the Pentagon to identify Israeli-origin technologies “for potential integration into United States systems and programs of record” and to build “United States-based co-production or manufacturing partnerships with Israeli industry.” Section 219, if enacted, “would be unprecedented,” Annelle Sheline of the Quincy Institute told TAC. “No other foreign country has an executive agent in the Pentagon to integrate our military industrial complex with theirs.”

Along with merging Israeli and American weapons technology and data, Section 219 would shift funding for Israeli weaponry from Congress to the Pentagon’s murky procurement system.

“This so clearly seems to be an attempt to shield money from cratering public opinion,” Sheline said. She noted that “Americans do not want to fund a country engaged in genocide and which led us into the Iran War,” adding that, rather than representing public opinion and cutting off Israel’s funding, Congress has moved to conceal it.

Such a merger carries inherent national security risks. The presence of foreign components in U.S. systems raises the threat those systems’ integrity will be compromised, a danger heightened in this case by Israel’s demonstrated capability and willingness to weaponize supply chains, as exhibited in their 2024 attack that involved the detonation of thousands of pagers which had been engineered into remote-controlled bombs. Joe Kent, the former director of the National Center for Counterterrorism, argues similarly that “the dangers of allowing any other nation to access our sensitive military technologies are obvious, including the fact that back doors and spyware can be installed that will most certainly be used by the Israelis to influence U.S. policy.”

But Section 219 of the NDAA would hinder American national security in much more immediate ways, principally by reducing the leverage Washington currently maintains to influence Israeli behavior in the region. “At present,” Sheline explains, “Israel is dependent on U.S. weapons and components, particularly their air force.” That U.S. support has enabled the Israelis to perpetrate a genocide in Gaza, ethnically cleanse southern Lebanon, and launch two wars against Iran, with Israel’s defense minister recently threatening a third.

“The U.S. could at present use leverage to change that Israeli behavior,” Sheline says. But by merging U.S. and Israeli weapons development, “this legislation would reverse it so that the [Israelis] could do that to us.”

Despite the various threats to American national security posed by the provision, section 219 this week moved closer to its expected final passage, with the House Rules Committee on Monday rejecting a bipartisan amendment introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) that would have stripped the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” from the NDAA.

Massie’s efforts to stop a separate track for Israel funding attached to the State Department’s spending bill may be more successful. His other amendment—which seeks to eliminate $3.3 billion in annual funding for Israel tied to a 10-year, $38 billion MoU—has reportedly provoked panic among House Democrats, who face pressure from constituents with record-low views of Israel.

Punchbowl News reported that House Democrats “expressed alarm” in a closed meeting and were “begging for leadership guidance” on how to vote while Axios reported on Wednesday that Democrats “fear intense backlash from their base if they oppose” Massie’s amendment to halt Israel funding. Democrats who continue to support wealth transfers from the American tax base to Israelis are aware that doing so comes with the heightened risk of being unseated for it, with the recent ouster of Israel First Democrats Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) serving as a warning to any Democrats who continue to defy the will of the Democratic Party base.

The Massie amendment to cut off funds for Israeli offensive weaponry “may end up being the last time these sorts of votes are meaningful,” says Sheline. “If we proceed with defense industrial integration (Section 219), congress won’t be able to vote on it again.”


Harrison Berger is a correspondent at The American Conservative. He has contributed to Drop Site News, The Nation, and Responsible Statecraft. Previously, he was a researcher and producer for System Update with Glenn Greenwald. His work focuses on civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy. He studied Political Science and Russian Studies at Union College (NY).

July 9, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on Congress Aims to Give Israel Leverage Over America