Israel Continues To Employ Old Tactics To Control The Conversation On The Israeli Occupation Of Palestine. However, In Some Cases Israel’s Success Is Really Failure.

The following reveals the story of what pro-Palestinian communities around the world are fighting for, and what pro-Israelis are fighting against: “We are delighted to report that Chelsea and Westminster Hospital has removed a display of artwork designed by children from Gaza.”

That was the summary of a news report published on the homepage of the pro-Israel group, UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI). The group is credited for being the party that managed to successfully persuade the administration of a hospital in West London to take down a few pieces of artwork created by refugee children from Gaza.

Explaining the logic behind their relentless campaign to remove the children’s art, UKLFI said that “Jewish patients” in the hospital “felt vulnerable and victimized by the display.” The few pieces of artwork were those of the Dome of the Rock in occupied East Jerusalem, the Palestinian flag and other symbols that should hardly victimize anyone.

The UKLFI article was later edited, with the offensive summary removed, although it is still accessible via social media.

As ridiculous as this story sounds, it is, in fact, the very essence of the anti-Palestinian campaign launched by Israel and its allies worldwide. While Palestinians are fighting for basic human rights, freedom and sovereignty as enshrined in international law, the pro-Israel camp is fighting for a total and complete erasure of everything Palestinian.

Some call this cultural genocide or ethnocide. While Palestinians have been familiar with this Israeli practice in Palestine since the very inception of the state of Israel, the boundaries of the war have been expanded to reach anywhere in the world, especially in the western hemisphere.

The inhumanity of UKLFI and their allies is quite palpable, but the group cannot be the only party deserving blame. Those lawyers are but a continuation of an Israeli colonial culture that sees the very existence of a Palestinian people with a political discourse, including children refugees’ art, as an “existential threat” to Israel.

The relationship between the very existence of a country and children’s art may seem absurd – and it is – but it has its own, albeit strange, logic: as long as these refugee children recognize themselves as Palestinian, as long as they will continue to count as part of a larger whole, the Palestinian people. This self-awareness, and the recognition by others – for example, patients and staff at a London hospital – of this collective Palestinian identity, makes it difficult, in fact, impossible, for Israel to win.

For Palestinians and Israelis, victory means two entirely different things, which cannot be consolidated. For Palestinians, victory means freedom for the Palestinian people and equality for all. For Israel, victory can only be achieved through the erasure of Palestinians – geographically, historically, culturally and in every way that could be part of a people’s identity.

Sadly, the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital is now an active participant in this tragic erasure of the Palestinians, the same way that Virgin Airlines bowed to pressure in 2018 when it agreed to remove “Palestinian-inspired couscous” off its menu. At the time, this story appeared as if it was a strange episode in the so-called “Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” though, in reality, the story represented the very core of this “conflict.”

For Israel, the war in Palestine revolved around three basic tasks: acquiring land; erasing the people and rewriting history.

The first task has been largely achieved through a process of ethnic cleansing and unhinged colonization of Palestine since 1947-48. The current right-wing extremist government of Benjamin Netanyahu is only hoping to finalize this process.

The second task involves more than ethnic cleansing, because even the mere awareness of Palestinians, wherever they are, of their collective identity, constitutes a problem. Thus, the active process of cultural genocide.

Though Israel has succeeded in rewriting history for many years, that task is now being challenged, thanks to the tenacity of Palestinians and their allies, and the power of social and digital media.

Palestinians are arguably the greatest beneficiary of the rise of digital media. The latter has contributed to the decentralization of political and even historical narratives. For decades, the popular understanding of what constitutes “Israel” and “Palestine” in mainstream imagination was largely controlled through a specific Israeli-sanctioned narrative. Those who deviated from this narrative were attacked and marginalized, and almost always accused of “antisemitism.” While these tactics are still unleashed at critics of Israel, the outcome is no longer guaranteed.

For example, a single tweet exposing the “delight” of UKLFI has received over 2 million views on Twitter. Millions of outraged Brits and social media users around the world have turned what was meant to be a local story into one of the most discussed topics, worldwide, on Palestine and Israel. Expectedly, not many social media users took part in the “delight” of the UKLFI, thus forcing them to reword their original article. More importantly, millions of people have, in a single day, been introduced to a whole new topic on Palestine and Israel: that of cultural erasure. The “victory” has turned into a complete embarrassment, let alone defeat.

Thanks to the growing popularity of the Palestinian cause and the impact of social media, initial Israeli victories almost always backfire. A more recent example is the dismissal and the quick reinstatement of the former Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth.

In January, Roth’s fellowship at Harvard University’s Kennedy School was revoked due to the recent HRW report that defines Israel as an apartheid regime. A major campaign, which was started by small alternative media organizations, resulted in the reinstatement of Roth within days. This, and other cases, demonstrates that criticizing Israel is no longer a career-ender, as was often the case in the past.

Israel continues to employ old tactics to control the conversation on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. It is failing because those traditional tactics can no longer work in a modern world in which access to information is decentralized, and where no amount of censorship can control the conversation.

For Palestinians, this new reality is an opportunity to widen their circle of support around the world. For Israel, the mission is a precarious one, especially when initial victories could, in hours, become utter defeats.


Palestinians Are Left With No Other Option But To Carry On With Their Resistance To The UN And Its “Watered-down” Statements.

Rarely does the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations make an official remark expressing happiness over any UN proceeding concerning the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Indeed, the Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour is “very happy that there was a very strong united message from the Security Council against the illegal, unilateral measure” undertaken by the Israeli government.

The “measure” is a specific reference to a decision, on February 12th, by the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to construct 10,000 new housing units in nine illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank.

Expectedly, Netanyahu was angered by the supposedly “very strong united message” emanating from an institution that is hardly known for its meaningful action regarding international conflicts, especially in the Palestinian-Israeli case.

Mansour’s happiness may be justified from some people’s perspective, especially as we seldom witness a strongly worded position by the UNSC that is both critical of Israel and wholly embraced by the United States. The latter has used the veto power 53 times since 1972 – per UN count – to block UNSC draft resolutions that are critical of Israel.

However, on examination of the context of the latest UN statement on Israel and Palestine, there is little reason for Mansour’s excitement. The UN statement in question is just that: a statement, with no tangible value and no legal repercussions.

This statement could have been meaningful if the language had remained unchanged from its original draft. Not a draft of the statement itself, but of a binding UN resolution that was introduced on February 15 by the UAE Ambassador.

Reuters revealed that the draft resolution would have demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” That resolution – and its strong language – was scrapped under pressure from the American regime and was replaced by a mere statement that “reiterates” the Security Council’s position that “continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-state solution based on the 1967 lines.”

The statement also expressed “deep concern”, actually, “dismay” with Israel’s February 12th announcement.

Netanyanu’s angry response was mostly intended for public consumption in Israel, and to keep his far-right government allies in check; after all, the conversion of the resolution into a statement, and the watering down of the language were all carried out following a prior agreement among the American regime, Israel and the PA. In fact, the Aqaba conference held on February 26 is a confirmation that that agreement has indeed taken place. Therefore, the statement should not have come as a surprise to the Israeli prime minister.

Moreover, the American media spoke openly about a deal, which was mediated by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The reason behind the deal, initially, was to avert a “potential crisis”, which would have resulted from America vetoing the resolution. According to the Associated Press, such a veto “would have angered Palestinian supporters at a time that the US and its western allies are trying to gain international support against Russia.”

But there is another reason behind the Washington’s sense of urgency. In December 2016, then American Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, refrained from vetoing a similar UNSC resolution that strongly condemned Israel’s illegal settlement activities. This occurred less than a month before the end of Barack Obama’s second term in the White House. For Palestinians, the resolution was too little, too late. For Israel, it was an unforgivable betrayal. To appease Tel Aviv, the Trump Administration gave the UN post to Nikki Haley, one of the most ardent supporters of Israel.

Though another American veto would have raised a few eyebrows, it would have presented a major opportunity for the strong pro-Palestine camp at the UN to challenge American hegemony over the matter of the Israeli occupation of Palestine; it would have also deferred the issue to the UN General Assembly and other UN-related organizations.

Even more interesting, according to the Blinken-mediated agreement – reported by AP, Reuters, Axios, and others – Palestinians and Israelis would have to refrain from unilateral actions. Israel would freeze all settlement activities until August, and Palestinians would not “pursue action against Israel at the UN and other international bodies such as the World Court, the International Criminal Court and the UN Human Rights Council.” This was the gist of the agreement at the American-sponsored Aqaba meeting as well.

While Palestinians are likely to abide by this understanding – since they continue to seek American financial handouts and political validation – Israel will most likely refuse; in fact, practically, they already have.

Though the agreement had reportedly stipulated that Israel would not stage major attacks on Palestinian cities, only two days later, on February 22th, Israel raided the West Bank city of Nablus. It killed 11 Palestinians and wounded 102 others, including two elderly men and a child.

A settlement freeze is almost impossible. Netanyahu’s extremist government is mostly unified by their common understanding that settlements must be kept in constant expansion. Any change to this understanding would certainly mean a collapse of one of Israel’s most stable governments in years.

Therefore, why, then, is Mansour “very happy”?

The answer stems from the fact that the PA’s credibility among Palestinians is at an all-time low. Mistrust, if not outright disdain, of Mahmoud Abbas and his Authority, is one of the main reasons behind the brewing armed rebellion against the Israeli occupation. Decades of promises that justice will eventually arrive through American-mediated talks have culminated in nothing, thus Palestinians are developing their own alternative resistance strategies.

The UN statement was marketed by PA-controlled media in Palestine as a victory for Palestinian diplomacy. Thus, Mansour’s happiness. But this euphoria was short-lived.

The Israeli massacre in Nablus left no doubt that Netanyahu will not even respect a promise he made to his own benefactors in Washington. This takes us back to square one: where Israel refuses to respect international law, the American regime refuses to allow the international community to hold Israel accountable, and where the PA claims another false victory in its supposed quest for the liberation of Palestine.

Practically, this means that Palestinians are left with no other option but to carry on with their resistance, indifferent – and justifiably so – to the UN and its ‘watered-down’ gutless statements.


Israeli Attacks On Syria Continue Even As Syria Struggles With The Aftermath Of The February 6th. Earthquake, In Which Over 5,800 Were Killed.

Thousands of Syrians took to the streets on Monday, February 20th, to protest against repeated Israeli aggression directed at the country. Protesters also chanted slogans against the unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) imposed against Syria by America and its allies, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported.

At least five Syrians were killed and 15 wounded when missiles fired by Israeli warplanes landed inside the densely populated Kafr Sousa neighborhood in capital Damascus on Sunday, February 19. According to SANA, all but one of those killed were civilians. The Syrian military claimed that its air defense had intercepted some of the Israeli missiles.

The attack—carried out in the middle of the night—caused a number of residential buildings, including a 10-story structure, to collapse.

Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad met foreign diplomats and ambassadors in Damascus and called the attacks “a crime against humanity,” especially at a time when the country was “racing against time to address the catastrophic consequences of the devastating earthquake.”

Nearly 47,000 people have been reported dead so far from the February 6 earthquake—41,000 in Turkey and more than 5,800 in Syria, with the latter struggling to keep up the pace of rescue operations due to war, sanctions, and a lack of adequate international support.

Mekdad called for global and “urgent condemnation of Israeli aggression to deter it from killing civilians and violating the sovereignty of states.”

He added that “the continuation of Israeli brutal attacks, and crimes against the Palestinian and Syrian people, constitutes an explicit threat to peace and security in the region and beyond.”

There has been no comment from Israel yet regarding the airstrike.

The attacks were condemned by Russia, Iran, Cuba, and several other countries that seem to have retained some sense of morality.


American Students Are Rarely Taught How Much American Imperialism To The South Through The 1860s Was About Expanding Slavery, Or How Much It Was Impeded By Racism.

The Monroe Doctrine was first discussed under that name as justification for the United States war on Mexico that moved its western border south, swallowing up the present-day states of California, Nevada, and Utah, most of New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. By no means was that as far south as some would have liked to move the border.

The catastrophic war on the Philippines also grew out of a Monroe-Doctrine-justified war against Spain (and Cuba and Puerto Rico) in the Caribbean. And global imperialism was a smooth expansion of the Monroe Doctrine.

But it is in reference to Latin America that the Monroe Doctrine is usually cited today, and the Monroe Doctrine has been central to a United States assault on its southern neighbors for 200 years. During these centuries, groups and individuals, including Latin American intellectuals, have both opposed the Monroe Doctrine’s justification of imperialism and sought to argue that the Monroe Doctrine should be interpreted as promoting isolationism and multilateralism. Both approaches have had limited success. United States interventions have ebbed and flowed but never halted.

The popularity of the Monroe Doctrine as a reference point in United States discourse, which rose to amazing heights during the 19th century, practically achieving the status of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, may in part be thanks to its lack of clarity and to its avoidance of committing the government to anything in particular, while sounding quite macho. As various United States eras added their “corollaries” and interpretations, commentators could defend their preferred version against others. But the dominant theme, both before and even more so after Theodore Roosevelt, has always been exceptionalist imperialism.

Many a filibustering fiasco in Cuba long preceded the Bay of Pigs SNAFU. But when it comes to the escapades of arrogant gringos, no sampling of tales would be complete without the somewhat unique but revealing story of William Walker, a filibusterer who made himself president of Nicaragua, carrying south the expansion that predecessors like Daniel Boone had carried west. Walker is not secret CIA history. The CIA had yet to exist. During the 1850s Walker may have received more attention in American newspapers than any president. On four different days, the New York Times devoted its entire front page to his antics. That most people in Central America know his name and virtually nobody in the United States does is a choice made by the respective educational systems.

Nobody in the United States having any idea who William Walker was is not the equivalent of nobody in the United States knowing there was a coup in Ukraine in 2014. Nor is it like 20 years from now everybody having failed to learn that Russiagate was a scam. We would equate it more closely to 20 years from now nobody knowing that there was a 2003 war on Iraq that George W. Bush told any lies about. Walker was big news subsequently erased.

Walker got himself the command of a North American force supposedly aiding one of two warring parties in Nicaragua, but actually doing what Walker chose, which included capturing the city of Granada, effectively taking charge of the country, and eventually holding a phony election of himself. Walker got to work transferring land ownership to gringos, instituting slavery, and making English an official language. Newspapers in the southern United States wrote about Nicaragua as a future American state. But Walker managed to make an enemy of Vanderbilt, and to unite Central America as never before, across political divisions and national borders, against him. Only the American government professed “neutrality.” Defeated, Walker was welcomed back to the United States as a conquering hero. He tried again in Honduras in 1860 and ended up captured by the British, turned over to Honduras, and shot by a firing squad. His soldiers were sent back to the United States where they mostly joined the Confederate Army.

Walker had preached the gospel of war. “They are but drivellers,” he said, “who speak of establishing fixed relations between the pure white American race, as it exists in the United States, and the mixed, Hispano-Indian race, as it exists in Mexico and Central America, without the employment of force.” Walker’s vision was adored and celebrated by American media, not to mention a Broadway show.

American students are rarely taught how much American imperialism to the South up through the 1860s was about expanding slavery, or how much it was impeded by the racism that did not want non-“white,” non-English-speaking people joining the United States.

José Martí wrote in a Buenos Aires newspaper denouncing the Monroe Doctrine as hypocrisy and accusing the United States of invoking “freedom . . . for purposes of depriving other nations of it.”

While it’s important not to believe that American imperialism began in 1898, how people in the United States thought of imperialism did change in 1898 and the years following. There were now greater bodies of water between the mainland and its colonies and possessions. There were greater numbers of people not deemed “white” living below American flags. And there was apparently no longer a need to respect the rest of the hemisphere by understanding the name “America” to apply to more than one nation. Up until this time, the United States of America was usually referred to as the United States or the Union. Now it became America. So, if you thought your little country was in America, you’d better watch out!


Who Really Rules America? Given, Sarah Margon Faced Opposition From A Senior Republican Lawmaker Over Her Tweet Celebrating An Airbnb Decision To Boycott Israeli Settlements.

President Joe Biden’s pick for a top human rights position is withdrawing her nomination after opposition from a Senate Republican who questioned her support for Israel.

At present, I don’t see a path forward for confirmation, and after 1 ½ years, it’s time to move on,” Sarah Margon said in the statement first shared with Politico. “I will continue to work on democracy and human rights, and am grateful to President Biden and Secretary [of State Antony] Blinken for their confidence in me and the honor of a nomination.”

A former Capitol Hill staffer and Washington director for Human Rights Watch, Margon came under heavy criticism from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking Republican, Jim Risch, over his claim that she supported the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel. She was nominated for the position of assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor.

Margon, who currently has a senior role at the Open Society Foundations, the organisation founded by billionaire philanthropist George Soros, firmly denied supporting BDS.

Risch zoned in on a tweet Margon wrote on the 18th of November 2018, celebrating a decision by Airbnb to boycott West Bank settlements. The company later reversed the move.

Thanks Airbnb for showing some good leadership here, other companies should follow suit,” wrote Margon at the time.

The BDS campaign is a non-violent movement inspired by South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement. It “urges action to pressure Israel to comply with international law” and encourages entities to sever ties with Israel until it ends the occupation of its lands, grants full equality to Palestinians, and allows refugees forced out during the 1948 establishment of Israel the right to return to their homes.

While the movement has gained momentum in recent years, with a number of universities introducing resolutions in support, it has also faced backlash, leading to the adoption of anti-BDS laws in 35 states in America.

Margot attempted to distance herself from BDS but said she supported the private sector’s role in fighting against discriminatory practices.

The United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, and the International Court of Justice have all said Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Biden administration has also said it is “unequivocally” opposed to illegal settlement expansion, fearing a death knell for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

During questioning, Risch pressed Margon on a retweet in 2020 of a New York Times opinion piece titled, “I no longer believe in a Jewish state”.

Do you still subscribe to that?” he asked.

Margon responded that she supported a two-state solution, “so that Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side”.

Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who chairs the Foreign Relations committee and backed Margon’s bid, said GOP opposition was “deeply unfortunate” but he didn’t move forward with her vote in the committee, citing customs that call for senior lawmakers from each party to agree on scheduling votes.

This whole episode should tell you who really rules America today.


This Has Been Used Ever Since The Soviet Union Ended In 1991 When The ‘Anti-communist’ Excuse For America’s Global Imperialism Has No Longer Been Available.

As you know anti-communist agenda had been used earlier in Korea, and in Vietnam, and in Guatemala, and in Iran, and in Chile and so many other lands), prior to 1991. However, the pattern for this subversion and ultimate conquest was created back in 1965 in Indonesia (if not earlier, in other “banana republics”); and, so, we shall start here by describing that landmark earlier case, in Indonesia, which set the pattern that now is routine for the American Government to use post-1991:

The October 1965 through March 1966 Indonesian government extermination of anywhere from 500,000 to two million Indonesian supporters of communism and of any other left-wing political party — including supporters of Indonesia’s leader, General Sukarno, who had some leftist supporters — was probably masterminded, ordered, by President Lyndon Johnson, on behalf of the owners of the mega-corporations who were backing the Democratic Party. Certainly, LBJ was behind this ‘ethnic cleansing’, even well before it began.

As early as March 1965, Johnson’s people were privately vitriolic against Sukarno, who was making noises about land-reform and possibly nationalizing natural resources. For example, on 18 March 1965, “118. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State (Ball) to President Johnson” opened:

Our relations with Indonesia are on the verge of falling apart. Sukarno is turning more and more toward the Communist PKI.

The Army, which has been the traditional countervailing force, has its own problems of internal cohesion. Within the past few days the situation has grown increasingly more ominous. Not only has the management of the American rubber plants been taken over, but there are dangers of an imminent seizure of the American oil companies.”

The coup started on 1 October 1965; General Suharto was installed to replace Sukarno, and promptly began the extermination-campaign. But he didn’t know whom to slaughter; so, as one excellent review of Vincent Bevins’s excellent book about the slaughters, The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World, succinctly put the matter,

The US provided arms, training, communication equipment and lists of thousands of real and alleged leftists to be killed. US-owned plantations furnished lists of ‘troublesome’ employees. US officials repeatedly sent cables to the leader of the butchery, General Suharto, to kill the leftists faster.”

However, like the other books that have been published about that extermination-campaign, Bevins’s focus isn’t on the masterminds who planned and bribed to get it done (its beneficiaries), but instead on the physical perpetrators and their victims. The coup-and-extermination’s ultimate beneficiaries aren’t named, nor identified. America did that in conjunction with other members of the American gang, mainly in Europe. The Judge in the International People’s Tribunal stated that “the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia were all complicit to differing degrees in the commission of these crimes against humanity.” It was a Rhodesist operation, done for America-and-allied (especially Netherlands) aristocracies.

Now, in the post-Soviet era, Ukraine and the American Government’s aim to get its nuclear-warheaded missiles into that closest nation of all to Moscow (just 300 miles away), by admitting Ukraine into NATO, here is the sequence of events:

During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.”

Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.”

However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup. Ukrainians became switched regarding that matter, favoring NATO instead of opposing it, because the billionaires who fund the winning political candidates and who control the media in America and in Ukraine had propagandized there heavily after the coup, and those governments and media have been portraying Russia as being Ukraine’s enemy, and America and the EU and NATO (which, prior to the coup, were viewed by Ukrainians as being their enemy) as being instead Ukraine’s friends. So: Ukrainians, after the American coup, wanted to join the EU, and to join NATO.

Immediately after Obama’s coup that grabbed Ukraine, his installed new government there promptly began its ethnic-cleansing so as to get rid of enough millions of Ukrainians who had voted for the neutralist (neither pro-American nor pro-Russian) Ukrainian President whom Obama had overthrown, in order to enable the new, pro-American-Government regime in Ukraine to be able to continue on through ‘democratic’ elections in which all candidates would be anti-Russian. And that has brought us to today in Ukraine.

What that showed was the extreme effectiveness of the regime’s propaganda after the coup had been prepared and had used the media during 2014, and even more so after the coup was perpetrated and the American-junta regime and its controlled ’news’-media drenched the public with anti-Russian propaganda after the coup, so that that nation, which only a year or two after its public had viewed NATO as being their enemy, prior to 2013, switched to instead viewing NATO as their craved-for protector, against what most Ukrainians, only a year or two before, had been viewing to be their protector. (Of course, after Russia ultimately responded to America’s grab of Ukraine and invaded Ukraine in 2022, vast majorities of Ukrainians now view the invading country, Russia, as being their enemy.)

Key here is the fact that by taking over a country — first by subverson (which in the case of Ukraine was being called “The Orange Revolution” and installed the pro-American Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko into power in 2004) — and later by means of an outright coup to finish the job; public opinion can thus be effectively turned upside-down.

The political analyst Walter Lippmann in 1922 introduced the phrase “the manufacture of consent” as referring to how an aristocracy in the modern age controls its public by means of those aristocrats (now a country’s billionaires) owning, founding, and hiring media and think tanks and universities in order for these billionaires, in this age of hired ‘experts’ about public affairs, to shape their public’s opinion to become what that aristocracy (the nation’s billionaires) wants it to become. What happened in Ukraine is an excellent example of this pattern.

Another example of this, which is now in the cooker and just being prepared, is Moldova. On December 6th 2022, Russia’s Tass News Agency headlined “Majority of Moldovans consider Russia country’s best partner — opinion poll”, and reported that the Institute of Marketing and Polls in Moldova (a polling organization that mainly serves not news-outlets but corporations that market to Moldovans and which therefore need to know privately what Moldovans want) had privately reported the prior day their findings about Moldovans’ views regarding the country’s international relations. Tass reported that:

Most Moldovans consider Russia to be their country’s best partner in the spheres of economy, politics and security, according to the results of a public opinion poll released by the Institute of Marketing and Polls (IMAS) on Tuesday.

As many as 38% of those polled spoke in favor of partnership with Russia in the economic sphere, 30% opted for the European Union, and 12% – for Romania. Only four percent chose partnership with the United States, and two percent favored China and NATO each. In the sphere of politics, Russia was chosen by 37% of the respondents, the European Union – by 29%, Romania – by 11%, the United States – by 5%, China – by 1%, and NATO – by 3%. In the sphere of security, 36% of the polled said they considered Russia a reliable partner. The European Union scored 21%, Romania and NATO – 10% each, the United States – 5%, and China – 1%,” the pollster said.

The poll involving 1,100 people in 90 settlements was conducted from November 10th to 29th . The margin of error is three percent.

According to poll results, 62% of respondents think that Moldova should have close relations with Russia, 21% want neutral relations, 10% want remote relations, and only five percent spoke in favor of severing relations with Russia.

On 21st January 2023, Russia’s RT News bannered “Moldova considers joining ‘larger alliance’: Under President Maia Sandu, the country has pursued deeper integration with the West”. Sandu is to Moldova what President Viktor Yushchenko was to Ukraine — a key agent of American subversion of her country, to serve her American masters. She was referring to either the EU or NATO, but didn’t name either of them, because both are unpopular in Moldova, just as both had been unpopular in Ukraine before America’s successful coup in Ukraine in 2014.

If she succeeds, then she won’t likely be the leader of her country when the American coup occurs there, but her leadership of Moldova will have helped to lead her country to the coup, and to the ethnic cleansing, and to the popularity there of the EU and of NATO, and, perhaps, also to becoming invaded by Russia before Moldova will have applied to and been accepted into those anti-Russia economic and military organizations. Just as Yushchenko was a crucial stepping stone to Ukraine’s post-2013 destruction, she will then be a crucial stepping stone to Moldova’s destruction.

The public can be manipulated, and this can produce a country’s ultimate destruction, by means of not merely deceit, but, also, by subversion, followed by coup, followed by ethnic cleansing, followed by military invasion of that country.

No public learns from history. That might be the reason why history constantly repeats itself, as it has done for all of these thousands of years, though the methods change. Understanding history’s patterns ought to be taught in pre-college grades, but aristocracies have never wanted it to be publicly taught at all; and, so, even at the Ph.D. level, it’s more of an orphan topic than any kind of academic mainstream nonsense.


If A Prize Was To Be Awarded For The Most Important Yet Least Reported Story In 2022, It Would Be To The News Outlets That Failed To Report On The Escalating Violence Between Israelis And Palestinians.

This is now combining with the likely impact of the incoming far-right government in Israel.

The explanation for the neglect is domination of the news agenda by the war in Ukraine and, more culpably, fear by part of the media that any criticism of Israel will be attacked as anti-Semitic. This attitude is more common today in Britain than America, while the reverse used to be the case.

The latest grim episode in this extremist shift in Israel came when prime minister designate Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded in forming a governing coalition in which many senior posts will be filled by religious and ethno-nationalist zealots.


The membership of Netanyahu’s new cabinet reads like a list of ingredients guaranteed to deepen repression of the Palestinians and divide Israeli society. Openly anti-Arab ministers are given enhanced security powers over Palestinians. Anti-secularists will set the rules for secularist Israelis. Judicial restraints will be curtailed.

He managed to assemble a government of darkness,” tweeted Avigdor Lieberman, a secular nationalist politician and former ally of Netanyahu on the news of the new coalition agreement.

What makes the ultra-nationalism of the new government so potentially explosive is that it takes office when Israeli-Palestinian relations are becoming more confrontational by the day. Some 150 Palestinians and 31 Israelis have been killed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem this year. Israeli police on Friday shot dead an Israeli-Arab who is alleged to have rammed them with his car in central Israel after first opening fire. A day earlier, a Palestinian was mortally wounded when Palestinians exchanged fire with Israeli soldiers who entered Nablus on the West Bank to escort Jewish worshippers to a site known as Joseph’s Tomb in the Palestinian city.


Netanyahu, in winning a majority in the general election on November 1st, has normalised the presence of religious and nationalist fanatics at the center of Israeli government. Itamar Ben Gvir, the leader of the Jewish Power party, is to be security minister – a newly created post placing him in charge of the national police force.

A religious settler from Kiryat Arba close to the West Bank city of Hebron, Ben Gvir was convicted in the past on charges of inciting racism and supporting terror. He is notorious for threatening Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s life just a few weeks before the latter was assassinated in 1995, and for hanging in his home until recently a photograph of Baruch Goldstein, who shot dead 29 Palestinians as they worshipped in Hebron in 1994.

Other ministers in the new Israeli cabinet include Bezalel Smotrich, a West Bank settler leader who believes Israel should annex the occupied territory, and is set to receive widespread authority over West Bank settlement construction. Previously he has supported the segregation of Jews and Arabs in Israeli maternity wards, governing Israel according to the laws of the Torah and for Jewish property developers to refuse to sell land to Arabs.


Under new legislation he is to get enhanced powers on the West Bank that were previously held by the Defence Ministry. Another Netanyahu ally, Avi Maoz, who is head of a small religious, anti-LGBTQ faction, is to control parts of the country’s national education system.

Only in the last few weeks have the implications of what is happening in Israel and the occupied territories begun to sink in abroad. In an article titled “What in the World is Happening in Israel?”, Thomas L Friedman, the most influential of American columnist writing on Israel, concludes that the arrival of Netanyahu’s ultrareligious, ultranationalist government is combining with long term political, demographic and social trends to produce chronic instability at every level.

If you ask me,” he writes, what “is the most likely outcome [of the present situation] – a total mess that will leave Israel no longer being a bedrock of stability for the region and for its American ally, but instead, a cauldron of instability and a source of anxiety for the US government.”


Netanyahu is playing down such dire predictions, claiming “I didn’t hand over great powers in Judea, Samaria, the West Bank, not at all. In fact, all the decisions will be made by me and the defence minister.” Significantly, this calming declaration was swiftly followed by a row-back admitting that Netanyahu was indeed transferring authority on the West Bank, notably on settlement construction and policing, to his far-right coalition allies.

The confusion about who is in charge confirms Friedman’s thesis that a great and dangerous “mess” is in the making. Netanyahu insists that he can restrain his extremist partners and has done so in the past. But that may actually be his problem as his new cabinet colleagues regard him as wholly untrustworthy and likely to renege shamelessly on pledges and alliances whenever it suits his interests. They will make every effort to show that they exercise real authority under the coalition agreement which explains why it took so long to negotiate.

But it is not only the suspicions of his coalition partners that may make Netanyahu’s devious manoeuvring less effective than in the past. History has moved on for both Israelis and Palestinians. The two-state solution has long been a sham, with half a million Jewish settlers on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. The pretence that this option still has life in it, so far as it ever did, is simply a convenient piece of hypocrisy enabling American and European powers to pretend that diplomatic progress is feasible.


The political reality is that for decades the balance of power between Israel and the Palestinians has been so skewed in favour of the former that many Israelis – and non-Israelis – no longer believed compromise to be necessary. Yet, in one crucial respect, perception of Palestinian weakness was deceptive, because the Palestinians today make up slightly more than half the 14 million people living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Divided geographically between the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza and Israel itself they may be, but in practice this separation creates multiple points of possible friction, each of which might detonate into protests and resistance.

Nor are such outbreaks as easy to isolate as they once were as news of them spreads instantly through the internet regardless of walls and barbed wire fences. A protest against the eviction of Palestinians from a house in the Sheikh Jarrah district of East Jerusalem in May 2021 quickly affected the two million Palestinians sealed off in Gaza and a similar number in Israel, where they make up 20 per cent of the population. Fear of these outbreaks erupting again was one factor pushing Israeli voters towards the ultra-right in the general election.

What is becoming clear is that controlling the Palestinians in their separate enclaves is going to take ever-increasing amounts of violence and force to maintain Israeli dominance, however counterproductive this is likely to be.


Read anything about the Syrian cholera outbreak recently? Probably not, because Syria is one of the many simmering wars that have never ended but the rest of the world has forgotten about. Yet economic sanctions still do their deadly work, degrading water and electricity supplies and sewage disposal. This provides ideal conditions for the return of cholera and other epidemic illnesses we associate with pre-modern times.

Since a ceasefire in and around Idlib province, largely rebel held, in 2020 there has been less shooting, but the country is still too dangerous and unstable for people to go home, with the result that Syria still has 6.8 million internally displaced people – the highest such figure proportionate to population in the world.



America’s “Unbreakable Bond” With Israel Is Stronger Than Any American Concern Regarding Israeli Terrorism, Extremism, Fascism, And Criminal Activities.

Even before the new Israeli government was officially sworn in on December 29th, angry reactions began emerging, not only among Palestinians and other Middle Eastern governments, but also among Israel’s historic allies in the West.

As early as November 2nd, top American officials conveyed to Axios that the Joe Biden Administration is “unlikely to engage with Jewish supremacist politician, Itamar Ben-Gvir.”

In fact, the American government’s apprehensions surpassed Ben-Gvir, who was convicted by Israel’s own court in 2007 for supporting a terrorist organization and inciting racism.

Secretary of State Tony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan reportedly “hinted” that the American government would also boycott “other right-wing extremists” in Netanyahu’s government.

However, these strong concerns seemed absent from the congratulatory statement by the American Ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, on the following day. Nides relayed that he had “congratulated (Netanyahu) on his victory and told him that I look forward to working together to maintain the unbreakable bond” between the two countries.

In other words, this “unbreakable bond” is stronger than any public American concern regarding terrorism, extremism, fascism, and criminal activities.

Ben-Gvir is not the only convicted criminal in Netanyahu’s government. Aryeh Deri, the leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, was convicted of tax fraud in early 2022 and, in 2000, he served a prison sentence for accepting bribes when he held the position of interior minister.

Bezalel Smotrich is another controversial character, whose anti-Palestinian racism has dominated his political persona for many years.

While Ben-Gvir has been assigned the post of national security minister, Deri has been entrusted with the ministry of interior and Smotrich with the ministry of finance.

Palestinians and Arab countries are rightly angry, because they understand that the new government is likely to sow more violence and chaos.

With many of Israel’s sinister politicians in one place, Arabs know that Israel’s illegal annexation of parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is back on the agenda; and that incitement against Palestinians in Occupied East Jerusalem, coupled with raids of Al-Aqsa Mosque will exponentially increase in the coming weeks and months. And, expectedly, the push for the construction and expansion of illegal settlements is likely to grow, as well.

These are not unfounded fears. Aside from the very racist and violent statements and actions by Netanyahu and his allies in recent years, the new government has already declared that the Jewish people have “exclusive and inalienable rights to all parts of the Land of Israel,” promising to expand settlements, while distancing itself from any commitments to establishing a Palestinian State, or even engaging in any “peace process.”

But while Palestinians and their Arab allies have been largely consistent in recognizing extremism in the various Israeli governments, what excuse does America have in failing to recognize that the latest Netanyahu-led government is the most rational outcome of blindly supporting Israel throughout the years?

In March 2019, Politico branded Netanyahu as the creator of “the most right-wing government in Israeli history,” a sentiment that was repeated countless times in other western media outlets.

This ideological shift was, in fact, recognized by Israel’s own media, years earlier. In May 2016, the popular Israeli newspaper Maariv described the Israeli government at the time as the “most right-wing and extremist” in the country’s history. This was, in part, due to the fact that far-right politician Avigdor Lieberman was assigned the role of the defense minister.

The West, then, too, showed concern, warned against the demise of Israel’s supposed liberal democracy, and demanded that Israel must remain committed to the peace process and the two-state solution. None of that actualized. Instead, the terrifying figures of that government were re-branded as merely conservatives, centrists or even liberals in the following years.

The same is likely to happen now. In fact, signs of the America’s willingness to accommodate whatever extremist politics Israel produces are already on display. In his statement, on December 30, welcoming the new Israeli government, Biden said nothing about the threat of Tel Aviv’s far-right politics to the Middle East region but, rather, the “challenges and threats” posed by the region to Israel. In other words, Ben-Gvir or no Ben-Gvir, unconditional support for Israel by America will remain intact.

If history is a lesson, future violence and incitement in Palestine will also be blamed mostly, if not squarely, on Palestinians. This knee-jerk, pro-Israeli attitude has defined Israel’s relationship with America, regardless of whether Israeli governments are led by extremists or supposed liberals. No matter, Israel somehow maintained its false status as “the only democracy in the Middle East.”

But if we are to believe that Israel’s exclusivist and racially based “democracy” is a democracy at all, then we are justified to also believe that Israel’s new government is neither less nor more democratic than the previous governments.

Yet, western officials, commentators and even pro-Israel Jewish leaders and organizations in America are now warning against the supposed danger facing Israel’s liberal democracy in the run-up to the formation of Netanyahu’s new government.

This is an indirect, if not clever form of whitewashing, as these views accept that what Israel has practiced since its founding in 1948, until today, was a form of real democracy; and that Israel remained a democracy even after the passing of the controversial Nation-State Law, which defines Israel as a Jewish state, completely disregarding the rights of the country’s non-Jewish citizens.

It is only a matter of time before Israel’s new extremist government is also whitewashed as another working proof that Israel can strike a balance between being Jewish and also democratic at the same time.

The same story was repeated in 2016, when warnings over the rise of far-right extremism in Israel – following the Netanyahu-Lieberman pact – quickly disappeared, and eventually vanished. Instead of boycotting the new unity government, the American government finalized, in September 2016, its largest military aid package to Israel, amounting to $38 billion.

In truth, Israel has not changed much, either in its own self-definition or in its treatment of Palestinians. Failing to understand this is tantamount to tacit approval of Israel’s racist, violent and colonial policies in Occupied Palestine over the course of 75 years.


Punitive Home Demolitions As A Measure Of Collective Punishment Has Been Practiced By The Criminal Israeli State Since The 1980s But Is Illegal Under International Law.

On Monday morning, January 2nd, Israeli military forces invaded the town of Kufr Dan and killed Foad Mahmoud Abed, 18, and Mohammad Samer Hosheyeh, 22. Three others were injured, with one critically wounded in the chest.

Abed and Hosheyh were killed during armed confrontations with Israeli soldiers who invaded Kufr Dan with the purpose of punitively demolishing the homes of Abed al-Rahman Abed, 22, and Ahmad Abed, 23, two Palestinians who had carried out the Jalameh checkpoint operation in September of last year that killed one Israeli soldier. Three apartments were destroyed, displacing 13 people.


Foad Abed is the first Palestinian killed in Jenin this year. Last year was one of the deadliest years in the West Bank since 2005, as Israeli forces and settlers killed 231 Palestinians through extrajudicial assassinations and home invasions.

Israeli forces invaded the town around midnight where armed confrontation with youth ensued. By 3:00 a.m, Israeli soldiers had shot and killed two Palestinians. Hosheyeh was killed with a bullet to the chest while Abed was killed with several bullets to his abdomen and thigh.

Hosheyeh’s mother made her way through a group of men just before the call for dawn prayers to carry the body of her slain son on her shoulders.

In a statement, the Israeli military spokesperson said that “the IDF is currently conducting a military activity in Kufr Dan in the district of Jenin to demolish the homes of those that clashed with soldiers near the Jalamah crossing and in which an army commander was killed on September 14, 2022.”

On September 14th of last year, Ahmad and Abed al-Rahman shot at the military checkpoint of Al-Jalameh, west of Jenin, killing the deputy commander of the Nahal Brigade’s Special Reconnaissance Unit, Major Bar Falach, 30.


At approximately 12:00 a.m. on January 2nd, Israeli jeeps raided Kufr Dan with the purpose of demolishing two Palestinian homes as a measure of collective punishment against the families of the two men who carried out the Jalameh checkpoint operation.

After killing the two martyrs at the beginning of this year, the Israeli military continued its demolition mission of the family home of Ahmad Abed, expelling the family members before the demolition.

According to local journalists in Jenin, at approximately 8:50 a.m., the second home, belonging to the family of Abed al-Rahman Abed, was also forcibly evacuated at gun-point and detonated, reducing it to a pile of rubble. The family was forced outside of the house without enough clothes for the cold.

Punitive home demolitions as a measure of collective punishment has been practiced by the Israeli state since the 1980s. Illegal under international law, this practice was first employed against Palestinians by the British during its colonial Mandate over Palestine. These actions reflect the true nature of the satanist cult that rules Israel.


In Case You Didn’t Know, Russian Society Was Deeply Shocked And Outraged By Videos Circulating In Social Media Showing The Point Blank Murder Of Prone Russian Prisoners Of War By Gloating Ukrainian Soldiers.

The word “Russophobia” has been used very widely in the past couple of years by Russians and by “friends of Russia” abroad to describe the campaign of vilification of President Putin in particular and of the Russian people more generally that the American led West has practiced with rising volume and shrillness ever since the start of an Information War launched in 2007.

In the course of the “Special Military Operation,” the Kiev regime has taken the lead in disseminating vicious calumny about the Russian military. We have heard about “massacres of civilians” in Bucha by retreating Russians. We have heard about Putin dispensing Viagra to his soldiers so that they might carry out sexual violence against Ukrainian women in occupied areas under their control. These and similar allegations have been repeated endlessly in Western media as if they were proven facts. They were not and are not anything more than bare-faced lies. The image of savage Buryat and Chechen units within the Russian armed forces has been so widespread that even Pope Francis spoke publicly against these peoples from the Vatican. The apologies later extended by his Secretariat were made privately to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so the damage of this calumny will not be undone.

We should consider the Russophobia as just a new manifestation of an old trick of those preparing the public for war and managing popular emotions in a jingoist direction. It is all about dehumanizing one’s opponents to make killing more acceptable than Scripture and the basic disposition of civil society would allow.

Russian foreign policy has been described as being “reactive” rather than aggressive. And so it is in the Information War domain. The Russians took it on the chin when the Bucha narrative was spun in Western media. They whined and complained, but did not fire back.

Russia had sound strategic reasons for initiating and prosecuting the war in Ukraine. To be sure, these reasons changed from pacifying Ukraine (demilitarization and de-Nazification) at the outset to the present objective of de-fanging NATO itself ever since NATO began supplying state of the art weaponry to Kiev, together with military advisers on the ground and real time intelligence.

However, these strategic considerations are apparently deemed to be too abstract for the broad home population to be properly motivated to back the war effort. And so the Kremlin has been moved into the more emotive domain of dehumanization.

It is truly sad that both sides to the conflict in and over Ukraine are now deeply engaged in the destruction of all the mental restraints that keep men from barbarism.

Several weeks ago, Russian society was deeply shocked and outraged by videos circulating in social media showing the point blank murder of prone Russian Prisoners of War by gloating Ukrainian soldiers. In the meantime there is quiet talk on Russian television to the effect that Russia’s Wagner mercenary units and Chechen brigades “take no prisoners.” We can well imagine what that means.

As these violent trends continue on both sides of the confrontation between Russia and the West, the chances for peace talks being held diminish dramatically. And the return of international relations to something resembling the status quo ante becomes ever more improbable so the end for all of us may be near.