radiofree.asia

Category: Genocide

  • How Much Longer Must Mothers In Gaza Fear Losing Their Children?

    This spring, with hands overflowing with tenderness, Lolo Mando Al-Qishawi — a Palestinian mother living on Yaffa Street in the Al-Tuffah neighborhood in the eastern part of Gaza City — lovingly adorned her daughter in her Eid dress, her eyes reflecting the girl’s pure, uncontainable joy. But soon, those same hands, trembling with heartbreak, had to strip away the colors of celebration, wrapping her child instead in the cold, final cloth of farewell.

    Eid Al-Fitr was meant to be a day of blessings, but instead it turned into a haunting sorrow as a mother’s heart was shattered. How had happiness vanished so swiftly? What cruel twist of fate had stolen away her sweet, innocent girl, who had wished for nothing more than a simple, joyful Eid?

    The post How Much Longer Must Mothers In Gaza Fear Losing Their Children? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Multiple Western Press Outlets Have Suddenly Pivoted Hard Against Israel

    After a year and a half of genocidal atrocities, the editorial boards of numerous British press outlets have suddenly come out hard against Israel’s onslaught in Gaza.

    The first drop of rain came last week from The Financial Times in a piece by the editorial board titled “The west’s shameful silence on Gaza,” which denounces the US and Europe for having “issued barely a word of condemnation” of their ally’s criminality, saying they “should be ashamed of their silence, and stop enabling Netanyahu to act with impunity.”

    Then came The Economist with a piece titled “The war in Gaza must end,” which argues that Trump should pressure the Netanyahu regime for a ceasefire, saying that “The only people who benefit from continuing the war are Mr Netanyahu, who keeps his coalition intact, and his far-right allies, who dream of emptying Gaza and rebuilding Jewish settlements there.”

    The post Multiple Western Press Outlets Have Suddenly Pivoted Hard Against Israel appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Trump Is Bending the Refugee Program to Fit His White Nationalist Agenda

    Standing at the Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C. on Monday, Trump administration officials welcomed 59 white South Africans to their new home in the United States. “We respect what you had to deal with these last few years,” Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau told a small crowd. “We’re excited to welcome you here to our country where we think you will bloom.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Hamas Releases Israeli American Soldier, Seeking to Reopen Ceasefire Talks

    Hamas released an Israeli American soldier from captivity in Gaza on Monday, seeking to reopen ceasefire negotiations as a gesture of goodwill to President Donald Trump as he visits the Middle East this week. The 21-year-old Israeli military soldier, Edan Alexander, was first released to officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), who handed him over to the Israeli…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Google’s Acquisition Of An Israeli Software Company: Big Tech’s Complicity In Genocide

    At a time when global concern is mounting over the crimes committed against civilians in Gaza, and calls are increasing to halt the genocide being carried out by Israel, recent news reveals a more dangerous role played by giant tech companies in fueling the Israeli war machine. In July 2024, Alphabet, the parent company of Google, announced the completion of its acquisition of the Israeli company Wiz for an unprecedented amount — $32 billion in cash. The move was described as the largest acquisition in Google’s history.

    But this deal goes beyond being merely a business investment; it reveals the depth of moral and technical involvement Silicon Valley companies have in supporting the economy of the Israeli occupation, and even in financing its military and intelligence arms.

    The post Google’s Acquisition Of An Israeli Software Company: Big Tech’s Complicity In Genocide appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Obscenity Of Collective Punishment In Gaza

    Maybe you remember an incident like this from your schooldays. Someone in your class has done something wrong, like pass around a caricature of the principal, and the teacher decides to punish the whole class by taking away your recess. Maybe this is done to force the culprit to confess, or to pressure you and your classmates to point the finger. It’s a clever method of drafting students to help police the classroom.

    Such tactics of collective punishment have fallen out of favor for obvious reasons. They’re unfair. They don’t change behavior. They teach all the wrong lessons and make kids hate school.

    The post The Obscenity Of Collective Punishment In Gaza appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • How Much Longer Must Mothers in Gaza Fear Losing Their Children?

    This spring, with hands overflowing with tenderness, Lolo Mando Al-Qishawi — a Palestinian mother living on Yaffa Street in the Al-Tuffah neighborhood in the eastern part of Gaza City — lovingly adorned her daughter in her Eid dress, her eyes reflecting the girl’s pure, uncontainable joy. But soon, those same hands, trembling with heartbreak, had to strip away the colors of celebration…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Crimes In The West Bank

    In 1948, the newly proclaimed Israeli government seized 78% of Palestinian land and expelled more than half of the population (750,00 people) from their villages and towns. This act disregarded United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which called for the termination of the colonial British Mandate and the partition of Palestine into a Palestinian and a Jewish state. This process came to be known as the Nakba (Catastrophe).

    The Palestinians gathered in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the neighbouring Arab states in the hope that they would soon be able to return to their homes.

    The post Crimes In The West Bank appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Amid Israel’s Starvation Campaign, Palestinian Chef Fights to Preserve Heritage

    In the heart of Gaza, during the darkest days of Israel’s 18-month genocide, Chef Mona Zahed continued to cook. At the age of 38, with four children depending on her, Zahed became a beacon of hope for her family as she navigated despair and a lack of food while continuing her culinary practice. Her passion for cooking not only fueled her survival but also culminated in the release of her cookbook…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ‘Gideon’s Chariots’ Aim To Finalize The Genocide

    Drunk on impunity, Israel has grandiosely labeled its latest genocidal move “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” wherein, moving from siege to seizure, it plans the bloody conquest, ethnic cleansing and permanent recolonization of Gaza.

    Israel uses the rhetoric of holy war to justify unholy mass destruction — this, even as many of the Palestinian children who’ve somehow survived their savage 18 months of carnage now slowly starve to death. “We are complicit,” says one angry, grieving doctor. “It is an abomination.”

    Having gotten away with so many atrocities while the international community looks away, Israel just unveiled the latest escalation of its illegal collective punishment of Gazans by finally declaring out loud, “We are occupying Gaza to stay.”

    The post ‘Gideon’s Chariots’ Aim To Finalize The Genocide appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ‘Gideon’s Chariots’ Aim To Finalize The Genocide

    Drunk on impunity, Israel has grandiosely labeled its latest genocidal move “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” wherein, moving from siege to seizure, it plans the bloody conquest, ethnic cleansing and permanent recolonization of Gaza.

    Israel uses the rhetoric of holy war to justify unholy mass destruction — this, even as many of the Palestinian children who’ve somehow survived their savage 18 months of carnage now slowly starve to death. “We are complicit,” says one angry, grieving doctor. “It is an abomination.”

    Having gotten away with so many atrocities while the international community looks away, Israel just unveiled the latest escalation of its illegal collective punishment of Gazans by finally declaring out loud, “We are occupying Gaza to stay.”

    The post ‘Gideon’s Chariots’ Aim To Finalize The Genocide appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ‘Gideon’s Chariots’ Aim To Finalize The Genocide

    Drunk on impunity, Israel has grandiosely labeled its latest genocidal move “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” wherein, moving from siege to seizure, it plans the bloody conquest, ethnic cleansing and permanent recolonization of Gaza.

    Israel uses the rhetoric of holy war to justify unholy mass destruction — this, even as many of the Palestinian children who’ve somehow survived their savage 18 months of carnage now slowly starve to death. “We are complicit,” says one angry, grieving doctor. “It is an abomination.”

    Having gotten away with so many atrocities while the international community looks away, Israel just unveiled the latest escalation of its illegal collective punishment of Gazans by finally declaring out loud, “We are occupying Gaza to stay.”

    The post ‘Gideon’s Chariots’ Aim To Finalize The Genocide appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Culturicide in Gaza

    We are cultural sector employees, in solidarity with the Palestinian people. On March 8, 2025, we sent an open letter to the president of the National Library of France (BnF) and to the Minister of Culture regarding their silence in the face of both the destruction of heritage and the massacre of human lives in Gaza, thus raising questions about culturicide.

    The BnF’s colonial bias was denounced, particularly in its cultural programming and in its collaborations with Israeli institutions.

    To this day, as the genocide perpetrated by the colonial State of Israel continues, neither the BnF nor the ministry has responded.

    Source: ParisLuttes, April 27, 2025

    Translation and notes between brackets: Alain Marshal

    The National Library of France (BnF), a leading institution, plays a major role in preserving and transmitting global cultural heritage, not only within France but also abroad, and has stood out for its remarkable actions in defense of humanity’s shared legacy.

    However, its silence regarding the systematic destruction of Palestinian cultural heritage — especially since October 7, 2023, and in particular the destruction of libraries, schools, and universities in Gaza — raises serious questions. The Israeli army, in the context of a war that international bodies have deemed genocidal, has systematically targeted Palestinian cultural infrastructure, reducing to rubble treasures of knowledge and memory. Among the most shocking examples is the destruction of Gaza’s public and university library, in front of which an Israeli soldier was photographed posing amid the flames — a widely shared image that sparked global outrage.

    Post image

    This methodical destruction of Gaza’s heritage is a culturicide happening before our very eyes: an attempt to erase the identity and history of a people by annihilating its remnants, archives, and cultural legacy.

    A methodical process since 1948

    Since the founding of the State of Israel and the forced exodus of the Palestinian population, Israel has systematically worked to erase both the material and immaterial traces of Palestinian identity: demolishing homes and entire villages; wiping out places of memory and cultural heritage such as mosques, churches, libraries, and archives; restricting access to historical sites [notably the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam], etc. — a strategy aimed at depersonalizing and marginalizing Palestinians, both geographically and culturally.

    Following the Nakba of 1948, tens of thousands of books and manuscripts were looted from Palestinian homes by soldiers, closely followed by teams of librarians who catalogued them as the property of the National Library of Israel. [After the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967, Israel intensified its cultural repression: imposing systematic censorship, banning books and keywords such as “Palestine” or “return,” and isolating Palestinian artists in a cultural ghetto designed to stifle their creativity and identity.

    In 1982, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Israel looted and confiscated the library and archives of the Palestine Liberation Organization, including the collections of the Palestine Research Center and the Palestinian Film Archive. During the Second Intifada, which began in 2000, libraries and archives were targeted, and numerous Palestinian cultural institutions were destroyed or severely damaged. In 2001, Israel seized the collections of the Orient House, a leading Palestinian cultural and political center, and shut it down. On February 9, 2025, Israeli police raided the international Palestinian bookstore Educational Bookshop, a cornerstone of cultural life in occupied East Jerusalem, seizing books and arresting its owners. [1] These examples are but a few grains in an endless string, bearing witness to decades of relentless efforts to methodically erase all traces of Palestinian identity.]

    Since October 7, 2023, this destruction project has escalated into a campaign of total annihilation. Israeli bombings — which are the most intense in modern history relative to the size and population density of Gaza — have led to the destruction of countless monuments, museums, libraries, and educational and cultural institutions in Gaza. These acts have been documented in reports such as that by LAP (Librarians and Archivists with Palestine) and the mapping project Gaza, Bombed Heritage and Virtual Museum. UNESCO has recorded Israel’s destruction of around 100 heritage, historical, archaeological, and cultural sites [along with the deaths of many individuals working to preserve and transmit heritage], who — like doctors and hospitals — have been deliberately targeted by the Israeli army.

    This indiscriminate targeting of Palestinian educational and cultural infrastructure — despite Israel being a signatory to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict — is part of a strategy of uprooting, denying, and appropriating the Indigenous Palestinian identity. It is all the more urgent, therefore, that French and international cultural institutions take a clear stand against these acts of systematic destruction.

    Double Standards

    Despite the extreme urgency of the situation, the BnF has adopted a posture of withdrawal with regard to Palestine, invoking a supposed “obligation of neutrality.”

    In a message dated April 29, 2024, BnF management stated: “Management has been made aware of the presence on TAD’s platforms of stickers whose form and content are explicitly violent and have shocked several of our colleagues, referring to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. The institution would like to remind everyone that, under Article L121–2 of the French Civil Service Code, all civil servants are bound by an obligation of neutrality in the exercise of their duties. Any breach of this rule is subject to disciplinary action. We thank all staff for respecting this binding rule, which ensures the neutrality and serenity of our collective working environment.”

    In a message dated April 29, 2024, BnF management stated: “Management has been made aware of the presence on TAD’s platforms of stickers whose form and content are explicitly violent and have shocked several of our colleagues, referring to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. The institution would like to remind everyone that, under Article L121–2 of the French Civil Service Code, all civil servants are bound by an obligation of neutrality in the exercise of their duties. Any breach of this rule is subject to disciplinary action. We thank all staff for respecting this binding rule, which ensures the neutrality and serenity of our collective working environment.”

    This injunction to silence stands in stark contrast to the explicit and substantial commitment it has shown to Ukraine, where the BnF not only took a public stance but also mobilized its resources, network, and collections. Following the Russian invasion in February 2022, the BnF expressed its solidarity with the Ukrainian people through numerous actions, including aid to Ukrainian libraries and their staff. [2] These initiatives reflect the BnF’s active engagement in support of Ukraine, in sharp contrast to its deafening silence on the situation in Gaza. The BnF’s “obligation of neutrality” thus appears to be selectively applied.

    This disparity raises serious questions about the consistency of the BnF’s commitment to the protection of global cultural heritage, exposing it to accusations of blatant double standards. All the more so as, despite Israel’s repeated violations of international conventions and UN resolutions, documented over decades, the BnF has not hesitated to showcase this state [through numerous collaborative, promotional, and partnership initiatives] [3].

    [Even after October 7, this bias persisted — promoting the Israeli perspective while erasing the destruction of Palestinian heritage. Whereas an entry for the “October 7 Massacre” was created in the BnF’s general catalog, no such entry exists for the genocide or culturicide committed in Gaza. And on November 26, 2024, the BnF hosted a program on the history and present-day destruction of books and libraries, mentioning recent examples (Ukraine, Timbuktu, Iraq) without a single word about the methodical destruction of libraries in Gaza, despite the extensive documentation available.

    All this is especially troubling coming from the BnF, which suspended all institutional collaboration with Russian state institutions following the invasion of Ukraine. One can only wonder whether, behind its proclaimed “neutrality,” there is in fact an alignment with the geopolitical choices of France and the West more broadly — unwavering allies of Israel — and the regrettable remnants of a colonial legacy that relegates Indigenous cultures and/or Europe’s responsibility for their destruction to the background.]

    The Bias of a Colonial Legacy

    “Palestine,” wrote Palestinian artist Larissa Sansour, “poses a problem of conscience for the West. With the former British and French empires responsible for the division of the territory, finding a solution to the Palestinian question would require a complete revision of European colonial history.”

    In its exhibition Le monde pour horizon (“The World as Horizon”), the BnF announced in a press release its intent to address the issue of destruction linked to French colonial conquests, promising a presentation of its collections illustrating the colonization of Africa, particularly Algeria. Some media outlets even hailed it as “an effort to distance itself from France’s heavy colonial history.” Yet this announcement has led to nothing: no such presentation has materialized — an absence all the more regrettable given that the Ministry of Culture has made cultural rapprochement between France and Algeria one of the priorities of the 2022–2027 presidential term. And yet the immeasurable devastation caused by French colonization, especially in Algeria, is well documented. From the earliest days of the conquest, Algerian libraries — both private and public — were devastated; their books and manuscripts either destroyed or looted. A significant portion of this looted heritage was donated to the National Library of France.

    This dissonance was once again evident during the study day Détruire le livre? (“Destroy the Book?”), held on November 26, 2024, which claimed to explore the history and contemporary reality of book and library destruction in times of war. Yet again, the devastation wrought by Western imperialism — whether through French colonial conquests or, more recently, the destruction carried out by Israel — was completely ignored.

    1_EOeoCWRLXZMpojpFAtIiTg.pngAs the Brooklyn Museum Workers in Support of Palestine recently declared, “We also recognize the dissonance between the way cultural institutions historicize past justice movements and their failure to fully engage with movements of the present.”

    Conclusion

    As an institution entrusted with the preservation of universal heritage, the BnF cannot afford to ignore such a crime against culture and history. Its silence stands in flagrant contradiction to the values it claims to embody, calls into question the universality of its commitment, and contributes to erasing this genocide from the historical record. We condemn the passivity — if not complicity— of the Bibliothèque nationale de France in the face of this campaign of plunder and destruction, which undermines the very principles of preservation and transmission of knowledge and memory, which constitute its core mission.

    Given the gravity of the situation and what has been set forth, we call upon the BnF to:

    – publicly denounce this grave assault on world heritage, of which the destruction of the Edward Said Public Library is but one of the war crimes committed against Gaza and its inhabitants over the past fifteen months;
    — suspend its 2010 framework agreement with the National Library of Israel (BNI) and cease all cooperation with Israeli state institutions, particularly regarding the development of joint research and development programs in information processing, computerization, and digitization; the organization of conferences and seminars; and the mounting of exhibitions;
    — [take action, within its means, to safeguard and restore Palestinian historical and cultural memory.]

    Endnotes [not part of the original letter]

    [1] The titles included works by Noam Chomsky, Ilan Pappé, and Banksy, as well as other books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, student revolts, and art, including a children’s coloring book entitled From the River to the Sea by South African illustrator Nathi Ngubane. Source: https://www.972mag.com/educational-bookshop-east-jerusalem-raid-arrests/

    [2] Notably:

    1. Participation, in March 2022, in an initiative to send 15 tons of packaging and preservation materials to Ukrainian museums to protect their collections from conflict-related risks;
    2. A public statement by Laurence Engel, president of the BnF, on May 4, 2022, expressing solidarity and support for the Ukrainian people, strongly condemning Russian aggression, announcing the suspension of all cooperation with Russian institutions, and urging Russian national libraries that are members of the CENL (Conference of European National Libraries) to withdraw from it;
    3. The creation of a dedicated section on the BnF’s official website gathering information on cultural events in support of Ukraine, as well as a selection of online and reading-room resources related to Ukraine and the ongoing conflict;
    4. Screenings of Ukrainian films and the organization of conferences and roundtables;
    5. Solidarity initiatives such as a special concert in support of Ukraine, with proceeds used to purchase and ship conservation materials to safeguard Ukrainian heritage;
    6. Active participation in the European Commission’s expert subgroup on safeguarding cultural heritage in Ukraine;
    7. Collection by the BnF’s “Recueils” team of all ephemeral printed material — brochures, flyers, posters, leaflets — related to the war in Ukraine, to preserve fragile and important records of the conflict;
    8. Compilation of a collective bibliography entitled Ukraine in the Collections of the BnF, a collaborative effort by all departments aimed at showcasing Ukrainian heritage;
    9. Enrichment of the collections of the National Center for Children’s Literature (CNLJ) with new titles to provide an overview of Ukrainian children’s literature;
    10. Hosting Ukrainian librarians in the framework of the “Courants du Monde” program in 2024 and supporting the creation and development of a Ukrainian digital library. Etc., etc.

    [3] Notably:

    1. Since 2010, the BnF has participated in the Rachel network, launched in 2008 by the National Library of Israel, to disseminate Hebrew manuscripts worldwide;
    2. Since 2016, the BnF and the National Library of Israel (BNI) have collaborated to digitize 1,400 Hebrew manuscripts (totaling 560,000 pages), now available on Gallica;
    3. In 2021, a few months after “Operation Guardian of the Walls,” which left hundreds dead and thousands wounded in Gaza, the exhibition Living in Israel showcased the country’s architecture, urban planning, and lifestyles, while another exhibition was devoted to the film The Last Day of Yitzhak Rabin by Israeli director Amos Gitai;
    4. In 2022, the conference French Studies in Israel focused on the development of knowledge about France as an academic field within Israeli universities, highlighting the cultural and educational ties between the two countries;
    5. In 2010, during a BnF exhibition entitled Qumran: The Secret of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the site of Qumran was identified as being in Israel, whereas it is in fact located in the West Bank, a Palestinian territory under occupation. See the Letter from Elizabeth Picard to Mr. Laurent Héricher, scientific director of the Qumran exhibition at the National Library of France. Etc., etc.
    The post Culturicide in Gaza first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Extermination of the Palestinian People and Theft of Their Homeland

    Thought I’d share with you an attempt to hold my MP to account for Westminster’s shameful complicity in Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. The talking-points may help if you’re about to do the same with your MP or senator.

    Israel: after 19 months of non-stop genocide where do you stand Mr Cooper?

    ku.tnemailrapnull@pm.repooc.nhoj

    Dear Mr Cooper,

    In your communications to me in February and October last year some remarks were misleading and sounded as if penned by Israel’s propaganda scribblers in Tel Aviv. Given your journalistic background it was hoped you would sniff out and reject such disinformation. With the situation in Gaza now so horrific a more considered reply would be welcome, please, from our representative at Westminster.

    • You said: “Israel has suffered the worst terror attack in its history at the hands of Hamas.”

    But you omitted the context. In the 23 years prior to October 7 Israel had been slaughtering Palestinians at the rate of 8:1 and children at the rate of 16:1. Why overlook this? 7,200 Palestinian hostages, including 88 women and 250 children, were held in Israeli jails on that fateful day. Over 1,200 were under ‘administrative detention’ without charge or trial and denied ‘due process’ (B’Tselem figures). October 7 was therefore a retaliation against extreme provocation. Or were we expecting the Palestinians to take all that lying down?

    Evidence is now emerging that the IDF inflicted many of the casualties on their own people that day in order to provide a pretext for their long-planned genocidal assault.

    Early in the genocide JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace), the largest progressive Jewish anti-Zionist organization in the world, described the situation leading up to October 7 rather well:

    The Israeli government may have just declared war, but its war on Palestinians started over 75 years ago. Israeli apartheid and occupation — and United States complicity in that oppression — are the source of all this violence…. For the past year, the most racist, fundamentalist, far-right government in Israeli history has ruthlessly escalated its military occupation over Palestinians in the name of Jewish supremacy with violent expulsions and home demolitions, mass killings, military raids on refugee camps, unrelenting siege and daily humiliation….

    For 16 years, the Israeli government has suffocated Palestinians in Gaza under a draconian air, sea and land military blockade, imprisoning and starving two million people and denying them medical aid. The Israeli government routinely massacres Palestinians in Gaza; ten-year-olds who live in Gaza have already been traumatized by seven major bombing campaigns in their short lives.

    For 75 years, the Israeli government has maintained a military occupation over Palestinians, operating an apartheid regime. Palestinian children are dragged from their beds in pre-dawn raids by Israeli soldiers and held without charge in Israeli military prisons. Palestinians’ homes are torched by mobs of Israeli settlers, or destroyed by the Israeli army. Entire Palestinian villages are forced to flee, abandoning the homes orchards, and land that were in their family for generations.

    The bloodshed of today and the past 75 years traces back directly to US complicity in the oppression and horror caused by Israel’s military occupation. The US government consistently enables Israeli violence and bears blame for this moment. The unchecked military funding, diplomatic cover, and billions of dollars of private money flowing from the US enables and empowers Israel’s apartheid regime.

    • You said: “I support Israel’s right to defend itself, in line with international humanitarian law.”

    The UN itself has made it clear that “Israel cannot claim self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupies”, and many law experts have said the same.

    On the other hand the Palestinians’ right to resist is confirmed in UN Resolution 3246 which calls for all States to recognize the right to self-determination and independence for all peoples subject to colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, and to assist them in their struggle, and reaffirms the Palestinians’ right to use “all available means, including armed struggle” in their fight for freedom.

    Furthermore UN Resolution 37/43 gives them an unquestionable right, in their struggle for liberation, to “eliminate the threat posed by Israel by all available means including armed struggle”. And as China reminded everyone at the ICJ, “armed resistance against occupation is enshrined in international law and is not terrorism”.

    • You said “There is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel.”

    How right you are! Under international law Palestinians have an inalienable right to self-determination. They properly elected Hamas under international scrutiny in 2006, at the last permitted election. Hamas are the lawful and legitimate rulers in Gaza.

    Israel is not the Western-style democracy it pretends to be. It is a deeply unpleasant ethnocracy with recently enacted discriminatory nation-state laws to emphasise its apartheid ‘bottom line’. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, an Israeli human rights organization, has documented entrenched discrimination and socioeconomic differences in “land, urban planning, housing, infrastructure, economic development, and education.”

    • You said: “Leaving Hamas in power in Gaza would be a permanent roadblock to a two-state solution…..A sustainable ceasefire must mean that Hamas is no longer there, able to threaten Israel.”

    The US and UK have no right to attempt coercive regime change. Besides, Israel has been a fatal threat to Gaza and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) since well before Hamas was even founded.

    Sections 16 and 20 of Hamas’s 2017 Charter are in tune with international law while the Israeli government pursues policies that definitely are not.

    (s.16) “Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.

    (s.20) “Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”

    The correct and lawful way to deal with the threat posed by Hamas is (and always has been) by requiring Israel to immediately end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, theft of Palestinian resources, and destruction of Palestinian heritage.

    • You said: “I support all steps to bring about a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders.”

    Palestinians should not have to negotiate their freedom and self-determination. Under international law it’s their basic right and doesn’t depend on anyone else, such as Israel or the US, agreeing to it. The UK disrespects that, otherwise we would long ago have recognised Palestinian statehood along with the vast majority of nations that have already done so. And why is only Israel allowed to be “safe and secure”?

    Britain’s refusal to recognise Palestine is disgraceful. We promised the Palestinian Arabs independence in 1915 in return for their help in defeating the Turks but reneged in 1917 (in favour of the shameful Balfour Declaration). We should have granted Palestine provisional independence in 1923 in accordance with our responsibilities under the League of Nations Mandate Agreement, but didn’t. In 1947 the UN Partition Plan allocated the Palestinians a measly portion of their own homeland and, without consulting them, handed the lion’s share to incomer Jews with no ancestral connection to it… thanks in large part to the Balfour betrayal.

    The following year Britain walked away from its mandate responsibilities leaving Palestinians at the mercy of Israel’s vicious plan for annexing the Holy Land by military force – “from the river to the sea” – which they’ve pursued relentlessly ever since in defiance of international and humanitarian law, bringing terror, misery, wholesale destruction and ruination to the Palestinians. And now genocide.

    Today Britain still refuses to recognise Palestinian independence although 138 other UN member states do.

    • You said: “Settler violence and the demolition of Palestinian homes is intolerable, and I expect to see Ministers firmly raising these issues with the Israeli Government, and taking robust action where necessary.”

    The Israeli regime has long ignored representations on such issues, so where is the “robust action” you speak of?

    According to B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, “The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence…. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.”

    Law expert Ralph Wilde provides this opinion:

    There is no right under international law to maintain the occupation pending a peace agreement, or for creating ‘facts on the ground’ that might give Israel advantages in relation to such an agreement, or as a means of coercing the Palestinian people into agreeing on a situation they would not accept otherwise.

    Implanting settlers in the hope of eventually acquiring territory is a violation of occupation law by Israel and a war crime on the part of the individuals involved. And it is a violation of Israel’s legal obligation to respect the sovereignty of another state and a violation of Israel’s legal obligation to respect the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people; also a violation of Israel’s obligations in the international law on the use of force. Ending these violations involves immediate removal of the settlers and the settlements from occupied land and an immediate end to Israel’s exercise of control, including its use of military force….

    • You said: “The UK is doing everything it can to get more aid in and open more crossings, and we played a leading role in securing the passage of UN Security Council resolution 2720, which made clear the urgent demand for expanded humanitarian access.”

    That went well, didn’t it? It’s sickening how Westminster still won’t accept the truth – that Israel is a depraved and repulsive regime, devoid of humanity, and we should not be supporting it in any way, shape or form.

    For decades before October 7 Israel’s illegal control over the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza and military aggression, ethnic cleansing, restrictions on movement of goods and people, dispossession of prime lands, theft of Palestine’s key resources and destruction of its economy have bordered on slow-motion genocide.

    And now the International Court of Justice has clarified that “a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent, it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit”.

    The many means available to the British Government include sanctions – which it readily applies to other delinquent nations – and withdrawal of favoured-nation privileges, trade deals, scientific/security collaboration, and cessation of arms supplies. In Israel’s case the British Government, far from using its available deterrent means, has militarily assisted Israel in its genocide.

    So let’s remind ourselves of the UK Lawyers’ Open Letter Concerning Gaza of 26 October 2023 which arrived at the UK Government with important warnings regarding breaches of international law — for example:

    ⦁ The UK is duty-bound to “respect and ensure respect” for international humanitarian law as set out in the Four Geneva Conventions in all circumstances (1949 Geneva Conventions, Common Art 1). That means the UK must not itself assist violations by others.

    ⦁ The UK Government must immediately halt the export of weapons from the UK to Israel, given the clear risk that they might be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law and in breach of the UK’s domestic Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, including its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty.

    The Department for Business and Trade (whose committee I believe you now sit on) dismissed a petition calling for all licences for arms to Israel to be revoked. Their excuse was that “we rigorously assess every application on a case-by-case basis against strict assessment criteria, the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria (or SELC)…. The SELC provide a thorough risk assessment framework for export licence applications and require us to think hard about the impact of providing equipment and its capabilities. We will not license the export of equipment where to do so would be inconsistent with the SELC.”

    But they didn’t explain how Israel managed to satisfy those “strict assessment criteria” and survive such a “rigorous” process. Were we supposed to take it all on trust? There are 8 criteria and, on reading them, any reasonably informed person might conclude that Israel fails to satisfy at least 5.

    • You said: “In the longer term, I will continue to support the UK’s long held-position, that there should be a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security for both nations and the wider region.”

    Why the longer term? Why not now? If Palestinian statehood had been recognised at the proper time (in 1923, or at least by 1948 when Israeli statehood was ‘accepted’) these unspeakable atrocities would never have happened.

    QME and Plan Dalet

    These are the never-mentioned driving forces behind the evil that poisons the Holy Land.

    In 2008 Congress enacted legislation requiring that US arms sales to any country in the Middle East other than Israel must not adversely affect Israel’s “qualitative military edge” (QME). It ensures the apartheid regime always has the upper hand over it neighbours. This is central to US Middle East policy and guarantees the region is kept at or near boiling point and ripe for exploitation.

    Sadly the UK has superglued itself to America’s cynical partnership with Israel for ‘security’ and other dubious reasons.

    Plan D, or Plan Dalet, is the Zionist terror blueprint for their brutal takeover of the Palestinian homeland written 77 years ago. It was drawn up by the Jewish underground militia, the Haganah, at the behest of David Ben-Gurion, then boss of the Jewish Agency and later to become the first president of ‘New Israel’. .

    Plan D was a carefully thought-out, step-by-step plot choreographed ahead of the British mandate government’s withdrawal and the Zionists’ declaration of Israeli statehood. It correctly assumed that the British authorities would no longer be there to prevent it. As Plan D shows, “expulsion and transfer” (i.e. ethnic cleansing) has always been a key part of the Zionists’ scheme, and Ben-Gurion reminded his military commanders that the prime aim of Plan D was the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

    The Deir Yassin massacre signalled the beginning of a deliberate programme to depopulate Arab towns and villages – destroying churches and mosques – in order to make room for incoming Holocaust survivors and other Jews. In July 1948 Israeli terrorist troops seized Lydda, shot up the town and drove out the population. They massacred 426 men, women, and children. 176 of them were slaughtered in the town’s main mosque. The remainder were forced to walk into exile in the scalding July heat leaving a trail of bodies – men, women and children – along the way. Of all the blood-baths they say this was the biggest. Israel’s great hero Moshe Dayan was responsible.

    By 1949 the Zionists had seized nearly 80 percent of Palestine, provoking the resistance backlash we still see today. The knock-on effects have created around 6 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN plus an estimated 1 million others worldwide.

    Israel Lobby

    Considering Britain’s obligations towards the Holy Land since WW1, would you please let me know what you and your colleagues are now doing to stop this appalling extermination of the Palestinian people? And I do mean action not empty words. And would you please explain why Conservative Friends of Israel, which works to promote and support Israel in Parliament and at every level of the Party and claims 80% of Conservative MPs as signed-up members, are allowed to flourish at Westminster?.

    MPs who put themselves under the influence of an aggressive foreign military power are surely in flagrant breach of the principles of public life (aka the Nolan Principles) which are written into MPs’ code of conduct and the ministerial code.

    Being a Friend of Israel, of course, means embracing the terror on which the state of Israel was built, approving the dispossession of the innocent and the oppression of the powerless, and applauding the discriminatory laws against non-Jews who resisted being ejected and inconveniently remain in their homeland.

    It means aligning oneself with the vile mindset that abducts civilians — including children — and imprisons and tortures them without trial, imposes hundreds of military checkpoints, severely restricts the movement of people and goods, and interferes with Palestinian life at every level.

    And it means giving the thumbs-up to Israeli gunboats shooting up Palestinian fishermen in their own territorial waters, the strangulation of the West Bank’s economy, the cruel 19-year blockade on Gaza and the bloodbaths inflicted on the tiny enclave’s packed population. Also the religious war that humiliates the Holy Land’s Muslims and Christians and prevents them visiting their holy places.

    I prefer to think that you know all this but must be mindful that the Israel lobby have Conservative Central Office in their pocket.

    Stuart Littlewood

    8 May 2025

    The post The Extermination of the Palestinian People and Theft of Their Homeland first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Trump Waves White Flag, Ends Yemen War In Omani-Mediated Truce

    US President Donald Trump announced on 6 May that Washington will put a stop to its illegal war against Yemen, claiming that the Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) “don’t want to fight anymore.”

    When pressed by reporters on the terms of the agreement with Sanaa, Trump claimed Yemeni officials “said please don’t bomb us anymore.” Asked where he got that information, Trump said, “It doesn’t matter where I heard it – a very good source.”

    Nevertheless, the Omani Foreign Ministry announced later that Muscat successfully brokered a ceasefire agreement between Washington and Sanaa that will see both sides end hostilities.

    The post Trump Waves White Flag, Ends Yemen War In Omani-Mediated Truce appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Shilling For Israel’s Genocide

    Anyone who at this point is still prioritising concerns about tackling antisemitism in Britain, the United States or Europe over halting a 19-month genocide in Gaza is secretly in favour of that genocide. They need to be shamed – and urgently.

    We are long past the time when there can be any doubt that what the International Court of Justice feared 16 months ago was a genocide is actually a genocide. Israel is no longer even shy about admitting it is starving Gaza’s population. It has been expressly blocking all food and water into Gaza for more than two months.

    We are at the point where even patriotic Israeli scholars who have been desperately trying to ignore that reality are belatedly and reluctantly conceding that Israel’s genocide in Gaza is indisputable.

    The post Shilling For Israel’s Genocide appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Starvation in Gaza is so bad even the BBC is covering it – and reporting it all wrong

    The BBC’s role is not to keep viewers informed. It’s to persuade them a clear crime against humanity by Israel is, in fact, highly complicated geopolitics they cannot hope to understand

    You can tell how bad levels of starvation now are in Gaza, as the population there begins the third month of a complete aid blockade by Israel, because last night the BBC finally dedicated a serious chunk of its main news programme, the News at Ten, to the issue.

    But while upsetting footage of a skin-and-bones, five-month-old baby was shown, most of the segment was, of course, dedicated to confusing audiences by two-sidesing Israel’s genocidal programme of starving 2 million-plus Palestinian civilians.

    Particularly shocking was the BBC’s failure in this extended report to mention even once the fact that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been a fugitive for months from the International Criminal Court, which wants him on trial for crimes against humanity. Why? For using starvation as a weapon of war against the civilian population.

    I have yet to see the BBC, or any other major British media outlet, append the status “wanted war crimes suspect” when mentioning Netanyahu in stories. That is all the more unconscionable on this occasion, in a story directly related to the very issue – starving a civilian population – he is charged over.

    Was mention of the arrest warrant against him avoided because it might signal a little too clearly that the highest legal authorities in the world attribute starvation in Gaza directly to Israel and its government, and do not see it – as the British establishment media apparently do – as some continuing, unfortunate “humanitarian” consequence of “war”.

    Predictably misleading, too, was BBC Verify’s input. It provided a timeline of Israel’s intensified blockade that managed to pin the blame not on Israel, even though it is the one blocking all aid, but implicitly on Hamas.

    Verify’s reporter asserted that in early March, Israel “blocked humanitarian aid, demanding that Hamas extend a ceasefire and release the remaining hostages”. He then jumped to 18 March, stating: “Israel resumes military operations.”

    Viewers were left, presumably intentionally, with the impression that Hamas had rejected a continuation of the ceasefire and had refused to release the last of the hostages.

    None of that is true. In fact, Israel never honoured the ceasefire, continuing to attack Gaza and kill civilians throughout. But worse, Israel’s supposed “extension” was actually its unilateral violation of the ceasefire by insisting on radical changes to the terms that had already been agreed, and which included Hamas releasing the hostages.

    Israel broke the ceasefire precisely so it had the pretext it needed to return to starving Gaza’s civilians – and the hostages whose safety it proclaims to care about – as part of its efforts to make them so desperate they are prepared to risk their lives by forcing open the short border with neighbouring Sinai sealed by Egypt.

    Yesterday, an Israeli government minister once again made clear what the game plan has been from the very start. “Gaza will be entirely destroyed,” Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister, said. Gaza’s population, he added, would be forced to “leave in great numbers to third countries”. In other words, Israel intends to carry out what the rest of us would call the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, as it has been doing continuously for eight decades.

    Simply astonishing. We’ve had 19 months of Israeli government ministers and military commanders telling us they are destroying Gaza. They’ve destroyed Gaza. And yet, Western politicians and media still refuse to call it a genocide.

    What is the point of the BBC’s Verify service—supposedly there to fact-check and ensure viewers get only the unvarnished truth—when its team is itself peddling gross distortions of the truth?

    The BBC and its Verify service are not keeping viewers informed. They are propagandising them into believing a clear crime against humanity by Israel is, in fact, highly complicated geopolitics that audiences cannot hope to understand.

    The establishment media’s aim is to so confuse audiences that they will throw up their hands and say: “To hell with Israel and the Palestinians! They are as bad as each other. Leave it to the politicians and diplomats to sort out.”

    In any other circumstance, it would strike you as obvious that starving children en masse is morally abhorrent, and that anyone who does it, or excuses it, is a monster. The role of the BBC is to persuade you that what should be obvious to you is, in fact, more complicated than you can appreciate.

    There may be skin-and-bones babies, but there are also hostages. There may be tens of thousands of children being slaughtered, but there is also a risk of antisemitism. Israeli officials may be calling for the eradication of the Palestinian people, but the Jewish state they run needs to be preserved at all costs.

    If we could spend five minutes in Gaza without the constant, babbling distractions of these so-called journalists, the truth would be clear. It’s a genocide. It was always a genocide.

    The post Starvation in Gaza is so bad even the BBC is covering it – and reporting it all wrong first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Jonathan Cook.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Expulsion and Occupation: Israel’s Proposed Gaza Plan

    Killing civilians wholesale, starving them to convince those unaffected to change course, and shepherding whole populations like livestock into conditions of further misery would all qualify as heinous crimes in international law.  When it comes to Israel’s war in Gaza, this approach is seen as necessary politics, unalloyed by the restraints of humanitarianism.  When confronted with these harsh realities on the ground, unequivocal denials follow: This is not happening in Gaza; no one is starving. And if that were the case, blame those misguided savages in Hamas.

    As the conflict chugs along in pools of blood and bountiful gore, the confused shape of Israel’s intentions continues in all its glorious nebulousness.  Pretend moderation clouds murderous desire.  There is no sense that those unfortunate Israeli hostages captured by Hamas in its assault on October 7, 2023, matter anymore, being merely decorative for the imminent slaughter.  There is even less sense that Hamas will be cleansed and removed from the strip, however attractive this idea continues to be.

    Such evident limits have not discouraged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet, who have decided that more force, that old province of the unimaginative, is the answer.  According to the PM, the cabinet had agreed on a “forceful operation” to eliminate Hamas and salvage what is left of the hostage situation.

    A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, Brigadier-General Effie Defrin, has explained on Israeli radio that the offensive will apparently ensure the return of the hostages.  What follows will be “the collapse of the Hamas regime, its defeat, its submission”.  Anywhere up to two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza will be herded into the ruins of the south.  Humanitarian aid will be arranged by the Israeli forces to be possibly distributed through approved contractors.

    The IDF chief of staff, Lt. General Eyal Zamir, confirmed that the approved plan will involve “the capture of the Strip and holding the territories, moving the Gazan population south for its defence, denying Hamas the ability to distribute humanitarian supplies, and powerful attacks against Hamas.”

    Within the Israeli cabinet, ethnocentric and religious fires burn with bright fanaticism.  The Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich remains a figure who ignores floral subtlety in favour of the blood-stained sledgehammer.  He remains that coherent link between cruel lawmaking and baffling violence.  “Within a few months,” he boasts, “we will be able to declare that we have won.  Gaza will be totally destroyed.”  With pompous certitude, he also claimed that the next six months would see Hamas cease to exist.

    Such opinions, expressed at the “Settlements Conference” organised by the Makor Rishon newspaper in Ofra, a West Bank settlement, give a sense of the flavour.  Palestinians are to be “concentrated” on land located between the Egyptian border and the arbitrarily designated Morag Corridor.  As with any potential abuser keen to violate his vulnerable charges while justifying it, Smotrich tried to impress with the idea that this was a “humanitarian” zone that would be free of “Hamas and terrorism”.

    The program here is clear in its chilling crudeness.  Expulsion, relocation, transfer.  These are the words famously used to move on populations of a sizeable number in history, often at enormous cost.  That this should involve lawmakers of the Jewish state adds a stunning, if perverse, poignancy to this.  They, the moved on in history, the expelled and the condemned wanderers, shall expel others and condemn them in turn.  Smotrich also points the finger at desperation and hopelessness, the biting incentives that propel migration.  The Palestinians will feel blessed in their banishment.  “They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places.”

    Impossible to ignore in Smotrich’s steaming bile against the Palestinians is the broader view that no Palestinian state can arise, necessitating urgent, preventative poisoning.  In addition to the eventual depopulation of Gaza, plans to reconstitute the contours of the West Bank, ensuring that Israeli and Palestinian traffic are separated to enable building and construction for settlements as a prelude to annexation, are to be implemented.

    The issue of twisting and mangling humanitarian aid in favour of Israel’s territorial lust has raised some tart commentary.  A statement from the Humanitarian Country Team of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, a forum led by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), does not shy away from the realities on the ground.  All supplies, including those vital to survival, have been blocked for nine weeks.  Bakeries and community kitchens have closed, while warehouses are empty.  Hunger, notably among children, is rampant.  Israel’s plan, as presented, “will mean that large parts of Gaza, including the less mobile and most vulnerable people, will continue to go without supplies.”

    The UN Secretary General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator have confirmed that they will not cooperate in the scheme, as it “does not adhere to the global humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence, and neutrality.”

    The foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have made the same point.  Despite all being solid allies of Israel, they have warned that violations of international law are taking place.  “Humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool and a Palestinian territory must not be reduced nor subjected to any demographic change”.

    To date, a promise lingers that the offensive will only commence once US President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar takes place.  But no ongoing savaging of Gaza with some crude effort at occupation will solve the historical vortex that continues to drag the Jewish state to risk and oblivion.

    The post Expulsion and Occupation: Israel’s Proposed Gaza Plan first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Yemen Vows ‘Unimaginable’ Response to Israel’s Bombing Campaign

    Israeli strikes carried out on the evening of 5 May on Yemen’s Hodeidah port and surrounding areas, including a concrete factory near Bajil, injured 56 people and killed one, while damaging 70 percent of the port’s five docks and infrastructure, Yemeni sources reported.

    At least 21 people were injured in the Bajil strike, while the Yemeni Health Ministry later said 35 people were injured and one person killed in the broader Hodeidah attacks. Civilian areas such as Al-Salakhanah and Al-Hawak neighborhoods were also reportedly hit. 

    Nasruddin Amer, head of Ansarallah’s media office, vowed that the group would respond to the Israeli attack and that the strikes would not deter further operations.

    The post Yemen Vows ‘Unimaginable’ Response to Israel’s Bombing Campaign appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Meet Fired Employees Challenging Microsoft’s Complicity In Genocide

    Last fall, Microsoft fired software engineer Hossam Nasr and data scientist Abdo Mohamed after they held a vigil for Palestinians killed in Gaza outside the company’s headquarters.

    Nasr and Mohamed are members of No Azure for Apartheid, a group calling on Microsoft to stop providing its cloud computing to the Israeli military.

    “As technology workers, we are hyper aware of the fact that our work—especially with the advancement of AI and cloud technologies—has the potential to enable any company and any organization to inflict harm and violate human rights,” reads a petition circulated by the organization.

    The post Meet Fired Employees Challenging Microsoft’s Complicity In Genocide appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • How Israel embroils other countries in its crimes of genocide against the Palestinians

    Israel is very adept at drawing attention away from itself and onto other countries as it carries out its genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. In a recent incident, when the ‘Conscience’, an aid boat attempting to reach the starving people of Gaza, was hit by drones (likely fired by Israel) a mile out of Maltese international waters, all attention descended upon the Maltese authorities.

    The vessel was flying the flag of the Pacific Island of Palau; however, prior to the drone hit, Palau withdrew the registration, leaving the crew vulnerable to accusations of being without official papers. Israel had also made accusations of terrorism, claiming that the crew of activists were Hamas militants. There is no basis to the claim that the peaceful activists have any military connections or intentions. The crew are internationals of conscience, who had gathered together from various countries in an attempt to break the blockade of Gaza, carry essential supplies, and draw attention to the desperate plight of people in Gaza.

    A nearby Maltese tug boat was the first to arrive at the boat’s aid, having been alerted by the authorities to the SOS distress call. The tug boat was equipped with a fire hose and managed to extinguish the fire totally. However, with holes in the boat from the drone attack and extensive damage to the generator, the boat has been slowly taking on water. When the authorities arrived shortly after, the captain of the ‘Conscience’ informed them that the crew would not abandon their vessel or let any of the authorities board it.

    The fears of the crew of sabotage from an unknown person or persons boarding their boat are not unrealistic. Besides incidents of sabotage, activists from the earlier Freedom Flotilla Coalitions, in attempting to break the siege of Gaza, have experienced deaths, arrests, theft, and the destruction of vessels. In 2008 the ‘Dignity’, was rammed – with clear lethal intent by the Israeli military. The damage was so extensive that the boat took on water, leaving it unseaworthy. Although the authorities in Israel and Egypt ignored the call for help, the Lebanese responded and rescued the sixteen international activists on board. In 2010, ten activists were murdered by the Israeli military. In 2018, Dr. Swee Ang, a passenger on the ‘Al Awda’ freedom boat, describes how prior to reaching the Gaza coastline, they were boarded by the Israeli military, arrested, humiliated, and stripped naked. Their boat was confiscated.

    The young, well-known environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, is already in Malta and, along with other internationals, hopes to join the ‘Conscience’ as early as possible. However, being well-known is no guarantee of survival or success, as orthopaedic surgeon David Halpin can testify from his experience on the ‘Dignity’. The Israelis have a documented history of committing crimes against anyone – Palestinian or international, if they are perceived to challenge their Zionist aspirations to turn all of Palestine and beyond, into a Jewish State.

    The Maltese authorities agreed to allow the boat to come into Malta and to assist with repairs. However, they insisted that the boat go through the normal customs procedures of inspection. With concerns for Malta’s security and a responsibility for the security of those on the boat from further attack, the Maltese Navy blocked all vessels from approaching the ‘Conscience’. Included in those blocked, from the area around the boat, were activists connected with the freedom flotilla. This led to a standoff between the two groups as each tried to express their security concerns while also addressing the vessel’s evident need for assistance.

    All eyes turned away from Israel’s war crime and toward Malta. Sandwiched between Zionist political pressure from Israel on one side and pressure from international humanitarian groups on the other side, the Maltese authorities were thrown into the spotlight as the potential villains. The Maltese people and the internationals were ready to protest in the capital city of Valletta in support of the humanitarian venture. However, the protest was called off after it appeared that the crew and supporters of the ‘Conscience’ were in genuine negotiations with the Maltese Government.

    This is a narrative that is still unfolding. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations between the activists and the Maltese Government, we must remind ourselves that the real villain here is not Malta, but Israel. If justice is ever to be achieved, the Israeli Government must be held accountable for its ongoing theft and coveting of Palestinian land. Only then will Palestinians be free of this hundred-year-plus catastrophe that has led to displacement, occupation, and genocide.

    The post How Israel embroils other countries in its crimes of genocide against the Palestinians first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Smotrich: Israel Won’t Leave Gaza, “Not Even in Exchange for Hostages”

    A top Israeli minister has vowed that Israel’s military will “conquer” Gaza and flatten everything that’s left, regardless of whether or not that plan endangers the lives of the remaining Israeli captives being held in the Strip — undercutting Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and the media’s narrative about Israel pushing for a deal. On Sunday, Netanyahu’s security cabinet approved a plan…

    Source

  • US and Hungary Stand Alone at ICJ in Favor of Israel’s Blockade on Gaza

    Since March 2, Israel has blocked all food, medicine, fuel, and other relief from entering the besieged Gaza Strip, home to 2.1 million Palestinian people. “Israel is starving, killing and displacing Palestinians while also targeting and blocking humanitarian organizations trying to save their lives,” Ammar Hijazi, Palestine’s ambassador to the Netherlands, told the International Court of Justice…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sci-fi Antidote for the Age of Genocide

    Are you overwhelmed by Israel, Trump, starvation, drones, hypersonic monstrosities, doubling our ‘defense’ budget, reducing people to things, bloodlust? Did I mention ISRAEL?

    I turn to sci fi when the world looks/ feels super bleak. Mickey7 is a 2022 science fiction novel by Edward Ashton with a sequel, Antimatter Blues, and a film adaptation, Mickey 17, directed by Bong Joon-ho. As with any really good novel-film, you should start with a nice hardback in a comfortable chair and launch yourself into the cosmos, let your imagination do the travelling. The many metaphors behind it are too savory to waste on a rushed, cut-to-the-bone glossy visual spectacle. The special effects are best conjured in your mind in this page-turner with multiple meanings.

    The eponymous Mickey7 is a cyborg, the expendable member of a beachhead colony on an alien world. He fell down a deep hole in the snowy, rocky planet Neflheim and was left for dead by his supposed best human friend Berto, though his human true-love Nasha wanted to volunteer to save him. But he failed to die. A huge creeper – a native (nephilim?) – shepherds him out of the tunnel, though by the time he returned to the colony, there was already a Mickey8 being ‘born’ out of primordial soup, a reconstruction of him, a kind of super 3D-bioprint. This latest technology requires supercomputers and huge amounts of energy, but with the harnessing of antimatter, energy is limitless and such a creation is possible.

    Sounds great, but this process was used by a psychopath, Manikova, in the past, on the terraformed Eden II, to make multiple clones of himself and, well, the whole process was shutdown and then refashioned to be used only to assist colonization of other planets. One ‘expendable’ would accompany each colony to be used to test the atmosphere, land, water for toxins and other suicidal missions and if he dies horribly, he would be reconstituted.

    Who would want to do that? Criminals, but also volunteers who would imagine themselves as living a kind of eternal life. As long as they were nice, heroic and obedient. If not, they would, well, you get the picture. Not so eternal.

    It’s a delightful tale of essentially identical twins, thinking alike, rivals, playing the usual twin games of fooling your lover with your twin taking your place, leading to jealousy and then a threesome (with yourself!). You laugh, and ponder lots of philosophical and war&peace issues:

    *The ship of Theseus paradox: if you repair the ship over time, or just rebuild it from scratch, is it still the ship? Are Mickey7&8 sharing one consciousness, one soul? When an expendable takes a trip to the tank, he’s just doing in one go what his body would naturally do over the course of time anyway. As long as memory is preserved, he hasn’t really died. Kant’s phenomenology means we can never really know the nous of the phenomenon, i.e., there’s no answer. The Natalist religion that arose after the initial psychopath scare proclaims ‘one human one soul’, with capital punishment for any violation. I.e., the question doesn’t/shouldn’t arise.

    *A corollary paradox: Does a threesome with your double and his/your lover make you a ‘perv’?

    *When he’s facing death for the 8th time, he tells Nasha not to watch. No, I’ll be there. Dying … even if it’s temporary, you shouldn’t have to do it with nobody around for company.

    *The hero is portrayed as a venal selfish coward, a traitor. Sound like hasbara about Hamas guerrilla fights? Living in tunnels that the colonizers can’t seem to penetrate, and fear? The protagonist(s) wearing suicide antimatter vests in the tunnels to kill the enemy/themselves. Israeli commandos destroying Hamas in their tunnels? Later, when faced with execution, Nasha says, This colony wasn’t chartered as a theocracy. You can’t just burn us at the stake.

    *A man has conspired with the enemy in a time of war. There is no greater crime./ What about genocide? It wasn’t conspiring with the enemy that led us to abandon old Earth.

    *The creepers are communal intelligence. The Marshall thinks that they are at war because the creepers killed a few humans. The idea that dissecting a few ancillaries would be considered an act of aggression is beyond them. They are just parts of the whole, not intelligent things themselves. I realized reading this that Nature is communal. There are no individuals except as fractal bits of the whole. This is a principle throughout Nature. If a few humans die, so what? The human race goes on. We have lost this vital understanding of Nature. We only exist communally.

    *Don’t kill the messenger. When Mickey7 refuses to commit genocide against the natives, Netanyahu (sorry, the Marshall) wants first to just kill him, but Mickey7 is now the only emissary, mediator with the native creepers, the only one they trust. Netanyahu (sorry!) assumes they are just Amalek, not really Jewish (sorry, human) so it is fine to kill them all and terraform Niflheim. Mickey7 realized they were sentient, as they magnanimously saved him. They read his mind and realized he was not their enemy, that he trusted them, so while Mickey8 was getting ready to kill them all in their tunnel with an antimatter bomb, they killed him and let Mickey7 return to mediate with Netanyahu (I’m not going to keep apologizing, though to be fair to Netanyahu, Trump fits the bill equally.).

    *The tunnels are immune to carpet bombing – low tech defensive technology – keeping the natives safe from the colonists/Zionists.

    *Antimatter WMDs hover over the novel, a silver bullet but extremely dangerous. We may not have the high ground anymore, but we still have an insane amount of power available. Sound familiar? When Netanyahu/the Marshall doesn’t kill Mickey7&8 immediately, Mickey 7 cracks, Don’t get too excited, Eight. I’m pretty sure this is a temporary reprieve. Poor Gazans at this very moment!

    *It’s a truism that every new technological advancement has been applied first to advance the interests of the horny. The printing press? Some Bibles, mostly porn. Antibiotics? Perfect for treating STIs. The second area of course is war.

    *The best colonizing effort was on a planet with sentient, shy tree-dwelling cephalopods (octopuses) who were not even noticed by colonizers for two decades, so the colonizers were not primed to face a lethal enemy by then and a common language and modus vivendi was achieved. These natives were so attuned to their environment that they didn’t need fire, killing, agriculture, war – all the things that made humans so toxic. (Read: Palestinians as the shy natives, but Muslims in general, who lived peacefully in the Ottoman caliphate and never developed lethal industrial technology, vs European countries, obsessed with war and world conquest.) Sadly, no analogy with resolving the Palestine-Israel standoff today.

    Ashton mulled over these provocative themes for years, rewriting his 2022 novel from an earlier short story, but it’s as if he’s writing it today. Genocide of natives by venal colonizers, tunnels as refuge, runaway greenhouse effect, Earth abandoned. It is cathartic to read a vision of how it is possible to escape the nightmare world that US-Israel is creating and live in peace and harmony with natives. It’s very difficult, and can only come after heart-wrenching suffering.

    The post Sci-fi Antidote for the Age of Genocide first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On the Key Points of Contemporary International Relations: Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Military Intervention

    War and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

    The R2P is one of the most important features of the post-Cold War global politics and international relations (IR) regarding the relations between war and politics, which was formalized in 2005, focusing on when the international community (the UN) must intervene for human protection purposes. The R2P was officially endorsed by the international community by the unanimous decision of the UN General Assembly as a principle at the UN World Summit in 2005. This agreement was regulated in paragraphs 138−140 of the documents of this World Summit. There are three crucial decisions concerning the principle of the R2P:

    1. Every state is responsible for protecting its population, in general, that means not only the citizens but more broadly all residents living within the territory of the state from four crimes: a) genocide, b) war crimes, c) crimes against humanity, and d) ethnic cleansing.

    2. The international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist states for the sake that they will realize their fundamental responsibility to protect their residents from the four crimes defined in the first decision.

    3. In the case, however, that the state authorities are “manifestly failing” to protect their residents from the four crimes, then the international community has a moral responsibility to take timely and decisive action on a case-by-case basis. In principle, those actions include both coercive and non-coercive measures founded on Chapters VI−VIII of the UN Charter.

    The R2P was, for instance, invoked in some 45 Resolutions by the UNSC, like Resolutions 1970 and 1973 on Libya in 2011. Nevertheless, the R2P principle is directly connected with the principle of Responsible Sovereignty, that is, in fact, the idea that a state’s sovereignty is conditional upon how state authorities are treating their own residents, founded on the belief that the state’s authority arises ultimately from sovereign individuals.

    As a very complex principle, from the international community’s viewpoint, it is, however, generally accepted that the mainstream consensus is that the R2P is best understood as a multifaceted framework or a complex legal and moral norm that embodies many different but related components. Regarding this issue, in 2009, the UN Secretary-General divided the R2P into three pillars, which had important traction in the further discourse:

    1. Pillar I refers to the domestic responsibilities of states to protect their own residents from the four crimes.

    2. Pillar II regards the responsibility of the international community to provide international assistance with the consent of the target state.

    3. Pillar III is focusing on “timely and collective response” in that the international community is taking collective action through the UNSC to protect the people from the four crimes, but without the consent of the target state, i.e., its governmental authorities.

    Nevertheless, although states did not formally sign up to this structure of the three-pillar approach, they, however, help distinguish between different forms of the R2P action. Among other examples, international assistance in Mali or South Sudan was provided within the framework of the R2P and the consent of the governments of Mali and South Sudan (reflecting the Pillar II action) but the military intervention in Libya in 2011 was done without the consent of the Libyan government (reflecting the Pillar III operation).

    Nonetheless, the widest justification for humanitarian intervention within the internationally recognized legal framework of the R2P is to stop or prevent genocide that is seen as the worst possible crime against humanity – the “crime of crimes”. Nevertheless, in practice, it is very difficult to provide a consistent and reliable “just cause” reason for the international humanitarian intervention within the legal framework of the R2P. This is for the very reason that the phenomenon of genocide is usually understood as a deliberate act or even a planned program of mass killings and destruction of the whole human group or a part of it based on ethnic, ideological, political, religious, or similar background. Probably, the most regarded attempt to fix the principles for the international military intervention concerning the R2P is given by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (the ICISS), proposed in 2000 by Canada:

    1. Large-scale loss of life. It can be, nevertheless, real or propagated, with genocidal intent or not, that is the product of several causes like deliberate military-police action, state neglect or inability to act, or a failed state situation (the so-called “failed/rogue state”) (the 1994 Rwandan genocide, for example).

    2. Large-scale ethnic cleansing. Actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forcible expulsion, acts of terror, or raping (for instance, the current holocaust against Palestinians in Gaza).

    Nonetheless, once the criteria for humanitarian intervention are fixed, the next question immediately is on the agenda: Who should decide when the criteria are satisfied? In other words: Who has the “right authority” to authorize military intervention for humanitarian purposes? The generally accepted worldwide answer to these questions is that the only UNSC can authorize a military intervention (what was not done, for instance, in the case of NATO intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 and, therefore, this intervention of 78 days is a pure example of military aggression on a sovereign state). This conclusion reflects, in fact, the UN’s role as the focal source of international law, followed by the UNSC’s responsibility for the protection of international security and peace.

    However, one of the crucial problems became that it may be very difficult to obtain the UNSC’s authorization for military intervention for the very reason that there are five great powers with veto rights (for instance, the USA has almost always used a veto right to bloc any anti-Israeli action by the UNSC). Some of the five members, or all, may be more concerned about the issues of global power, their geopolitical or other goals, etc., than they are concerned with real humanitarian concerns. Nevertheless, the principles on which the R2P idea is founded recognized such a problem by requiring that the UNSC’s authorization has to be obtained before the start of any military intervention, but at the same time accept that alternative options must be available if the UNSC rejects a proposal for the military intervention or fails to deal with it in a reasonable time. Under the R2P, these possible alternatives are that a proposed humanitarian intervention should be considered by the UNGA in an Emergency Special Session or by a regional or sub-regional organization (for instance, the African Union). However, in the very practice, for example, NATO was (mis)used in such matters by serving as a military machine that carries out military interventions, like in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 or Afghanistan in 2001, and later in keeping the order in those occupied territories.

    From one viewpoint, the value of the R2P is still contested, especially among the theoreticians of global politics and IR. However, its supporters defend the principle of the R2P for the reason of its seven crucial (positive) features:

    1. The principle is re-conceptualizing the notion of sovereignty for the very reason that it requires that state sovereignty (independence) is, in fact, a moral responsibility rather than a practical right. In other words, the state has to deserve to be treated as a sovereign by maintaining all international duties, including the R2P.

    2. The principle is focusing on the powerless rather than the powerful people by addressing the rights of the victims to be protected, but not the rights of the state’s authorities to intervene.

    3. The principle of the R2P is establishing a quite clear red line, as it is identifying four crimes as the signal for international action and intervention if necessary.

    4. The consensual support for the R2P among states is very significant, as such consensus is helping international understandings of rightful conduct, especially what concerns the issue of the „Just War“ in the case of the international military intervention.

    5. The principle is broader regarding the operational scope compared to the pure form and understanding of the humanitarian intervention, which poses a false choice between two extremes: to do nothing or to go to war. However, it is argued that the R2P is overcoming such simplistic choice by outlining the broad range of coercive and non-coercive measures which in practice can be used for the sake of encouragement, assistance, and, if necessary, force states to realize their responsibility based on international law and standards.

    6. Although it does not add anything new to international law, the principle of the R2P is drawing attention to a wide range of pre-existing legal responsibilities and, consequently, is helping the international community to focus its attention and responsibility on the real crisis.

    7. Concerning the case of Iraq in 2003, the R2P became at least in the eyes of Westerners, an important principle in restating that the UNSC is the primary legal authorizer of any Pillar III use of force. However, the same policy did not work in the case of NATO aggression on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999. Why the R2P as a principle is not used by the international community against the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Gazan Palestinians is for the very reason that the West Bank of Israel is the USA.

    What is a Humanitarian Military Intervention (HMI)?

    The principle of the R2P is in direct connection with the question of practical humanitarian military intervention, if necessary. According to the widely accepted academic concept of humanitarian military intervention (HMI), it is a type of military intervention with the focal purpose of humanitarian but not strategic or geopolitical reasons and ultimate objectives. Nevertheless, the term itself became very contested and extremely controversial as it, basically, depends on its various interpretations and understandings. In essence, it is the problem of portraying military intervention as humanitarian to be legally legitimate and morally defensible.

    Nevertheless, in practice, the use of the term HMI is surely evaluative and subjective. Some HMIs, at least in terms of intentions, can be classified as humanitarian if they are motivated primarily by the desire to prevent harm to some group of people, including genocide and ethnic cleansing. We have to understand that in the majority of cases of HMI, there are mixed motives for such intervention – declarative and hidden. The evaluation of HMI can be done in terms of pure outcomes: HMI is really humanitarian only if it is resulting in a practical improvement in conditions and especially a reduction of human suffering.

    There are three deconstructing attitudes regarding HMI:

    1. By presenting HMIs as humanitarian, it is giving them a full framework of moral justification and rightfulness, which means legitimacy. The term HMI serves the interests of humanity by reducing death and physical and mental suffering.

    2. The term intervention refers to different forms of interference in the internal affairs of others (in principle, states). Therefore, the term conceals the fact that the (military) interventions in question are military actions involving the use of force and violence. Consequently, the term humanitarian military intervention (the HMI) is more objective and, therefore, preferred.

    3. The notion of the term humanitarian intervention can reproduce significant power asymmetries. The powers of intervention (in practice, NATO and NATO member states) possess military power and formal moral justification, while the human groups needing protection (in practice, in the developing world) are propagandistically presented as victims living in conditions of chaos and the Middle Ages. Consequently, the term HMI supports the notion of westernization as modernization or even, in fact, Americanization.

    More precisely, HMI is entry into a foreign state or international organization by armed forces with the declarative task to protect residents from a real or alleged persecution or the violation of their human (and in some cases minority) rights. For instance, the Russian military intervention in Chechnya in the 1990s was deemed necessary to protect the rights of the Russian Orthodox minority in the Chechen Muslim environment. However, the legal and political lines of HMI are ambiguous, especially in the cases of moral justification for armed incursions in crisis-affected states for the sake of realizing some strategic and geopolitical aims, as was the case with NATO military intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. All counter-HMI supporters are quoting the Charter of UN which clearly states that all member states of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. However, on the other hand, the UNSC is authorized with specific interventions. The justification of HMI to protect the lives and rights of people is still under debate over when it is right to intervene and when not to intervene.

    Finally, concerning HMI, the focal questions still remain like:

    1) Balancing of minority and majority rights;

    2) The amount of death and damage that is acceptable during a HMI (the so-called “collateral damage”);

    3) How to reconstruct societies after HMI?

    Both concepts, the R2P and HMI, are in direct connection with the concept of human security. The origins of the concept are traced back to the 1994 UN Human Development Report. The report stated that while the majority of states of the international community secured the freedom and rights of their own residents, individuals, nevertheless, remained vulnerable to different levels of threats like poverty, terrorism, disease, or pollution.

    The concept of human security became supported by academic scholars as an idea that individuals, as opposed to states, should be the referent object of security in IR and security studies. In their opinion, both human security and security studies have to challenge the state-centric view of international security and IR.

    Does in Practice Humanitarian Military Intervention (HMI) Work?

    Regarding any kind of  HMI within the moral and legal framework of the R2P, the focal question became: Do the benefits of HMI outweigh its costs? Or to put the question in a different way: Does the R2P, in fact, save lives?

    The crucial issue is to judge HMI not from the side of its moral motives/intentions, or even in terms of international legal framework but rather from the side of its direct (short-time) and indirect (long-time) outcomes from different points of view (political, economic, human cost, cultural, environmental, etc.). However, solving this problem requires that real outcomes have to be compared with those outcomes that would happen in some hypothetical circumstances; for instance, what would happen if the R2P did not occur? Such hypothetical circumstances cannot be proved, like arguing that an earlier and effective HMI in Rwanda in 1994 will save hundreds of thousands of lives or without NATO military intervention in the Balkans in 1999 ethnic Albanians in Kosovo will experience massive expulsion and above all ethnic cleansing/genocide by the Yugoslav security forces. For instance, the NATO military intervention in the Balkans in 1999 became the trigger for Serbian retaliation against the Albanian population in Kosovo. In other words, NATO aggression in Kosovo in 1999 succeeded in the initial goal of expelling Serbian police and the Yugoslav army from the province, but at the same time helped a massive displacement of the ethnic Albanian population (however, a big part of this “displacement” was arranged by the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army for the propagandistic media purposes) and giving a post-war umbrella for the real ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Serbs by the local Albanians for the next 20+ years. In this particular case of the HMI, the R2P military action resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe, which means it was absolutely counterproductive compared with its initial (humanitarian/moral) task.

    Nonetheless, it can be said, at least from the Western points of view, that there are some examples of the HMI that were beneficial like the establishment of a “no-fly zone” in North Iraq in 1991 which not only prevented reprisal attacks and massacres of the Kurds after their uprising (backed by the USA and her allies) but at the same time allowed the land populated by the Kurds to develop a high degree of autonomy. In both cases, Iraq in 1991 and Yugoslavia in 1999, both operations were carried out by NATO airstrikes involving a significant number of civilian casualties on the ground and a minimal number among the aggressor’s side. For instance, estimates of the civilians and combatants killed in Kosovo in 1999 are 5,700 according to the Serbian sources (the casualties in Central and North Serbia are not taken into consideration on this occasion). The Western academic propaganda claims that Western HMI in Sierra Leone was effective as it brought to an end a 10-year civil war which cost some 50,000 lives, followed by providing the foundations for democratic parliamentary and presidential elections in 2007.

    There are many other R2P military interventions that, in fact, failed or were much less effective and, therefore, raised questions about their purpose. On some occasions, the HMI under the legal umbrella of the UN peacekeepers failed, as humanitarian catastrophes happened (Kosovo after June 1999, the Congo), while some HMIs were quickly left as being unsuccessful (Somalia). However, several R2P interventions ultimately resulted in a protracted counterinsurgency fight (Iraq or Afghanistan). That is the crucial problem concerning the effective results of the HMI/R2P; such military interventions may result in bringing more harm than benefits. A classic example concerning this problem is to change some authoritarian regimes by the use of foreign occupying forces; in many cases, this increases political tension and provokes civil wars, which subject ordinary citizens to constant civil war and suffering. In principle, if the civil struggle is resulting from an effective breakdown in government, foreign interventions of any kind may make internal political things worse, not better.

    While political stability respecting human universal rights are theoretically and morally all desirable goals,  it cannot always be possible for outsiders to impose or enforce these goals. Therefore, the HMI has to be understood from long-term perspective results and not as a result of the pressure from public opinion or politicians that something has to be done. It is known that some HMIs simply failed as a result of badly planned reconstruction efforts or an insufficient supply of different types of resources for the purpose of reconstruction. Consequently, the principle of HMI/R2P places stress not only on the R2P but also on the responsibility to reconstruct after the intervention.

    Is the Humanitarian Military Intervention (HMI) Justified?

    The HMI has become, during the last 30+ years, one of the hottest disputed topics in both IR and world politics. There are two diametrically opposite approaches to the HMI practice: 1) It is clear evidence that IR affairs are guided by new and more acceptable cosmopolitan sensibilities; and 2) The HMIs are, in principle, very misguided, politically and geopolitically motivated, and finally morally confused.

    The focal arguments for the HMI as a positive feature in IR can be summed up in the next five points:

    1. The HMI is founded on the belief that common humanity exists, which implies the attitude that moral responsibilities cannot be confined only to own people, but rather to all entire mankind.

    2. The R2P is increased by the recognition of growing global interconnectedness and interdependence, and, therefore, state authorities can no longer act like to be isolated from the rest of the world. The HMI, consequently, is justified as enlightened self-interest, for instance, to stop the refugee crisis, which can provoke serious political problems abroad.

    3. The state failure that provokes humanitarian problems will have extreme implications for the regional balance of power and, therefore, will create security instability. Such an attitude is providing geopolitical background for surrounding states to participate in the HMI, with great powers opting to intervene for the formal sake to prevent a possible regional military confrontation.

    4. The HMI can be justified under the political environment in which the people are suffering, as not have a democratic way to eliminate their hardship. Consequently, the HMI can take place with the sake to overthrow the authoritarian political regime of dictatorship and, therefore, promote political democracy with the promotion of human rights and other democratic values.

    5. The HMI can show not only demonstrable evidence of the shared values of the international community like peace, prosperity, human rights, or political democracy but as well as it can give guidelines for the way in which state authority has to treat its citizens within the framework of the so-called „responsible sovereignty“.

    The focal arguments against the HMI are:

    1. The HMI is, in fact, an action against international law, as international law only clearly gives the authorization for the intervention in the case of self-defense. This authorization is founded on the assumption that respect for the state’s independence is the basis for the international order and IR. Even if the HMI is formally allowed by international law to some degree for humanitarian purposes, the international law, in such cases, is confused and founded on the weakened rules of the order of global politics, foreign affairs, and IR.

    2. Behind the HMI is national interest but not real interest for the protection of international humanitarian norms. States are primarily motivated by concerns of national self-interest; therefore, their formal claim that the HMI is allegedly motivated by humanitarian considerations can be an example of political deception.

    3. In the practice of the HMI or the R2P we can find many examples of double standards. It is the practice of pressing humanitarian emergencies somewhere in which the HMI is either ruled out or never taken into consideration. It happens for several reasons: no national interest is on stage; an absence of media coverage; intervention is politically impossible, etc. Such a situation is confuses the HMI in both political and moral terms.

    4. The HMI is, in the majority of practical cases, founded on a politicized image of political conflict between “good and bad guys.” Usually, it has been a consequence of the exaggeration of war crimes on the ground. It ignores the moral complexities which are part of all international and domestic conflicts. The attempt to simplify any humanitarian crisis helps explain the tendency towards so-called “mission drift” and interventions going wrong.

    5. The HMI is seen in many cases as cultural imperialism, based on essentially Western values of human rights, which are not applicable in some other parts of the globe. Religious, historical, cultural, social, and/or political differences are making it impossible to create universal guidelines for the behavior of the state’s authorities. Consequently, the task of establishing a “just cause” threshold for a HMI within the framework of the R2P may be unachievable.

    The post On the Key Points of Contemporary International Relations: Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Military Intervention first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The International Court Of Justice, Israel And The Gaza Blockade

    The murder and starvation of populations in real time, subject to rolling coverage and commentary, is not usually the done thing. These are the sorts of activities kept quiet and secluded in their vicious execution. In the Gaza Strip, these actions are taking place with a confident, almost brazen assuredness.

    Israel has the means, the weapons and the sheer gumption to do so, and Palestinians in Gaza find themselves with few options for survival. The strategic objectives of the Jewish state, involving, for instance, the elimination of Hamas, have been shown to be nonsensically irrelevant, given that they are unattainable.

    The post The International Court Of Justice, Israel And The Gaza Blockade appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Ansarallah Declares Aerial Blockade On Israel

    The Yemeni movement Ansarallah declared on Sunday the launch of a comprehensive aerial blockade on Israel in response to the Israeli government’s decision to expand its military operations in Gaza.

    Ansarallah military spokesperson announced on Sunday that Yemen would focus on targeting Israeli airports—chiefly Ben Gurion Airport—as part of its response strategy.

    “In response to the Israeli escalation with the decision to expand aggressive operations on Gaza,” the spokesperson said, “the Yemeni Armed Forces announce that they will work to impose a comprehensive air blockade on the Israeli enemy by repeatedly targeting airports, most notably Lod Airport, known in Israel as Ben Gurion Airport.”

    The post Ansarallah Declares Aerial Blockade On Israel appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Israel Defends Its Right to Commit Genocide

    Protesters in Australia urge the government to back South Africa’s court case against Israel. (AAP Photo)

    Israel maintains its deniability, but is there any doubt that it was behind the drone attack against a ship carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza on May 2, 2025 off the coast of Malta? Israel was delivering a statement to the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and the defenders of human rights everywhere, that Israel will not be denied the territory of Gaza, emptied of the more than 2 million Palestinian inhabitants living there on October 8, 2023. The current plan clearly is to dispose of them through starvation, disease and exposure, which will make the tens of thousands killed directly by bombs, drones, bullets and other weapons pale by comparison.

    The contents of the ship, if it had delivered its cargo, would have made only the smallest dent in Israel’s plan. But Israel stands on principle – namely that it has the right to slaughter as many Palestinians and other non-Jews as it wants in order to grab the territory it covets (and, not incidentally, the vast oil and gas fields off its coast), and to assure a demographically Jewish result in that territory. Never mind how many men, women and children are eradicated, or how horribly they die.

    Of course, Israel has always expressed the willingness to have the Palestinians shipped elsewhere: Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Somalia…who cares, but preferably away from Israel’s borders. But whatever country participates in such a plan will be forever stigmatized for collaborating in genocide. And what country or countries would welcome the forcible entry of such a population? That’s why there are no takers. In any case, Israel seems content to wipe them off the face of the earth, which is more permanent. Furthermore, the United States is a powerful partner in this project, with few if any apparent qualms.

    Is there anything the international community can do to stop the crime of the century? Of course. But no amount of UN resolutions, ICJ injunctions or other legal actions will be obeyed. Neither will suspension of diplomatic or economic relations, as long as Israel’s big brother, the US, provides them with everything they need, especially the weaponry. The entire world can completely isolate Israel, as long as that isolation does not include the United States, and as long as the people of the United States do no more than demonstrate, write letters, make phone calls and vote in elections for two parties that compete with each other for how much support they can give to Israel.

    What can be done to change the outcome? The aid ship is the right idea, but it would require a thousand aid ships or more. Another would be a national general strike in the US, but neither the consensus nor the organization exists for such an effort in a country that has never seen a national general strike. A vote boycott directed against the two major parties might have the desired effect, but that also is exceedingly unlikely, and in any case too slow. How about attacks against Israeli interests abroad, such as the ones against the Israeli arms manufacturer, Elbit, in the UK and the blocking of Israeli ships in Oakland, California? Perhaps, but it would have to be carried out worldwide and be nearly seamless, which is also difficult to imagine.

    I do not have the answer, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that humanity seems doomed to place the worst among us into positions of leadership. How else do we explain that nearly the entire voting public in the US and most Western countries voted for candidates that supported the military and economic aid to Israel, even as it was conducting its genocide?

    In the years to come, how will we answer the question “What did you do to stop the Gaza genocide, Grandma?”

    The post Israel Defends Its Right to Commit Genocide first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • I Am In Malta With The Gaza Flotilla Ship ‘Conscience’ Bombed By Israel

    I am in Malta with the group ready to board the Gaza flotilla ship “Conscience” which was bombed by Israel yesterday. As one of the organizers of the US Boats to Gaza and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla coalition, we have been working for months to bring activists from 22 countries to board the next ship to challenge the Israeli genocide of Gaza and break the illegal Israeli Siege of Gaza.

    As an American citizen, and a retired US Army Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in opposition to the US war on Iraq in 2003, I have been horrified in the blatant complicity of the United States in providing bombs, weapons and targeting information to the Israeli military.

    The post I Am In Malta With The Gaza Flotilla Ship ‘Conscience’ Bombed By Israel appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Jewish Settler-Colonialists


    The straightforward responses in the documentary The Settlers by Louis Theroux will not surprise anyone who has kept abreast of the long-running Zionist plan to create facts-on-the-ground in Palestine. What is surprising is that this documentary was produced and broadcast by the BBC, a broadcaster that is usually inimical to Palestinian suffering. The documentary (currently viewable at Rumble.com) has been noticed. [Editor’s Note: The documentary has been blown away already. And Rumble has posted no explanation. See 404 notice below.]

    Zionist-triggered Western censorship at its best.

    The Independent considers The Settlers to be a “masterpiece.”

    The Middle East Eye hails the documentary as “an unflinching look at the Israelis [sic] intent on stealing the West Bank.”

    The Islam Channel praises Theroux for “highlight[ing] the horrifying influence of the illegal Israeli settler movement.”

    The title of the Spectator’s review was rather enigmatic: “How come the only Palestinians Louis Theroux met were non-violent sweeties?” The Spectator granted, “In a program called The Settlers, it’s perhaps fair enough that the focus should be so squarely on these people and their intransigence.”

    And what about the documentary’s title?

    Dictionary.com defines settler innocuously as “a person who settles in a new region or colony.” Is this the proper appellation? Others would argue that the term settler-colonialist is more accurate. The Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School states, “Settler colonialism can be defined as a system of oppression based on genocide and colonialism, that aims to displace a population of a nation (oftentimes indigenous people) and replace it with a new settler population.”

    The documentary begins with the lanky, bespectacled Theroux asking a settler whether they are “deep inside the Palestinian territories”? The settler-colonialist Ari Abramowitz objected, calling it “the heart of Judea.” He further objected to a “jihadist Palestinian state” being located in the heart of Israel.

    Abramowitz is forthright in saying he aspires to win territory from Palestinians.

    The settler-colonialists are described as “religionist nationalists.” A young Jewish woman Ovi says, “I believe Gaza is ours … The Bible says this place was given to the Jews. This place is ours.”

    Throughout the documentary, the Zionist goal is clear: to remove Palestinians and repopulate the land with Jews.

    Theroux spends much time interviewing Daniella Weiss, the “godmother of the settler movement,” an unabashed Zionist, who claimed: “We do for governments what they cannot do for themselves… Netanyahu is very happy at what we do but he cannot say it.”

    Gaza fits what Netanyahu cannot say, Weiss states the goal of “the practical idea of establishing Jewish settlements in the entire Gaza Strip. We very much encourage and enable the population in Gaza to go to other countries. You will witness how Jews go to Gaza and Arabs disappear from Gaza. They lost their right to stay in this holy place.”

    But Jews are not a pure monolith. Theroux interviews a protesting Israeli man who says, “The question is: what kind of country do we want to be? Do we want to be a colonizing country or do we want to be a country that at least offers peace and wants to live in peace with Palestinians?”

    What can Gazans expect if settler-colonialists create outposts in Gaza? The documentary examines the situation in the West Bank where outposts are set up to expand and become communities with the aim of becoming recognized as settlements by the Israeli government. These outposts and settlements are under the protection of the Israeli military.

    The Texan-raised Abramowitz denies Palestinians exist. When pressed by Theroux on this, Abramowitz replies, “They are Arabs.”

    The illegality of settlements is disregarded by Abramowitz. This is echoed by Weiss who shrugs off the commission of war crimes as a “lighter felony.”

    Such Zionist views point to the impunity of settler colonialists in dealing with the indigenous Palestinians. One common war crime is preventing Palestinian farmers from harvesting their produce, particularly olives. Israeli soldiers will arrive, demand identification, and send the farmers away from their land. And if a farmer is lucky, he will still be alive after the encounter.

    The filmmaker spoke of an “ideology of superiority of one group over another.” This even has rabbinical support.

    Rabbi Dove Leor said, “To my mind, there was never peace with these [Palestinian] savages. There is no peace and never will be…. This land belongs only to the people of Israel. All of Gaza, all of Lebanon should be cleansed of these ‘camel riders.’”

    To accomplish the disappearance of Palestinians, Weiss advocates using “the magic system of Zionism” to take over the land and repopulate it with Jews. “This will bring light instead of darkness,” says Weiss.

    Issa Amrou, a Palestinian activist, guides Theroux around occupied Hebron and explains the life of Palestinians under occupation. The system of encouraging Palestinians to leave is through fear of the Israeli soldiers, checkpoints, closing Palestinian businesses, making life intolerable, and fragmentation of Palestinian towns, leading to Jews taking more land.

    Near the end of the documentary, Theroux speaks again with the Texan-cum-settler-colonialist Abramowitz who makes known his feelings for Palestinians: “I don’t have tremendous compassion for a society that has an unquenchable genocidal, theological, bloodlust. It’s like a death cult.”

    Says Abramowitz, “I reject the real premise that these people [Palestinians] are actually a real nation for a lot of reasons.”

    “We know the righteousness of our cause. That’s what it means to be a Hebrew, what it means to be a Jew…”

    The Israeli government’s recognition of the Evyatar settlement in the lands of the Palestinian town of Beita spurred a celebration, and Weiss arrived to speak to a jubilating crowd.

    Theroux catches up with the settler-colonial godmother after her speech to the festive gathering. He asks what is wrong with a two-state solution?

    Says Weiss, “We want to have a Jewish state based on Jewish rules, on Jewish values. It is not a relationship of neighbors.”

    “Why not?” asks Theroux.

    “Because we are two nations.” At least Weiss admits to there being a Palestinian nation.

    Weiss makes clear that her overarching aim is Aliyah, bringing more settler-colonialists to the land. She does not think about the Palestinians because she is a Jew.

    Theroux says, “That seems sociopathic.”

    Weiss rejects this, saying, “It is normal.”

    In the settler-colonialist Zionist mindset, othering is normal.

    *****

    People who care about humans elsewhere and are unfamiliar or uninformed about the plight of Palestinians ought to watch The Settlers and become familiar and informed. Theroux probably presents the situation as close to the line as one could hope to have broadcast. Through the narrative, the viewer will hear that there is anti-Palestinian racism and violence against them, but the discussion will not be graphic, and visually the violence is downplayed.

    The post Jewish Settler-Colonialists first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.