Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

West Bank is Defenseless – This is Why Israeli Settler Attacks Continue

Israel killed 14-year-old Aws al-Naasan, along with 32-year-old Jihad Abu Naim, who tried to help him. (Photos: via social media)
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | April 24, 2026

A string of high-profile settler attacks on villages across the occupied West Bank is part of a trend of ever-escalating assaults aimed at ethnically cleansing the territory. These extremists, backed by the Israeli army, are emboldened by the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to act.

Earlier this week, an Israeli settler assault on a school in the village of al-Mughayyer, near Ramallah, resulted in the killing of a 14-year-old school boy, Aws al-Naasan, along with 32-year-old Jihad Abu Naim, who had attempted to come to the aid of the children who had been opened fire upon.

The incident caused an uproar, yet only a day later, another Palestinian man was executed by a settler in the village of Deir Dibwan, after which the Israeli military rounded up dozens of men and placed them under humiliating detention.

These assaults and ongoing series of pogroms, where settlers alongside their army comrades will burn down homes, businesses, and vehicles, are part of a larger effort aimed at ethnic cleansing.

Since October of 2023, at least 75 Palestinian villages and communities have been partially or completely ethnically cleansed, according to the latest statistics published by Israeli rights group B’tselem. Life in general has been greatly impacted throughout the occupied West Bank as a result of the ultra-emboldened settler violence problem.

However, there is a deeper-rooted issue at play here. There is nobody there to help protect or respond to these violent assaults and killing sprees, with the exception of the occasional lone-wolf operations carried out by individuals who grow frustrated with their predicament. Even these kinds of attacks have greatly decreased over the past year or so, however.

There were armed resistance groups that had independently formed in places like Jenin Refugee Camp and Nour al-Shams Refugee Camp, yet they have been largely crushed or driven into hiding for now.

The unescapable fact about how these groups were dismantled was the pernicious role of the corrupt Palestinian Authority, which worked to do Israel’s dirty work for it, even slaughtering Palestinians who dared to pick up arms and fight, including killing innocent bystanders, including children.

Instead of standing up to the illegal settler attacks that are driving tens of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and the daily killings of civilians, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has doubled down on its collaborationist approach in support of the occupiers. Even arresting and then extraditing a 75-year-old Palestinian, Mahmoud Khader Abed Adra, who was accused of attacking a Jewish restaurant in Paris back in 1982.

The priority of this PA is to protect Israeli interests as they enrich themselves, having completely thrown their national project into the dustbin in search of pleasing the West and Arab despots. Yet, some 30% of the West Bank population is employed by the PA, with another 18% finding employment amongst Israeli settlers and Israeli businesses.

If we consider now that up to 35% of the West Bank population is considered to be unemployed and that the Western NGOs have a major influence on the territory, also employing a considerable number of people, then it begins to become more understandable why the situation remains as it is. The majority of employed Palestinians work for the PA or their occupiers directly.

The PA is said to have around 60,000 men as part of their overall security apparatus, trained by the British, Jordanians, US, and others, yet they aren’t there to protect Palestinians; they are there as another layer of occupation. If you stand up to the PA, you will be arrested and tortured, perhaps even brutally killed in front of your family, like the famous dissident Nizar Banat.

Understanding this is key to comprehending why the territory’s people have been left so incredibly defenseless and why an Intifada has not yet occurred. If such an uprising is to begin, it will mean that it will be totally organic and completely outside the fold of the PA, perhaps even collapsing its corrupt system altogether.

Even on the international level, the Palestinian cause has only been used to drive the selfish interests of a small group of Palestinian elites, while completely abandoning the people’s project. Although many have endless critiques of former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, the years under his rule of the PA couldn’t be more different from what the corrupted authority looks like today, it is a hollowed-out shell of what existed in the days of Arafat; although this was by no means perfect.

Unfortunately, the PA is now the main obstacle to Palestinians resisting the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. It may be so that Gaza’s destruction was quicker and more brutal because it chose to fight, but if the West Bank had risen up, the Israelis would have been in a very tough position.

Unlike Gaza, the West Bank is saturated with Israeli settlers, and the price that they would pay in the event that a real resistance would emerge would be much more painful, which is precisely why the Israelis have gone to great lengths to strengthen their positions and prevent freedom of movement there to such an extent since October 2023.

To the Israelis, they see the West Bank as ‘Judea and Samaria’ – the Israeli biblical heartland – while the Gaza Strip is an afterthought. The senior Israeli leadership, from its PM Benjamin Netanyahu to the opposition leader Yair Lapid, is all in agreement on developing a “Greater Israel” that is currently attempting to expand further into Lebanon and Syria.

As for the fate of the West Bank, left completely defenseless, with a PA that is actively working for its occupier, it appears to be grim. These settler attacks are only going to accelerate and grow more violent. The only way that this will ever be forced to change is in the event of a mass uprising, because individual acts alone are not going to alter the current predicament.

Attempting to predict the future is a difficult task; however, with the ever-growing unemployment rate, alongside the overall decline in living standards and constant settler/occupation army violence against the civilian population, an uprising is only a matter of time away.

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

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Comments Off on West Bank is Defenseless – This is Why Israeli Settler Attacks Continue

Systematic Israeli targeting of Gaza police seen as deliberate prelude to chaos

Palestinian Information Center – April 24, 2026

GAZA – The Gaza Center for Human Rights has strongly condemned the escalating targeting of police and security personnel in the Gaza Strip by Israeli forces, describing it as part of a recurring pattern aimed at weakening the structure of public order and creating conditions conducive to chaos and lawlessness. This, the Center warned, facilitates the movement of collaborators and armed gangs at the expense of civilian safety and security.

According to documentation by the center’s field teams, an Israeli drone strike on Friday, April 24, 2026, killed two police officers and injured others after targeting a police patrol near Sheikh Radwan police station in northwest Gaza City. The attack occurred in a densely populated area, placing civilians at direct risk.

In a related incident, on the evening of Thursday, April 23, 2026, a drone strike targeted a group of young men at a security checkpoint in the al-Maslakh area, southwest of Khan Yunis, killing one of them, identified as Yahya Marwan Youssef Abu Shalhoub, 22, and injuring others.

Shortly after midnight on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, an Israeli airstrike hit a security post north of the Al-Amal neighborhood in western Khan Yunis, killing three people. Medical sources later confirmed a fourth death from injuries sustained in the attack.

On April 20, 2026, an Israeli drone targeted a gathering of security personnel near Joudeh roundabout in the Bureij refugee camp, killing one officer and injuring another.

Since the ceasefire in October 2025, the Gaza Center for Human Rights has recorded an increase in Israeli attacks on security posts, police checkpoints, and officers performing civilian duties related to maintaining order and protecting public and private property. The Center stated that this reflects a clear policy aimed at undermining law enforcement authority and deliberately creating a security vacuum.

The situation has enabled groups of collaborators and militias to enter displacement areas and commit serious violations, including kidnapping civilians and attacking property, as well as facilitating the looting of humanitarian aid amid the absence of effective protection.

The Center stressed that targeting police and security personnel carrying out purely civilian functions in maintaining public order, as well as targeting civilian gatherings in densely populated areas with displaced persons, constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the principles of distinction and necessity. Such acts may amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, the deliberate undermining of public order and the spread of chaos constitute internationally prohibited collective punishment policies.

The Center warned that the continuation of this pattern of attacks threatens not only individual lives but also undermines the societal foundations of governance and erodes the population’s right to personal security and legal protection.

Accordingly, the Center called on the international community to take urgent action to halt the targeting of civilian law enforcement bodies, ensure effective protection for civilians, and open independent international investigations into these crimes, with a view to holding those responsible accountable and ending impunity.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Comments Off on Systematic Israeli targeting of Gaza police seen as deliberate prelude to chaos

Netanyahu destabilizing region, US hindering talks: Pakistani official

Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2026

In an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen, former Pakistani Information Minister and Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed highlighted Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts in facilitating indirect and direct communication between Iran and the United States, describing the process as a rare breakthrough in regional diplomacy.

Sayed stated that Pakistan “achieved something close to the impossible” in the initial round of discussions by helping bring Iranian and US representatives to the same table. He emphasized that the significance of the effort lay in “bringing the Iranian and American sides into the same room,” describing it as a notable diplomatic achievement.

According to Sayed, expectations remain high for a second round of talks between Tehran and Washington, though he stressed that such progress depends on the lifting of the US naval blockade on Iran.

He also told Al Mayadeen that the continuation of dialogue is contingent on a shift in US policy, adding that Pakistan remains in active contact with both Tehran and Washington. He also noted that communication channels include engagement with Pakistan’s military leadership, which has played a facilitating role.

Strait of Hormuz and regional developments

Sayed emphasized that Iranian leadership responded positively to a request from Pakistan’s army chief to ease tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime passage.

He said Iran’s position initially expected relief from US-imposed restrictions, which had not materialized. He added that Iran’s decision to show flexibility regarding the Strait of Hormuz reflects its willingness to support de-escalation efforts.

According to Sayed, the “ball is now in the Americans’ court,” stressing that Washington must make the next move if negotiations are to continue.

He further warned that if restrictions on Iranian ports continue, Iran’s negotiating delegation may not participate in future talks scheduled in Islamabad.

US policy obstructs negotiations

Sayed identified the US blockade on Iran as the central obstacle to a second round of negotiations, describing it as “legally and morally wrong.”

He expressed the view that former US President Donald Trump may eventually reconsider this position, suggesting that lifting the blockade could open the way for renewed dialogue.

He also argued that ongoing US policy has failed to achieve its objectives, claiming that Washington is under pressure to find an exit strategy from the current regional tensions.

Netanyahu destabilizing region

In his remarks, Sayed accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of playing a central role in escalating regional tensions, blasting him as a destabilizing figure in West Asia.

He further said that Netanyahu influenced US policy and dragged it into war through political “blackmail” and the notorious Epstein files, in which Trump is extensively mentioned.

Moreover, Sayed stated that “Israel” does not seek peace, adding that Zionism pursues the idea of a “Greater Israel,” a concept rejected in the region. Regional resistance, he said, including Iran’s stance, has challenged the feasibility of such projects.

Lebanon ceasefire central to regional peace

The former minister also referred to developments in Lebanon, stating that a ceasefire was achieved following pressure on Israeli leadership.

He claimed that Trump played a role in urging Netanyahu toward de-escalation, based on diplomatic advice, and said that Iran had also rightfully insisted on a ceasefire in Lebanon, which he stressed was a victim of aggression.

Sayed emphasized that peace in the region is interconnected, stating that stability in Iran and the wider West Asia region is directly linked to peace in Lebanon. He added that discussions reportedly include a broader framework in which Lebanon is not treated as a separate issue but as part of a wider regional settlement.

Pakistan’s regional position

Sayed underscored Pakistan’s role as a key regional actor, highlighting its status as the only nuclear power in the Islamic world and a consistent supporter of the Palestinian cause.

He suggested that Pakistan is positioned to play a continued mediating role in facilitating dialogue between regional and global powers.

Looking ahead, Sayed expressed cautious optimism that an agreement between Tehran and Washington could eventually be reached, stating that such a deal might even be signed in Pakistan if negotiations succeed.

He concluded by reiterating that the Strait of Hormuz is not the root cause of tensions but rather a consequence of broader geopolitical disputes, which he attributed to US and Israeli regional policies.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Netanyahu destabilizing region, US hindering talks: Pakistani official

When It Comes to Using Proxies, The US Far Surpasses Iran as a Sponsor of Terrorism

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | April 24, 2026 

I have previously addressed the lie that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism. Now I want to look specifically at the question of how many Americans, both civilian and military, have been killed by proxies who have received assistance from Iran. I will flip the script… How many Iranians, civilian and military, have been killed by US proxies? The numbers are staggering. US proxies have killed almost 28,000 times the number of Iranians than Iranian proxies have killed Americans. These numbers come primarily from US Department of Justice indictments, State Department reports, American Jewish Committee (AJC), and compiled victim databases.

The principal Iranian proxies routinely identified in US government reports on terrorism are Hamas, Hezbollah, and a variety of Iraqi-Shia groups. If I used the strict definition of terrorism — i.e., the use of violence against civilians for political purposes — the number of actual terrorist deaths from Iranian proxies would be less than 300 since 1979. If I relied only on the strict definition, I would exclude all attacks on military targets. However, since the US statistics on terrorism include the 1983 bombing of the US Marines barracks in Lebanon and the roadside bombs targeting US forces in Iraq from 2003 -2011, I am including the military fatalities for both sides.

HAMAS

At least 60–70 Americans (including dual US-Israeli citizens) have been killed in attacks attributed to or carried out by Hamas since its founding in 1987. This is an approximate total based on US government, DOJ, and research compilations. The vast majority occurred on or after October 7, 2023.

October 7, 2023 Attack (the single deadliest incident)

43–46 Americans killed: (US Department of Justice indictment of Hamas leaders in 2024 confirmed at least 43; some sources, including the State Department, cite 46). These numbers include dual US-Israeli citizens murdered at kibbutzim, the Nova music festival, and other sites near Gaza.

Several additional Americans were taken hostage, with some (e.g., Hersh Goldberg-Polin) died in captivity as a result of Israel’s unconstrained bombing of Gaza.

Pre-October 7 Attacks (1987–2023)

Hamas carried out or claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings, shootings, and other attacks during the First and Second Intifadas and subsequent periods that resulted in the deaths of roughly 15–25 Americans, based on cross-referenced State Department chronologies and victim lists (exact counts vary slightly due to dual citizenship and attribution debates). Documented American deaths include:

2002 Hebrew University bombing: (Jerusalem): 5 Americans killed.

2003 Jerusalem bus bombing: 5 Americans killed. Other notable incidents (Second Intifada era, 2000–2005): Americans killed in attacks such as the Sbarro pizzeria bombing, Park Hotel Passover bombing, and various bus bombings (e.g., Alan Beer, Malka Roth, and others).

Earlier attacks (1990s): Smaller numbers, including incidents like the 1996 Jerusalem bus bombing (3 Americans) and others. Scattered additional deaths in the 1990s–2010s from stabbings, shootings, and bombings.

HEZBOLLAH

At least 270–300+ Americans (including service members and civilians, plus some dual U.S.-Israeli citizens) have been killed in attacks attributed to or carried out by Hezbollah (or its direct precursors like Islamic Jihad Organization) since its formation in 1982.

Major Incidents and Breakdown

1983 Beirut Attacks (the deadliest period):

April 18, 1983: U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut — 17 Americans killed (including 8 CIA personnel).

October 23, 1983: U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut — 241 Americans killed (220 Marines, 18 Navy sailors, 3 Army soldiers). This remains the single deadliest attack on U.S. Marines since Iwo Jima and the largest loss of American life to Hezbollah.

September 20, 1984: U.S. Embassy annex bombing in Beirut — 2 Americans killed.

Other Notable Attacks:

1980s hostage crisis and related violence: Several Americans were kidnapped and murdered, including CIA station chief William Buckley (1984–1985) and U.S. Marine Colonel William Higgins (kidnapped 1988, murdered 1989).

Scattered attacks in the 1980s–2000s: Additional deaths from hijackings (e.g., TWA Flight 847 in 1985, where U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered), bombings, and operations in Iraq (Hezbollah-trained Shiite militias targeting U.S. forces post-2003).

The key take away from this data is that Hezbollah stopped attacking US targets in the 1990s and was not the face of Islamic extremism. Hezbollah focused its energy on attacking Israeli military targets.

OTHER IRANIAN PROXIES

At least 620–650+ Americans (mostly U.S. service members, plus some contractors and civilians) have been killed in attacks by Iranian proxies excluding Hamas and Hezbollah since 1979. The vast majority of these deaths occurred in Iraq during the 2003–2011 period.

Primary Figure: Iraqi Shiite Militias (2003–2011)

At least 603 U.S. troops were killed by Iran-backed Shiite militias in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Defense/Pentagon assessment. These militias include groups such as Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH), Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), the Badr Organization, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, and others.

Iran provided advanced weaponry (especially explosively formed penetrators or EFPs), training, and direction via the IRGC Quds Force. This accounted for roughly 17% of all U.S. combat deaths in Iraq during that period.

US PROXY TERRORISM AGAINST IRAN

Now I want to address the antagonism of the US towards Iran, where multiple US presidents used proxies to attack Iran. Let’s start with the case of Iraq… In 1980, the CIA, acting under a finding signed by President Jimmy Carter, began providing support to Saddam Hussein with the goal of Iraq launching an attack on Iran. Saddam attacked Iran in September 1980. When the Reagan administration took power in January 1981, the support for Iraq increased dramatically with the US supplying precursor chemicals that were used to make chemical weapons, financial aid, and classified intelligence that was routinely shared with the Iraqi General Staff. The CIA handled the task of sharing intelligence until 1986 when, as a result of the Iran/Contra revelations, Saddam refused to deal anymore with the CIA and would only accept assistance from the US military. The task of carrying US intelligence to Iraq, starting in 1987, was given to Colonel Walter Patrick Lang aka Pat. Pat, who is now deceased, was a close friend of mine for more than 20 years.

Using the same standard of blaming Iran for the actions of Hezbollah, the US merits blame for its prolific support for Saddam Hussein during the war on Iran. Estimates of Iranian deaths in the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988, also known as the First Gulf War) vary widely due to the fog of war, propaganda from both sides, and limited transparent records. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, launched the war with a surprise invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980. The US provided direct, covert support to Iraq (intelligence, economic aid, and allowing allies to supply weapons) during much of the conflict.

Iranian military deaths, based on a 2013 systematic review in the Iranian Journal of Public Health (based on Iranian records), put the figure at 188,015 to 217,489 killed (roughly 70 people per day over 2,887 days of war). Iranian civilian deaths, according to Western/CIA estimates, are estimated to be 50,000–60,000 dead.

MEK

Besides using Iraq as a weapon against Iran, the US also took a page out of Saddam Hussein’s playbook. Saddam provided sanctuary and financiing, along with weapons, to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). They not only fought alongside Saddam’s forces in the war with Iran but, after the war, continued to carry out terrorist attacks inside Iran.

Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Coalition forces bombed MEK bases (the group had been allied with Saddam Hussein). The MEK surrendered its heavy weapons and concentrated at Camp Ashraf. n 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld designated MEK members as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. US forces provided security at the camp, shielding them from Iraqi forces and preventing repatriation to Iran.

Starting around 2004–2005, the US provided clandestine support to the MEK as part of broader efforts to pressure Iran’s nuclear program and regime. This included intelligence cooperation, funding channels to dissident groups, and operational assistance. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh (reporting in The New Yorker in 2012), the US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted secret training of MEK operatives at a facility in Nevada (Department of Energy’s Nevada National Security Site) beginning in 2005. Training covered communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics, weaponry, and other special operations skills. This reportedly continued into 2007 (or possibly later).

Funds were covertly passed to the MEK and other Iranian dissident groups for intelligence collection inside Iran and anti-regime activities. The MEK supplied intelligence on Iran’s nuclear sites (e.g., Natanz) and carried out CIA sponsored operations, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. This support occurred even while the MEK remained on the US FTO list, reflecting internal US government tensions (e.g., Pentagon vs. State Department).

In September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton removed the MEK from the FTO list, citing its renunciation of violence and cooperation on relocation. This enabled greater political and logistical support for resettling members… many eventually went to Albania where they continued to receive support and training from the CIA.

The Iranian government claims that the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has killed more than 12,000 to 17,000 Iranians through terrorist attacks, assassinations, bombings, and armed operations since the early 1980s. This is the most frequently cited figure in Iranian official statements, state media, and court proceedings.

Hell, MEK alone has killed 12 to 17 times more Iranians than Iranian proxies have killed Americans. The numbers are not even close.

I want you to keep these numbers in mind the next time you hear some nitwit US politician or pundit ranting about Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. Hands down, the US is a bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iran by a fact of at least 12.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on When It Comes to Using Proxies, The US Far Surpasses Iran as a Sponsor of Terrorism

Hidden history: How Mossad infiltrated Italy

By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2026

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s April 13th announcement that Rome will suspend a longstanding defense agreement with “Israel” sent shockwaves throughout Europe. Historically, Italian governments – even when led by figures who abhor Zionism – have enjoyed constructive, close ties with Tel Aviv. Mossad and Rome’s security, intelligence, and military apparatus also have a long-running clandestine relationship. In fact, the entity’s putrid overseas spying, assassination, and sabotage nexus was effectively born in Italy and has wreaked havoc in the country ever since.

Details of how Zionist spies secured a firm foothold in Italy are provided in a fascinating paper by academic Massimiliano Fiore. Drawing on archival sources, he “traces the evolution of Israeli clandestine activity” in Rome, demonstrating how Zionist intelligence connivances were waged in and against the country even before the entity’s May 1948 founding and throughout the war of erasure against Palestine that subsequently erupted. Several case studies map how Mossad’s criminality evolved over time, growing ever bolder, while informing how the agency operates globally today.

The story begins in the wake of the United Nations General Assembly’s November 1947 Partition Plan, which granted Zionist colonizers 55% of Palestine’s territory. Arab states immediately began preparing to resist the entity’s construction, training soldiers in Palestine and neighbouring countries for the purpose. In response, “Israel’s” founder, David Ben-Gurion, issued a directive to Zionist paramilitary and intelligence factions to secure weapons for the impending genocidal war over Palestinian territory, while denying them to Arab forces.

Fiore records how the chief Mossad le-Aliyah Bet and Rekhesh – respectively, the spying and arms procurement wings of notorious Zionist paramilitary Haganah – immediately “established a sabotage unit in Rome that quickly became an operational hub of Israeli covert activity in Italy and across Europe.” Thereafter, Zionist operatives “exploited Italy’s political ambiguity and physical infrastructure to conduct a sustained campaign of sabotage and interception.” The academic dubs this covert contest on Italian soil “a secret front” in the 1948 war.

Rome’s ports and air and sea transport corridors “played a critical role in sustaining Israeli supply” of weapons for the 1948 war, while disrupting the flow of arms to Arab militaries. Moreover, Zionists “sought to shape the Mediterranean balance of power” for their own malign purposes. Their covert actions – “conducted under conditions of political tolerance and diplomatic constraint” – forged strong bonds with the Italian state, while supplanting Rome’s status “as a strategic bridge between Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.”

The incipient Mossad’s cloak-and-dagger conniving in Italy had a devastating impact. A June 1948 CIA memo observed how the “European headquarters” of Zionist intelligence “operated under cover in Rome,” through which “clandestine transport of munitions by air” to Palestine was conducted with “the knowledge and collusion” of Italian authorities. Without European citizens, Arab governments, or the ‘international community’ noticing, Rome had been secretly transformed into an international nucleus of “illegal traffic in arms for the Jewish underground.”

‘Riskier measures’

Rewind to March 1948, Czechoslovakia’s government approved the delivery of 8,000 rifles, 200 machine guns, and six million rounds of ammunition to Syria. Set to sail next month on the Lino, a 450-ton Italian freighter, Zionist operatives were determined that the shipment would not reach West Asia. First, its passage was impeded by Haganah warning authorities in Rome that a ship laden with weapons was headed to Italy. Given the “charged political atmosphere” preceding the country’s election, officials quickly moved to impound the Lino.

On the night of April 10, a Zionist sabotage squad descended on the vessel and attached explosive charges before slipping away undetected. The ship sank without casualties or attribution. Per Fiore, the Italian media suggested weapons aboard might have been headed to local Communists, which “[deflected] suspicion away from Zionist involvement.” While a small operation, the Lino’s sinking was seismic. The effort “demonstrated how limited resources, local networks, and deniable maritime sabotage could produce disproportionate effects, disrupting adversary supply while avoiding interstate escalation.”

The Lino operation’s success prompted the formal establishment in May 1948 of a “Unit for the Sabotage of Enemy Supply in Europe,” headquartered in Rome. It rapidly became a “central hub for intelligence, logistics, and coordination” across Italy and Europe for Zionist spies. “Jewish operatives and instructors already active on the continent” joined its ranks, receiving training in all manner of skullduggery, assisted by Italian military and intelligence veterans. Among them were battle-hardened fascists, whose World War II experiences informed future Israeli operational practices.

Meanwhile, a Syrian initiative to recover the sunken Lino’s consignment was ongoing. The weapons and ammunition were successfully salvaged and repaired, then redirected to their original destination on a vessel called the Argiro. But Zionist spies were watching and intended to seize the shipment. Via bribery and elaborate deception, operatives infiltrated the ship’s crew, clearing the way for Zionists posing as a security escort to board the vessel while en route to West Asia. On August 21st, the Argiro was captured and directed to Palestine.

Five days later, Zionist naval forces commandeered the Argiro, seizing the materiel before sinking the ship outright. The lethal cargo reached Haifa four days later and was sent to Zionist militants fighting in al-Quds. The Italian crew was temporarily detained rather than killed or disappeared, although the captain died from tuberculosis in captivity before being returned home in any event, raising the spectre of an international incident erupting between the expanding settler colony and Rome.

Fiore notes the Argiro effort was an early example of “strategic appropriation” by Zionist spies, foreshadowing future operations in which “intelligence, deception, and procurement functioned as mutually reinforcing instruments.” This journalist has documented how a similar approach was applied in the early 1960s, during the entity’s criminal quest to clandestinely acquire nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Argiro’s takeover amply illustrated how Zionist agents in Italy were willing to undertake “progressively riskier measures,” which could cause tension with Rome. But the burgeoning Mossad had little to fear.

‘Diplomatic buffer’

In early 1949, Zionist militants attempted to blow up motor torpedo boats in an Italian shipyard that had been purchased by Egypt. Fiore records how the operation prioritized concealment and “strict deniability” to avoid “diplomatic repercussions” and benefited from an insider providing access to the site. However, the plot’s executors, led by an explosives specialist centrally involved in the Lino’s sinking, were caught in flagrante by local police. In June that year, the group’s leader was sentenced to three years in prison for possessing explosives.

This prompted “sustained diplomatic intervention” from the fledgling Zionist entity’s highest levels, resulting in the convicted agent being freed under a presidential pardon. A “calculated act of executive leniency,” the move set a precedent that endured for decades ever after, and may do so today. The same month the Zionist spies were busted, Italian premier Alcide De Gasperi granted local Mossad chief Ada Sereni informal carte blanche to conduct clandestine operations in her country.

Accordingly, Mossad activities not merely in Italy, but the world over, subsequently emphasized “deception, improvisation, and operational daring.” As long as the connivances of Zionist spies “remained beneath the threshold of public escalation,” authorities in Rome would “close one eye – preferably two.” It was the beginning of a policy of strategic ambiguity, whereby Italy sought to maintain amicable relations with the Arab and Muslim world and Tel Aviv simultaneously. It was hoped that Rome could avoid being dragged into the Palestinian issue, therefore preserving “political equilibrium”.

Under the auspices of this clandestine concord, the Zionist entity benefited enormously from “selective enforcement” of local laws, political pardons if its operatives and/or schemes were exposed, and other indulgences. Mossad could thus exploit Rome “as a transit corridor, logistical base, and diplomatic buffer.” However, Tel Aviv routinely flouted the terms of this dispensation, gravely compromising the country’s “political equilibrium”. For one, “Israel” couldn’t tolerate Palestinian Resistance fighters and groups smuggling weapons or traveling without hindrance through Italy or enjoying political protection locally.

This blind eye to Palestinian Resistance became known as the “Lodo Moro” agreement, so-called because it was instituted by veteran Italian statesman and former prime minister Aldo Moro. Mossad sought to harshly penalize Rome for this leniency toward the Palestinian cause. Questions abound over Zionist involvement in numerous high-profile acts of terror perpetrated in Italy subsequently, such as the August 1980 bombing of Bologna Centrale railway station, which killed 85 people and wounded over 200, and political assassinations – including Moro’s own.

An ardent anti-Zionist, Moro was ostensibly kidnapped by the Red Brigades, a left-wing guerrilla movement, in March 1978. He was killed after 55 days in captivity. Numerous knowledgeable sources have testified to successive parliamentary inquiries and official investigations over the decades about how Mossad infiltrated and assisted the Red Brigades, seeking to influence the group’s activities from inception. Moreover, there was likewise a little-known but hugely impactful Zionist hand in the notorious CIA and MI6-run Operation Gladio from the very beginning.

Chaos unleashed by Gladio greatly furthered Mossad’s quest to destabilize Italy, in service of boosting “Israel’s” financial, military, and political support from the US. There is little chance of Tel Aviv’s geopolitical position being challenged by Rome today. Yet, incidents such as the mysterious late March attack on an Italian oil pipeline raise obvious questions about whether the local Zionist wrecking network constructed decades ago remains in place and still sends incendiary warnings to the country’s government not to step too far out of line.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Comments Off on Hidden history: How Mossad infiltrated Italy

Promises, pressure, pullout: Why US nuclear talks with Iran were never about a deal

By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | April 24, 2026

For over two decades, US-Iran nuclear negotiations have been wrapped in secrecy and sold as a mechanism for reducing tensions. Yet a closer examination reveals a far different reality.

Negotiations were never intended to deliver a just or lasting solution. As the evidence suggests, they were simply a tool, a mechanism for the United States to maintain pressure on Iran while preserving the facade of diplomacy.

From the early 2000s through the signing of the nuclear deal in 2015 and its eventual unraveling three years later, the nuclear negotiation process has been defined by a single, consistent reality: the United States has never been a trustworthy or reliable partner at the table, and the negotiations have never produced the outcomes that were initially expected.

Roots of the crisis

The roots of the crisis, according to the evidence examined by this writer, trace back to 2002, when peaceful energy-centric nuclear facilities were unveiled in the central Iranian cities of Natanz and Arak. Western governments seized on these as evidence of so-called “military ambition.”

Yet Iran made clear from the very beginning that its nuclear program was peaceful and fully within its rights under Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). What began as a technical issue concerning safeguards compliance soon metastasized into a broader geopolitical confrontation.

This transformation did not occur because of any real diversion in Iran’s program. Rather, the nuclear dossier offered the United States and its allies a convenient pretext to sustain strategic pressure against a state that refused to submit to Western domination in West Asia.

This pattern emerged early in the negotiations with the so-called EU-3 – France, Germany, and the United Kingdom – culminating in the Saadabad Declaration of 2003.

Seeking to prevent escalation, Iran voluntarily halted uranium enrichment and, as a counterpart, accepted the Additional Protocol, granting the IAEA expanded access to nuclear sites. These steps went well beyond Iranian legal requirements and were widely regarded as a significant act of goodwill.

Yet rather than reciprocating with tangible concessions or normalization, Western powers seized on the suspension to demand even more radical measures. The voluntary and provisional nature of Iran’s commitments was gradually reframed by European negotiators into open-ended constraints.

Iran resuming parts of nuclear program

The asymmetry of expectations became impossible to ignore, and the fragile trust that had been built soon evaporated. By 2005, it was clear that the West’s objective was not transparency but permanent restriction.

In defense of its sovereign rights, Iran resumed parts of its nuclear program. That dynamic would define the next two decades: every Iranian show of restraint was answered not with reciprocity, but with escalating demands and mounting pressure.

The next turning point came in 2006, when Iran’s nuclear file was referred to the United Nations Security Council. The crisis was now internationalized.

Over the following years, successive resolutions imposed escalating sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, arms transfers, and froze the assets of individuals and organizations.

Alongside these multilateral measures, the United States intensified its unilateral sanctions regime – particularly between 2010 and 2013 – when comprehensive financial and energy sanctions effectively amounted to a total embargo on Iran.

Legislation such as the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), combined with sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank and oil exports, succeeded in isolating the Iranian economy from global finance.

By this stage, the nuclear issue had clearly ceased to be a technical file. It had become an instrument of economic warfare, designed to coerce Iran into altering not only its nuclear policy but its entire strategic orientation.

JCPOA and how it materialized

It was against this backdrop of relentless pressure that the JCPOA was reached in 2015, today hyped as one of the most comprehensive nonproliferation agreements in diplomatic history.

Under the controversial deal, Iran accepted unprecedented restrictions on its nuclear program: stringent caps on enrichment levels, a dramatic reduction of its uranium stockpile, and full IAEA surveillance. These were not hollow concessions but a verifiable rollback of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, offered in exchange for sanctions relief and economic integration.

Moreover, successive IAEA reports from 2016 to 2018 confirmed Iran’s full compliance – a fact that vindicates Iran’s consistent claim that its nuclear program was always peaceful.

Nevertheless, despite Iran’s full cooperation, the expected benefits of the JCPOA never materialized in any meaningful way. Structural barriers within the US sanctions architecture deterred international businesses and financial institutions from engaging with Iran, even after some restrictions were formally lifted.

This systematic failure to deliver tangible outcomes pointed to a deeper problem: the United States had no intention of providing genuine economic relief, preferring to maintain its sanctions leverage despite being a signatory to the deal.

Trump’s withdrawal from JCPOA

The truth became undeniable in May 2018, when the US administration unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA – even as Iran remained in full compliance – and reimposed comprehensive sanctions under the banner of so-called “maximum pressure.”

This not only erased any economic gains Iran might have realized but also demonstrated that any agreement with Washington was structurally unreliable and could be undone at any moment based on political whim.

The US withdrawal only deepened the cycle. As sanctions escalated and pressure mounted, Iran began scaling back its voluntary commitments under the JCPOA after a year of strategic restraint, invoking provisions that allowed for remedial action in the event of non-compliance by the other party.

These steps, including increased enrichment levels and advanced centrifuge research, were presented by Tehran as reversible measures, contingent on the restoration of sanctions relief.

Yet the West, instead of addressing the root cause of the crisis – the US violation of the agreement – once again focused its rhetoric on Iran’s nuclear activities. This inversion of cause and effect simply reset the familiar cycle of pressure and negotiation.

Limitations of the diplomatic process

The inherent limitations of the diplomatic process became clear during efforts to revive the deal through indirect Vienna negotiations starting in 2021. The core issues remained unresolved because talks focused merely on how to arrange a return to compliance.

Iran sought reasonable assurances that the US would not break its word again, along with economic compensation for its own compliance. Washington cited internal political and constitutional constraints as reasons such guarantees were impossible.

The resulting stalemate exposed a fundamental failure: the absence of any practical mechanism to ensure US promises are kept or prevent future violations, dooming any future settlement to the same cycle of disintegration.

The IAEA’s role has also come under scrutiny. Technical safeguards issues have repeatedly been pushed to the edge of a political flashpoint. Impartial compliance monitoring should be the agency’s mandate, yet on Iran, it has aligned with Western pressure, selectively raising issues at Iran’s expense – especially when geopolitical tensions peak.

This has reinforced the perception that the nuclear file is not technical but part of a larger pressure architecture, where institutional mechanisms are weaponized to justify more investigations and punishment.

Lessons from two decades of negotiations

The past two decades leave no room for doubt. The pattern is unmistakable: Iran can negotiate, compromise, and open up, only to face new demands, new sanctions, and shifting goalposts.

Every diplomatic phase has been followed not by resolution but by the reorganization of pressure in another form. This is not about miscalculations or technical differences. It is a chain of political choices in which diplomacy serves not as an end but as a means to gain advantage over Iran. The nuclear issue has become a scapegoat, not a genuine concern, but a tool to coerce and constrain an independent regional power.

The conclusion is inescapable. The technical dimension of Iran’s nuclear program has never been the real issue. Iran has submitted to one of the most invasive verification systems in history and has been repeatedly verified as peaceful.

The true obstacle is that the United States refuses to engage on terms of mutual respect, reciprocity, or long-term commitment. Washington always operates top-down, imposing conditions while reserving the right to walk away.

Under these conditions, nuclear negotiations with the US cannot produce a solution.

The process is fundamentally flawed and has been an absolute failure. And since Iran has already proven its program is peaceful, further talks are worthless – nothing more than pressure recycled as diplomacy.

The ongoing stalemate in the Islamabad talks is fundamentally due to Iran’s refusal to be dragged into a vicious cycle again. After emerging triumphant in the 40-day war, Iran is not willing to accept any of the US maximalist and unreasonable demands.

The nuclear file is effectively off the negotiating table, as the talks underway for nearly two decades have never been about a nuclear deal.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Promises, pressure, pullout: Why US nuclear talks with Iran were never about a deal

Somalia bans Israeli-linked vessels from Bab al-Mandab Strait

The Cradle | April 24, 2026

The Somali government announced on 22 April that it will impose a ban on Israeli shipping passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait, framing the move as a response to Tel Aviv’s recognition of the breakaway Republic of Somaliland.

The announcement was made by Somalia’s ambassador to Ethiopia and the African Union, Abdullah Warfa.

He warned that violations of his country’s sovereignty “would not be tolerated.”

“External meddling could lead to countermeasures, such as restricting access to the key maritime route of Bab al-Mandab,” Warfa added, according to Yemen Press Agency (YPA), Mehr News Agency, and IRNA.

The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) reported a day later that a cargo ship 83 nautical miles southeast of Eyl, Somalia, was approached by two small armed boats, one of which came within 600 meters of the vessel.

“Warning shots were fired and the suspicious craft returned fire. The suspicious small craft moved away and made clear of the reporting cargo ship. All crew are safe and accounted for,” the UKMTO report added.

While analysts question Somalia’s ability to enforce the ban due to limited naval capacity, they say the decision carries major political weight, potentially reshaping regional alignments and pushing Somalia toward closer coordination with Sanaa over control of the strategic chokepoint.

Late last year, Israel became the first state to recognize the breakaway Somaliland region as an independent state. Somaliland had functioned as a de facto state since declaring independence in 1991, with its own governing institutions and security structures – despite receiving no recognition from any UN member state and facing sustained opposition from Somalia.

The Somali government slammed the move along with several regional countries, including Turkiye.

Earlier this month, Somalia condemned Israel’s appointment of an ambassador to Somaliland.

The announcement comes as tensions between Tehran and Washington remain high despite the ceasefire. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and Tehran has retaliated to an ongoing US blockade and seizure of its vessels – capturing two ships this week.

Yemen’s Ansarallah resistance movement, which has threatened to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait given its close proximity, carried out several operations during the US-Israeli war on Iran.

Ansarallah recently vowed it would resume operations if the US–Iran ceasefire collapses.

“We have more serious winning cards; the US must understand that, with the help of our Yemeni brothers, the issue of the Bab al-Mandab Strait is also under consideration and action,” said Behnam Saeedi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee, earlier this month.

The Bab al-Mandab Strait is the passageway for approximately 12 percent of global oil and eight percent of worldwide liquefied natural gas (LNG).

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Comments Off on Somalia bans Israeli-linked vessels from Bab al-Mandab Strait

‘Profound moral failure’: Iran denounces US endorsement of assassinations amid fragile ceasefire

Press TV – April 24, 2026

Iran says the United States has turned into a state sponsor of terrorism after President Donald Trump endorsed a Washington Post op-ed that called for the assassination of Iranian leaders.

The op-ed by Marc Thiessen suggested giving Iran’s government a 72-hour ultimatum before ending the current ceasefire, resuming attacks, and “killing the ones who don’t want a deal.”

“The United States, which once presented itself as a cradle of democracy, freedom, and human values, now appears to become a promoter of terrorism, murder, and mass violence,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei wrote on X on Thursday.

“What should one call this, if not a profound moral failure?” he asked.

Peace talks in Islamabad fell through due to US maximalist demands, and the Islamic Republic has said it will not rejoin the diplomatic process unless Washington lifts an illegal blockade it has imposed against Iranian vessels and ports.

The United States and Israel launched an unprovoked war of terrorism against Iran on Feb. 28, assassinating Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei along with several senior military commanders. In response, Iran’s armed forces carried out retaliatory missile and drone operations against US and Israeli military assets for more than 40 days, forcing Washington and Tel Aviv to declare a ceasefire.

Faced with Tehran’s unflinching response to the blockade, the United States has recently attempted to suggest a lack of unity among Iranian officials over peace talks.

On Thursday, President Masoud Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, and Judiciary Chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Ejei issued a collective response to Trump, denouncing his remarks about “divisions between extremists and moderates” in Iran as unwarranted provocations and emphasizing national unity.

Separately, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei said the remarkable unity among Iranians has disrupted the calculations of those seeking to undermine the Islamic Republic.

“Due to the remarkable unity created among compatriots, a fracture has occurred in the enemy,” the Leader wrote on X. He warned that the enemy’s media operations are targeting the minds and psyches of the people to undermine national unity and security.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , , , | Comments Off on ‘Profound moral failure’: Iran denounces US endorsement of assassinations amid fragile ceasefire

ELNET taking UK journalists on secret pro-‘Israel’ propaganda tours

Al Mayadeen | April 24, 2026

A lobbying organization, ELNET, has been quietly arranging trips to “Israel” for British journalists and retired military personnel, according to an investigation published by Declassified. The tours coincide with the Israeli military’s ongoing campaign that has killed over 259 Palestinian and Lebanese journalists since 2023.

The investigation noted that on Wednesday, journalist Amal Khalil and photographer Zeinab Faraj were reporting from southern Lebanon when an Israeli airstrike targeted them. Khalil was killed and Faraj was seriously injured. The Israeli military is responsible for two-thirds of all journalist killings globally in 2025, the report states.

While systematically killing Palestinian journalists, Declassified reported that the Israeli government has blocked foreign media workers from entering Gaza, effectively creating a blackout of its military operations.

ELNET created to counter criticism of ‘Israel’

According to the investigation, ELNET was founded in 2007 with the stated aim of “countering the widespread criticism of Israel in Europe.” The group is increasingly viewed as the European equivalent of AIPAC, the powerful American-Israeli lobby.

Declassified found that journalists who participated in ELNET delegations have written for major British publications including the Telegraph, Spectator and Mail on Sunday. The group has also taken former British military officers to “Israel”, who subsequently portrayed the IOF’s operations in Gaza in a favourable light.

Professor Des Freedman of Goldsmiths told Declassified that such trips are not genuine fact-finding missions but rather “junkets specifically designed to generate pro-Israel coverage.” He added that embedded journalism of this kind is “utterly scandalous during a genocide when the rest of the world’s media have been locked out of Gaza.”

ELNET has close links to Israeli government

The investigation reveals that ELNET maintains close ties to the Israeli government. Its board members include two former advisors to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The group was invited to a 2024 meeting with foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar to discuss improving “public diplomacy”, and its delegations are frequently organized “in partnership” with the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Emmanuel Navon, who directed ELNET’s “Israel” office between 2023 and 2025, described “Israel’s” offensive into Rafah as “necessary” and dismissed concerns about Palestinian civilians, Declassified reports.

ELNET’s UK branch is directed by former MP Joan Ryan, who once chaired Labour Friends of Israel. Under her leadership, the group has sought to cast doubt on casualty figures from Gaza, calling them “demonstrably unreliable and strategically manipulated.” The UK branch has also condemned British recognition of a Palestinian state as a “PR win” for Hamas and urged the restoration of arms exports to “Israel.”

Journalist declared ‘war must go on’ after ELNET trip

Declassified identified British journalist Zoe Strimpel, who writes for the Sunday Telegraph, as one participant in an ELNET delegation. Days after returning from “Israel”, she wrote in The Spectator that “most people” in “Israel” agree that “the war must go on until Hamas is completely destroyed.”

In a separate Telegraph article, Strimpel dismissed accusations of “Israeli ‘genocide’ in Gaza” as “grotesquely false”. When approached by Declassified about her participation in the ELNET trip, she declined to offer any defensive response, stating, “The more pro-Israel the better in my view.”

Another participant, David Rose, wrote for the Jewish Chronicle after his trip that “the trauma experienced throughout Israeli society means serious consideration of the longer-term relationship between Israel and the Palestinians is almost impossible to contemplate.”

Former British generals toured Gaza with ELNET

The investigation also revealed that former British military officers have joined ELNET delegations. Retired British army officer Sir John McColl, who served as a NATO commander in Europe, joined a September 2024 delegation that met with Netanyahu and former Security Minister, both wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

The group received briefings from Israeli military commanders and spent time in Gaza “observing troops in action.” Shortly after returning, McColl wrote in The Times that the Israeli military’s “rules of engagement in Gaza are at least as rigorous as those of the British army.” ELNET subsequently listed McColl’s article as one of its “recent successes” in an impact report.

Three other former British military figures on that delegation were Johnny Mercer, Colonel Richard Kemp and Major Andrew Fox. Fox later wrote on Substack, “When does a journalist become a legitimate military target? Many not often enough.”

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Comments Off on ELNET taking UK journalists on secret pro-‘Israel’ propaganda tours

#FreeYousofAzizi: Petition launched to seek release of Iranian academic, anti-war activist detained in US

Press TV – April 23, 2026

A petition has been launched calling for the release of Yousof Azizi, an Iranian researcher, journalist, political analyst, and PhD candidate at Virginia Tech, who has been detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) despite holding valid legal status.

According to a website launched by his supporters, Azizi was taken into custody in front of his home in Maryland on April 13 and denied access to a lawyer.

Press TV was the first media outlet to report on his arbitrary arrest by ICE.

A day later, he was held at the Baltimore ICE Detention Center, and visitation was prohibited to his family or lawyers.

On April 15, Azizi was transferred to Louisiana against his will. His lawyer immediately requested his release by posting bond.

Two days later, on April 17, he was transferred again to Arizona against his will, as he informed his wife over a short phone call, notes the website.

Azizi is a father of two young children and an active member of the Iranian community in the US who has publicly and unapologetically spoken against the unprovoked and illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

A media personality with regular appearances on multiple international English and Persian media outlets, including Press TV, Azizi has been one of the few voices in the Persian media sphere to openly and vociferously oppose the Zionist lobby’s influence on US foreign policy.

His media commentary has consistently criticized US military aggression against Iran and the Israeli genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon.

His case has alarmed civil rights advocates in the US, who view it as an example of politically driven immigration enforcement, which has become common under the Trump administration.

“When no clear legal violation is presented, we must ask: on what basis is he being held,” the change.org petition that has garnered significant attention notes.

Supporters of the campaign say the case raises serious concerns about due process, justice, and the increasingly blurred line between law and politics in the US.

They stress that silence does not serve justice and that awareness matters, demanding a fair review of Azizi’s case and his immediate release from ICE custody.

Hundreds of foreign nationals, including Iranians, have been detained or deported by immigration authorities in the US in recent months on flimsy pretexts.

You can join the petition to press for Azizi’s release here.

April 24, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism | , , , | Comments Off on #FreeYousofAzizi: Petition launched to seek release of Iranian academic, anti-war activist detained in US

Confusion, delusion, and how Israel drives the Iran War

By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | April 23, 2026

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the temporary ceasefire is the culmination of an American policy defined by strategic incoherence. At the center stands Donald Trump, whose shifting positions, confused war objectives, and conflicting actions have not only failed to ease regional tensions but have actively deepened them.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Trump’s threats to blow up the whole country, including its bridges and power plants. At the same time, he touted a military “big day,” presenting potential war crimes as diplomatic tool, aggression as diplomacy, and destruction as leverage.

Trump’s inflated, almost delusional, promises ahead of potential talks come across less as statesmanship and more as a calculated sales pitch to the American public. His vows “to end up with a great deal,” coupled with an almost obsessive focus on Barack Obama by insisting his agreement will be “far better” than the one negotiated over a decade ago. An approach that reflects a tendency toward messaging driven less by policy depth and more by projection, comparison, and to frame outcomes in terms of self-aggrandizement and personal glory.

Instead of articulating clear strategic objectives, his policy relies on distinguishing himself and image cultivation to project authority and superiority, leaving the underlying substance vague and open to question.

By manufacturing optimism and exaggerating progress while promising an imminent “great deal,” Trump appears to be negotiating with himself—or detached from reality—seeking to construct a narrative of success regardless of the facts on the ground. The performative optimism stands in sharp contrast to his simultaneous threats and pompous rhetoric, suggesting not confidence but a measure of desperation.

Trump’s rationale for extending the ceasefire because of “internal divisions”  within Iran is unconvincing. If internal debate within Iran is seen as warranting a pause, what should be said of a policy where direction shifts from one moment to the next? Differing political views are the essence of a normally functioning political system, whereas impulsive, erratic, personalized decision-making is not.

All of this unfolds as Trump continues issuing maximalist demands for conditions he helped create. For instance, he demands the surrender of enriched uranium that would not exist had he not abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Likewise, the Strait of Hormuz was closed as a consequence of his and Netanyahu’s war, not as its cause.

The consequences of these Israel-driven U.S. policies are felt by ordinary Americans at the gas pump and in grocery stores. The Strait of Hormuz has become a battleground, destabilizing global energy supply chains and economies worldwide. Yet despite these cascading effects, the core strategy remains unchanged. Trump continues to operate within an echo chamber of Israel-first sycophants that assume military might alone can deliver results, even as the policy falters and the war spills across the region, threatening roughly one-fifth of the world’s energy infrastructure.

This is not merely a political flaw or a matter of mismanagement. It is rather a strategic vulnerability shaped by Israel-first loyalists pulling U.S. strategy in directions that ultimately undermine U.S. national interests. In the absence of clearly defined national objectives, as in the first Israel’s war in Iraq, each step risks drawing the U.S. deeper into the polluted water of the Gulf, while simultaneously advancing an environment of chaos that serves only Israel’s calculated aims.

In this framework, was Israeli Prijamame Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent statement that the war with Iran is “not over” an embedded message to Trump ahead of the proposed peace talks in Pakistan?

Negotiation between countries, especially in the context of war is not selling real estate deals, where haggling and the threat of retracting an offer are routine tactics. The craft of negotiation in this case operates on an entirely different level. Culture, national dignity, historical memory, and political positioning shape both the process and the outcome.

Leaders are not merely bargaining over financial assets or credit ratings, they are navigating domestic demands, legitimacy, and the perception of strength or weakness on the global stage.

In this regard, threats or the constant withdrawal and reintroduction of proposals are not leverage, they are weakness. Unlike commercial transactions where the “Art of the Deal” is largely concluded at the moment of signing, international agreements mark the beginning of an ongoing, often long-term relationship. What may pass as hard-nosed bargaining in business can, in international diplomacy, be interpreted as bad faith, an approach that tends to invite resentment and resistance instead of compromise. This is why since last Tuesday, Trump was left waiting for Iran to come to the negotiation table.

Effective diplomacy requires serious leadership, consistency, and an understanding of the symbolic as much as the substantive. Agreements endure not because one side is pressured into submission, but because all parties can present the outcome as preserving their dignity and advancing mutual interests.

The lack of strategic maturity is indicative in a proclamation in the morning signaling openness to de-escalation; by midday, the message splinters, issuing threats and ultimatums while simultaneously hinting at imminent breakthrough deals; by the middle of the night, amid his insomnia, it escalates to threats of total destruction. This constant shifting of positions is not a minor stylistic quirk. It is possible that, at least some of this, is associated with his nocturnal communications with Netanyahu, who is apparently wagging him left and right.

This yo-yoing of positions does more than create confusion; it erodes credibility. Diplomacy depends on a baseline of predictability and mental stability. When signals shift faster than the wind, uncertainty breeds mistrust, and negotiations drift from closed rooms into fiery statements played out for public consumption, creating an opening for Israel to drive the war and breed destruction and more chaos.

April 23, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Confusion, delusion, and how Israel drives the Iran War

After the ceasefire illusion: Why Gaza’s “Day After” still has no buyer?

By Dr Mustafa Fetouri | MEMO | April 23, 2026

The international community remains fixated on a phantom: Gaza’s “Day After.” While Washington, Cairo, and Doha debate elaborate governance frameworks and the “Board of Peace,” these plans share a fatal flaw—they lack a viable “buyer” on the ground.

This diplomatic theatre has been eclipsed by the US-Israeli aggression against Iran that began on 28th February. Since then, Gaza has been sidelined globally, yet the genocide—begun in October 2023—has never stopped. Even before the Iran escalation, the 10th October ceasefire was a hollow promise; Israel violated the agreement over 2,400 times through near-daily air raids and shelling.

Since that supposed de-escalation, nearly 1,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed, pushing the total death toll past 72,300. This grim reality proves the “Day After” is not a sincere peace plan, but a cynical mask for a permanent, lethal status quo. Far from transitioning to Phase II, the current impasse suggests the ceasefire was merely a tactical suspension of a conflict Israel refuses to end. With the occupation intact and violations occurring daily, Gaza is not moving toward a post-war era. Instead, it is being forced into a state of managed catastrophe, where “peace” serves as a placeholder for the next phase of destruction.

The “Day After” blueprints—specifically the Trump-led Board of Peace and the National Transitional Committee (NTC)—envision technocratic governance for Gaza but face a wall of refusal. For the Israeli government, any plan offering a pathway to Palestinian sovereignty is a non-starter; Netanyahu’s coalition instead prioritises “forward defence” and indefinite military hegemony. Conversely, the Palestinian Authority (PA) remains wary of being “parachuted” into the ruins on the back of Israeli tanks, a move that would permanently strip them of national legitimacy.

The vacuum is further complicated by the survival of the Resistance on the ground. Despite the fanfare surrounding the Board of Peace’s “Phase II,” Hamas has explicitly rejected  any form of international guardianship, viewing the NTC not as a governing partner, but as a Trojan horse for disarmament. Meanwhile, the wealthy Arab states—the intended financiers of a reconstruction effort now estimated to cost $71.4 billion—have failed to commit any tangible funds.

Their hesitance is rooted in a grim economic reality: the regional losses they have accumulated, and continue to accumulate, from the spillover of the war on Iran have depleted the very sovereign wealth once earmarked for Gaza.

Without a “buyer” willing to assume the immense security and political risks of governing a site of ongoing genocide, the various “roadmaps” coming out of Washington and Brussels serve as little more than academic exercises in a theater of the absurd. The international community continues to pitch governance models to a phantom audience, while the reality on the ground remains one of systematic destruction, leaving Gaza caught in a loop where “reconstruction” is discussed as a future hope but never funded as a present necessity.

The “Day After” illusion is further sustained by the inflammatory rhetoric of Nickolay Mladenov, the High Representative for the Board of Peace. In his recent April 2026 briefings, Mladenov has essentially weaponised Gaza’s reconstruction, explicitly linking the release of the $71.4 billion in aid to the immediate and total disarmament of Palestinian factions.

By framing the situation as a binary choice—disarm or continue to suffer—Mladenov has abandoned the role of a neutral mediator.

Hamas has responded by accusing Mladenov of siding with the Israeli occupation and ignoring the thousands of ceasefire violations that have occurred since October 2026 effectively freezing the process in Phase II. By prioritizing the “decommissioning of weapons” over the immediate cessation of the genocide and the lifting of the blockade, Mladenov’s framework has become a symbol of international bias rather than a bridge to peace. This disconnect is why the “Day After” has no buyer: the brokers are selling a plan that demands the surrender of the victims while the aggressor continues its military operations with impunity.

Sensing that the Resistance groups are not convinced by his frameworks, Mladenov has recently attempted to soften his public tone while maintaining his rigid demands. In an interview with Reuters on 20th April, he admitted that negotiations with Hamas are “not easy,” yet he struck a jarringly optimistic note, claiming he is “optimistic that we will be able to come up with an arrangement that works for all sides and, most importantly, works for the people in Gaza.” Since neither Israel—which continues its strikes—nor the Resistance—which has rejected international guardianship—has publicly shifted their positions, Mladenov’s forward-looking posture appears increasingly detached from the ground reality.

In recent high-level meetings in Cairo (ending 17th April), Hamas negotiators, led by Khalil al-Hayya, delivered a firm list of prerequisites to the Egyptian mediators. They made it clear that they will not consider any decommissioning of weapons without:

  • A definitive and irreversible plan toward a sovereign Palestinian State.
  • The complete and immediate lifting of the 19-year blockade.
  • A full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-October lines (specifically removing the “Yellow Line” military zones).
  • The prior implementation of all Phase I humanitarian commitments, including the reopening of all commercial crossings and the restoration of Gaza’s power plant.

By insisting on these core national rights as a baseline, the Resistance has effectively neutralized Mladenov’s “aid-for-arms” trade-off, exposing the Board of Peace as a seller with a product that the actual stakeholders refuse to buy.

Ultimately, the “Day After” is failing because it has lost its primary architect. Donald Trump, once the loudest champion of these regional “deals,” is now completely bogged down by the escalating war on Iran, a conflict that is siphoning away the political capital and attention once directed toward Gaza. His schedule for next month confirms this pivot: a rescheduled state visit to China (May 14-15) and a high-stakes reception for the UK’s King Charles later this month, both of which were delayed specifically by his war on Iran.

With Trump preoccupied by a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and a domestic battle over war powers, Gaza has been relegated to a secondary theatre.

This lack of American bandwidth means the “Board of Peace” is effectively a rudderless ship. For the people on the ground, this means the “Day After” is not just a geopolitical myth, but a casualty of a larger regional fire that the White House is currently more interested in fuelling than extinguishing.

April 23, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , | Comments Off on After the ceasefire illusion: Why Gaza’s “Day After” still has no buyer?

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »