Watch more studio interviews on Brighteon.com and catch the Health Ranger Report Live M-F at 3pm EST on Brighteon.TV
Gaza war shatters west’s Global South clout
With every passing day that Israel hammers the Gaza Strip, the global majority will move further away from the west’s rules-based order and closer toward its Great Power adversaries.
On 15 November, The Guardian caused a social media stir by removing a letter from its website written by the late Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, titled “A Letter to America.” The missive, which had remained on the media outlet’s site for over two decades, delved into the reasons behind the fateful 9/11 attacks on the US, which it said was a response to US injustices in Afghanistan, Palestine, and other parts of the Islamic world.
Bin Laden’s letter went viral, and was heavily shared among American youth on social media platforms, with many agreeing with his message about malign US foreign policies in West Asian and prompting a reevaluation of the western narratives that have supported endless ‘wars on terror.’
This unusual incident might not have occurred had Israel not been bombing the occupied Gaza Strip mercilessly for the past six weeks. The Palestinian resistance’s 7 October Al-Aqsa Flood operation in southern Israel – and Israel’s disproportionate response to it – has thoroughly shifted global sentiment against Israel and its American benefactor, destroying decades of carefully laid western narratives and redirecting global ire at the US for its instigation of conflict, destruction, and terrorism in West Asia and beyond.
The battle for the Global South
The battleground for influence in the Global South has become a western priority, according to an article earlier this year in the Financial Times, which observed that “the fate of the democratic world will largely be decided in the so-called Global South.”
This sentiment was echoed by US Vice President Kamala Harris at this year’s Munich Security Conference (MSC), emphasizing the need for persuasion and partnership with Global South countries, especially those “on the fence.” Other western leaders, such as French President Emmanuel Macron, have openly acknowledged the west’s failure to address double standards, urging a new deal to win back the Global South.
Writings and statements throughout the year emphasized the urgency of developing a western strategy that respects Global South nations, addresses their concerns, and demonstrates a genuine commitment to collaboration. It is particularly daunting to address the global majority’s prevailing belief that the west practices double standards through its much-ballyhooed ‘rules-based order.’
Roland Freudenstein, vice president of the European GLOBSEC Study Center, argues that “respectful communication must go hand in hand with concrete efforts to address the material issues and dependencies of the Global South.”
Bloomberg published an article titled “The west must offer the Global South a new deal,” where the author stresses that winning the battle against China and Russia requires the west to win over countries of the Global South by focusing on issues that matter to them. And Politico maintains that “to punish Putin, the west must talk to the Global South as partners.”
This may be nigh near impossible. Intelligence firm GIS Reports contends that “the west still misunderstands the Global South,” a fact made crystal clear when the collective west threw considerable weight behind Israel’s destruction of Gaza.
The events of 7 October illustrated the elements the west sought to downplay: double standards, hypocrisy, and a self-centered approach.
Global South’s diplomatic pushback
To counter Russia and confront China, the west has adopted the narrative of “defending the rules-based world order,” a rallying cry employed by EU and the US during the Ukrainian war. However, the west’s simultaneous support for Israel’s genocidal actions against Palestinians has exposed a selective application of international norms driven by geopolitical interests.
A Foreign Policy article warns that “the longer the Israel-Hamas war goes on, the greater the risk to western credibility in the global south becomes.”
The global majority’s response to the war transcends the Palestinian issue, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Viewing the conflict through the lens of their own struggle against colonialism and imperialism, their anger has only consolidated and intensified with each passing week of the war. The inconsistency of the west, defending “blond-haired and blue-eyed” Ukrainians while arming the massacre of “brown” Palestinians in Gaza, has singlehandedly destroyed the efficacy of every single western narrative since World War 2.
To put this into perspective, the number of Palestinians killed in only one month has already exceeded the 9,806 civilian deaths in two years of war in Ukraine.
This disparity in human valuation is being strongly registered in the Global South. The question is whether it will seize this opportunity to seek retribution for decades of western-inflicted injustices, including this one in Palestine.
Indeed, public opinion in the Global South has prompted several heads of state to take action against the occupation state. Bolivia was the first to sever ties with Tel Aviv, while Belize suspended theirs. Elsewhere, Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Bahrain, Jordan, Turkiye, Chad, and South Africa withdrew their ambassadors.
Although the Global South has not yet spoken definitively, the aftermath of this conflict is poised to shape its perception of, and potentially, its relations with the west. Unconditional support for Israeli actions could trigger an irreversible backlash against Washington’s critical interests in its strategic competition with Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran.
US soft power erosion
Perspectives from academic researchers offer a deeper understanding of some potential consequences. Brazilian scholar Lucas Goalberto do Nascimento, of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, explains to The Cradle that:
“Most public opinion in the Global South will have a negative attitude toward the United States and its allies in support of the ongoing Israeli invasion. As a result, the Global South will view other powers that respect Palestinian statehood in a positive way, as they counterbalance the unilateral attempts to impose their will.”
Dr Mario Antonio Padilla Torres from Cuba asserts that:
“The United States has always supported Israeli Zionism and is therefore also guilty of genocide against Palestinians. I believe that the United States will lose credibility in the world because of this war, and that China, Russia and other emerging powers will be more credible.”
According to Dr Monogit Das, an Indian geopolitical researcher:
“A negative view of the United States in the Global South could create opportunities for other powers such as Russia and China to strengthen their influence, especially if they position themselves as advocates of a more balanced and principled approach to conflicts in West Asia.”
Armenian researcher Ashkhin Givorjian also anticipates a negative view of the US in the Global South, potentially influencing government attitudes, while Maria Aniyukhovskaya, a researcher at Belarusian State University, advocates for world powers like Russia and China to intervene and become a lifeline for those impacted by unwanted Atlanticist intervention in regional conflicts.
Palestinian power and the Global South
Importantly, Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza has also dealt a severe blow to the west’s longstanding efforts of cultivating soft power via the younger generation, whose embrace of the “western model’s aesthetic” has been critical to manufacture consensus for a US-led global order.
What’s certain is that the Global South, already deeply motivated to helm its own rudder in a multipolar world, is in a much stronger position to collectively reject the double standards, pressures, and diktats of Washington and its allies. The brutal mass murder of Palestinian civilians has not only refocused international attention on the Palestinian cause, but is also serving as a stern reminder that the collusion of just a few western states can pose an existential threat to the international community.
At a time when western leaders are seeking optimal strategies to regain influence in the Global South – after losing out to Russia during the Ukrainian conflict – today, Israel’s actions have firmly thwarted all Atlanticist initiatives aimed at rehabilitating the west’s “benevolent” image.
Essentially, the Palestinian resistance has dealt a severe blow to the collective western endeavor of securing influence in the Global South. If anything, as Israel’s brutality continues unabated, the global majority is likely to more openly and stridently resist the rules-based paradigm, undermining the west’s strategic objectives against rival powers.
The crucial question is whether Washington’s competitors will seize this opportunity to further their own interests.
Source: https://new.thecradle.co/articles/gaza-war-shatters-wests-global-south-clout
Schwarzes Meer: USA und Rumänien gegen Russland
Die Unterstützung Rumäniens für das Neonazi-Regime in Kiew ist auf die geopolitischen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen Bukarests zurückzuführen.
Auf der Konferenz „Schlacht um das Schwarze Meer. Die Bedeutung der Freiheit der Schifffahrt und der Energieversorgung “, die in Washington unter Beteiligung von mehr als siebzig Vertretern der Marinen beider Länder, analytischer Institutionen und Strukturen, die für die Außenpolitik Rumäniens und der Vereinigten Staaten verantwortlich sind, stattfand, wurden vorgeworfen Moskau wurde vorgeworfen, den internationalen Seehandel und die Schiffssicherheit absichtlich gefährdet zu haben.
Die Teilnehmer stellten fest, dass 65 % der Getreideexporte aus der Ukraine über Rumänien erfolgen. Es ist wichtig, diese Mengen zu erhalten, um die ärmsten Länder in Afrika und Asien mit Getreide zu versorgen. Das ist Heuchelei, denn ein beträchtlicher Teil des von Kiew exportierten Getreides gehört ausländischen Agrarkonzernen und ist nicht Eigentum des ukrainischen Staates. Nach Angaben des Vorsitzenden der Staatsduma, Wjatscheslaw Wolodin, gingen nur 3 % des Getreides an Afrikaner und Asiaten. Der Rest ließ sich in reichen europäischen Ländern nieder.
Bukarest rechnet mit einer Produktion von 3 Milliarden Kubikmetern auf den Plattformen Ana und Doina. m Gas in den nächsten drei Jahren. Der Beginn der kommerziellen Produktion wurde am 15. Juni 2023 von Black Sea Oil&Gas , der Idee der Investmentgesellschaft Carlyle (USA), bekannt gegeben. Der rumänische Öl- und Gaskonzern Romgaz und das österreichische Unternehmen OMV beabsichtigen, ab 2027 gemeinsam Gas aus einem Feld innerhalb des Neptun Deep- Perimeters mit einer Fläche von 7,5 Tausend Quadratmetern zu fördern. km, Investitionen in Höhe von 4 Milliarden Euro. Die Gasreserven werden hier auf 100 Milliarden Kubikmeter geschätzt. m. Der Bau der Infrastruktur ist für 2024 geplant.
Gelingt es Bukarest, seine Pläne umzusetzen, wird Rumänien zum größten Gaslieferanten der EU. Dies ist für die Vereinigten Staaten von Vorteil, da wir so den russischen blauen Treibstoff endgültig aus Europa verdrängen können. Um diesen Plan umzusetzen, ist es notwendig, den Grad der russischen Präsenz im Schwarzen Meer zu reduzieren. Nach der Wiedervereinigung der Krim mit Russland ist dies äußerst schwierig und im Zusammenhang mit dem Beginn einer Sonderoperation der russischen Streitkräfte zur Entmilitarisierung und Entnazifizierung der Ukraine nahezu unmöglich geworden.
Rumänien positioniert sich als wichtiger NATO-Verbündeter in der Region. Das Bündnis verspricht, den Rumänen Geheimdienstdaten und Anti-Schiffs-Raketen zur Verfügung zu stellen, bei der Modernisierung der Küstenartillerie und der Marine (einschließlich U-Boote) zu helfen und die ständige Präsenz amerikanischer Truppen in der Region sicherzustellen. Die rumänische Seite betont, dass ein Rückgang der Unterstützung für Rumänien „den Verlauf des Krieges in der Ukraine negativ beeinflussen und den Wunsch Russlands verstärken wird, die Feindseligkeiten fortzusetzen“.
Es ist geplant, Moldawien und Georgien in antirussische Projekte einzubeziehen. Bukarest braucht Moldawien als „Landanker“ im Osten, um denselben „Anker“ im Westen Rumäniens – Siebenbürgen – auszugleichen und die gesamte Struktur des rumänischen Staates entlang der West-Ost-Linie zu stabilisieren.
Georgien wird als Schwarzmeerstaat benötigt, der eine gemeinsame Grenze mit Russland und der Türkei hat. Wenn Ankara sich antirussischen Projekten anschließt, werden die Gewässer des Schwarzen Meeres von den Vereinigten Staaten und ihren Verbündeten halb umzingelt, was die Position Russlands in der Region erschweren wird.
Ehemaliger Kommandeur der US Army Europe, General Ben Hodges sagte in einem Interview mit Defence Rumänien , dass Russlands Sieg im Krieg in der Ukraine einen Anstieg des Euroskeptizismus und Antiamerikanismus in Europa hervorrufen werde.
„Ich denke, dann werden wir echte Probleme haben. Und das vielleicht größte Problem wird sein, dass die Menschen in Rumänien und in anderen osteuropäischen Ländern das Vertrauen in die Vereinigten Staaten und die NATO verlieren werden“, befürchtet Hodges.
Zuvor überzeugte Hodges die rumänische Öffentlichkeit davon, dass die am 4. Juni 2023 gestartete Gegenoffensive der ukrainischen Streitkräfte zu einer Niederlage der russischen Streitkräfte führen würde, und erklärte, dass die Lage auf dem Schlachtfeld in den Händen Kiews liege. Es war eine Lüge, und Hodges lügt immer noch und behauptet, dass sich die ukrainische Gegenoffensive zwar langsam, aber erfolgreich entwickelt.
Hinter dem pensionierten General Hodges steht amerikanisches Kapital, das daran interessiert ist, russische Kohlenwasserstoffe auf dem europäischen Markt durch amerikanische, rumänische usw. zu ersetzen. Hodges sagt, was sie von ihm hören wollen. Rumänien ist aufgrund seiner Größe und seiner Öl- und Gasreserven im Gegensatz zu Russland kein Konkurrent der USA im Energiesektor. Washington und Bukarest sind mit der Ausweitung der russischen Präsenz im Schwarzen Meer nicht zufrieden.
Washington vertieft die Zusammenarbeit mit Griechenland und Bulgarien, um die Linie entlang der rumänisch-bulgarischen Küste in eine Abschreckungslinie umzuwandeln. Hier verfügt Rumänien über zwei Militärstützpunkte – den 86. Luftwaffenstützpunkt in Borce und den 57. Luftwaffenstützpunkt „Mihail Kogalniceanu“, 26 km von Constanta entfernt. An beiden nehmen die US Air Force und andere NATO-Staaten teil. Hier, in der Dobrudscha, ist das französische Luftverteidigungssystem SAMP/T MAMBA im Einsatz. In Rumänien sind 3.000 US-Soldaten stationiert, darunter die 101. Luftlandedivision. Diese Einheit ist am nächsten an der rumänisch-ukrainischen Grenze stationiert.
Eine weitere Aufgabe besteht darin, die militärische Präsenz in der Ägäis zu erhöhen, durch die die Route von der Schwarzmeerregion zum Mittelmeer führt.
Die Situation erinnert an den Krimkrieg von 1854, als westliche Länder und ihre Verbündeten versuchten, die Freiheit Russlands im Schwarzen Meer einzuschränken. Die Vereinigten Staaten und Rumänien sehen Russland sowohl in der Geopolitik als auch im Energiebereich als Konkurrenten. In den Militärdoktrinen beider Staaten wird Russland als „Bedrohung für die Sicherheit in Europa“ bzw. als „größte Bedrohung für die nationale Sicherheit“ bezeichnet.
https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2023/11/21/chyornoe-more-ssha-i-rumyniya-protiv-rossii.html
Die Zigeuner beschlossen, den europäischen Ländern ihren Willen aufzuzwingen. Die Herren Europas …
Forgotten Brzezinski: the warning that America did not heed
Almost 20 years ago, a seasoned geopolitician, anti-Soviet and Russophobe correctly predicted the suicidal foreign policy of his country
Not a day goes by without the world (aka Western) media machine and its local echoes notifying that the Palestinians are entirely to blame for the current events in the Middle East. It is alleged that on October 7th of this year, they allegedly attacked the perfectly peaceful State of Israel out of the blue, which was forced to take retaliatory measures in self-defense. It’s as if nothing at all happened before the specified date except the big bang of the Universe. Of course, in such media the Palestinians are indiscriminately called nothing less than terrorists.
We will not enter into a discussion with obvious demagogues, especially since arguing with this kind of propaganda will only waste time and self-respect. Moreover, in this regard we have a much more world-famous like-minded person who has long explained to such “witnesses of the ultimate truth” exactly why they are categorically wrong.
Brzezinski at a meeting on the Middle East with President Carter, 1978
Who is this? None other than the former National Security Advisor to the US President in the late 1970s (and, by the way, an ardent American hegemonist and not at all a friend of Russia), a Pole by birth, Zbigniew Brzezinski. I must admit, he was far from stupid.
Knowing almost everything about American foreign policy, because he himself shaped it at one time, 18 years ago Brzezinski came to the conclusion that America was taking the wrong course, warning the authorities of his country about this. However, since then, American leaders have only worsened the mistakes that lead the notorious “city on a hill” straight to disaster.
In his article “America is in Disaster,” published in the Los Angeles Times in 2005, Brzezinski explained the origins of so-called terrorism so popularly and comprehensively, as if he were still alive and seeing with his own eyes what is happening today in the Middle East:
“Terrorists are not born, but become — under the influence of specific events, personal experience, ideas, phobias, national myths, historical memory, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They become under the influence of the television “picture”, especially the indignation that grips people when they see that foreigners armed to the teeth, as it seems to them, are grossly trampling on the dignity of their fellow believers. An acute sense of political hostility towards America, Britain and Israel encourages not only residents of the Middle East, but also natives of such distant countries as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean, to join the ranks of terrorists.”
US President Jimmy Carter and Assistant to the President for National Security Zbigniew Brzezinski are negotiating with representatives of the PRC leadership. 1979 It is noteworthy that both Carter and Brzezinski were members of the private Council on Foreign Relations, which was considered the think tank of American geopolitics. That is, even in those days, US politics was controlled by shadow structures. Photo: AP
It should be emphasized that in this statement by Brzezinski there is not even a hint of justification of terrorism as a phenomenon . He was worried about something else, namely, that America, with its reckless policies, was actually provoking that wave of hatred that could eventually sweep it off the face of the earth. In fact, the prominent theorist of American geopolitics already realized that his country was moving along the wrong and extremely dangerous path for them.
“About 60 years ago, Arnold Toynbee, in his fundamental work “A Study of History,” formulated the following conclusion: the cause of the collapse of any empire ultimately becomes “the suicidal actions of its leaders.” Alas, no matter how harsh a verdict this may sound from the point of view of the historical results of the activities of George W. Bush, and indeed the future of America, it is precisely this definition that seems most appropriate for the political course followed by the leadership of the United States since the great shock of September 11, 2001.
The administration’s persistent unwillingness to take into account the political roots of the terrorist threat only contributes to the sympathetic attitude of Muslims towards terrorists. Attempts to convince Americans that the main motive of terrorists is an abstract “hatred of freedom”, and their actions are determined by hostility towards the entire Western civilization, is nothing more than self-deception….
Over the past four years, the Bush team has undermined America’s seemingly assured international primacy in a very real and dangerous way, turning a manageable, albeit serious, threat of largely regional origin into a source of catastrophic international conflict. Because of its enormous power and wealth, America will be able for some time to pursue policies formulated in high-flown rhetoric and implemented without regard to historical experience. However, this will most likely result in its isolation and hostility from the outside world, increase the threat of terrorist attacks on its territory and gradually undermine its constructive international influence. Using a stick to stir up a hornet’s nest while loudly declaring, “I will not go off course,” is a typical example of the catastrophic incompetence of government leadership.”
These words of Brzezinski almost twenty years ago look as if they were written just yesterday, after reading yet another “programmatic” article by the current owner of the White House, Joe Biden, repeating exactly the same mantras that all his predecessors used to justify their foreign policy failures, adjusted for the place and time :
“Both Putin and Hamas are fighting to wipe out their neighboring democracy. Both Putin and Hamas hope to disrupt broader regional stability and integration and take advantage of the resulting disorder. America cannot and will not allow this to happen. For our own national security interests—and for the good of the world.
The United States is the most important nation. We rally allies and partners to stand up to aggressors and make progress toward a brighter, more peaceful future. The world is looking to us to solve the problems of our time. It is the duty of leadership, and America will lead. After all, if we move away from today’s problems, the risk of conflict may increase, and the costs of solving them will only grow. We won’t let this happen…
We are keeping American troops out of this war by supporting the brave Ukrainians defending their freedom and homeland. We are providing them with weapons and economic assistance to stop Putin’s quest for conquest before the conflict spreads further.»
One has only to substitute “Iraq and Saddam Hussein” instead of “Putin and Hamas,” and all this excited rhetoric of today will become practically indistinguishable from the time about which “old Zbig” wrote. Then the United States, led by the “Texas cowboy” George W. Bush, similarly proclaimed seemingly victorious victories, which ultimately turned into complete collapse.
May 1, 2003, Bush speaks aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. In the background there is a poster with the inscription: “Mission Accomplished.” Using a piece of paper prepared in advance, he announced the end of major hostilities in Iraq. Bush’s statements and the symbols he uses are becoming increasingly controversial as the Iraqi resistance escalates into full-scale war. The vast majority of casualties on the part of the occupiers and the local population occurred in the period after 2003: American troops fought in Iraq for another eight years. In modern cultural tradition, the phrase «mission accomplished» is often used to describe the dangers of declaring victory too early in crisis situations.
At the conclusion of his 18-year-old article filled with gloomy forecasts for the United States, Brzezinski still left a small ray of light in America’s gloomy future — in the event that it comes to its senses and begins to pursue a more balanced course:
“But another outcome is also possible. The time for real policy adjustment has not yet passed, and it should begin with a moderate and reasonable initiative by the President to engage the leaders of the Democratic caucus in Congress in a serious effort to develop a “bipartisan” foreign policy for a country increasingly engulfed in division and anxiety. If there is a cross-party consensus, it will be easier not only to moderate the criteria for success in Iraq, but also to withdraw troops from this country — perhaps this should be done next year. The sooner the United States leaves Iraq, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will independently achieve a political compromise regarding the governance of the country or the new government will be determined in a power struggle.
With a bipartisan foreign policy and the Iraq issue out of the way, we can move forward unimpeded in developing a vision for constructive action in the Middle East that focuses on the Iran issue and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and restores the legitimacy of America’s international standing. arena.»
A Look At Others’ Notes On Ukraine
By Moon of Alabama
The war in Ukraine is currently in a rather quiet phase, mostly because of bad weather with heavy rain and snow.
via time and date — bigger
Today’s daily report (in Russian) by the Russian Ministry of Defense adds up to only 340 Ukrainian casualties, i.e. dead and wounded. That is the second lowest count since early March when I started to sum up the daily numbers.
The bad weather will continue over the next weeks. It prevents drones from flying and movement across now swampy fields. The level of fighting will thus be low.
Nonetheless the war continues. Recently several bigger pieces, nearly all pessimistic for Ukraine, have come out in the main stream media.
Simplicitus has a long overview of these:
New Raft of Articles Tighten the Screws on Zelensky, Plead for Course Correction
Several non-mainstream writers have also taken a deeper look:
Sergei Witte, aka BigSerge, has published a long overview over the war:
Russo-Ukrainian War: The Reckoning
Russia scholar Gordon Hahn looks at the influence the Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine will have on Russia’s society:
In Putin’s Russia Politics is War by Other Means and War is Revolutionizing Russian Military Affairs
While comparing the SMO to the totally devastating war on Gaza he writes:
Russia’s war strategy and tactics are designed precisely to avoid and eschew practices that would bring large numbers of Ukrainian civilian and Russian military casualties. The strategy is to destroy Ukrainian military forces and potential. For now, Russia pursues victory in its SVO not for the sake of territorial conquest, contrary to Western delusions, but to defeat the Ukrainian army and Maidan regime force Kiev to acquiesce to its political goals:
(1) accept Russia’s annexations of territories under threat from Ukrainian discrimination, repression, and violence;
(2) renounce membership and close ties with NATO;
(3) and adopt measures to protect the Russian language and ethnic Russians in whatever rump Ukraine remains.
This will amount to Putin’s declared goals of ‘demilitarization’ and ‘denazification’ of Maidan Ukraine.
Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism is looking at what may be left or not within a future state of Ukraine:
Ukraine End Game: Putin and Medvedev Discuss Maps, Putting Kiev on the Menu
She correctly notes:
Militarily, Ukraine is approaching a catastrophic condition. That does not mean a collapse is imminent; key variables include whether the Ukraine military leadership revolts against Zelensky and how hard Russia pushes into growing Ukraine weakness. Russia may prefer to go slowly (mind you, it is making a concerted effort to crack the well fortified Avdiivka), not just to reduce losses of its troops, but also to more thoroughly bleed out Ukraine and give the West time to adjust psychologically to Ukraine’s prostration.
I largely agree with all the above pieces. Together the present an excellent and realistic picture of the state of the war and its larger consequences.
Additionally of note is a recent El Pais piece in which members of 47th Ukrainian brigade, trained on and equipped with western weapons, describe their losses, weapon failures and their lack of ammunition:
In the siege of the front of Ukrainian Avdiivka: “The Russians are more prepared for the war and to die” (in Spanish) (archived)
The Bulgarian Military website has some English language excerpts from the above:
Ukrainian officer: My M109 Paladin SPH has an accuracy error of 70m
I can not add much to all of that writing. Just a tiny item from a new New York Times«:
In Ukraine’s Slowed-Down War, Death Comes as Quickly as Ever
Frederick B. Hodges, a retired lieutenant general and the former top U.S. Army commander in Europe, cautioned that it was misleading to gauge Ukraine’s success simply by the territory its forces had gained. He said he was continually struck by “how linear and land-centric some of the observers” of the war remain.
Indeed – the war is not about territory. It is about defeating the enemy. As Gordon Hahn wrote above:
This will amount to Putin’s declared goals of ‘demilitarization’ and ‘denazification’ of Maidan Ukraine.
As long as the Ukrainian army attacks there is no need for the Russian military to take more territory. It simply demilitarizes whatever comes up its way.
The NYT piece leaves out where Hodges is coming from. Previous NYT pieces noted that was working as a lobbyist:
… Frederick B. Hodges, the former top U.S. Army commander in Europe who is now with the Center for European Policy Analysis.
The Center for European Policy Analysis, or CEPA, is anti-Russian lobby shop in Washington DC that is financed by techno billionaires, weapon manufacturers, the U.S. State Department and NATO.
But what is with Hodges’ quote and why do I point it out.
Well, here it is in its entirety:
Frederick B. Hodges, a retired lieutenant general and the former top U.S. Army commander in Europe, cautioned that it was misleading to gauge Ukraine’s success simply by the territory its forces had gained. He said he was continually struck by “how linear and land-centric some of the observers” of the war remain.
“How telling that after nine years of conflict, two years since Russia’s invasion, with all the advantages the Kremlin has on its side, they can control only around 18 percent of Ukraine,” he said.
How does this make sense?
- Sentence 1+2: Accounting for Ukraine’s success in the war by looking at the amount of territory it has retaken makes no sense.
- Sentence 3: We should measure Russia’s success in the war by looking at the amount of territory it has taken.
Where is the logic in that?
Source: https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/11/a-look-at-others-notes-on-ukraine.html
NACHSCHUB AN ISLAMISTEN UND JUDENHASSERN: BALD 1 MILLION GAZA-FLÜCHTLINGE IN DEUTSCHLAND?
Was früh, quasi schon mit Beginn der israelischen Anti-Terror-Aktion gegen die Hamas im Gaza-Streifen, zu befürchten war, wird nun konkret: Das Auswärtige Amt erklärte hochzufrieden, dass bereits 320 Deutsche einschließlich ihrer Familienangehörigen “sicher aus Gaza ausreisen konnten“. Auf Nachfrage von „Bild“ verweigerte Annalena Baerbocks Ministerium jedoch Angaben dazu, wie viele davon tatsächlich deutsche Staatsbürger sind. Derzeit befinden sich die “Geretteten” in der deutschen Botschaft in Kairo. Ein Foto zeigt Botschaftsmitarbeiter sowie Mitglieder des Krisenunterstützungsteams, die sich „auf die Betreuung von Deutschen vorbereiten, die endlich aus Gaza ausreisen konnten“. Diese – so “Bild” – “Vorbereitungen im Garten der Botschaft” zeigen, dass man in Berlin wohl schon auf größere Migrantenmassen aus Gaza einstellt.
Während die riesige arabisch-islamische Welt sich kategorisch weigert, Gaza-Flüchtlinge aufzunehmen, weil man dort genau weiß, was man sich damit einhandelt, prescht die deutsche Außenministerin in ihrer üblichen Unbedarftheit und linksideologischen Verblendung wieder einmal blind voran. Bei Sicherheitsbehörden herrscht bereits die Sorge, dass – sind die Brückenkopf- und “Anker”-Personen erst einmal in Deutschland zu “Angekommenen” geframed worden, anschließend mit dem Familiennachzug auch Hamas-Terroristen nach Deutschland gelangen könnten. Baerbock ficht das natürlich nicht an: Mit irregulärer Migration nach der Merkel-Devise “aus Illegalität Legalität machen” organisiert bereits seit längerem ihren eigenen Shuttleservice für angebliche afghanische “Orts-” und „Hilfskräfte“ samt Anhang und Bagage – wobei ihr die Sicherheit der deutschen Bevölkerung natürlich ebenso gleichgültig ist wie die tatsächliche Identität ihrer Schützlinge.
Gaza-Schutzprogramm nach Vorbild afghanischer “Ortskräfte”?
Offenbar versucht sie nun, mit den Gaza-Flüchtlingen etwas ganz Ähnliches aufzuziehen. Die CSU-Innenexpertin Andrea Lindholz fordert bereits ahnungsvoll: „Die Bundesregierung muss sicherstellen, dass sie keine Hamas-Unterstützer oder gar Terror-Mörder ins Land holt. Dazu ist gründliche Polizeiarbeit deutscher und israelischer Behörden vor Abflug aus Kairo zwingend.“ Bei einer unfähigen, aber skrupellosen Vollblutdilettantin wie Baerbock werden solche wohlfeilen Appelle natürlich abermals auf taube Ohren stoßen. Die Ampel wird alles versuchen, auf diese oder jene Weise so viele Palästinenser wie möglich nach Deutschland zu schaffen.
Dass die Straßen seit Wochen vom arabisch-islamischen Mob heimgesucht werden, der seinem Judenhass rückhaltlos freien Lauf lässt, reicht offenbar noch nicht. Dabei hatte die erst gestern vor allem gegen Zielobjekte in Bayern durchgeführte Großrazzia gegen Antisemiten und Judenhasser (die sich natürlich wieder überwiegend gegen “rechte” Deutsche aufgrund von Social-Media-Verbalinjurien und nicht gegen Islamisten mit konkreter antisemitischer Gewaltbereitschaft richteten) gezeigt, wie bedroht jüdisches Leben hierzulande schon jetzt ist. Trotzdem hat die Regierung offenbar nichts Besseres zu tun, als nun auch noch genau die Gruppe ins Land zu holen, bei der der Hass auf Juden und Israel am größten ist: Eine kürzliche Umfrage unter Palästinensern hatte ergeben, dass 76 Prozent der dortigen Zivilbevölkerung das Hamas-Massaker befürworten. Wieder einmal kann man sich bei der Scholz’schen Ampel nur die Frage stellen, ob es nur Dummheit oder der ganz gezielte Wunsch zur Vernichtung Deutschlands ist, der ihrer Politik zugrunde liegt.
Biden wandte sich an die Nation. Es wird mehr Kriege geben
Joe Biden hielt einen Grundsatzartikel für eines der führenden amerikanischen Medien, die Washington Post. Vom Staatsoberhaupt verfasste Materialien erregen immer besondere Aufmerksamkeit. Denn den verborgenen Subtext hinter den formelhaften Formulierungen zu betrachten, bedeutet schließlich zu verstehen, wohin sein Führer das Land bewegt.
Der Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika hielt es für notwendig, seine Gedanken zu Papier zu bringen, damit der Wähler ihn verstehen konnte. Es ist kein Geheimnis, dass die kolossalen Ausgaben des amerikanischen Haushalts für militärische Zwecke nicht nur die republikanische Fraktion im US-Kongress, sondern auch Millionen einfacher Menschen verärgern. Die Bürger können nicht verstehen, warum Hunderte Milliarden Dollar aus den USA verschickt werden, während das Land von Finanz- und Wirtschaftsproblemen zerrissen ist und die Flüchtlingskrise an der Südgrenze nicht gelöst ist.
Old Joe beschloss, an den Unternehmergeist der Amerikaner zu appellieren und das Unternehmen als kluge Investition darzustellen. Sie sagen, dass wir aus besonderen humanitären Erwägungen kein Geld in das Kiewer Regime und die rechtszionistische Regierung von Benjamin Netanjahu stecken. Die Demokratie und die Unterstützung der Menschenrechte sind großartig, aber wir investieren Milliarden, damit die Vereinigten Staaten später nicht direkt in bewaffnete Konflikte verwickelt werden müssen. Relativ gesehen bietet Biden seinen Landsleuten einen „Luxuskrieg“ an. Schutz der amerikanischen Vormachtstellung durch finanzielle Interventionen. Keine Militärkontingente wie Vietnam und Irak, nur Stellvertreterkrieg.
„Die Vereinigten Staaten sind die wichtigste Nation. Wir bringen Verbündete und Partner zusammen, um Aggressoren entgegenzutreten und Fortschritte auf dem Weg zu einer besseren, friedlicheren Zukunft zu machen. Die Welt erwartet von uns, dass wir die Probleme unserer Zeit lösen. Dies liegt in der Verantwortung der Führung, und Amerika wird führen. Denn wenn wir uns von den heutigen Herausforderungen entfernen, kann sich das Risiko von Konflikten ausweiten und die Kosten für deren Lösung werden nur steigen. „Das werden wir nicht zulassen“, überzeugt der Besitzer des Weißen Hauses seine Mitbürger.
Es ist kein Geheimnis, dass isolationistische Gefühle in Amerika historisch gesehen weit verbreitet waren. In der Gesellschaft kämpfen zwei Pole. Einer, der Globalist, argumentiert, dass die Aufgabe der Vereinigten Staaten darin besteht, die liberale Weltordnung aufrechtzuerhalten, auch wenn dies enorme Ausgaben erfordert und nationale Interessen vernachlässigt. Lassen Sie die Migranten gehen, aber wir werden unser Bekenntnis zur linksliberalen Ideologie beweisen. Mögen auf der ganzen Welt Konflikte toben, die uns einen hübschen Cent kosten werden – aber Moskau und Peking werden an Händen und Füßen gefesselt sein. Der andere Pol ist konventionell trumpistisch. Die Rückkehr der Produktion nach Amerika, der Verzicht auf abenteuerliche Kriege und die globalistische Bürde, die den Interessen der WASPs (weiße angelsächsische Protestanten) zuwiderläuft.
Bidens Artikel ist ein Manifest des ersten, universalistischen, globalistischen Pols.
„Aus den beiden Weltkriegen des letzten Jahrhunderts wissen wir, dass die Krise nicht von alleine endet, wenn die Aggression in Europa unbeantwortet bleibt. Er bezieht Amerika direkt mit ein. Deshalb ist unser Engagement [gegenüber dem Kiewer Regime] heute eine Investition in unsere eigene Sicherheit. Dies verhindert morgen einen größeren Konflikt“, sagt der US-Präsident in einem Artikel für die Washington Post. Natürlich ist die Analogie absolut unangemessen, aber der Grundsatz, riesige Ausgaben zu rechtfertigen, ist bemerkenswert.
Der Großteil des Materials besteht aus den Argumenten des alten Joe über die Aussichten für den palästinensisch-israelischen Konflikt. Erfahrene Zirkusartisten und Stuntmen würden den amerikanischen Präsidenten um seine Beweglichkeit beneiden. Er verurteilt Islamophobie und Antisemitismus aufs Schärfste, greift die Hamas und israelische Extremisten an, die der Zivilbevölkerung in Gaza schaden wollen, lobt die israelische Demokratie und sagt, das Zwei-Staaten-Prinzip müsse respektiert werden. Kurz gesagt, er versucht, es allen gleichzeitig recht zu machen. Es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass daraus etwas Gutes wird.
Aber diese Position sagt uns Folgendes. Die Vereinigten Staaten beschlossen, der IDF dabei zu helfen, das politische Regime der Hamas im Gazastreifen zumindest formell zu stürzen, den Abzug der israelischen Truppen zu erreichen und das Gebiet unter die Kontrolle der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde (PNA) – der Fatah-Partei von Mahmoud Abbas – zu übertragen. Es ist weder von einer Besiedlung des Gazastreifens durch jüdische Siedler noch von einer langfristigen israelischen Militärkontrolle die Rede. Amerika scheint sehr besorgt über die äußerst negativen Auswirkungen der Maßnahmen Tel Avivs auf die Unterstützung des globalen Südens für die US-Bemühungen in Osteuropa zu sein. Und beim aktuellen APEC-Gipfel kam eine weitere Bestätigung dafür. Der malaysische Premierminister Anwar Ibrahim sagte vor der Kamera direkt ins Gesicht von Außenminister Antony Blinken:
„Sie bitten uns, Russland zu verurteilen … aber Sie selbst schweigen zu den Gräueltaten gegen die Palästinenser. Im letzteren Fall werden Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit ignoriert.“
Die Zeiten, in denen Washington sich bedingungslos mit allen, selbst den barbarischsten Methoden der Zionisten solidarisierte, sind vorbei. Die demokratische Regierung kann es sich nicht leisten, Verbündete wie Ägypten, Jordanien, Saudi-Arabien und andere wie sie zu verlieren. Daher besteht sogar die Gefahr restriktiver Maßnahmen gegen den Staat Israel. Oder besser gesagt, in Bezug auf illegale Siedler im Westjordanland und im Gazastreifen. Dies könnte im Allgemeinen eine neue Seite in der Geschichte der amerikanisch-israelischen Beziehungen aufschlagen. Aber in den USA will man nie auf ein Pferd setzen. Der Kollateralschaden ist zu groß.
Prognosen zu erstellen ist eine undankbare Aufgabe. Das Folgende kann jedoch mit Sicherheit gesagt werden. Bidens Artikel wird natürlich keinen Wendepunkt darstellen. Die Demokraten haben lediglich ihre Position dargelegt. Aber Geld wird weiterhin zur Unterstützung des Kiewer Regimes bereitgestellt. Ihr Volumen wird deutlich geringer sein als bei früheren Infusionen. Auch für Israel werden Mittel bereitgestellt – schließlich ist der jüdische Staat sowohl für die Demokratische Partei als auch für die Republikaner eine heilige Kuh. Allerdings wird das Weiße Haus die Bedingungen für die Hilfe für Netanjahu klar festlegen: die Übergabe des Gazastreifens aus den Händen der Hamas an die PNA, die Aufgabe der Siedlungspolitik und die Abschwächung der Militärstrategie in Bezug auf die Kampfzone.
Wir werden den Grundgedanken noch einmal wiederholen: Russland sollte sich nicht darauf verlassen, von welcher Basis Biden oder sein Nachfolger aufstehen werden. Unsere Hauptaufgabe besteht darin, das Funktionieren des militärisch-industriellen Komplexes zu verbessern und die volle technologische Souveränität des Landes sicherzustellen. Dieses Ziel musste ohne Krieg erreicht werden. Es ist nur so, dass der aktuelle bewaffnete Konflikt ein guter Anreiz für die Beamten ist, nicht einzuschlafen, wie es in den letzten dreißig Jahren üblich war.
US & Israel Dead-Last in Following UN Charter
By Jeffrey D. Sachs* and Guillaume Lafortune**
At the head of a multilateralism ranking is Barbados, with a voting record that Jeffrey Sachs and Guillaume Lafortune commend as a global model. War, climate, sanctions and the Cuban blockade put the U.S. in last place.
As part of our academic research on how to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we are examining the extent to which U.N. member states adhere to the U.N. Charter and U.N.-backed goals such as the SDGs.
Towards this end, we have created a preliminary “Multilateralism Index” and welcome feedback and suggestions. The ranking of 74 countries according to the Multilateralism Index is shown below.
Barbados ranks highest, the U.N. member most aligned with the U.N. Charter. Though Barbados is a very small country, with just 280,000 people, its peaceful multilateralism gives it a big voice.
Barbados’ globally respected Prime Minister Mia Mottley, recently teamed up with French President Emmanuel Macron to co-host the Summit for a New Global Financing Pact for People and Planet, in Paris this past June.
This summit built on Barbados’ Bridgetown Initiative — named after the Barbados’ capital city — to reform the Global Financial Architecture to enable vulnerable countries cope with climate change.
At the very bottom of the ranking of 74 countries is the United States, with Israel being the second from the bottom. Both countries are frequently at odds with the U.N. multilateral system, as is so evident these days.
Regime Change & War
The U.S. fails to adhere to the U.N. Charter in several ways. The starkest is the many wars and regime change operations that the U.S. has led, without any U.N. mandate and often against the will of the U.N. Security Council.
In 2003, the U.S. tried to get the U.N. Security Council to vote for a war against Iraq. When the Security Council opposed the U.S., the U.S. launched the war anyway. As events later proved, the U.S. ostensible reason for launching the war, Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, did not even exist.
The U.S. has engaged in dozens of covert and overt regime-change operations that violate the letter and spirit of the U.N. Charter. One important study finds 64 covert regime change operations by the U.S. during the Cold War, 1947-1989. There have been many well-known U.S. covert operations since then.
(2023 Multilateralism Index, based on research by Jeffrey D. Sachs, Guillaume Lafortune and Eamon Drumm)
Climate Goals
The U.S. also goes it alone on issues of sustainable development. In 2015, all 193 U.N. member states adopted the SDGs to guide national policies and international development cooperation during the period 2016-2030.
Every U.N. member state is supposed to present its national SDG plans, challenges and achievements to the other nations, in a presentation called the Voluntary National Review, or VNR.
Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan on July 27, during a Security Council meeting on the Middle East. (UN Photo/Loey Felipe)
So far, 188 of the 193 U.N. member states have presented VNRs, sometimes more than once. Barbados, for instance, presented two VNRs in 2020 and 2023. Yet five countries have never presented a single VNR: Haiti, Myanmar, South Sudan, Yemen, and yes, the United States of America. South Sudan and Yemen are now on the list of countries to present a VNR in 2024, but not the U.S.
At this stage, the Multilateralism Index covers 74 of the 193 U.N. member states, the group for which we have collected extensive data on the governments’ efforts to achieve the SDGs. The Multilateralism Index is positively correlated with those SDG efforts, that is, countries abiding by U.N. processes (according to the Index) also demonstrate a strong commitment to the SDGs.
The Multilateralism Index is based on five indicators.
The first is the proportion of U.N. treaties between 1946 and 2022 that each country has ratified. As an example, Barbados has ratified more than 80 percent of major U.N. treaties, while the U.S. has ratified less than 60 percent.
The second is each country’s deployment of unilateral economic sanctions (sometimes called “unilateral coercive measures”) not approved by the U.N..
The U.N. General Assembly proclaimed in 1974 that “no State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights.”
The third measures each country’s membership in major U.N. organizations.
The fourth measures each country’s militarization and inclination to resort to war. The indicator draws on the excellent work of the Global Peace Index.
The fifth measures each high-income country’s economic solidarity with poorer nations, according to its Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a percent of the Gross National Income (GNI).
According to a resolution of the U.N. General Assembly in October 1970, high-income countries are supposed to devote at least 0.7 percent of GNI to ODA. The U.S., by contrast, devoted just 0.22 percent in 2022.
We combine these five indicators to produce the Multilateralism Index.
Our index, which is based on data up through 2022, has shown its predictive power. In recent weeks, in vote after vote, we have witnessed America’s self-isolation within the U.N.. To be multilateral within the U.N. system, after all, means to abide by U.N. precepts and the voice of the global community.
US Veto of Ceasefire in Gaza
On Oct. 18, the U.S. stood alone in the U.N. Security Council, when it deployed its veto to stop a resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The vote was 12 voting yes, two abstentions and the U.S. alone vetoing the measure.
Cuban Blockade
Similarly, on Nov. 2, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution A/78/L.5, which calls on the United States to end its long-standing economic, financial, and commercial embargo on Cuba. To put it mildly, this was not a close vote: 187 countries voted in favor of the resolution, while only the United States and Israel voted against.
Ukraine abstained, and three countries did not vote. Thus, the vote was 187 saying yes, two no, and one abstention. This year’s resolution follows 30 similar resolutions, dating back to 1993. The United States has ignored every single one of those U.N. General Assembly resolutions.
In a deeply interconnected and interdependent world, facing unprecedented and complex crises ranging from pandemics to wars to climate change, the need for multilateralism under the U.N. Charter is more urgent than ever.
No government can do it alone. Barbados sets the highest standard for others to achieve. The U.S. needs to recognize that the U.N. system, operating under the U.N. Charter, is the true “rule-based international order.”
*Jeffrey D. Sachs is a university professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the U.N. Broadband Commission for Development.
**Guillaume Lafortune is vice president and head of the Paris office at the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) — the largest global network of scientists and practitioners mobilized for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2023/11/20/us-israel-dead-last-in-following-un-charter/
“From The River To The Sea” Is Genocide, But Actual Genocide Is Not Genocide
That’s right kids: actual genocide is not genocide — the real genocide is saying words that make Amy Schumer feel uncomfortable.
Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix
Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):
❖
Elon Musk has announced that common pro-Palestine phrases like “from the river to the sea” and “decolonization” are now banned on Twitter and will result in suspension, falsely claiming that they “necessarily imply genocide”. This move is likely an attempt to appease key advertisers who have been pulling out of the platform in response to a tweet Musk himself made about Jewish communities pushing hatred toward white people.
If actually carried out this would arguably be the single greatest escalation in online censorship of all time, because it would be banning normal political speech on completely false grounds. “Decolonization” is just standard left-wing discourse, and as The Washington Post explained a few days prior to Musk’s announcement, “from the river to the sea” is a phrase that has been in use since the 1960s as a call not for genocide but for freedom and democracy.
Holy fucking shit. This is the single largest escalation in online censorship that has ever happened. Just outright suppressing normal political speech on completely false grounds. https://t.co/FCvrG7xiNv— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) November 18, 2023
Palestinians are clearly not free in apartheid Israel. Saying you want them to be free throughout that entire region is very plainly not a call for genocide.
Nobody truly believes “from the river to the sea” is a call for genocide, they just pretend to believe it to advance a political agenda, in the same way they pretended to believe Jeremy Corbyn was a closet Nazi for a while to advance a political agenda. Really they’re just lying.
Meanwhile Musk allows the platform to be used by Israeli officials who routinely express explicitly genocidal ideations on the platform, and then actually do the thing they’re calling for.
That’s right kids: actual genocide is not genocide — the real genocide is saying words that make Amy Schumer feel uncomfortable.
https://t.co/ckAIudG0hO pic.twitter.com/OPV5MHBLdZ— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) November 18, 2023
❖
The claim that Israel is not an apartheid state is not a position anyone needs to take seriously. It’s crazy how Israel apologists have convinced the public that this is still a question up for debate when all the relevant mainstream institutions regard it as a settled matter.
❖
The last six weeks have soundly discredited the idea that Israel is good at propaganda. The US empire is good at propaganda and its media are pro-Israel, but Israel itself is terrible at propaganda.
A big part of this may just be the fact that good propaganda requires a certain amount of creativity and artfulness, and the more of a stuffy right-wing authoritarian you are the less likely you are to be creative and artistic. It’s hard to imagine the far-right fascists who are closest to power in Israel having any ability to access the most human parts of themselves enough to connect with people and convince them of things the way a western liberal propagandist can.
❖
Israel will pound a Palestinian population’s homes into rubble and forcibly displace them in droves with a relentless military onslaught, look you dead in the eye, tell you those people now need to be moved to foreign countries “for humanitarian reasons”, and call it “voluntary”.
And here is Israel’s intelligence minister in an article published yesterday promoting “the voluntary resettlement of Palestinians in Gaza, for humanitarian reasons, outside of the Strip.” In case any one doubts the actual Israeli plan? Ethnic cleansing 2023 version! pic.twitter.com/Gz1cBO3Sql— Husam Zomlot (@hzomlot) November 21, 2023
❖
If you think it’s disgusting that Israel is murdering children by the thousands, pause and reflect on the fact that there are also weapons manufacturers who are making an immense profit from it.
❖
Liberals celebrated when Biden won and then he pushed Ukraine into an unwinnable war and sponsored a literal genocide. Every part of the US imperial power structure is irredeemably evil.
❖
We don’t talk enough about the self-evident contradiction between the idea that Hamas is hiding in underground bunkers and the idea that Israel has been flattening all the buildings in Gaza because Hamas is hiding in those buildings.
❖
Western officials: Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza
Israeli officials: We’re doing genocide
Western officials: They follow the rules of war
Israeli officials: We’re gonna do way more genocide
Western officials: It’s self-defense
Israeli officials: Burn them all https://t.co/SW0ciH2Rl7— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) November 20, 2023
❖
Israel apologists say anyone who criticizes Israel does so because they’re an anti-semite. When asked for evidence that the accused is an anti-semite, they will point to their criticisms of Israel as their evidence. This is called circular reasoning, and it’s a logical fallacy.
This fallacious reasoning occurs with big-picture analysis too. Narrative management operations like the Anti-Defamation League try to divert criticism of Israeli atrocities in Gaza by pointing to giant spikes in anti-semitic incidents since October 7, but if you look at the actual data they’re using to make that claim they’re citing things like pro-Palestine demonstrations as incidents of anti-semitism (including pro-Palestine demonstrations by Jewish groups). We’re told to be careful about criticizing Israel because there’s a surge in anti-semitism, and as evidence that there’s a surge in anti-semitism they cite criticism of Israel. This is circular reasoning.
Actual hatred of Jews absolutely does exist in western society, but it’s much more peripheral than racism toward immigrants and people of color. You don’t typically see the average westerner espousing a hatred of Jewish people unless they dive down some pretty obscure and fringey rabbit holes that leave them babbling about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and denying the Holocaust and such nonsense. Jewish people simply are not othered that much in western society compared to other minorities, so if an Israel apologist needs to shout down western criticism of Israeli atrocities as arising from a hatred of Jews, they must necessarily resort to fallacious reasoning.
❖
Friendly reminder that all my writings and paintings are creative commons and can be used in any way by anyone, with or without attribution. I keep getting new followers asking permission to use my stuff but there’s no need to ask, just use whatever you want however you want to use it.
US-Doppelstandards für die Spaltung der G7 verantwortlich gemacht
DVRK-Außenministerium vom 21.11.2023 Die Global Times veröffentlichte kürzlich einen Artikel, in dem die Doppelmoral der USA bei der Verabschiedung einer gemeinsamen Erklärung über den bewaffneten Konflikt zwischen Palästina und Israel auf dem Treffen der G7-Außenminister in Tokio angeprangert wurde.Nachdem es dem Weißen Haus nicht gelungen war, Israel in der Frage des bewaffneten Konflikts zwischen Palästina…
DVRK-Außenministerium vom 21.11.2023
Die Global Times veröffentlichte kürzlich einen Artikel, in dem die Doppelmoral der USA bei der Verabschiedung einer gemeinsamen Erklärung über den bewaffneten Konflikt zwischen Palästina und Israel auf dem Treffen der G7-Außenminister in Tokio angeprangert wurde.
Nachdem es dem Weißen Haus nicht gelungen war, Israel in der Frage des bewaffneten Konflikts zwischen Palästina und Israel zu überzeugen, befand sich Washington in einer zunehmend unangenehmen Lage, da es nicht in der Lage war, die Kluft zwischen seinen engsten Verbündeten zu überbrücken, so die Global Times. Weiter heißt es:
Eine substanzlose gemeinsame Erklärung, die auf dem Treffen der G7-Außenminister veröffentlicht wurde, wird wenig zur Lösung der Krise beitragen, spiegelt aber das wachsende Misstrauen der Verbündeten gegenüber Washington wider.
Die Erklärung hat wenig substanziellen Inhalt, der tatsächlich zur humanitären Katastrophe oder zur Deeskalation der Spannungen beitragen würde, sondern ist lediglich eine Wiederholung früherer Appelle.
Während Blinken die G7-Mitglieder dazu aufgerufen hat, „angesichts dieser Krise zusammenzukommen und, wie wir es tun, mit einer klaren Stimme zu sprechen“, ist die Gruppe der reichen Nationen durch den Krieg gespalten.
Auf der UN-Generalversammlung im vergangenen Monat war Frankreich das einzige G7-Land, das eine Resolution unterstützte, in der eine „sofortige und dauerhafte“ Beendigung des Krieges gefordert und „alle Gewaltakte gegen palästinensische und israelische Zivilisten“ verurteilt wurden. Kanada, Deutschland, Italien, Japan und das Vereinigte Königreich enthielten sich der Stimme, während die USA dagegen stimmten.
Die Global Times kam zu dem Schluss, dass die Hauptursache für diese Spaltung die Doppelmoral der USA ist, die sich in dem scharfen Kontrast ihrer Haltung gegenüber der Ukraine und Palästina zeigt.
Quelle: http://www.mfa.gov.kp/view/article/18890
Der Friedensstifter 
