Iran notified the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 20 November that it is terminating the cooperation agreement signed in Cairo in retaliation for the UN nuclear watchdog adopting a new resolution demanding expanded access and information on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Iran’s envoy to the agency, Reza Najafi, said the resolution “will not add anything to the current situation” and described it as “counterproductive” shortly after the Board of Governors approved the text.
He warned that it would have “a negative impact on the cooperation that has already started between Iran and the agency.”
According to diplomats who attended the closed session, the 35-member board passed the resolution with 19 votes in favor, three against, and 12 abstentions.
The text requires Iran to report “without delay” on the status of its enriched uranium stock and on its nuclear sites that were bombed by Israel and the US during the 12-day war on Iran in June.
It also urges Iran to “comply fully and without delay” with its obligations under UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and to provide all information and access requested by the agency.
Western members of the board stated that “Iran must resolve its safeguards issues without delay” and called for “practical cooperation through access, answers, restoration of monitoring.”
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and had earlier cautioned that the resolution would “adversely affect” ongoing cooperation. Najafi noted that Iran had already granted access to “all undamaged facilities,” while inspectors have not been to sites such as Fordow and Natanz since they were hit in the June war.
The agency says verification of Iran’s uranium stock is “long overdue,” and that it cannot inspect the bombed facilities until Tehran submits updated reports.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the IAEA resolution was “unlawful and politically motivated,” initiated by the US and the European troika, and pushed through despite the 15 members voting against or abstaining.
He said the move ignored Iran’s goodwill, undermined the agency’s credibility and independence, and would disrupt cooperation.
The Foreign Minister had previously said that the Cairo agreement with the IAEA was defunct after Europe triggered snapback sanctions, but added that a negotiated solution remains possible if the opposing side acts in good faith.
Araghchi confirmed that he informed IAEA chief Rafael Grossi in a formal letter that the agreement is now considered terminated.
When Israeli attacks began in June, the IAEA estimated Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 percent.
Iran and several allied states argued that issuing another resolution would jeopardize efforts to advance dialogue.
Tehran has declared that the September inspection agreement with the IAEA is void, and Najafi said the new resolution “will have its own consequences,” adding that Iran would announce them later.
November 20, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Wars for Israel | France, Germany, IAEA, Iran, Sanctions against Iran, UK, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein used his close relationship with the Rothschild banking empire to channel private investments into the Israeli regime’s cyberweapons industry.
Documents released by the US House Oversight Committee in November, alongside hacked emails from former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, reveal that Epstein acted as a key intermediary, connecting the Rothschild banking dynasty with Israel’s cyberweapons sector.
The records show Epstein coordinating private investments in Israeli startups developing offensive cyber capabilities, surveillance tools, and spyware technologies.
Following Barak’s retirement from office in 2013, he recruited Pavel Gurvich, a former operative of Israel’s secretive Unit 81, to identify promising cyber ventures.
Barak relied on Gurvich for guidance on investments in offensive cyber tools, including Tor network surveillance, NSO-style cellphone hacking software, and router exploitation technologies.
Gurvich supplied detailed maps of undersea transatlantic cables and network access points, illustrating the global reach of potential operations.
Epstein then facilitated connections between Barak, Gurvich, and the Rothschild dynasty, offering logistical support, guidance on tax and investment structures, and strategic advice.
Epstein’s involvement included a $25 million contract in October 2015 between his Southern Trust Company and Barak’s spyware-linked startup Reporty Homeland Security (now Carbyne).
The agreement covered “risk analysis and the application and use of certain algorithms.”
He also organized private meetings and dinners to foster collaboration, including a January 2014 gathering in Paris with Barak, the Rothschilds, and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Emails suggest Epstein coached Barak on managing the Rothschild relationship, advising him to provide “time, attention, stable, recurring, predictable” engagement to earn trust.
Barak also proposed a donor-advised fund to channel private capital into Israeli technology, planning to allocate 4–5% of the fund to startups in telecommunications, cyberwarfare, and biotechnology.
The fund would operate through the Rothschilds’ “umbrella fund” structures, allowing tax-deductible contributions to finance early-stage military and spyware technology companies. Epstein coordinated introductions and advised Barak on securing Rothschild backing.
Furthermore, Epstein managed the logistics of Barak’s participation in the 2014 Herzliya Conference, Israel’s premier cyberwarfare summit, sponsored by the Rothschild Caesarea Foundation (RCF).
Emails show he relayed speaker lists, arranged private meetings with the Rothschilds, and guided Barak on handling inquiries from conference organizers.
Correspondence indicates Epstein remained active in the network until at least April 2017, arranging private meetings and maintaining connections between Barak, the Rothschilds, and other influential figures in Israel’s cyberwarfare industry.
Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019 and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City.
He reportedly committed suicide by hanging in August 2019, despite prior reports that he was under suicide watch following an attempt in July of that year.
November 19, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | France, Israel, Zionism |
Leave a comment
In the shadowy world of U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, few names inspire as much controversy as Otto Reich, a Jewish-Cuban exile whose career reads like a manual for regime change, complete with illegal propaganda operations, coup connections, and an unwavering commitment to toppling governments that defy Washington.
The story begins in Havana, where Otto Juan Reich was born on October 16, 1945, to an Austrian Jewish father who had fled National Socialist Germany in 1938 and a Cuban Catholic mother. His father’s escape from Germany became the foundational narrative of Reich’s worldview, a tale of authoritarian evil that he would later project onto Latin America’s leftist movements. Raised as a Catholic despite his Jewish heritage, young Otto attended the elite, American-run Ruston Academy, where he absorbed both Cuban culture and American influence in equal measure.
During Reich’s youth, Cuba was under the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, whose political repression was so severe that even Reich’s own family, as he told The New Yorker, was “pro-revolution, anti-Batista.” The lone exception was his father, whose experience fleeing one authoritarian regime had made him suspicious of revolutionary movements. When Fidel Castro seized power in 1959, that suspicion proved prophetic—or so Reich would claim for the rest of his life. Castro’s consolidation of power prompted Reich’s father to flee once more, this time taking his family to North Carolina in 1960, when Otto was just 15 years old, as the New York Times reported.
His father’s double exile—first from Germany, then from revolutionary Cuba—became the crucible that forged the younger Reich’s political identity. Where some might see tragedy, Reich saw opportunity. Where others might advocate reconciliation, Reich would pursue confrontation. The teenage refugee would grow into one of Washington’s most zealous operators against Latin American leftism, a man for whom the line between communism and democracy admitted no gray areas, no nuance, no possibility of coexistence.
From the Military to the Foreign Policy Blob
Reich’s trajectory toward influence was methodical. He earned a Bachelor’s degree in International Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1966, then immediately joined the U.S. Army, serving three years as an officer in the 3rd Civil Affairs Detachment stationed in the Panama Canal Zone. This posting provided Reich with more than military experience; it offered a frontline view of U.S. power projection in Latin America, where American military presence wasn’t just about defense but about maintaining influence over an entire hemisphere.
After his military service, Reich completed a Master’s degree in Latin American Studies from Georgetown University in 1973, assembling the credentials that would make him indispensable to conservative policymakers seeking expertise on the region.
When Ronald Reagan swept into the White House in 1981, Reich found his moment. The Reagan administration needed operatives willing to prosecute an aggressive anti-communist agenda in Latin America, and Reich eagerly volunteered. From 1981 to 1983, he served as Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, managing American economic assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean during a period of revolutionary upheaval. But this posting was merely preparation for Reich’s true calling.
The Architect of the Contra Propaganda Machine
In 1983, Reich established and began directing the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean, an anodyne name for what would become one of the most controversial operations in modern American foreign policy. The OPD’s official mission was to promote the Contra guerrillas fighting Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. Its actual function, as would later be revealed, was to conduct what the Comptroller General characterized in 1987 as “prohibited, covert propaganda” to bolster the Contra’s image among the American public.
Under Reich’s management, the OPD became a factory for disinformation. The office planted false stories in U.S. media outlets, including unsubstantiated claims about the Nicaraguan government’s involvement in drug trafficking. It published opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers attributed to fictitious Nicaraguan rebel leaders. It coordinated with paid consultants who wrote pro-Contra articles while concealing their government connections—a practice congressional investigators would later identify as “white propaganda.”
Reich had effectively turned his office into a domestic propaganda operation aimed at manipulating American public opinion to support a covert war. A House Foreign Affairs Committee report didn’t mince words, characterizing the OPD as “a domestic political and propaganda operation.” For three years, Reich oversaw this machinery of deception, becoming what journalist Ann Bardach would later call the “chief spinner” of the Iran-Contra effort.
The scandal that eventually engulfed the Reagan administration would shut down Reich’s operation in 1987. Yet remarkably, Reich himself was not personally accused of illegal activity. He had operated in that gray zone where government officials claim plausible deniability—close enough to the crime to be indispensable, distant enough to avoid prosecution. It was a skill he would refine over decades.
The Lobbyist Years
When Reich left government service in 1989, following a stint as U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela from 1986 to 1989, he didn’t abandon his mission. He simply changed his methodology. For 12 years, Reich worked as a corporate lobbyist, first as a partner in the Brock Group and later as president of his own firm, RMA International. But these weren’t ordinary lobbying gigs; Reich selected clients whose interests aligned perfectly with his ideological agenda.
He represented Bacardi rum company in a campaign to nullify Cuba’s trademark protection for “Havana Club,” an effort that succeeded with the enactment of the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, which further fortified the Cuban embargo. He worked on behalf of Lockheed Martin to sell F-16 fighter jets to Chile. Where others saw business opportunities, Reich saw another front in his endless campaign to maintain American primacy in Latin America.
Return to Power
When George W. Bush captured the White House in 2001, Reich saw an opportunity to return to government service. Bush nominated him for Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, but the appointment immediately sparked controversy. The Senate, wary of Reich’s Iran-Contra record and his advocacy for Orlando Bosch—a Cuban exile militant suspected of organizing the bombing of Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, which killed 73 people—refused to hold confirmation hearings.
Bush’s solution revealed the depths of Reich’s value to Republican hardliners: He simply bypassed the Senate through a recess appointment, allowing Reich to serve for one year without confirmation before being appointed as Special Envoy to Latin America. Democracy be damned; Reich’s expertise in destabilization was too valuable to sacrifice to Senate oversight.
The 2002 Venezuelan Coup
Reich’s tenure coincided with one of the most controversial episodes in recent Latin American history: the brief coup d’état in Venezuela on April 11, 2002, that temporarily removed President Hugo Chávez from power. During the coup, Reich communicated with coup leader Pedro Carmona Estanga and contacted ambassadors from other Latin American countries. Cuban sources would characterize Reich as the “mastermind of the April 2002 coup plot against Hugo Chávez,” though Reich has denied direct involvement in the coup planning.
The pattern was familiar: A left-leaning, democratically elected leader who defied Washington’s preferences; a sudden coup involving military and business elites; and Otto Reich in communication with the coup leaders. Whether Reich masterminded the operation or simply provided encouragement and diplomatic cover, his presence at the center of events spoke volumes about his role in Bush administration policy.
The Ideological Entrepreneur
After leaving government service in 2004, Reich established Otto Reich Associates, a Washington consulting firm providing international government relations advice. But he remained far more than a mere consultant. Reich positioned himself as an ideological entrepreneur, shaping policy from outside government through media appearances, congressional testimony, and advisory roles to Republican presidential candidates, including John McCain in 2008 and Jeb Bush in 2016.
During Donald Trump’s first term, Reich played a significant behind-the-scenes role in shaping Latin American policy. In August 2018, he was credited with recommending Mauricio Claver-Carone to National Security Advisor John Bolton for the position of top official for Latin America policy at the National Security Council. Bolton later acknowledged: “I wouldn’t have known [Claver-Carone’s] name if Otto hadn’t recommended him. I trusted Otto’s judgment.”
Reich praised the appointment of Cuban-American hawks to key Trump administration positions, stating: “We have people who understand the cause, and not just the symptoms, of the problems in Latin America—not all the problems—and that is Cuba.” He argued that “the United States has been a fire brigade in Latin America for the last 60 years and we have ignored, to a large degree, the arsonist,” referring to Cuba’s role in supporting leftist movements throughout the region.
The Unending Campaign to Preserve U.S. Hegemony
Reich’s crusade against Latin American leftism never wavered, never softened. He characterized Venezuela as a “branch” and “subsidiary” of Cuba, accusing President Chávez of “having put a lot of his country’s money at the service of Fidel Castro” and “giving away” petroleum to the Caribbean island. This close alliance, Reich claimed, fueled what he called the “disgusting and gloomy process of Cubanization” unfolding in the petroleum-rich nation.
Then-Vice President José Vicente Rangel defended Venezuela’s sovereignty in July 2005, claiming that Reich “permanently attacks the Venezuelan government, because all of the petroleum business that [the US] has with Venezuela frustrates him.” Rangel rhetorically asked Reich to clarify “exactly which process of Cubanization is he talking about,” arguing that “the true Cubanization of Venezuela occurred years ago with the infiltration of anti-Castro Cubans into Venezuela’s police bodies.”
In a February 2015 panel discussion at the University of Miami titled “Venezuela: A Deepening Political and Economic Quagmire?”, Reich compared the Venezuelan government to National Socialist Germany, stating that officials there could claim they were “simply obeying the laws of the land” just as German officials did, warning “we have to be careful what the laws of the land are.” The comparison was as hyperbolic as it was revealing—for Reich, every leftist government in Latin America was potentially the next Third Reich.
By January 2024, Reich’s criticism had intensified following the Biden administration’s temporary sanctions relief on Venezuela. In an interview with PanAm Post, Reich declared that Biden’s policy toward Venezuela “has been a failure since the beginning of his administration” and characterized it as “not just a failure but a humiliation.” He warned that “not only the ideological pressure groups of the left but now also the commercial groups, the American oil companies that are doing business with Maduro, are going to put pressure on the Biden government not to restore the sanctions.”
Expanding the Enemy List
For Reich, the list of adversaries extended far beyond Cuba and Venezuela. He grouped Nicaragua and Bolivia together with Venezuela and Cuba as what he called “21st Century Socialist States,” arguing they represented a coordinated Cuban-Venezuelan effort to undermine democracy throughout Latin America. In March 2014 testimony before Congress titled “U.S. Disengagement from Latin America,” Reich warned that these governments constituted “organized crime states” where “top politicians and high-ranking military officers have been implicated in drug trafficking, support of terrorism and other illicit activities.”
Reich’s recent writings reveal an expansion of his ideological enemies to include Middle Eastern actors. In a November 2023 article for the Jewish Policy Center, Reich argued that “for more than one year, Iran secretly provided the weapons and training that Hamas needed for planning the October 7th attack against Israel.” He specifically accused Cuba of being “a key Iran-Hamas ally” in diplomatic efforts supporting the Palestinian militant organization.
Reich documented three high-level meetings that he claimed demonstrated Cuba’s complicity in the attack: a February 5, 2023 visit by Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian to meet with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel; a February 25, 2023 Hamas delegation visit to Jorge León Cruz, the Cuban Ambassador in Lebanon, where Cruz recognized “the legitimate right of the Palestinians to defend their land,” stating that Palestinians “are fighting for a just cause”; and a June 15, 2023 meeting between Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Díaz-Canel in Havana.
Reich asserted that these meetings, coupled with Cuba’s “long history of both antisemitism and support of extremist terrorist organizations in the Middle East,” proved that Cuba operated “terrorist training camps in secret locations” and allowed Hezbollah to establish “an operational base in Cuba, designed to support terrorist attacks throughout Latin America.”
Regime Change Villain
Throughout his career, Reich’s targets have consistently accused him of the very interference he claims to oppose. The Cuban government has consistently accused Reich of supporting terrorism and interfering in Cuban affairs. In 2002, Cuba’s Foreign Relations Ministry categorically denied Reich’s claims that four Cuban airplanes landed at Venezuela’s airport during the 2002 coup attempt, calling Reich’s assertion “an absolute lie.” The ministry stated that “if it had been necessary to land a Cuban civilian airplane to collect Cuban diplomatic personnel who were besieged by Mr. Reich’s friends, or for any other humanitarian and peaceful objective, we would have done it and we would have no reason to hide it.”
During a diplomatic visit to South America in July 2002, Reich drew criticism for instructing the Argentine government to commit to an austerity program demanded by the International Monetary Fund–one of the most notable vehicles of Judeo-American power. His aggressive approach to diplomacy was so abrasive that Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Republican member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, reported getting first-hand experience of Latin American hostility toward Reich during travels in the region. The term “hemispheric security mechanism” that Reich promoted stirred “unpleasant interventionist memories” throughout Latin America, according to a report by Toby Eglund.
Venezuelan officials have been particularly vocal about Reich’s skullduggery, even in the Obama era. In March 2013, Venezuela’s then-interim president Nicolás Maduro accused “factors in the Pentagon and the CIA” of conspiring against Venezuela, specifically naming Reich and Roger Noriega, who directly succeeded Reich as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Maduro stated: “We want to say to President Barack Obama, stop this madness,” claiming to have “testimonies and direct, first-hand information” about U.S. plots. Both Reich and Noriega rejected the claims of orchestrating a plot to assassinate Maduro’s rival Henrique Capriles as “untrue, outrageous and defamatory.”
In September 2013, Maduro cancelled his planned trip to speak at the United Nations, citing “serious provocations that could threaten his life.” He specifically accused “the clan, the mafia of Roger Noriega and Otto Reich” of conspiring against him, stating that “the US government knows exactly that these people were behind a dangerous activity being plotted in New York.”
A Legacy of Fire-Starting
In January 2018 testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Reich called President Obama’s rapprochement with Cuba “a foreign policy failure.” He argued that it “consisted of a series of unrequited unilateral concessions to the Castro regime that had negative consequences for US national security, foreign policy interests and traditional values, and which brought increased repression to the Cuban people while filling the coffers of the Cuban military, the Communist Party, and the Castro family.”
Reich emphasized that “unlike previous, successful American initiatives, Obama’s rapprochement with the Castro dictatorship identified the US with a nation’s oppressor instead of the oppressed.” This framing revealed his consistent position: U.S. policy should align with opposition movements rather than incumbent leftist governments—in other words, perpetual regime change over diplomatic engagement.
In March 2023, following the International Criminal Court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine, Reich called for scrutiny of Cuba’s support for Russia’s “criminal and illegal war.” He stated that “the Cuban government has been actively using its diplomatic and propaganda services to support the illegal and criminal invasion of Ukraine by Putin’s Russia,” while “Cuban strongman Raúl Castro, his hand-picked president Miguel Diaz-Canel, and the rest of the ruling class, are profiting from Putin’s criminal war of aggression by receiving deliveries of Russian contraband oil, and wheat stolen from Ukraine.”
As of 2025, Reich continues his work through Otto Reich Associates and serves on the Advisory Board of United Against Nuclear Iran, an organization dedicated to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
As Washington’s confrontation with Venezuela intensifies, observers should recognize that this escalation did not materialize out of nowhere. They are the predictable outcome of decades of work by regime change specialists such as Otto Reich, figures who helped design a long-term interventionist blueprint for Latin America. Today, that blueprint is being dutifully executed by hawks like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a close ally of Reich and a committed interventionist in his own right.
Just as Reich’s kinfolk in Israel labor tirelessly to secure regional supremacy for the Jewish state, Reich has devoted his career to making the Western Hemisphere safe for world Jewry by safeguarding Washington’s full-spectrum dominance in Latin America.
In this transnational criminal enterprise, the roles are clearly defined. And Reich’s role is to ensure that Empire Judaica’s strategic footholds in Latin America remain firmly intact.
November 19, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Latin America, United States, Venezuela, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The UN Security Council approved the US’s Gaza ceasefire and international stabilization force plans on Monday. Russia and China abstained from the vote. Sputnik asked renowned Iranian-American political analyst Mohammad Marandi for his reaction.
The US Gaza plan is “a fake peace plan that is approved by the UN Security Council will only enhance the strength of the United States and the Israeli regime to further abuse Palestinians and to push Palestinians out of Gaza,” Marandi told Sputnik.
The plan proposes what the observer fears amounts to “an international occupation” of the Strip, with “no mention of Palestinian independence” in the US resolution.
“With this fake mantle of the UN Security Council, they will be able to do a lot of harm in the name of the international community,” Marandi emphasized.
The US “has no intention of allowing the Palestinian people to have a state.” The stabilization force will amount to “international occupation,” according to the observer.
The US is “a party to the holocaust in Gaza, and so are all Western allies of the Israeli regime, even regional countries that have preserved political and economic ties with the regime over the last two years… they’re all complicit in the genocide in Gaza,” Marandi stressed, pointing out that without US support, “the Israeli regime, Netanyahu, would not be able to carry out the mass murders that we saw on a daily basis, [and] continue to see… as we speak now.”
The observer characterized last month’s Gaza Peace Summit in Egypt as a shameful “monkey show,” and suggested that attendees “literally sold out the Palestinian people” to try to get in the US president’s good graces.
Russian representative Vassily Nebenzia said the Security Council resolution on Gaza passed Monday was “reminiscent of colonial practices and the British mandate for Palestine” that was “granted by the League of Nations, when the opinions of the Palestinians themselves were not taken into account whatsoever.”
He also warned that the lack of clarity about the stabilization force’s mandate could make it into an unwitting party to the conflict.
Russia and China abstained from Monday’s vote, but did not veto the resolution outright in light of the desire expressed by the Palestinian Authority and regional countries to avoid a resumption of bloodshed in the besieged Strip.
November 18, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Gaza, Israel, Palestine, United Nations, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment

Jailed Palestinian leader Abdullah Barghouti
A Palestinian prisoners’ advocacy group says jailed Hamas leader Abdullah Barghouti has faced extreme physical and psychological torture at the maximum-security Gilboa Prison in the northern part of the Israeli-occupied territories since his abduction more than two decades ago.
The Asra Media Office (AMO) announced in a statement on Monday that 53-year-old Barghouti is currently enduring conditions that have been described as “a form of slow execution,” aimed at one of the leading figures of the Palestinian Captive Movement. Concerns have been raised that his life could be at risk at any moment.
The statement disclosed that the prison administration has been systematically and repeatedly targeting Barghouti with assaults for more than 25 months.
Prison guards storm his cell relentlessly, day and night, often accompanied by dogs. They taunt him, claiming they missed assaulting him, before three of them restrain him and viciously attack him with batons. The beating leaves him with severe injuries, including bleeding and deep wounds.
His fellow inmates are left to care for him, using torn fabric and rudimentary cleaning supplies to tend to his wounds.
Barghouti, currently serving 67 life sentences, is enduring severe, untreated injuries. These include fractures in his right elbow and hand that have persisted for more than three months, a broken pinky finger on his left hand, two fractured ribs, torn tendons, and a drastic weight loss of approximately 35 kilograms caused by starvation and inadequate nutrition.
The rights group added that guards have doused him with water before subjecting him to electrocution and confined him to a cell infested with scabies, resulting in painful boils all over his body. To minimize the risk of further infection, he now resorts to sleeping on the floor.
Barghouti currently struggles with significant difficulty in moving his hands, with one almost completely paralyzed. Despite his condition, Israeli prison authorities deny him any form of medical treatment, including pain relief, and block human rights organizations from reaching out to him.
The AMO asserted that Barghouti’s suffering is part of a broader campaign against the leadership of the Captive Movement.
It emphasized that the mistreatment he endures surpasses mere punishment, amounting to a calculated effort to end his life, underscoring the urgent need for international intervention.
The circumstances surrounding the detention of Palestinian inmates by Israel are unacceptable and characterized by inadequate hygiene standards. Moreover, Palestinian detainees have endured persistent torture, harassment, and oppression.
Palestinian detainees have consistently participated in indefinite hunger strikes to express their frustration over their unjust imprisonment.
Human rights organizations say that Israel continues to violate the rights and freedoms granted to abductees as stipulated by the Fourth Geneva Convention and international laws.
According to the Palestine Detainees Studies Center, around 60 percent of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons suffer from chronic illnesses, with many having passed away either during their incarceration or after their release due to the seriousness of their health issues.
November 18, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Israel’s leading defense technology company, Elbit Systems, reported a sharp rise in quarterly profit on 18 November after months of fueling the genocide in Gaza by supplying weapons, munitions, and surveillance systems, while simultaneously securing a wave of new European contracts.
The company posted $3.35 per diluted share excluding one-time items, up from $2.21 a year earlier, and reported $1.92 billion in revenue compared to $1.72 billion last year.
Its order backlog reached $25.2 billion, with the company saying 69 percent comes from outside Israel.
Elbit CEO Bezhalel Machlis said the performance reflected “the significant contracts the company has secured across Europe and from customers worldwide,” driven by expanding defense budgets.
Israel accounted for over 33 percent of revenue, with Elbit supplying munitions, drones, guided rockets, and reconnaissance systems during the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
Sales to Europe, the world’s second-largest buyer of Israeli weapons, rose from $430 million to $536 million, comprising 28 percent of total revenue.
The company said 69 percent of its backlog comes from outside Israel and declared a quarterly dividend of $0.75 per share.
Separately, Elbit announced the largest contract in its history, a $2.3-billion deal with an undisclosed international buyer for weapons systems to be delivered over eight years.
The company did not reveal the customer or the type of systems being supplied, citing confidentiality.
Elbit Systems has also expanded its footprint across Europe, the Balkans, and the UK through a series of new agreements disclosed in recent months.
In Albania, the company is leading a government-to-government deal that includes ATMOS howitzers, SPEAR mortars, and Magni-X and Thor drones, and will assist the state-owned KAYO firm in establishing production lines and a new weapons plant.
Elbit deepened its presence in the country earlier this year through a flight-school agreement and is expected to support Albania’s goal of developing local drone manufacturing by 2027.
The firm has simultaneously continued to sign additional contracts worldwide, including Hermes 900 sales to Singapore and Brazil.
In the UK, Elbit is competing with Raytheon for a $2.7-billion Ministry of Defense contract that would make the company a “strategic partner” responsible for training 60,000 British troops annually.
The prospective agreement follows a separate $1.64-billion Elbit deal with Serbia and builds on the company’s existing role managing the Ministry of Defense’s Project Vulcan, a $75-million simulation-training program for tank crews.
Elbit subsidiaries in Britain have come under sustained protest, and Elbit’s central role in Israel’s war on Gaza has prompted renewed scrutiny, with the UN special rapporteur for Palestine noting that “for Israeli companies such as Elbit Systems … the ongoing genocide has been a profitable venture.”
November 18, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Albania, Brazil, Elbit Systems, Israel, Palestine, Serbia, UK, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Many were taken aback by the recent visit of Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa to the White House, causing immense debate over whether it should have happened at all, if it benefits either side, and if this new relationship between Damascus and Washington will be significant.
Analysts and commentators from across the political spectrum have attempted to grapple with Syria’s collaboration with the United States. On the one hand, a former ISIS commander who went on to lead Syria’s Al-Qaeda branch, now joining the official US-led coalition against ISIS, has bewildered many. Yet for those who have a depth of knowledge on the course of the Syrian War, this comes as little surprise.
In the United States, there are what can only be labelled as two camps of liars and lunatics: One being a contingent of anti-Muslim advocates who are obsessed with “Islamic Extremism”; the other is the base of die hard supporters of the new regime in Damascus.
The first group used Ahmad Al-Sharaa’s visit to the White House, at the invitation of US President Donald Trump, to fearmonger about some kind of Muslim plot and that the US leader was being fooled. This narrative, spread primarily by paid Zionist propagandists, is simply part and parcel of a campaign designed to attack all Muslims and fear mongers about “Islamic Extremist” plots as a means of channeling right-wing anger away from the Israelis.
The other group consists of a range of figures, some of whom are paid to espouse their propaganda, then there are the delusional types and sectarian minded people whose tribalism rules their political outlet. Paid agents are slaves to their pay masters, whereas the sectarian tribalists are unreachable with logic. Only the misled can be reached from this crowd, which is who needs addressing.
The White House slave
Now is time to reconcile with the fact that Ahmad al-Sharaa is a creation of the West. This statement is not meant to be provocative, nor is it hyperbole. Syria’s current leader is the product of those who own him, hence why I said Ahmad al-Sharaa and not his former alias, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani.
For those of us who covered the horrifying and bloody war in Syria, we know the new President as al-Jolani, the man who led Jabhat al-Nusra. This organisation not only committed countless civilian massacres, allied itself in certain battles with ISIS, ran its own torture centers in Idlib, recruited child soldiers, and committed various other war crimes. To some, however, it later became the “saving grace” of a “blessed revolution” to overthrow a tyrant.
These two narratives evidently don’t have many grey areas, but as often has shown to be the case in Syria, nothing truly makes complete sense. The war revealed that almost anything is possible. At the same time, black and white thinking is very much prevalent amongst many when it comes to this issue.
So instead of arguing the merits of whatever side one chooses to fall on, let us deal in facts as means of dispelling illusion.
There was a reason why the United States launched Operation Timber Sycamore, one of the most costly CIA operations in its history, with the intent of backing anyone to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. There is also a reason why the Israelis began backing at least a dozen Syrian opposition groups, beginning in 2013, including al-Jolani’s Jabhat al-Nusra, with funds, arms, and medical support.
Neither the US, nor the Israelis, cared for the civilian population of Syria. Although their propaganda machines churned out nonsense about their opposition to dictatorship, civilian massacres and mass incarceration, their involvement was never to do with any of this.
You want proof that the US, its Western allies and “Israel” didn’t care? They are all normalising, collaborating with and hosting frequent meetings with a man who is not democratically elected, has built a regime that is more corrupt than his predecessor, and is standing by as sectarian violence takes thousands of lives.
Their goals were clear: They sought to collapse Syria into a number of opposing sectarian groups who rule their own territory based upon ethnicity or religious affiliation; loot its resources; bankrupt the country to tie it to the IMF and World Bank [because Syria was previously self sufficient]; conquer the Golan Heights; permanently destroy its strategic military capabilities; end Syria’s role in backing or facilitating the Palestinian Resistance; stop the flow of weapons to Hezbollah and end Iran’s role in the country; in addition to installing a puppet leadership. All of these goals were achieved.
The narrative that al-Jolani’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (the rebrand of al-Nusra) defeated Bashar al-Assad is false. There wasn’t a battle to take Damascus, there was a deal struck that enabled a handover of power. It wasn’t a “war of liberation”; it was a regime transfer.
According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, nearly 9,000 civilians have been murdered across the country since the new government came to power. These are considered to be conservative figures also, as other sources put the death toll much higher, especially due to the sectarian mass extermination campaign that targeted Alawites and other minorities along the coast earlier this year.
The cost of living in Syria is getting worse, gangsters and sectarian lunatics parade through the streets, kidnappings are rampant, the murder rate is through the roof, and there is still no long promised democracy in sight. Meanwhile, the Israelis are pushing deeper into southern Syrian lands, occupying more territory, setting up checkpoints, bombing wherever they choose on a routine basis, and are even arming Druze separatist militias.
Washington, for its part, is taking over two air bases, openly collaborates with the Syrian authorities on missions inside the country, and CENTCOM is busy playing basketball with al-Sharaa. Israelis, who would once be executed should they step foot in Syria, are openly arriving in Damascus, getting taken on tours around sensitive military sites for their documentaries.
All this as Damascus has cracked down, kicked out, and disbanded all the Palestinian Resistance groups that once operated in Syria, instead choosing to hand over the body of an Israeli soldier captured in 1982, along with the belongings of infamous Israeli spy Eli Cohen.
Now, the argument that some make in favour of this regime, to ignore all of the facts stated above, is that Ahmad al-Sharaa is doing this to lift the sanctions and repair his country.
To address this, let us ask the question: Has all of this collaboration, selling out the Palestinian cause, collaborating with those committing a genocide in Gaza, and meeting for basketball practice ended the sanctions on Syria permanently, or even triggered economic revival? No, of course not.
So you are now left with two possible explanations: Either Ahmad al-Sharaa is so politically incapable that he believes in this so-called “economic revival” master plan, or he is part of a project used to secure the aims of the US, its Western allies, and the Zionist entity. If you chose option one, he isn’t fit to be a political leader and should perhaps be placed in control of a Shawarma store instead.
Under Ahmad al-Sharaa, there is no Syrian leadership, there is simply a group of slaves who were let into the house; in this case the White House. They aren’t to be compared to other Arab regimes either, as they have no autonomy at all, nothing they do is independent as the sanctions are only ever going to be temporarily lifted in order to keep them in line. Under this model, Donald Trump is Syria’s President, not Ahmad al-Sharaa.
In fact, none of this is even about al-Jolani at all. If Bashar al-Assad would have been willing to invite the Americans in, kick out Iran and the Palestinian resistance, stop the flow of weapons to Hezbollah, negotiate a deal with the Israelis, hand them the Golan Heights, and give over his strategic weapons arsenal, it would have been him in the White House. This is because the Western powers and Israelis have no standards at all, they will deal with anyone of any ideology that bows down to them.
If you argue this all to those who still back the new Syrian leadership, they will come back with deflective arguments such as “we are tired” and notions about “the Syrian people”. The same such sentiments can be heard from Yasser Abu Shabab’s ISIS-linked gangsters in Gaza, who work with the enemy of their people because they want material goods and are willing to fight against their own nation’s causes in order to secure this for themselves.
This argument is the “being a slave in the house isn’t so bad” argument, but discounts the fact that the majority of Syrians don’t qualify for house slave status, they will instead remain field slaves, some of whom will be abused more than others, but are nonetheless field slaves. The same applies to those who choose to be slaves in Lebanon, or Palestine, or wherever else in the region. Everyone is being subjected to the “Greater Israel Project”, which means that the “prosperity” that US envoy Thomas Barrack carries on about is not in the plan for them.
Keep in mind that even when you are a good slave, you are never actually your master’s friend. You need only look to the example of the deposed Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi, who was only granted asylum and later died in Egypt. Despite his closeness to Washington, his value only came from the usefulness of his regime, nothing less and nothing more.
None of this is to say that there are not legitimate grievances from all sides across regional conflicts, this is undoubtedly true as wars bring out the very worst in people. Yet it is simply delusional to conclude that anything good comes out of being a slave. There is a reason why generation after generation across the Arab World has set the Palestinian cause as the litmus test for whether a government or movement is behaving in their interests, it is because it is a proven fact that collaborating with the enemy leads to chaos and destruction.
If the Israelis and US intended to “let Syrians live”, they would have done so since day one of the new regime. Instead, Washington greenlit the largest ever Israeli aerial assault across Syria and the occupation of more Syrian lands. Why? Because this was always the plan from the beginning, and everyone who fell for the promises of the new Syrian leadership were simply deceived.
November 18, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | Israel, Palestine, Syria, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
“I don’t think we’re gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re gonna kill them. You know? They’re gonna be like dead. Okay.”- President Donald Trump, October 23, 2025
As of today, the Trump administration has launched missile strikes on at least nineteen boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, terminating the lives of more than seventy unnamed persons identified at the time of their deaths only as “narcoterrorists.” The administration has claimed that the homicides are legal because they are battling a DTO or “Designated Terrorist Organization” in a “non-international armed conflict,” labels which appear to have been applied for the sole purpose of rationalizing the use of deadly force beyond any declared war zone.
An increasing number of critics have expressed concern over what President Trump’s effective assertion of the right to kill anyone anywhere whom analysts in the twenty-first-century techno-death industry deem worthy of death. Truth be told, as unsavory as it may be, Trump is following a precedent set and solidified by his recent predecessors, one which has consistently been met with both popular and congressional assent.
The idea that leaders may summarily execute anyone anywhere whom they have been told by their advisers poses a threat to the state over which they govern was consciously and overtly embraced by Americans in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, all presidents since then have assumed and expanded upon what has come to be the executive’s de facto license to kill with impunity. Neither the populace nor the congress has put up much resistance to the transformation of the “Commander in Chief” to “Executioner in Chief.” Fear and anger were factors in what transpired, but the politicians during this period were also opportunists concerned to retain their elected offices.
Recall that President George W. Bush referred to himself as “The Decider,” able to wield deadly force against the people of Iraq, and the Middle East more generally, “at a time of his choosing.” This came about, regrettably, because the congress had relinquished its right and responsibility to assess the need for war and rein in the reigning executive. That body politic declined to have a say in what Bush would do, most plausibly under the assumption that they would be able to take credit for the victory, if the mission went well, and shirk responsibility, if it did not.
Following the precedent set by President Bush, President Barack Obama acted on his alleged right to kill anyone anywhere deemed by his targeted-killing czar, John Brennan, to be a danger to the United States. The Obama administration commenced from the premise that the Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) granted to Bush made Obama, too, through executive inheritance, “The Decider.” Obama authorized the killing of thousands of human beings through the use of missiles launched by remote control from drones in several different countries. To the dismay of a few staunch defenders of the United States Constitution, some among the targeted victims were even U.S. citizens, denied the most fundamental of rights articulated in that document, above all, the right to stand trial and be convicted of a capital offense in a court of law, by a jury of their peers, before being executed by the state.
As though that were not bad enough, in 2011, Obama authorized a systematic bombing campaign against Libya, which removed Moammar Gaddaffi from power in a regime change as striking as Bush’s removal from power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Rather than rest the president’s case for war on the clearly irrelevant Bush-era AUMFs, Obama’s legal team creatively argued that executive authority sufficed in the case of Libya no less, because the mission was not really a “war,” since no ground troops were being deployed. Obama’s attack on Libya, which killed many people and left the country in shambles, had no more of a congressional authorization than does Trump’s series of assaults on the people of Latin America today.
It is refreshing to see, at long last, a few more people (beyond the usual antiwar critics) awakening to the absurdity of supposing that because a political leader was elected by a group of human beings to govern their land, he thereby possesses a divine right to kill anyone anywhere whom he labels as dangerous, by any criterion asserted by himself to suffice. President Trump maintains that Venezuela is worthy of attack because of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States, a connection every bit as flimsy as the Bush administration’s ersatz linkage of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Operating in a fact-free zone akin to that of Bush, Trump persists in insisting that the drugs allegedly being transported by the small boats being blown up near Venezuela are somehow causally responsible for the crisis in the United States, even though the government itself has never before identified Venezuela as a source of fentanyl. In truth, Trump has followed a longstanding tradition among U.S. presidents to devise a plausible or persuasive pretext to get the bombing underway, and then modify it as needed, once war has been waged.
In the 1960s, the U.S. government claimed that North Vietnam would have to be toppled in order for Americans to remain free. The conflict escalated as a result of false interpretations of the 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident, which came to be parroted by the press and repeated by officials even after the pretext for war had been debunked. The U.S. intervention in Vietnam ended unceremoniously with the military’s retreat, and no one was made less free by the outcome, save the millions of human beings destroyed over a decade of intensive bombing under a false “domino theory” of how communist control of Vietnam would lead to the end of capitalism and the enslavement of humanity.
Beginning in 1989, the country of Colombia became the focus of a new “War on Drugs,” the result of which was, for a variety of reasons too complicated (and frankly preposterous) to go into here, an increase in the use of cocaine by Americans. In the early twenty-first century, Americans were told that the Taliban in Afghanistan had to be removed from power in order to protect the U.S. homeland and to secure the freedom of the people of Afghanistan. The military left that land in 2021, with the Taliban (rebranded as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) once again the governing political authority. Many thousands of people’s lives were destroyed during the more than two decades of the “War on Terror,” but there is no sense in which anyone in Afghanistan was made more free by the infusion of trillions of U.S. dollars into the region.
Let these examples suffice to show (though others could be cited) that no matter how many times U.S. leaders insist that war has become necessary, a good portion of the populace, apparently oblivious to all of the previous incantations of false but seductive war propaganda, comes to support the latest mission of state-inflicted mass homicide. Among contemporary world leaders, U.S. officials have been the most flagrantly bellicose in this century, and they certainly have killed, whether directly or indirectly, many more human beings than any other government in recent history. This trend coincides with a marked rise in war profiteering, as a result of the LOGCAP (Logistics Civil Augmentation Program) scheme of the late secretary of Defense and Vice President Dick Cheney, whose policies made him arguably the world’s foremost war entrepreneur.
The general acceptance by the populace of the idea that conflicts of interest no longer matter in decisions of where, when, and against whom to wage war, has resulted in an increased propensity of government officials to favor bombing over negotiation, and war as a first, not a last, resort. Because of the sophistication of the new tools of the techno-death industry, and the establishment of a plethora of private military companies (PMCs) whose primary source of income derives from government contracts, there are correspondingly more war profiteers than there were in the past. Many apparently sincere war supporters among the populace are not profiteers but instead evince a confused amalgam of patriotism and pride, and are often laboring under the most effective galvanizer of all: fear.
The increasing influence on U.S. foreign policy of the military-industrial complex notwithstanding, it would be a mistake to suppose that the folly of war has anything specifically to do with the United States. The assumption of a legitimate authority to kill on the part of political leaders has a long history and has been embraced by people for many centuries, beginning with monarchic societies wherein the “received wisdom” was that rulers were effectively appointed to rule by God Almighty and therefore acting under divine authority. The fathers of just war theory, including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, lived and wrote in the Middle Ages, when people tended to believe precisely that.
As a result of the remarkable technological advances made over the past few decades, the gravest danger to humanity today does not inhere, as the government would have us believe, in the possibility of havoc wreaked by small groups of violent dissidents. Instead, the assertion of the right to commit mass homicide by political leaders inextricably mired in an obsolete worldview of what legitimate authority implies has led to the deaths of orders of magnitude more human beings than the actions said by war architects to justify recourse to deadly force.
Today’s political leaders conduct themselves as though they are permitted to kill not only anyone whom they have been persuaded to believe is dangerous, but also anyone who happens to be located within the radius of a bomb’s lethal effects. This abuse of power and insouciance toward human life has been seen most glaringly since October 7, 2023, in the comportment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under whose authority the military has ruthlessly attacked and terrorized the residents of not only Gaza, but also Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, Iran, and Iraq, on the grounds that militant Hamas members were allegedly hiding out in the structures being bombed.
Even as piles of corpses have amassed, and millions of innocent persons have been repeatedly terrorized by the capricious bombing campaigns, Zionists and their supporters reflexively bristle and retort to critics that Netanyahu’s intentions were always to save the hostages. It was certainly not his fault if Hamas persisted in using innocent people as human shields! As a result of this sophism, the IDF was able to kill on, wholly undeterred, massacring many thousands of people who posed no threat whatsoever. Throughout this savage military campaign, the IDF has ironically been shielded by the human shield maneuvers of Hamas.
The “good intentions” trope has served leaders frighteningly well and, like the so-called legitimate authority to kill, is a vestige of the just war paradigm, which continues rhetorically to inform leaders’ proclamations about military conflict, despite being based on an antiquated worldview the first premises of which were long ago abandoned by modern democratic societies. With rare exceptions, people do not believe (pace some of the pro-Trump zealots) that their leaders were chosen by God to do what God determines that they should do. Instead, modern people are generally well aware that their elected officials arrive at their positions of power by cajoling voters into believing that their interests will be advanced by their favored candidates, while fending off, by hook or by crook, would-be contenders who, too, claim that they will best further the people’s interests. Despite debacles such as the U.S. interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Libya, the just war theory’s “Doctrine of Double Effect,” according to which what matter are one’s leaders’ intentions, not the consequences of their actions, continues to be wielded by war propagandists, undeterred by the sort of ordinary, utilitarian calculus which might otherwise constrain human behavior on such a grand scale.
The slaughter of hundreds of thousands and the harm done to millions more persons in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. government was said to be justified by the architects of the War on Terror by the killing of approximately 3,000 human beings on September 11, 2001. Similarly, the Israeli government’s slaughter of many times more people than the number of hostages serving as the pretext for mass bombing was a horrible confusion, an affront to both basic mathematics and common sense. Nonetheless, it was said to be supported by the false and sophomoric, albeit widespread, notion that “our” leaders (the ones whom we support) have good intentions, while “the evil enemy” has evil intentions. That notion is, at best, delusional, for it entails that one’s own tribe has intrinsically good intentions and anyone who disagrees is an enemy sympathizer, the absurdity of which is clear to anyone who has ever traveled from one country to another. Stated simply: geographical location has no bearing whatsoever on the moral status of human beings, what should be obvious from the incontestable fact that no one ever chooses his place of birth.
Beyond its sheer puerility, the “We are good, and they are evil!” assumption gives rise to a very dangerous worldview on the part of leaders in possession of the capacity to commit mass homicide with impunity, as leaders such as Netanyahu and Trump, along with many others, currently do. Note that the same assumption was made by Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and every other political mass murderer throughout history. Most recently, when supporters of Israel began to characterize anyone who voiced concern over what was being done to the Palestinians as “Hamas sympathizers,” they embraced the very same framework which came to dominate the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as people who opposed the invasions were lumped together indiscriminately with the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and denounced as terrorists.
It is obvious to anyone rational why dissidents become increasingly angry as they directly witness the toll of innocent victims multiply. The very same type of ire was experienced by Americans when their homeland was attacked. Yet in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea that human beings have a right to defend their homeland was seemingly forgotten by the invaders, and little if any heed was paid by the killers to the perspective of the invaded people themselves, who inveighed against the slaughter and mistreatment of their family members and neighbors, even as it became more and more difficult to deny that the U.S. government was in fact creating more terrorists than it eliminated.
Returning to 2025, President Donald Trump continues to authorize the obliteration of a series of small vessels off the shore of Venezuela and in the Pacific Ocean. It is unclear who is behind this arbitrary designation of some—not all—boats alleged to be loaded with drugs to be sunk rather than intercepted by the Coast Guard, which until now has been the standard operating procedure—and with good reason. According to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), more than 25% of the vessels stopped and searched by the Coast Guard on suspicion of drug trafficking are found not to contain any contraband whatsoever. Senator Paul has also made an effort to disabuse citizens of the most egregious of the falsehoods being perpetrated by the Trump administration, to wit: The country of Venezuela is not now and has never been a producer of fentanyl, the primary cause of the overdose epidemic in the United States.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, a denizen of the fact-challenged Trump world, appears to delight in posting short snuff films of the Department of War missile strikes, most of which have left no survivors nor evidence of drug trafficking behind. In two of the strikes, there were some survivors, who were briefly detained by the U.S. government before being repatriated to their country of origin. The incoherence of the administration’s treatment of these persons—alleged wartime combatants, according to every press release regarding all of these missile strikes—has caught the attention of an increasing number of critical thinkers.
Senator Rand Paul has admirably attempted, on multiple occasions, to wrest control of the war powers from the executive and return it to the congress. Most recently, he drew up legislation to prevent Trump from bombing Venezuela, well beyond the scope of the AUMFs granted to George W. Bush at the beginning of the century, but the motion failed. Democratic Senator Fetterman, who voted against the bill along with most of the Republican senators, has evidently fallen under the spell of the techno-death industry propaganda according to which the president may kill anyone anywhere whom he deems even potentially dangerous to the people of the United States. Since the legislation was voted down, Trump and his team no doubt view this as a green light. The president may not have a new AUMF, but the senate, by rejecting Rand Paul’s legislation, effectively signaled that he does not need one. Fire away!
What all of this underscores is what became progressively more obvious throughout the Global War on Terror: most elected officials and their delegated advisers are not critical thinkers but base their support of even obviously anti-Constitutional practices, such as the summary execution of suspects, as perfectly permissible, provided only that the populace has been persuaded to believe that it is in their best interests. In the twenty-first century, heads of state are being advised by persons who are themselves working with analysis companies such as Palantir, which devise the algorithms being used to select targets to kill, and have financial incentives for doing so.
What began as a revenge war against the perpetrators of 9/11 somehow transmogrified into the serial assassination of persons whose outward behavior matches computer-generated profiles of supposedly legitimate targets. The industry-captured Department of War’s inexorable and unabashed quest to maximize lethality has played an undeniable role in this marked expansion of state-perpetrated mass homicide based on an antiquated view of divinely inspired legitimate authority.
As the Trump administration prepares the populace for its obviously coveted and apparently imminent war on Venezuela, mainstream media outlets have reported a surprisingly high level of support among Americans for the recent missile strikes. According to one recent poll, 70% of the persons queried approve of the blowing up of boats involved in drug trafficking. If true, this may only demonstrate how effective the Smith-Mundt Modernization act has been since 2013, permitting the government to propagandize citizens to believe whatever the powers that be wish for them to believe. Given the government’s legalization of its own use of propaganda against citizens, we will probably never know how many of the social media users apparently expressing their exuberant support for the targeting of small boats on the assumption that they contain drugs headed for U.S. shores are in fact bots rather than persons. None of this bodes well for the future of freedom.
November 18, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, War Crimes | Latin America, Libya, Middle East, Obama, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
A Swiss parliamentary investigation has revealed that the detention and expulsion of Palestinian-US journalist Ali Abunimah in January were the result of political interference and undisclosed ties between senior Swiss officials and Israeli interests. The findings have raised alarms about institutional bias and shrinking space for Palestine advocacy in Europe.
The Control Commission of the Council of States released its report last week, confirming that Nicoletta della Valle, then-head of Switzerland’s federal police agency (Fedpol), personally intervened to impose an entry ban against Abunimah. The decision, investigators found, “deviated from standard practice” and was implemented in a manner they described as “unsatisfactory” and “particularly problematic.”
Abunimah, the executive director and co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, had entered Switzerland legally and was scheduled to speak at a public event before being detained without warning by plainclothes officers. He was held incommunicado for three days and deported without due process.
Della Valle’s ties to Israeli interests raise conflict concerns
The report detailed how Zurich police initially requested a ban before Abunimah’s arrival. Fedpol rejected the request after consulting intelligence and immigration agencies. However, following a phone call from the commander of Zurich’s cantonal police, della Valle reversed that decision, without new evidence, and verbally instructed her staff to enforce the ban after Abunimah had already entered the country.
Critics have pointed to Della Valle’s post-retirement role at Champel Capital, an Israeli investment firm with ties to high-ranking Israeli officials, including Major General Giora Eiland and politician Amir Weitmann. Both men are known for advocating extreme measures against Gaza and its population. Della Valle’s name has since been quietly removed from the firm’s website.
Abunimah said the findings confirmed that “serious irregularities and abuses of power” were carried out to suppress public criticism of “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza. He noted that the entry ban violated basic democratic rights and was politically motivated.
UN experts condemn growing restrictions on Palestine advocacy
International human rights bodies have condemned Abunimah’s detention and broader crackdowns on critics of the Israeli occupation in Europe.
Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, warned at the time of a “toxic climate” for freedom of speech, while UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Irene Khan, called the repression of Palestinian voices “alarming” and “unjustifiable.”
The parliamentary report reconstructs a clear pattern of intervention. Authorities confirmed that Abunimah posed no threat, but the entry ban was forced through via irregular backchannel influence. Della Valle’s personal directive to override procedural safeguards has become the centerpiece of a growing scandal.
Swiss Zionist lobbying under scrutiny following revelations
The case has intensified scrutiny of Swiss institutions and their connections to Zionist lobbying networks. Switzerland hosts a wide range of organizations affiliated with the global Zionist movement, including the Swiss Zionist Federation, KKL-JNF, Keren Hayesod, and the Jewish Agency’s Swiss branch, all of which have supported illegal settlement activity and lobbied for policies targeting Palestinian advocacy.
Parallel groups, such as the Switzerland-“Israel” Society (GIS), the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities (SIG), and CICAD, as well as newer outfits like NAIN, have pushed for bans on the Palestinian Resistance in Gaza, cuts to UNRWA funding, and efforts to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
Observers say these organizations shape political narratives and influence policymakers, enabling state repression of pro-Palestinian voices under the guise of combating hate speech.
Legal challenge underway
Abunimah is now taking legal action in Zurich and at the federal level, with his legal team preparing further filings based on the parliamentary commission’s findings. His case has become emblematic of growing concerns about freedom of expression in Europe and the ability of foreign-linked networks to suppress dissent through state institutions.
“These grave violations of democratic and human rights were carried out to prevent me from speaking at lawful public events, organized by Swiss citizens and residents, calling for an end to ‘Israel’s’ genocide in Gaza,” Abunimah said in a social media post.
November 17, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Switzerland, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The German government announced it will lift restrictions on arms exports to “Israel,” a move set to take effect on November 24. The decision follows what Berlin described as a “stabilized” ceasefire in Gaza that has been in place since October 10.
Government Spokesperson Sebastian Hille confirmed the move, stating, “The restrictions on arms exports to Israel… will be lifted.” Hille added that the decision comes after reassessing conditions on the ground, claiming expectations for adherence to the ceasefire and the delivery of humanitarian aid.
The original suspension, introduced in August 2025, was framed by Chancellor Friedrich Merz as a response to “Israel’s” declared plans to occupy Gaza City, which he said complicated the justification for continued arms transfers.
At the time, Merz noted that it was “increasingly challenging” to reconcile the stated objectives of disarming Hamas and freeing captives with the military escalation.
Surge in exports since October 2023
Following the start of the war in October 2023, German arms exports to “Israel” surged dramatically. While export approvals in 2022 amounted to roughly €32 million, by October 2023, licenses worth €203 million had been greenlit, €198.68 million of which came after October 7.
Between October 2023 and May 2025, Germany approved €485.1 million worth of arms exports to “Israel,” covering everything from firearms and ammunition to tank engines, electronic systems, and naval equipment. These transfers filled critical gaps for “Israel,” especially as US manufacturers were strained by military commitments to Ukraine and European partners.
Germany became “Israel’s” second-largest arms supplier after the US, accounting for about one-third of its military imports during this period.
August ban: Loopholes, legal theater
The August 2025 announcement of halting military equipment exports appeared to mark a turning point, but closer scrutiny revealed that the so-called ban excluded existing contracts, which continued to be fulfilled.
Critically, the same day the halt was announced, Germany approved a €500 million export license for the INS Drakon, a Dolphin-class submarine. Government lawyers would later argue that the license had been approved earlier, despite evidence to the contrary.
Other loopholes also weakened the suspension’s impact. The restriction only applied to items “clearly usable in Gaza,” leaving space for shipments ostensibly intended for other regions. Additionally, German firms like Renk AG and Sig Sauer immediately explored relocating production to the US to bypass restrictions.
Between August 8 and September 13, Germany issued no new approvals. But within the next nine days, €2.46 million in “other military goods” was approved. Compared to the €250 million authorized between January and early August 2025, the actual disruption was minimal.
Despite mounting domestic pressure, 73% of Germans favored tighter arms controls, and over 30 NGOs demanded a full embargo. German courts routinely dismissed legal challenges to the exports, citing plaintiffs’ lack of standing and the confidential nature of licensing decisions.
A return to status quo
Despite headlines about a policy shift, the August suspension did little to interrupt Germany’s arms pipeline to “Israel”. Existing contracts were honored throughout the 108-day suspension. Critics, including the BDS movement and human rights groups, labeled the suspension a public relations gesture rather than a genuine policy change.
As of late November, Germany will resume full military cooperation with “Israel”, reaffirming what many see as its enduring commitment to the doctrine of Staatsräson, the idea that “Israel’s” security is a cornerstone of German foreign policy, irrespective of the legal and humanitarian implications.
November 17, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Germany, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Unfortunately, airplane crashes are becoming a common feature of our time that leads to human casualties. Such incidents are caused by technical failures, human error, or external interference. It seemed nothing foreshadowed the destruction of the Turkish C-130 military transport aircraft, but…
Why did the Turks fly to Azerbaijan, and what happened on the journey back?
Türkiye is a strategic ally of Azerbaijan and made an exceptional (military and political) contribution to the success of the Azerbaijani side in the Second Karabakh War.
Incidentally, after 2020, Türkiye, Israel, and a few others began competing over who provided more support to Azerbaijan and played the key role in Baku’s victory. In the fall of 2024, President Recep Tayypi Erdoğan, verbally threatening Israel and the West with a “night invasion” by the heirs of Ottoman askeri, repeatedly recalled Türkiye’s experience in Nagorno-Karabakh. For instance, on the eve of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, as reported by the Turkish publication Al Ain Türkçe, Erdoğan stated: “Türkiye can enter Israel just like it entered Karabakh and Libya. We will do the same to them. There is no reason not to do it. We just need to be strong so we can take these steps.”
In turn, President Ilham Aliyev publicly tried to convince everyone that, allegedly, nobody provided military assistance to Azerbaijan and that he alone secured the victory. Nevertheless, Baku always emphasized the moral and political support of Türkiye and Pakistan.
On the Israeli side, certain people, e.g., blogger Roman Tsypin, express a certain resentment in this regard. Tsypin believes that the decisive role in Azerbaijan’s military success in Karabakh belongs to Israel, thanks to its weapons, specialists, and medical assistance. However, Aliyev did not invite Netanyahu to the parade celebrating the 5th anniversary of the victory (although on November 8 he demonstrated his army’s power, equipped predominantly with Israeli weaponry: the Harop loitering drone and the Orbiter mini UAV, the Lora long-range tactical ballistic missile system, etc.). The Israeli expert forgot, however, to mention how Aliyev could have invited Netanyahu to Baku if seats on the podium next to him were “reserved” for Israel’s sworn enemies, namely Erdoğan and Sharif?
A group of Turkish military personnel arrived in Baku along with Turkish President R. Erdoğan (including an F-16 flight group with the Chief of the Air Force Staff, Sergeant Major General Ilker Aykut) to attend the parade at Azadliq Square on November 8. The group of the Turkish Air Force in F-16 fighters, which have been stationed at the Ganja airbase since the summer of 2020, participated in demonstration flights in the sky over the Azerbaijani capital, demonstrating Turkic solidarity and collective strength. But the celebration ended, and it was time for the guests to depart.
Groups of officers and technical staff of the Turkish Air Force who participated in the Baku parade returned home in two groups. The first group completed the journey as planned. The second group, consisting of 20 people, was returning on November 11 on a C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft (tail number 68-1609) from Ganja, which had delivered spare parts and technicians for servicing the F-16s to Azerbaijan. However, in Georgia, in the Signagi area, very close to the border of brotherly Azerbaijan (5 km), the Turkish military aircraft disappeared from radars 27 minutes after takeoff and reaching cruising speed, unexpectedly went into a spin, and crashed. The entire crew of 20 people perished (including the Chief of Staff of the Turkish Air Force, Sergeant Major General Aykut). What happened?
Probable causes and speculation
Regarding this aviation accident, Georgian law enforcement agencies initiated a criminal case under the article on violation of air transport safety rules resulting in death. Search and rescue operations were conducted at the scene, the bodies of the deceased Turkish military personnel were found, and the black boxes were delivered to the Kayseri airbase for a subsequent investigation into possible causes by Turkish specialists.
Recep Erdoğan called this tragedy a “heavy blow for the country,” demanding its cause be thoroughly investigated by examining all versions, and also called on the public for political vigilance, to avoid panic, and to exclude all speculation regarding assumptions about the military aircraft’s crash.
According to data from the Turkish newspaper Sözcü, the Turkish Air Force aircraft had a history of over half a century (57 years); it was manufactured in 1968 and initially served in the Saudi Arabian Air Force. In 2010, it was purchased for the Turkish Air Force and included in the 222nd “Rhinoceros” Squadron of the 12th Air Base in Kayseri, and in 2020, it underwent a scheduled major overhaul. Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft have been in service with Türkiyr since the 1960s and are considered the most reliable in their class. However, many of them have reached the end of their service life (50-60 years), are possibly technically obsolete, and recently (in October), the Turkish Ministry of Defense announced plans to replace the outdated C-130s with new C-130J Super Hercules models.
Theories regarding the incident’s causes may be split into three categories: technical malfunctions, human factors, and external impact.
In an interview with Milliyet, Turkish security expert Joshkun Bashbug ruled out pilot error, as the aircraft’s pilot was an experienced pilot, the flight took place during the day, the crew was well-rested, the technical personnel of the Turkish Air Force are professionally “one of the best in the world,” and the weather was good. In other words, the Turkish expert confidently denies human error.
Regarding technical malfunctions of the aircraft, considering its long service life, expert opinions differ. Video footage of the crash online shows the Turkish C-130 falling like a rock without its nose and tail sections. Former C-130 pilot Bulent Borali, in an interview with the Turkish TV channel A Haber, suggested that the rupture in the aircraft’s fuselage could be related to “corrosion, rust, or oxidation of the outdated metal,” or that the special cargo in the cabin was not properly secured and broke loose during flight, destroying the airframe.
However, this particular aircraft was, firstly, serviced by a highly qualified technical group of the Turkish military. Secondly, if the special equipment being transported shifted during turbulence, it could have torn off the tail section, but how did it damage the cockpit? Thirdly, the C-130 is not a supersonic aircraft by design and was not in critical flight conditions (i.e., it did not experience overloads, which, according to Russian military expert Alexey Levonkov, does not indicate wear and “metal fatigue”). Due to the absence of fire during the fall and smoke coming from the wings, Levonkov does not rule out technical issues in the C-130’s four engines.
As for suggestions of external impact, a variety of versions – even mystical ones – have emerged. Among Turkish experts, there is an opinion that the aircraft could have been shot down. In particular, this is noted by expert Abdulkadir Selvi of the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet.
Joshkun Bashbug does not rule out “a collision between two aircraft, sabotage, or any other attack.” Considering the unstable nature of the Caucasus and the absence of a peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, his colleague Ibrahim Keles did not exclude accidental (unintentional) external interference. Since the C-130’s flight route did not enter Armenian airspace and ran directly from Azerbaijan to Georgia, but crashed 5 km from the border, the Azerbaijani air defense systems located in the border area may have been automatically activated, failing to recognize the friend-or-foe system, and become the cause of the lethal fire.
It should be noted that President Aliyev was the first foreign representative to offer his condolences to Erdoğan and express readiness to provide all possible assistance in search and rescue operations and the investigation of the incident. The prompt reaction of the Azerbaijani leader is, of course, primarily related to special relations with Türkiye. Meanwhile, there is obviously a moral aftertaste that the tragedy happened in connection with the invitation to the victory parade over Armenia in Karabakh (the war itself ended on the night of November 9-10, but for some reason Aliyev held the parade on November 8). Finally, President Aliyev has often been the first to express condolences when similar aviation tragedies occurred (for example, the downing of a Russian military helicopter on November 9, 2020, in the sky over Armenia by an Azerbaijani missile from Nakhchivan, or the crash of an Iranian military helicopter on May 19, 2024, carrying Iranian President Raisi after returning from a meeting with Aliyev in Nakhchivan).
The host of the Armenian publication ProArmenia, Nver Mnatsakanyan, notes that some Azerbaijani media outlets have begun spreading unbelievable versions about the causes of the Turkish plane’s crash in the sky over Georgia. An opinion is being floated (for example, by military expert Abuzer Abilov) about the alleged involvement of a Russian missile launched from the 102nd military base in Gyumri (Armenia), supposedly due to the recent escalation of Russian-Azerbaijani relations. But why would Russia so primitively spoil such effective partner relations with Türkiye, which has effectively become our “southern gateway” to Southeastern Europe against the background of SMO-related sanctions?
Finally, in Armenia itself, a number of experts (Araiyk Sargsyan, Vladimir Poghosyan) believe that the main cause of the Turkish C-130 aviation tragedy is mysticism—divine wrath in response to the aggression and mass deportation of the Armenian population of Karabakh—that it is revenge for the 4,000 dead soldiers for the shameful attack by the anti-Armenian coalition. Let us leave mysticism to mystics.
However, considering that the Armenian authorities are making all conceivable and inconceivable concessions in favor of Azerbaijan and Türkiye, expressing readiness to restore interstate relations and open communications, there is great dissatisfaction with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s policy. Today, it is unlikely that the Armenian special services, which are under Pashinyan’s strict control, are capable of and would engage in sabotage operations against the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem and drag the republic into another provocation and catastrophe. But nobody can rule out the involvement of special services of interested foreign states (for example, from Middle Eastern and Asian countries) and radical representatives of the Armenian opposition.
If there was any external damage (or an explosion inside the aircraft), then the technical expertise should reveal its trace and mechanism. I hope a thorough investigation by the Turkish side will reveal the true causes of the tragedy, which, in peacetime, is especially regrettable.
Alexander SVARANTS, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Turkologist, expert on Middle Eastern countries
November 17, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Azerbaijan, Israel, Turkey, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Walking through Westminster, in the quiet rush of central London, flashes of red caught my attention — ribbons tied to lampposts, railings, and street fixtures. They were not adverts or campaign posters, but dense, symbolic gestures: spontaneous in form, unmistakable in meaning. They returned to public sight faces that have long been hidden behind prison walls — Palestinian hostages abducted by the occupation from homes and hospitals, held without trial under a system that resembles nothing but the law of the jungle.
These ribbons seemed like individual efforts, small and uncoordinated, yet unified in what they were trying to say: that the Palestinian hostage file remains locked in darkness, despite being one of the most devastating human crises. Thousands have been torn from their lives with no charges, no legal process, no daylight.
Of the nearly 9,100 Palestinians currently detained, it is estimated that almost a third are effectively treated as hostages; abducted and denied even the bare minimum of legal rights or guarantees.
A language that must reclaim its meaning
For years, the word “prisoner” has been used broadly. But what the occupation practises is not detention — it is abduction. People are taken from their beds or hospital rooms and disappear for indefinite periods, without charges, court hearings, or the most basic procedural rights.
The figures alone reveal the scale of the crisis:
3,544 held under administrative detention without trial
400 children
53 women
16 doctors
117 Palestinian hostages killed in the past two years alone during the genocide in Gaza
These individuals cannot honestly be called “prisoners.” They are hostages in every legal and moral sense — seized outside any legitimate framework by a state whose own foundations rest on dispossession and violation.
Red… a colour that bears witness, not beauty
The choice of red is self-explanatory. It is the colour of spilled blood, of injustice endured, of wounds that never fully heal.
These ribbons may hang quietly across London, but the question they raise is anything but quiet:
How can thousands of people be abducted in this way, while the world remains unable — or unwilling — to see them?
No one is asked to lead a campaign or become an activist. What is needed is recognition, a wider awakening to a file packed with human lives, daily suffering, families searching, and children growing up in absence.
Stories hanging from lampposts… so memory does not fade
Seeing the ribbons brought back the painful stories that fill this file:
The child pulled from his bed because soldiers deemed him a “threat,”
The woman taken from her home in front of her children,
The doctor who vanished from an operating room and never returned,
Those subjected to torture and enforced disappearance,
And the testimonies of rape and sexual abuse recently documented by international organisations.
These stories need no embellishment; their truth is weight enough. They also echo Steve Biko’s famous line:
“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”
These red ribbons feel like a modest attempt to unsettle that weapon.
Catherine Connolly’s victory: Europe’s moral rebellion against the Israeli occupation
When execution becomes a celebration
It is difficult to grasp that the occupation’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, celebrated inside the Knesset after passing a law permitting the execution of Palestinian detainees.
More troubling still is how easily such a moment can pass as a routine political step — as though it were merely another debate rather than a descent into deeper, institutionalised brutality.
When a state legalises killing those it has abducted without trial, imprisonment ceases to resemble detention. It becomes just one point on a chain that runs from abduction to torture to death.
The rising number of Palestinians dying inside Israeli prisons is not an exaggeration — it is an expanding reality.
Preserving memory before preserving the body
Red ribbons do not claim to liberate anyone, nor do they replace political or legal work. But they accomplish something essential: they return faces to public view and stop stories from being buried in darkness.
The Palestinian hostage file needs wider adoption and genuine engagement. It is a file overflowing with pain and heavy with violations, yet among the least addressed internationally.
Ribbons cannot break iron bars.
But they can remind the world that behind every statistic is a human being waiting to be rescued from disappearance.
Justice begins when we choose to see.
And sometimes, the first step toward that justice is nothing more than a small red thread tied to a lamppost in a distant city.
November 16, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, UK, Zionism |
Leave a comment