Ein Artikel von: Redaktion
Events Ortenau hatte zu Vortrag und Diskussion zum Schwerpunktthema Manipulation eingeladen – eine Plage, die unseren Alltag über weite Strecken bestimmt. Das Redemanuskript hatten wir hier schon veröffentlicht. Hier folgt nun das Video. Albrecht Müller.
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/AO2anI7Dnms
Den Videomitschnitt besorgte Matthias Gottung. Veranstalter war EVENTS Ortenau
A recent U.S. News & World Report survey ranked Russia as the world’s biggest leader by a variety of metrics, followed by the U.S. and China. This infographic shows top ten world leaders.
(Click on the image to enlarge)
Source: https://strategic-culture.su/news/2023/11/19/this-country-is-world-biggest-leader/
A massive US naval deployment in a wide arc of the so-called Greater Middle East is under way — stretching from Crete in the Eastern Mediterranean, into the Red Sea and the Bab el Mandeb and into the Gulf of Aden and all the way into the Gulf of Oman. This deterrent display may transform as large scale offensive operations and aims to rework the geopolitical alignments and bring them back to the traditional grooves of intra-regional rivalries in the Gulf region.
Ship spotters first said that as of Thursday, the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and its escorts were sailing just outside the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf of Oman, and were approaching the Persian Gulf. A Pentagon official confirmed the location but would not say whether the carrier will enter the Persian Gulf passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
The US naval build-up in the region consists of another carrier strike group as well — USS Ford and its escorts — which last week moved away from Israeli coast and is now re-positioned to the south of Crete, according to ship spotters, apparently beyond the missile reach of Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
Apart from the two carrier strike groups, the US deployment also includes a three-ship Bataan Amphibious Ready Group with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit and several guided-missile destroyers — USS Bataan and USS Carter Hall operating in the northern portion of the Red Sea, and USS Mesa Verde in the Eastern Mediterranean along with the command ship USS Mount Whitney.
Additionally, there are some number of US attack submarines in the region, but the Pentagon does not typically disclose their locations — except for a rare disclosure recently by the US Central Command of the transit on November 5 of nuclear guided-missile submarine USS Florida to the east of Suez.
The most obvious explanation for such a formidable naval buildup is that it is part of the US effort to keep the current conflict in southern Israel and Gaza contained. Hezbollah continues to fire rockets and anti-tank missiles into Israel from Lebanon; Iran-backed Shia militant groups are attacking US bases in Iraq and Syria; and Houthi rebels in Yemen are firing missiles towards Israel. During the period since October 17, there have been at least 58 attacks on US bases, mostly in Iraq.
The hardline opinion in the US is that the militant groups attacking the US forces are acting at Iran’s behest. This allegation is an old US-Israeli bogey and keeps surging whenever Iran is in the crosshairs and/or there is requirement of a blame game. Expert opinion, including in the US, has always been wary of it.
Longtime observers estimate that while Tehran is openly helping the various resistance groups operating in the Middle East to push back the US and Israel, that does not exactly make these groups “Iranian proxies”. Thus, it transpired that Iran was taken by surprise by the Hamas attack against Israel on October 7. According to Reuters, at a recent meeting in Tehran with Ismail Haniyeh, the chairman of the group’s political bureau, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei brought this up.
At any rate, it is a known fact that the US establishment is well aware of the ground realities of its state of play with Iran and has not hesitated to use back channels to lean on Tehran to use its good offices with the Shia militant groups operating in Iraq to exercise restraint. But the bottom line is that Iran too has its limitations in such extraordinary times such as today when hatred and anger towards the US and Israel has risen to a crescendo in the Muslim countries.
Interestingly, coinciding with the arrival of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and its escorts in the waters off the Strait of Hormuz, the International Maritime Security Construct [IMSC] — a consortium of countries headquartered in Bahrain, whose official stated aim is the maintenance of order and security in the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden and Southern Red Sea, particularly regarding maritime security of global oil supply routes — issued an advisory on Thursday for vessels travelling through the approaches to Bab al Mandeb and Red Sea and specifically advising that “when choosing routes, orient toward creating maximum feasible distance from Yemeni waters.”
Two days later, the Israeli military has said that Yemen’s Houthis had actually seized a cargo ship in the southern Red Sea as it was sailing from Turkiye to India; although the military added that the vessel was not Israeli-owned and had no Israelis among its crew, ownership details in public shipping databases associated the ship’s owners with Ray Car Carriers, which was founded by Abraham “Rami” Ungar, who is known as one of the richest men in Israel.
It doesn’t need much ingenuity to figure out that the US, which is already smarting under the humiliation of the Houthis shooting down a US MQ-9 Reaper drone over international waters recently, is moving against the Houthis. This needs some explaining.
The point is, IMSC is a US-led “coalition of the willing” outside the purview of the mission of the International Maritime Organization, the United Nations specialised agency “to promote safe, secure, environmentally sound, efficient and sustainable shipping through cooperation.”
It was established in 2019 against the backdrop of the war in Yemen and comprises, amongst others, the UAE and Saudi Arabia from the Gulf region. Its leitmotif was to counter the Iran-Houthi axis during the Saudi-Emirati intervention in Yemen — essentially, as part of the US’ containment strategy against Iran dominating the regional politics at that time.
Significantly, if the Biden Administration plans to hit the Houthis and makes it look as a retaliatory / punitive strike and to that end, it is invoking the IMSC platform, which belongs to a bygone era before the Saudi-Iran rapprochement brokered by China, that becomes a brilliant geopolitical ploy where the US hopes to achieve multiple objectives kill many birds with a single arrow.
These objectives range from bringing down Iran by a notch or two in the regional folklore of power dynamic; driving a wedge between Saudi Arabia and Iran at a juncture when the amity between the two traditional rivals is frustrating the US plans to “integrate” Israel; res-establishing the shock and awe of US power in the Middle East (and globally); keeping the Red Sea shipping lines open for Israeli vessels; and, in strategic terms, dominating the waterways of the Red Sea leading to the Suez Canal.
By the way, Red Sea is lately witnessing big power contestation — China has a naval base in Djibouti and Russia hopes to establish a submarine base in Sudan; Eritrea is a virulently anti-US littoral state on Red Sea; and, US is desperately trying for a regime change in Ethiopia, the largest country in the African continent, which is on very friendly terms with Russia.
A quagmire for the US?
Even more curious is the timing of the US aircraft carrier group in the Persian Gulf region. The Chinese foreign ministry announced on Sunday that a delegation consisting of Arab and Islamic foreign ministers will visit China from November 20 to 21 to hold “in-depth communication and coordination” with Beijing “on ways to deescalate the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict, protect civilians and seek a just settlement of the Palestinian question.” The delegation comprises Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki and Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Hussein Brahim Taha.
The above development is a Saudi initiative. There is no question that the collective outreach by the Muslim countries to China as their principal interlocutor at the present stage of the Palestine-Israel conflict is a diplomatic rebuff to the US. Succinctly put, the Arab unity is also becoming a thorn in the flesh for President Biden at a time when the US finds it increasingly difficult to block the Chinese-Arab push for a ceasefire in Gaza and counter the international condemnation of Israel’s horrific violence against the Palestinian people, especially in the Global South.
By attacking the Houthis of Yemen, the Biden administration’s game plan is to undermine the Saudi-Iran rapprochement by playing on the Saudi antipathy toward the Houthis on the one hand and taunting Tehran on the other hand. Basically, the US hopes to pay Iran back in the same coin.
As an opinion piece in the Hill put it, “It is time Biden and his principal advisers on his national security team… must assume an active defence by striking Iranian proxies hard and unapologetically, when they present a threat, not after they have already attacked. And probable cause must be good enough for protecting our service members manning remote bases in Iraq and Syria… bloody nose is the only response Iran understands, and precisely the response the US must deliver.” (here)
The Biden Administration must be sensing already that the Israeli operations against Hamas are not getting anywhere and may turn into a long day’s journey into night, thanks to the Zionist state’s stubborn refusal to confront its guilt and shame or accept a two-state solution to the Palestine issue. The American public opinion is becoming sceptical about Biden’s handling for the situation and the US’ allies feel troubled. Indeed, Israel itself is a deeply divided house.
Meanwhile, the US’ diplomatic isolation in the Middle East is touching an unprecedented level today. The big question is whether through coercion — “smart power” — it is possible to retrieve lost ground where the crux of the matter is that the US is not trusted anymore in the Middle East. Moreover, Iran holds the patent for “smart power,” which it has finessed as a diplomatic tool through the past four decades successfully to ward off existential challenges from the US.
The US risks getting entangled with the resistance groups, which have nothing to lose and everything to gain by creating a quagmire for Washington. The heart of the matter is that the resistance groups are operating in their native lands and enjoy vast networks of social support. This, therefore, becomes an unequal battle, in the final analysis. Whether it is worth taking the risk — all for the sake of boosting the sagging Israeli morale — should be a soul-searching question for the Biden Administration before embarking on yet another forever war in the Middle East.
The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, is facing backlash over double standards for his comments on the Israeli war on Gaza.
During an interview with Al-Jazeera on Sunday, Borrell was asked several questions about the EU’s stance on the ongoing Israeli war on the besieged Gaza Strip.
When presenter Osman Ayfarh asked him whether he thought Israel was committing “war crimes” in the Strip, Borrell said that the matter should be investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
“Well, I’m not a lawyer, but there’s an International Court of Justice that’ll investigate and I’ll abide by their decision,” Borrell said.
However, a few seconds later, when he was asked whether he considered a “war crime” the attack carried out by the Palestinian Resistance Movement Hamas on southern Israel on October 7, Borrell promptly answered in the affirmative.
“Yes, we consider that a war crime”, he said, “because clearly, the killing of civilians for no reason other than because they were simply there”.
The Al-Jazeera presenter highlighted the contradiction, telling Borrell that his response was a typical example of why the European Union is accused of applying double standards over Palestine and Israel
Malgré ses tentatives de modernisation, l’Europe spatiale est en retard par rapport à ses concurrents, notamment SpaceX. Pierre Brisson tente de comprendre et d’analyser les raisons de ce retard.
Les 6 et 7 novembre, les ministres des 22 États-membres de l’ESA, réunis en sommet interministériel à Séville, ont tenté une mise à jour (au sens de l’anglais reset) de leur organisation. Il est plus que temps, car l’Europe spatiale s’est littéralement effondrée. Le problème est de savoir s’il n’est pas trop tard.
Arianespace, pour le compte de l’ESA (Agence Spatiale Européenne), a lancé, entre le premier vol en 1979 et aujourd’hui, 261 fusées Ariane (catégorie « 5 » depuis 2003) produit par la société ArianeGroup, dont seulement deux Ariane-5 en 2023 et trois Ariane-5 en 2022. Les meilleures années d’Ariane ont été l’an 2000 avec doue lancements réussis, et 2002 avec one lancements réussis. Depuis, jusqu’en 2020, le nombre tournait autour de cinq ou six par an. De son côté, SpaceX, le rival d’ArianeGroup, a lancé entre le premier vol en 2010 et aujourd’hui, 272 Falcon dont 60 en 2022, et 78 depuis le début de l’année 2023.
Aujourd’hui, il n’y a plus de lanceur moyen Ariane-5 (le dernier lancement a eu lieu en juillet 2023) et la mise en service de son remplaçant Ariane-6 est sans cesse retardée. Son complément, le lanceur européen léger, Vega-C, est, lui, cloué au sol après l’échec de son premier vol commercial du fait d’un défaut de conception de la tuyère de son second étage.
Le motif officiel du sommet était (en langage européen) de « déterminer comment rehausser les ambitions spatiales de l’Europe. À cette occasion, l’ESA devait élaborer une stratégie européenne pour l’exploration, le transport et le développement durable dans et depuis l’espace. Les raisons en étant qu’exploiter tout le potentiel de l’espace pour améliorer la vie sur Terre devait contribuer à garantir la prospérité, la compétitivité et le talent de l’Europe et ses citoyens, et permettre à l’Europe d’affirmer la place qui lui revient dans le monde ».
Qu’en termes pompeux ces choses-là furent dites !
Le communiqué parle de « stratégie européenne », et là commence le problème, l’Europe n’est pas une entreprise, l’Europe n’est pas un État, l’Europe est une administration commune à plusieurs pays ayant des ambitions différentes. L’ESA est le reflet de cette nature composite, et il n’y a rien de plus frileux et opposé à la prise de risque qu’une administration multinationale. Pour un projet aussi ambitieux que le spatial, ce n’est vraiment pas le cadre idéal.
Certes, l’attrait du gain n’est évidemment pas absent dans l’esprit des Européens puisque, dit-on, le marché du spatial orbital (donc sans le spatial lointain) pourrait être de l’ordre de 150 milliards de dollars dans les dix ans qui viennent. Mais le Spatial n’est pas un business comme un autre.
Dès l’exposé des motifs, on voit que quelque chose ne va pas. « Exploiter tout le potentiel de l’espace » ne peut avoir en premier lieu pour objet « d’améliorer la vie sur Terre » en étant « plus vert ».
Exploiter le potentiel de l’espace, c’est regarder vers les planètes et les étoiles, et non d’abord vers la Terre, c’est porter le rêve de la conquête spatiale, c’est une exigence et une ascèse, donc une économie de moyens pour un maximum de résultats, pas pour « créer des emplois », mais pour créer de la vraie richesse, c’est-à-dire investir, comme l’ont été toutes les grandes aventures humaines, et surtout pour réaliser un rêve. Bien sûr qu’il y aura des retombées de la conquête spatiale pour la vie sur la Terre, mais Magellan n’est pas parti dans son tour du monde pour améliorer la vie en Espagne ou au Portugal. Et à notre époque Elon Musk se soucie peu d’améliorer la vie sur Terre, il veut donner à l’Homme la possibilité de vivre sur la planète Mars, ce qui ne l’empêche pas de gagner beaucoup d’argent dans l’effort rationnel qu’il a entrepris.
Un seul motif cité par le communiqué m’intéresse en tant qu’économiste libéral, c’est « garantir la compétitivité de l’Europe et de ses citoyens » (quoi que je n’aime pas le terme « garantir » qui présuppose qu’on puisse figer un avantage dans une compétition, alors que la compétition est une lutte sans merci et sans garde-fou, et que dans ce contexte, on ne peut compter sur quelque avantage acquis ou « rente » que ce soit).
Après ce préambule, voyons ce qui a été décidé à ce sommet.
D’après le directeur général de l’ESA Josef Aschbacher, un « soutien financier » permettra d’assurer « la viabilité économique et la compétitivité des fusées Ariane 6 et Vega-C, stratégiques pour l’accès autonome de l’Europe à l’espace ».
Il s’agit d’« une subvention annuelle d’un maximum de 340 millions d’euros pour Ariane-6 et de 21 millions d’euros pour Vega-C ».
Quand on sait qu’un lancement d’Ariane-6 devrait coûter 100 millions d’euros (mais cela dépendra beaucoup de l’économie d’échelle fonction du nombre), et qu’un lancement de Falcon-9 coûte 50 millions d’euros, on voit bien l’inanité de la subvention européenne. NB : le coût de développement de l’Ariane-6 a été de l’ordre de 4 milliards d’euros ; celui du Falcon-9, de 400 millions de dollars. Plus que l’argent, ce sont les objets pour lesquels il est dépensé et l’organisation de l’entreprise qui est en jeu.
Par ailleurs, la fusée Ariane-6 ne sera toujours pas réutilisable. Avec ce nouveau lanceur l’Europe continuera à « jeter à la poubelle son Airbus après avoir traversé l’Atlantique » (image personnelle que je trouve très parlante !).
Chez le compétiteur SpaceX, un des Falcon-9 a déjà été réutilisé 18 fois !
Jusqu’à tout récemment, l’ESA ou ArianeGroup ne voulaient pas de réutilisation, car il fallait consacrer entre 10 à 15 % d’ergols à la redescente sur Terre du lanceur, et parce que cela aurait rendu plus coûteuse à l’unité une production de moteurs qui auraient été moins nombreux du fait de leur réutilisation. C’est un raisonnement valable dans une économie statique, mais pas dans une économie en développement. De ce fait SpaceX a produit plus de moteurs qu’ArianeGroup car elle a construit plus de fusées, même réutilisables, et sa consommation d’ergols supplémentaire a été totalement négligeable par rapport au gain obtenu par les économies d’échelle résultant du nombre de vols. Par ailleurs produire des lanceurs pour les « jeter à la poubelle » n’est pas l’expression d’un souci particulier de l’environnement, comme prétendent avoir ESA et ArianeGroup.
Enfin, la capacité de transport d’Ariane-6 ne sera pas énorme, 20 tonnes en orbite basse. Ce n’est vraiment pas une révolution. Si le Starship vole il pourra porter 100 tonnes à la même altitude, le Falcon Heavy, porte effectivement 64 tonnes et le Falcon-9, 22 tonnes.
Une note positive cependant.
L’Allemagne a obtenu que la fourniture des équipements et prestations soient soumise à la concurrence. Vous avez bien lu le mot « concurrence». Jusqu’à aujourd’hui les pays membres se répartissaient politiquement les contributions du fait de leur participation à l’ESA (on appelait ça le géo-retour). Ce n’était pas la meilleure incitation à produire mieux et moins cher, puisque chaque pays avait son petit domaine assuré et protégé.
Désormais, des appels d’offres seront lancés, et les meilleures offres seront retenues, indépendamment de la nationalité du fournisseur. Indirectement, cela donnera toutes leurs chances au NewSpace européen, c’est-à-dire aux indépendants, notamment allemands, qui avec des moyens très limités ont décidé de se mesurer aux sociétés officielles aujourd’hui protégées. La NASA le fait depuis « toujours » (depuis la première présidence Obama mais cela fait déjà longtemps).
Quel progrès ce sera pour l’Europe, mais il est plus que temps !
Airbus-Safran (ArianeGroup) profitera sans danger de cette concurrence car elle est de loin la plus puissante en Europe. Par contre, les Italiens de l’entreprise Avio, avec le VEGA-C (anciennement produit par ArianeEspace), vont se trouver en concurrence réelle très vite avec les petites sociétés du NewSpace européens, notamment l’allemande « Isar Aerospace » dont le premier lanceur devrait voler fin 2023, mais aussi la franco-allemande « The Exploration Company » qui propose sa capsule Nyx.
C’est de là que viendra le progrès mais la progression sera rude. L’ESA prévoit une aide allant « jusqu’à 150 millions d’euros pour les projets de lanceurs les plus prometteurs ».
Vu les coûts ce ne sera qu’une grosse goutte d’eau.
Le lanceur Ariane-6 sera toujours non réutilisable (mise à feu au sol prévue le 23 novembre. Cela devrait permettre de confirmer une date de lancement au printemps 2024. On en parle depuis 2009, et le premier vol devait avoir lieu en 2020 !). Il n’est toujours pas prévu de transport de personnes, et sur ce plan, la dépendance aux Américains restera totale.
Un tout petit espoir cependant : il est à nouveau question d’un transporteur robotique, du type SUSIE (Smart Upper Stage for Innovative Exploration), qui sera, lui, réutilisable, et qui devrait servir à aller et revenir de l’ISS (pas pour les hommes mais pour les équipements et les consommables).
La présentation du véhicule avait fait sensation à l’IAC de 2022 car elle avait donné l’impression que l’Europe se réveillait enfin. Mais on n’en avait plus entendu parler. Une somme de 75 millions d’euros y a été affectée lors de ce sommet. Il faut espérer maintenant que ce projet aille plus loin que le vaisseau cargo ATV (lancé une fois il y a 15 ans déjà, mais non réutilisable) ou que l’avion fusée Hermès (finalisé il y a 30 ans mais qui n’a jamais volé).
Cependant, il ne faut pas exagérer son importance ni ses perspectives. SUSIE ne pourra apporter que quatre tonnes dans l’ISS, et il ne pourra en rapporter que deux. Ce n’est rien comparé aux capacités du Starship (100 tonnes), et c’est moins que la capacité de la capsule Dragon de SpaceX (6 tonnes) qui fonctionne aujourd’hui.
On nous dit que ce véhicule pourrait fonctionner en 2028, mais c’est à cet horizon que l’ISS devrait être désorbitée ! Alors, ce concept va-t-il être développé jusqu’au bout, ou bien va-t-il disparaître comme l’ARV (Advanced Reentry Vehicle) qui devait succéder à l’ATV (Automated Transfer Vehicle) et qui a disparu des écrans autour de 2010 alors qu’il avait fait comme SUSIE, l’objet d’un « démonstrateur » ?
À partir de SUSIE, l’ESA dit qu’elle envisage de développer un véhicule habitable et réutilisable… mais il y a un double saut à effectuer (puissance et viabilisation) et aucune date ne peut bien sûr être avancée.
En résumé, on a l’impression que le constat est fait, mais que le virage prendra beaucoup de temps à se concrétiser. Peut-être trop de temps car, en attendant, SpaceX ne va pas dormir sur ses lauriers. Ariane-6 va arriver déjà démodée sur un marché ultra-concurrentiel (en dehors des Américains, il y aussi les Indiens ou les Chinois, même les Japonais) et, franchement qui va se servir de SUSIE quand Dragon donne pleinement satisfaction pour le type de transport visé ? Ce ne sera qu’un test pour autre chose (le transporteur habitable) mais probablement sans rentabilité à la clef. Que de temps et d’argent perdus par l’Europe par pur dédain des autres ou très clairement par arrogance (« parce que nous sommes les meilleurs »).
—
Liens :
https://www.cieletespace.fr/actualites/la-fusee-europeenne-vega-c-ne-revolera-pas-avant-octobre-2024
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
As the Elite program to kill or enslave us all proceeds virtually unimpeded, one way in which this is being accomplished is by using two of the Elite’s oldest known tools: War and genocide. With the active complicity of its agents in governments and elsewhere, the Elite is killing off substantial numbers of ‘ordinary’ people (but certainly not Elite members or agents) in wars between various countries, most notably, Ukraine and Russia, as well as in genocidal attacks such as that by Israel against the Palestinian ghetto of Gaza.
While I have previously explained how the war between Russia and Ukraine (along with the latter’s NATO allies) is being used to advance the Elite program – see ‘The War in Ukraine: Understanding and Resisting the Global Elite’s Deeper Agenda’ – it is equally clear that wars anywhere, as well as genocides, serve the same purpose.
In this article I will focus on how the genocidal assault on Gaza and the ongoing military attacks on the occupied West Bank constitute a fundamental threat to the people of Palestine while at the same time they are only a local manifestation of the wider assault on humanity.
Unfortunately, very few people are perceiving this connection and the fundamental threat it poses to us all and, in the sense that this is being achieved, the genocide in Gaza is successfully distracting people from the wider program to kill or enslave everyone.
This is obvious from any candid assessment of the evidence readily available to those seeking it. Let me start with an overview of the evidence in relation to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza.
To begin, this evidence reveals the fact that the Israeli government has long supported and funded Hamas as one part of its strategy to divide and disempower the official Palestinian leadership, keep ordinary Israelis and Palestinians in a state of fearful submission to their respective elites, and undermine any efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood.
There are many studies that discuss various elements and motivations for this arrangement. See, for example,
‘How and why Israel helped create Hamas?’,
‘Hamas’ Attack on Israelis Strengthens, Not Weakens, Israel’s Right Wing Political Elite’ and
‘Hamas Created by Israel and Recognised by Council of Europe’.
In the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: ‘Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas’.
See ‘Analysis: Another Concept Implodes: Israel Can’t Be Managed by a Criminal Defendant’.
It includes evidence that, despite the claim of an ‘intelligence failure’ by Israel when Mossad is possibly the most powerful intelligence agency on the planet – see ‘No, the Hamas Invasion Was Not an Israeli “Intelligence Failure”’ – Israel and Hamas colluded to facilitate the Hamas incursion into Israel on 7 October 2023. According to former Israeli intelligence analyst Efrat Fenigson: ‘To me this surprise attack seems like a planned operation…. the work of the Deep State…. the people of Israel and the people of Palestine have been sold, once again, to the higher powers that be.’
And, according to one source citing a former commander of the Kerem Shalom Battalion which oversaw a section of the high-security barrier between Gaza and Israel, and who knows the area in detail: ‘The obstacle is built so that even a fox cannot pass it.’ He goes on to elaborate why this is the case in considerable detail.
Probably as part of the official cover-up, this was effectively denied by General Herzl Halevi, formerly head of the IDF Southern Command and now Israel Defense Force Chief of Staff. See ‘Israeli army chief admits “failure”’.
Barrier against tunnels along the Israel-Gaza Strip border 2019 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
But let us assume for a moment that Hamas is not an Israeli collaborator. Was the raid on 7 October ‘The Most Successful Military Raid of this Century’ as it was characterized and described by military analyst Scott Ritter?
See ‘The October 7 Hamas Assault on Israel: The Most Successful Military Raid of this Century’.
Did it actually matter that Hamas appears to have achieved movement in the direction of its stated goals – as noted by Ritter: to reassert the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland, release of the 10,000-plus Palestinian political prisoners (including children) locked up in Israel, a return to the sanctity of the Al Aqsa Mosque – as Ritter claims and despite or even because of the enormous ‘sacrifice’ made by the ordinary men, women and children of Gaza?
Did all of those Palestinians – including children – who weren’t consulted about the raid and have been (or will be) killed during Israel’s genocidal response knowingly and willingly sacrifice their lives? Or were they hapless victims of the violent ideology of their leaders who do not value ‘ordinary’ lives?
Despite the truism that Ritter identifies – ‘you can’t solve a problem unless you first properly define it…. any solution which has nothing to do with the problem involved is, literally, no solution at all’ – with which I agree, Ritter has a very limited, essentially military, interpretation of the conflict and what will be necessary to resolve it. That is, he suggests, the conflict is between the Israeli government and Hamas, it is military in nature and it will be won (or lost) according to political shifts the military resistance offered by Hamas generates in other parts of the world (including the Arab/Islamic worlds and the United States).
But as will be obvious from my explanation below, Ritter does not understand this conflict, particularly the global forces driving it and their reasons for doing so and that, from the perspective of ‘ordinary’ people, the ‘gains’ from the raid he nominates (and the genocide following) are worth nothing, and that the deaths of both ordinary Israelis and Palestinians as a result is a terrible price to pay.
For brief attempts to offer some insight into this overall conflict and ways forward, these articles by Professor Johan Galtung (written more than a decade ago) are worth considering:
‘Palestine/Israel: What Peace Would Look Like’ and
‘Israel’s Sociocide, Genocide, Ecocide in Gaza’.
In any case, whatever the origin of the military raid by Hamas (and its ongoing engagement with Israeli forces in Gaza), the evidence of the killing of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians is well documented.
This includes evidence that, in accordance with the Israeli military’s ‘Hannibal Directive’ – crudely, ‘better dead than abducted’ – the Israeli military was responsible for a significant number of the military and civilian deaths of its own citizens during the attack by Hamas.
It includes evidence that the Hamas incursion known as ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ and the ongoing Israeli response has led to hostilities that have so far killed well over a thousand ordinary Israeli citizens and soldiers (and zero governing Israelis) as well as more than 10,000 ordinary Palestinian men, women and children, and some ‘soldiers’ (but zero leading Palestinians).
‘Israel-Palestine: Names released of 7,028 Palestinians killed after Biden questions death toll’ and
‘More than 10,000 Palestinians killed since 7 October, say health officials’.
It includes evidence that Israel intends to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Gaza, possibly by forcing the Palestinian population out of Gaza and into the Sinai desert in Egypt.
See ‘Israeli Intelligence Ministry Policy Paper on Gaza’s Civilian Population, October 2023’ and
‘Expel all Palestinians from Gaza, recommends Israeli gov’t ministry’.
In his thoughtful analysis of the situation, former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine Professor Richard Falk offers a similar conclusion:
My analysis leads me to conclude that this ongoing war is not primarily about security in Gaza or security threats posed by Hamas, but rather about something much more sinister and absurdly cynical.
Israel has seized this opportunity to fulfill Zionist territorial ambitions amid “the fog of war” by inducing one last surge of Palestinian catastrophic dispossession. Whether it is called “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” is of secondary importance, although it already qualifies as one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of the 21st century. See ‘Israel-Palestine war: Israel’s endgame is much more sinister than restoring “security”’.
While Hasan Illaik argues that the plan to ‘displace millions of Palestinians’ is ‘nigh impossible to achieve’ and notes that the plan has been rejected by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi – see ‘The US is fueling, not avoiding, a regional war’ – even its substantial or just partial fulfillment would open new possibilities for Israel and the United States.
Nevertheless, despite the evidence presented above and the considered opinion of the experts cited, Scott Ritter argues that Israel will find it extraordinarily difficult to defeat Hamas. Ritter offers historical evidence of battles taking place in confined spaces where damage has been inflicted by prior bombing that impedes subsequent ground operations because of the vast quantities of rubble. He also cites other battles where large tunnel networks were extremely difficult to neutralize. In Ritter’s view, Hamas has both of these battlefield advantages in Gaza, including over 500 kilometres of tunnels.
See ‘Israel Faces “Near Impossible Task” in Gaza’.
Unfortunately, however, there is some evidence that Israel is planning to flood Hamas tunnels with nerve gas – see ‘Israel-Palestine war: Israel plans to flood Hamas tunnels with nerve gas, source says’ – but, whether or not it does so, a ground invasion is not the only way to ‘clear’ Gaza of its ‘surface’ population with another weapon already being used by Israel against Gaza.
Image: Featured image: US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin (L) and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant meet in Brussels on June 15, 2023. (Photo Credit Elad Malcha/Defense Ministry)
As in earlier manifestations of war and genocide, military forces have sometimes laid siege to a trapped population to starve it to death. And this is now happening in Gaza. According to Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: ‘We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed. We are fighting against human animals, and we are acting accordingly.’
See ‘Israeli Defense Minister Announces Siege On Gaza To Fight “Human Animals”’.
Employing this tactic in Gaza will compound the death toll dramatically as time goes by with water treatment plants and medical facilities, such as hospitals, already destroyed by a sophisticated combination of weapons.
See ‘They let humanitarian aid in. Then they bombed it so that Gaza would starve’ and ‘“Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” Day 20: Human rights group warns Israel is “using starvation as a weapon of war” in Gaza’.
You can see photos of the devastation in Gaza and its genocidal impact on the Palestinian people in the compilation presented by Antonio C. S. Rosa here: ‘Genocide in Pictures: Worth a Trillion Words’.
In any case, if we step back from the immediacy of this conflict and consider the Elite perspective on what is taking place, plenty of people are being killed and other Elite objectives are being achieved by what is happening.
Beyond what happens in Gaza, however, the conflict includes evidence that this war could be expanded beyond Israeli and Palestinian borders into the wider region so that the killing can be compounded and a wider set of Elite objectives fulfilled.
This could occur by engaging Hezbollah in Lebanon – although prior speculation regarding the role of Hezbollah in supporting the Palestinians was toned down following Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s carefully-crafted speech on 3 November, which was notably moderate: see ‘Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah speech on Israel-Hamas war: Key takeaways’ – resistance groups in Syria and by attacking Iran.
While previously considered ‘unlikely’ by the prominent analyst Professor Michel Chossudovsky, he now believes ‘The war on Iran Is No Longer On Hold’.
and
In fact, as Chossudovsky points out in his most recent video interview, Israel has a vast military (including nuclear) capability compared to the poorly-armed Palestinians and is reinforced by both extensive military aid from the United States as well as a major US military presence (including two aircraft carrier battle groups, a substantial fleet of fighter aircraft and special forces troops) that has been deployed to the Middle East to engage in a wider war in pursuit of long-standing US political objectives to subjugate Iran and reshape the Middle East.
Professor Michael Hudson agrees. In an interview, Hudson indicated that ‘the United States has always viewed Israel as just our foreign military base, not Israel…. [our] landed aircraft carrier… takeoff point’ for the US to control the Middle East with its vast oil and gas reserves. But in elaborating his explanation, Hudson goes on to highlight that the US supports Netanyahu (rather than Israel itself), ‘an unpleasant, opportunist, and corrupt person’ to distract attention from the US role in supplying the military weapons to kill people in Gaza and the West Bank which is essentially designed to provoke a response from Hezbollah in Lebanon. Why? By using the corporate media to keep talking about Hamas and Hezbollah as puppets of Iran, the intention is to use any military response from Hezbollah to ‘justify’ a ‘move not only against Lebanon, but all the way via Syria, Iraq, to Iran’ with the aim of controlling Middle Eastern oil. This would make it possible ‘to cut off oil and gas and to sanction any country that tries to go multipolar, any country that tries to resist US unipolar control.’ In essence, Hudson summarizes, ‘Basically, there’s a fight for who is going to control the world right now’.
Watch ‘Why Does the US Support Israel?’
Many analysts have discussed the possibility of a wider war with Hasan Illaik arguing that ‘Both in practice, and publicly, the US government and military are running this Israeli war’ with the intention of fueling a wider one. See ‘The US is fueling, not avoiding, a regional war’. Huseyin Vodinali considers the possible role of countries like Yemen and Turkey as the war expands and argues that ‘China and Russia support Palestine and declare that they will stand by Syria and Iran.’
See ‘“A Big Event is Coming, its Name is a Regional War”? The Danger Waiting for Turkiye’.
In contrast, however, Scott Ritter cogently argues that the US and Israel combined do not have the logistical capacity to successfully fight and defeat Iran. See ‘US Not Ready for War With Iran’.
Military and geopolitical analyst Andrei Martyanov agrees. In a wide-ranging interview in which he referred to the two US aircraft carriers now in the region as ‘sitting ducks’, he offered an outline of Iran’s sophisticated air-defense systems and its ballistic missile capabilities (which could easily knock out all US bases in the Middle East, the carrier battle groups now in the region and leave ‘Tel Aviv and Jerusalem… burning’) as just two of the problems confronting the US and Israel in any consideration of an attack on Iran.
Beyond these problems and among others, he mentioned that the mythology attached to the Israeli military was largely propaganda from 1967 and 1973 and did not apply now. He described the Israeli army as a ‘very well equipped police force’ and also briefly discussed the debilitating decline in US military production and noted that ‘the decline and degradation of the American political class is astonishing’. Watch ‘The US and Israel cannot defeat Iran’.
And what about nuclear weapons, which neither Ritter nor Martyanov considered in the cited sources? While the US and Russia might be reluctant to use nuclear weapons, Col. Douglas Macgregor (ret.) argues that Israel cannot be relied upon in the same way.
Watch ‘Israel A “Nuclear Wildcard” On “Dangerous Road To Armageddon”’.
Former CIA agent, Philip Giraldi agrees. See ‘The Gaza Genocide Continues: Israel is an unrestrained monster that endangers all of us’.
In contrast, and despite the use of a nuclear weapon on Gaza being advocated by Israeli government Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, Timothy Alexander Guzman argues that ‘There is no doubt that Russia and other world powers including China would not allow Israel to hit Iran with a nuclear bomb. If Israel decided to use a nuclear weapon anywhere in the Middle East, it would unite all Muslims against Israel’ and that is something for which Tel Aviv and Washington are not prepared.
See ‘“Drop a Nuclear Bomb on Gaza”: Israeli Minister Says Using Nukes on Gaza an Option’.
In essence, while there are sound political and military reasons for both Israel and the US to avoid the use of nuclear weapons, given the insanity of some key figures in this conflict, it is difficult to assert anything with certainty in this regard.
Moreover, irrespective of the many factors that might be considered in relation to the ‘wider war’ issue, it should be noted that there are plenty of ‘minor’ military clashes already taking place throughout the Middle East. As reported by the highly reputable ‘South Front’, and confirmed by the Telegram channel ‘War Monitor’, ongoing military engagements are being reported taking place involving Hezbollah (for example, targeting Israeli army positions on the Lebanese-Palestinian border), Syria (for example, using air defences to confront Israeli targets in the vicinity of Damascus), Yemen (for example, with the Houthis reporting the targeting of sensitive sites in Israel’s Eliat area on the Gulf of Aquaba) and the US Pentagon (reporting engagement by pro-Iranian groups in both Syria and Iraq).
These reports are also confirmed in the article by Professor Adham Saouli who suggests that, like the US, ‘Hezbollah is using the time to set the stage for a regional war should that become necessary.’
See ‘Hezbollah and the 2023 Israeli War on Gaza’.
Before proceeding however, there is one more critical issue to consider, nothwithstanding what has been written above.
What is the prospect of the US orchestrating a false flag attack – perhaps on a US vessel in one of its two carrrier strike groups in the region – to ‘justify’ an attack on Iran?
With the USS Gerald R. Ford and escort vessels stationed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and escorts currently operating in the Gulf of Oman off the Arabian Peninsula – see ‘Aircraft Carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Now in Gulf of Oman’ – such an attack could ignite a regional war (and easily expand beyond the Middle East).
How might this be done?
Most simply by directing Israel to launch a missile (from land, sea or air) at the designated target and then deluging the corporate media with the claim that it was Iran that launched the missile.
Under cover of the initial confusion, it would be simple enough to initiate military action against Iran (and, possibly, certain allies) by Israeli and US forces to ‘respond’ to this attack and any debate about the source of the attack would be relegated to the backburner while the war quickly inflamed and national populations were manipulated to ‘rally around the flag’.
You might ask, of course, why would this be done? Why start a war where there is none?
The answer is the same as it has been throughout history. If you like, you can read brief accounts of 42 false flag attacks in the past century.
See ‘42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks’.
Wars enable Elites to consolidate and expand their power, and make vast profits. Every weapon fired represents profit; every weapon, building and other asset destroyed represents profit (for example, in subsequent rebuilding); every country subjugated represents profit in the form of control of its resources (strategic minerals, fossil fuels, fresh water, cultural heritage…); every person killed represents progress in the Elite depopulation program; and every war presents opportunities for tightening Elite control (particularly while submissively frightened populations tolerate government actions supposedly to enhance ‘national security’ but really to enslave us in one of the Elite’s increasingly technocratic prisons cities).
Have you ever wondered why governments are never really interested in avoiding or even winning wars (despite rhetoric to the contrary)?
The Elite most effectively consolidates its power and maximizes its profit by ensuring perpetual war. And it simply ensures that its agents in government make this happen.
In this scheme of things, you are the victim in every sense of the word: You vote in elections believing you are living in a ‘democracy’, you pay the taxes to buy the weapons, you join the military to fight (believing you are defending ‘your country’), you are the soldier or civilian who is killed (not a member of the Elite profiting from your killing/dying), and you do the suffering when someone you love dies.
War is one of the Elite’s most profitable enterprises and control of everything from the human ‘socialization’ (that is, terrorization) process and ‘education’ systems to the messaging of the corporate media and ‘entertainment’ industry means that you learn that violence is not only ‘necessary’ but really the ‘only’ effective way to deal with international conflict.
You are always the victim.
Separately from the nuclear threat and whether or not there is a false flag attack to precipitate a wider war, there is some expert opinion that the war could expand into World War III, although Guzman draws attention to another US problem: It’s ‘$33 trillion… debt with a US dollar reserve currency that is not so popular as before’.
In any case, the conflict is attracting meaningful attention from well beyond the region with statements, for example, from key Russian leaders including President Vladimir Putin expressing solidarity with the people of Palestine.
See ‘Vladimir Putin held a meeting with members of the Security Council and Government, and the heads of security agencies’ and ‘Russia’s public pivot to Palestine’.
So far, however, Putin has shown himself to be adept at avoiding direct military confrontation with the USA over the war in Ukraine and, from a nation-state perspective, the latter clearly lacks the capacity to engage Russia directly for the reasons Martyanov gave in relation to the USA and Iran.
But to elaborate my point above: There are plenty of powerful vested interests with a stake in this conflict and a lot of insane individuals involved too which means that there are enormous pressures pushing for a wider regional war. However, if the war expands beyond Israel and Palestine, there is no guarantee it will remain contained within the region either.
And, as explained just above, it doesn’t matter what countries are involved or how many are killed. The Elite will carefully consider its options with the inclination to expand its power and increase its profits at every opportunity.
Before departing this immensely complex subject, about which a great deal has been written, there is another dimension to this conflict that is invariably ignored. And that dimension concerns the role of the Rothschild family.
Why highlight the Rothschild family? Consider the following.
As noted by Richard S. Dunn in his historical overview of events leading to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine – see ‘Israel Should Know: “What Thou Sowest, Thou Shall Also Reap”’ – the letter advising the Jews of the British government intention was sent to Lionel Rothschild.
According to the official Rothschild Archive:
On November 2, 1917, the British Government expressed its sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations and announced that it would use its “best endeavours” to facilitate “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. The announcement came in a letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lionel Walter, 2nd Lord Rothschild (1868-1937), the unofficial leader of the British Jewish community. The Balfour agreement became the diplomatic foundation stone of the state of Israel….
The Balfour Declaration used deliberately vague language. The term “national home” was chosen in order to minimize the Zionist dream, to make Palestine a Jewish state. The Arabs, whose “civil and religious” (not national and political) rights were not to be prejudiced as the declaration put it, were referred to only as “existing non-Jewish communities”. You can read the letter and the Rothschild commentary on it here: ‘Walter Rothschild and the Balfour Declaration’.
The Rothschild commentary on this development includes these words: ‘Beginning in 1916, the British hoped that in exchange for their support of Zionism, “the Jews” would help to finance the growing expenses of the First World War, which was becoming increasingly burdensome. More importantly, policy-makers in the Foreign Office believed that Jews could be prevailed upon to persuade the United States to join the War.’
Since the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 (at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians), in which they played such a critical role, the Rothschilds have continued to exercise their enormous political and economic clout to both build the state of Israel and ‘defend’ Israel, including by mobilizing the military and financial support for it from the United States. While some of this support is publicly known (such as that of James de Rothschild in financing the building of the Knesset in Israel), as with the bulk of Rothschild affairs (including in the US), most of this support is concealed behind a myriad of Rothschild-controlled corporations, front groups and ‘third parties’, many with significant public profiles.
And this explains why supposedly scholarly books such as Jews in American Politics do not reference the Rothschilds even once while Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the authors, readily acknowledges that ‘the greatest triumph of American Jewish organizations during the postwar period [was] recognition of the state of Israel. Despite the opposition of large segments of the British government and the U.S. State and Defense departments, American Jewish groups succeeded in securing President Truman’s support for the creation of a Jewish state to house Jewish refugees from Europe. Over the ensuing decades, American Jews successfully urged the U.S. government to provide Israel with billions of dollars in American military and economic assistance. In recent years, Jewish groups have fought not only for aid for Israel but for American humanitarian intervention in other regions of the world as well.’
While not discounting the roles of other prominent individuals and families, it is nevertheless the case that the long-standing Rothschild practice of obscuring their role has ensured that much of what it does is concealed. This is why, for example, few people know that the Rothschilds control the US Federal Reserve and own substantial holdings (again, often through tightly-controlled ‘third parties’) in the global (including US) weapons industry. So while Molly Gott and Derek Seidman offer a fine report on ‘Corporate Enablers of Israel’s War on Gaza’ and even name some prominent individual donors to pro-Israeli lobby groups, rarely do studies of this nature expose the human individuals who ultimately own the weapons corporations.
And yet, as official Rothschild biographer Oxford scholar Niall Ferguson candidly noted ‘If late-nineteenth-century imperialism had its “military-industrial complex” the Rothschilds were unquestionably part of it.’
See The House of Rothschild: Volume 2: The World’s Banker: 1849-1998: Volume 2: The World’s Banker: 1849-1999 p. 579.
But now with a significantly expanded range of ways of obscuring the family investments, such as through the private but major asset management corporation Vanguard, the Rothschilds will benefit handsomely from President Biden’s recent announcement of a ‘giant’ weapons package to Israel – see ‘Biden asks Congress for Israel, Ukraine aid in giant defense package’ – with most of the money going to US weapons corporations in which the Rothschilds have substantial investments. Profiting from war (and military conflict generally) is the second oldest trick (after profiting from money) in the Rothschild money-making machine.
See Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’
And there is a third old trick too: ownership of massive resource corporations, starting with oil and gas.
Thus, yet another part of the long-standing plan behind the current genocide is undoubtedly to enable Israeli seizure of the gigantic Leviathan maritime natural gas reserves in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Gaza. See ‘“Wiping Gaza Off The Map”: Big Money Agenda. Confiscating Palestine’s Maritime Natural Gas Reserves’.
While Felicity Arbuthnot, in the 2013 article just cited, nominated the interest of the BG Group in Gaza’s gas and oil reserves, in early 2016, the BG Group became part of Shell Global.
See ‘Combining Shell and BG: a simpler and more profitable company’.
Of course, Shell has been a Rothschild corporation since the very early 20th century. According to the Rothschild Archive: ‘As it turned out, Rothschilds had a decisive influence in shaping Royal Dutch Shell, more so than anyone had previously imagined.’ See ‘Searching for oil in Roubaix’. But Shell does not represent the only Rothschild investment in energy supplies.
Another motivation for Rothschild involvement concerns a long-standing interest of the family’s. Following a brief discussion with British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli on 14 November 1875, Lionel Rothschild agreed to finance the British Government’s purchase of 177,000 shares in ‘one of the world’s great commercial and strategic assets’, the Suez Canal Company, from Egypt’s debt-ridden Khedive for £4,000,000 at 3% interest. See The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait pp. 150-152. This gave the British government a majority holding in the waterway that enabled commercial and military shipping to bypass the Cape of Good Hope in traveling from Europe to Asia and Oceania.
In 1882 the UK invaded and occupied Egypt, taking control of the country as well as the Suez canal which then became a geopolitical weapon during subsequent wars. It also later became critical for the transport of oil from the Middle East to Europe (and elsewhere).
During and following World War II, Britain maintained a vast military complex at Suez with a garrison of some 80,000 soldiers.
But following a military coup that removed the Egyptian monarchy in 1952 and in the context of a geopolitical world in considerable turmoil on various levels (including the decolonization process, the Cold War, and the Arab-Israeli conflict), ownership of the Suez Canal became increasingly contentious. Thus, on 26 July 1956, the Suez Canal Company was nationalized by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. This led to the Suez Crisis in October when Israel and, subsequently, the UK and France invaded Egypt and Gaza in an attempt to remove President Nasser and restore western control. Pressure from the United States and the UN led to withdrawal of the invaders.
Today, the Suez Canal earns Egypt $US9.4billion each year. See ‘Suez Canal records historic high as revenues reach $9.4B’.
But what if there was a second canal through Israel?
In fact, in 1963 there was a plan to investigate the creation of another canal, this one known to Israelis as the Ben Gurion Canal. The plan was to use 520 nuclear weapons to blast a new canal from the Gulf of Aquaba to the Mediterranean Sea, exiting adjacent to Gaza.
See ‘Use of Nuclear Explosives for Excavation of Sea-Level Canal Across the Negev Desert’,
‘Israel Destroys Gaza to Control World’s Most Important Shipping Lane’ and
‘An alternative to the Suez Canal is central to Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians’.
The plan was eventually shelved, presumably at least in part because the fallout from the nuclear explosions would have made the environmental cost of the project prohibitive. But what if such a plan was now feasible and the shortest route went through Gaza?
Is there a more ‘acceptable’ (that is, non-nuclear) weapon that could be deployed to create the canal now?
The obvious domain to look for possible answers is the expanding range of geoengineering weapons.
Why?
After many years spent researching geoengineering weapons, in a 1996 article, Dr. Rosalie Bertell summarized 50 years of destructive programs targeting control of the upper atmosphere. She concluded the article with the following words: ‘The ability of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large amounts of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, is frightening.’ See ‘Background on the HAARP Project’ but you can read much more in Dr. Bertell’s book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War.
So if one considers the range of geoengineering weapons that might be used in this context, one possibility would be to use HAARP: the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. HAARP is currently ‘the most important facility used to generate extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation in the ionosphere. In order to produce this ELF radiation the HAARP transmitter radiates a strong beam of highfrequency (HF) waves modulated at ELF…. high-power ELF radiation generated by HF ionospheric heaters, such as the current HAARP heater, can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and strong localized heating.’ See ‘High-power ELF radiation generated by modulated HF heating of the ionosphere can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and localized heating’.
If this weapon could be used, it would need to be calibrated to perform the massive task of excavating the canal (or at least pulverizing the materials that need to be excavated into a readily removable form).
Another possibility would be what are called ‘Rods from God’ (Kinetic Orbital Bombardment).
See ‘Aerospace Historical Engineering Analysis: Project Thor – When the U.S. tried to turn Telephone Poles into Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and ‘“Rods from God” not that destructive, Chinese study finds’.
These weapons were used to create the earthquake in Turkey in February 2023.
See ‘Serdar Hussein Yildirim statement re Turkish earthquake’ with an English transcript of Serdar Hussein’s statement here.
So, as in the case in relation to the HAARP ELF radiation option, if this weapon was to be used to construct another canal, it would need to be calibrated to be less destructive than those used in Turkey.
But whatever technological challenges might remain in choosing the geoengineering weapon(s) and deploying it/them effectively, the financial rewards of having a second canal would be vast. And given existing Rothschild financial interests in infrastructure – ‘Over the last 200 years the Rothschilds have systematically gained control of much of the infrastructure of the modern industrial world.’
See Enemies of the People: The Rothschilds and their corrupt global empire p. 23. – and geoengineering – see ‘The Rothschilds and the Geoengineering Empire’ – it is reasonable to postulate their interest in financing such a project and profiting from it indefinitely into the future.
Beyond its profound control of money, weapons, energy and infrastructure (not to mention other sectors), the Rothschilds own a substantial proportion of the corporate media, again both directly and through agents. For example, by the late C19th their Paribas Bank ‘controlled the all-powerful news agency Havas, which in turn owned the most important advertising agency in France.’
See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War p. 214.
But Rothschild interests in the corporate media extend far beyond France. If you would like to read more about the extensive Rothschild ownership and control of the media, Paul Cudenec offers more examples in his thoughtful and wide-ranging overview of the family’s extraordinary violence and exploitation in Enemies of the People: The Rothschilds and their corrupt global empire.
Their extensive media ownership means that the Rothschilds have significant control of the primary narrative presented in worldwide ‘news’ outlets, including in relation to Israel: the ‘victim’ Israel must always ‘defend’ itself. So that even when some accurate and graphic media get through some corporate social media channels (Facebook, X, Youtube…) or some events not sponsored by the Elite, such as the current wave of pro-Palestinian demonstrations around the world, are reported in the corporate media – see ‘Around the world, people take to the streets for Palestine’ and ‘More Demonstrations for Palestine’ – it doesn’t mean anything. Even footage of demonstrations that are protesting the genocide in Gaza can be blandly presented as demonstrations ‘calling for a ceasefire’ or something equally effective at distracting people from the truth. And even if they do not, demonstrations are routinely ignored. History records the futility of such protest demonstrations even when they garner some attention for a secondary narrative.
The reason for this is simple. Demonstrations as well as any number of randomly advocated ‘actions’ – such as those nominated in lists such as these: ‘What You Can Do’, ‘Defund Israeli Genocide & Colonialism – 8 Tips for Getting Involved’ and ‘Calendar of Resistance for Palestine! Events and actions around the world’ – mean nothing in a strategic sense. Why?
Because for any particular tactic (action) to have strategic value, it must be derived from a strategy that has been designed to alter the power relationship between the actual perpetrator and their victim. If there is no comprehensive strategy to guide tactical choice, or if the tactic is chosen to achieve a political objective rather than a strategic goal – see ‘The Political Objective and Strategic Goal of Nonviolent Actions’ – it is not possible for the tactic to achieve a strategic gain (although it might allow those doing the action to let off a little emotional steam and feel good about themselves).
Unfortunately, demonstrations and many other ‘actions’ are routinely endorsed by those who have never considered the importance of using strategic guidance to determine tactical choice (and ensuring this does not happen is also an excellent way of subverting the resistance).
See ‘The Elite Coup to Kill or Enslave Us: Why Can’t Governments, Legal Actions and Protests Stop Them?’
But to return to the theme above, if you believe that the Rothschilds do not leverage their ownership and control of such vast assets (in money, weapons, energy, infrastructure and media to name just a few key sectors) to achieve outcomes in the perceived interest of the family, including by manipulation of political leaders, you can read relevant Rothschild history – and even the official biography written by Niall Ferguson cited above – which documents a rather endless list of ‘gifts’ (that is, bribes) to a range of monarchs, including the British Crown, and political leaders.
Moreover, while many people are a little squeamish in response to the profoundly distasteful images of Palestinian children mangled by Israeli-fired weapons, the Rothschilds had turned their backs on such suffering more than 200 years ago. You cannot profit by financing both sides of wars for more than 200 years and have any sense of human compassion. From the Rothschild perspective and compared to other mass slaughters from which they have profited enormously, such as World Wars I and II, the genocide in Gaza is inconsequential.
Hence, if we are to understand the current Israeli genocidal campaign against the Palestinians in Gaza, it is necessary to understand the foundations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the background role that the Rothschilds continue to play. Using a longstanding network of allies and agents, which includes corrupt (that is, ‘bought’) politicians in Israel and the United States as well as such networks as the ‘The Israel Lobby’ in the USA, it is not difficult to shape the words that come out of the mouths of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Biden as well as the military actions that follow.
Which is why it also matters nought that Netanyahu and Biden are registering their highest unpopularity ratings with their respective electorates at the moment.
See ‘Shock at Attack, Fury at Failure: How Netanyahu’s Approval Ratings Have Hit Rock Bottom in Israel’ and ‘How un/popular is Joe Biden?’
They do not answer to their electorates and Netanyahu and Biden are well aware of that. As long as they serve their masters faithfully, their roles are secure (however they unfold), even despite their extensively-documented corruption as well.
See ‘Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption scandals, explained’ and ‘Joe Biden – Corrupt’.
Of course, Rothschild allies and agents ensure that these two individuals are surrounded and supported by a wide coterie of equally corrupt and politically unaccountable agents ranging from a wide spectrum of other national political leaders, to members of the US Congress and Israeli Knesset.
These allies and agents also ensure that those who are openly critical of Israeli apartheid and genocide are subjected to sufficient backlash so that many, and more of those who witness the treatment, are cowed into silence. As Sam Adler-Bell points out: ‘For decades, it has been the explicit mission of pro-Israel groups to disallow certain kinds of speech, conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.’ But this is just the start of a wide range of censure options used against those who support the liberation of Palestine.
See ‘War of the Statements: The unusual way Americans have processed the Israel-Hamas War’,
‘The Free Speech Exception: Support for Palestinian rights is facing a McCarthyite backlash’ and
‘Lawless in Gaza: Why Britain and the West back Israel’s crimes’.
It also explains why statements by powerless actors ranging from the UN Secretary-General – see ‘UN chief says “clear violations of international humanitarian law” in Gaza’ and ‘Secretary-General’s statement – on the situation in Gaza’ – and some UN agency heads – see ‘“Enough is enough. This must stop now,” UN agency chiefs say in joint statement urging Gaza ceasefire’ as well as some US diplomats – see ‘U.S. diplomats slam Israel policy in leaked memo’ – are a waste of time although they achieve their purpose by deceiving some people into believing that ‘key’ people are concerned and something might happen. It won’t.
In fact, issuing statements is an industry in itself and highlights the powerlessness of a staggering array of actors, some of whom might be more meaningfully engaged in the struggle to liberate Palestine were they given strategically impactful actions to take. See ‘War of the Statements: The unusual way Americans have processed the Israel-Hamas War’.
But to return to the main point, as Emanuel Pastreich characterizes this connection, ‘The billionaires made Israel and the United States their toys, using the armies, the economies, and the technologies of these two countries to advance their plans for world domination.’ See ‘The Forbidden Truth: Israel and the U.S. Are “Toys of the Billionaires”. “A War with Iran Is Just Around the Corner”.’
Consequently, and despite possible initiatives by third parties, a critical variable that cannot be ignored is that containing the insane Global Elite that is driving these wars and genocides as well as the overall descent into technocracy is extraordinarily difficult. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.
And it means that their wars, genocides and the ongoing imposition of their technocracy won’t be stopped by statements, petitions, lobbying politicians, protests or legal challenges although Elite-controlled media will talk about these as part of their strategy to ensure our dissent is absorbed and dissipated.
Thus, as is happening behind the scenes of mass slaughter of ordinary (mainly Ukrainian but also Russian) soldiers in Ukraine, where the creation of all of the infrastructure necessary to impose the Global Elite’s technocracy on both populations proceeds apace with Presidents Putin and Zelensky fully complicit – again, see ‘The War in Ukraine: Understanding and Resisting the Global Elite’s Deeper Agenda’ – there is little doubt that the heavily technocratized Israel at the behest of the United States and (intentional or otherwise) complicity of Hamas, is simply killing Palestinians in Gaza (and the West Bank) while displacing as many as possible. This is being done to precipitate responses from other countries that will enable the United States to ‘justify’ pursuit of a range of geopolitical goals – inevitably involving more killing – on behalf of its Elite masters, while facilitating the more elaborate imposition of the necessary ‘smart city’ technologies on whatever population lives in Gaza when the genocide is concluded and the inevitable technocratic rebuilding commences.
My point is unpalatable but simple: The Global Elite is in the process of implementing its long-planned and complex program to kill off vast numbers of people and imprison those left alive as transhuman slaves in their technocratic cities. So while there is value in considering events from various perspectives, it is important that sight is not lost of this fundamental Elite program and the insight that this perspective offers.
Of course, the Elite’s ‘kill or enslave’ program is being implemented everywhere, not just in war zones and zones of obvious genocide. And all governments are complicit, not just the US and Israeli governments and the Palestinian leadership.
So whatever position we might take on any given war, genocide or other violent conflict, we also need to understand and resist the fundamental Elite program – see below – if we are to successfully defend ourselves and those we love, from both its genocidal programs and rapidly advancing technocracy.
In addition, as always, if we want to end war as an instrument of Elite policy, we must strategically campaign to do so.
See ‘Strategic Goals for Ending War’.
And if national populations such as the Palestinians wish to defend themselves from genocidal attacks, rather than simply lobby for the beneficial intervention of third parties, they must use an appropriate strategic response (modified from this template).
See ‘Strategic Goals for Defeating a Genocidal Assault’.
Of course, it they wish to liberate themselves from occupation, they must bypass the corrupt Palestinian leadership in both the West Bank and Gaza and mobilize ‘ordinary’ Palestinians and international solidarity activists to campaign strategically to do so, as I have been explaining since the early 1990s.
See ‘Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy’ or, for the fullest elaboration, The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach.
This means they must do far more than encourage involvement in just a few tactics as advocated by the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. Of course, these tactics could usefully form part of a comprehensive strategy.
In any case, a start on this comprehensive strategy – both to end the genocide and end the occupation – is just starting to happen with trade unionists in Palestine calling for solidarity action from fellow unionists worldwide.
See ‘Palestinian Trade Unions Call for an End to Arming Israel’. And this is getting some traction as unions start to respond. See ‘Unions Worldwide Boycott Arms Supplies to Israel’.
Needless to say, there are a great many social groups (within Palestine, in Israel and in third-party countries) – identified on the ‘Strategic Goals’ page – who can be mobilized to take action, as well as a large number of nonviolent acts of noncooperation and intervention – listed in ‘198 Tactics of Nonviolent Action’ – from which the appropriate combination of tactics can be strategically chosen as explained in ‘Strategic Considerations in the Selection and Implementation of Nonviolent Tactics’. By following this process, concerned people anywhere can take solidarity action with Palestine (not just protest) to end the genocide in the short term and the occupation in the medium term.
The reality is simple: Unless Palestinians commit to developing and implementing a comprehensive nonviolent strategy of liberation, Palestine will continue to be the victim of forces beyond its control at the cost of an enormous number of lives, whatever optimism some might feel at the outpouring of popular support being exhibited by those attending Palestinian solidarity demonstrations around the world at the moment.
Strategy is determinative; not numbers.
Beyond the defense of Palestine, if you are committed to being strategic in your resistance to the Elite’s ongoing imposition of its genocidal and technocratic programs on us all, you are welcome to participate in the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ campaign which identifies a list of 30 strategic goals for doing so.
More simply, and as a minimum, you can download the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 23 languages (Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Slovak and Turkish) with more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘One-page Flyer’.
You are also welcome to consider sharing the article ‘Policing the Elite’s Technocracy: How Do We Resist This Effectively?’ with your local police. Resistance by police will be vital to the success of our resistance efforts.
And you might also consider organizing or participating in a local strategy to halt the deployment of 5G, given its crucial role in making the Elite’s ‘smart city’ technocratic prisons function. See ‘Halting the Deployment of 5G’.
If you like, you can also watch, share and/or organize to show, a short video about the campaign here: ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ video.
Moreover, if this strategic resistance to the ‘Great Reset’ (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ Telegram or Signal groups (with advice on accessing the necessary links on the website).
The world system is a system of power. And it is extraordinarily violent.
See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.
This world system is controlled by a small group of extremely wealthy and powerful families that had established their supremacy in world affairs by the late 19th century.
See Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’
Thus, what happens now in a particular global, regional, national or even local context has been fundamentally shaped by detailed Elite plans that have been ongoingly formulated and refined, as well as progressively implemented over the past 5,000 years. And we have long ago past the point in which a local population confronts a local Elite in what might once have been a local fight.
Consequently, what happens in this world system is an outcome of power. Laws and legal systems, human rights and human needs count for nothing in this world, unless they do not impact power relationships. Whatever laws exist are breached when it is convenient for powerful actors to do so. And no-one holds those responsible for such breaches accountable. Do you really think that anyone in Israel, or the Rothschild family and its agents, will be held accountable for the genocidal atrocities inflicted on Gaza?
However, just because the Elite and its agents are extraordinarily powerful, operate beyond the rule of law and have no conception of morality, it does not mean that they cannot be stopped. But if we are to stop them in any context, we must work together both strategically and in sufficient numbers. Turning up at a demonstration or doing any one or more of a million things when it suits us will not stop them.
Thus, if we are to resolve any conflict, including those that involve military violence, several things are necessary.
Primarily, the conflict configuration must be analyzed very carefully so that it is fully understood. This includes an understanding of who, most fundamentally, is driving the conflict, why (and for what purposes and benefits) and how they are doing so. This is essential and in sharp contrast to just assuming the conflict is how it is routinely presented or even how it superficially appears.
We must then design a strategy that, if implemented, will succeed in achieving our desired outcome. And, finally, we must mobilize sufficient people to participate in implementing this strategy.
For example, in the current context, it is easy to perceive that people like Klaus Schwab, Yuval Noah Harari and Bill Gates are benefiting from the World Economic Forum push to impose a technocracy on us all, but they are just the front men, positioned to act on behalf of far more powerful global actors.
And it is easy to identify that Benjamin Netanyahu is benefiting from the violence in Palestine but this is utterly superficial. Like any politician he is the lackey of more powerful global actors who offer him trinkets (but of value to him) to do their bidding.
So we have a choice. Whether as a global population or a local one, we can continue to be the victims while we attribute blame to the puppets (political leaders and a vast range of organizations) put in place to perform on behalf of others.
Or, as I have tried to do in this article, we can do the work to understand how the world works, who really exercises power, the means they are using to exercise it, and then mobilize enough people to participate in carefully-designed nonviolent strategies to stop them.
If we do not take the latter course very soon now, those of us left alive will all be enslaved in one of the Elite’s technocratic (‘smart city’) prisons.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here. He is a regular contributor to ‘Global Research’.
Featured image is from Jewish Voice for Peace
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Robert J. Burrowes, Global Research, 2023
Como con cualquier otro asunto, los medios de intoxicación hacen todo lo posible para que con Israel y Palestina no se analice la raíz del problema. Es decir, la criminal y fascista -valga la redundancia- ocupación de Palestina por parte del sionismo supremacista. Su colosal poder económico internacional les permite el control y la influencia en incontables plataformas. Como bestias imperialistas, saben que ganar la guerra de propaganda es fundamental para justificar las atrocidades de la guerra militar y topar con menos oposición. De ahí que se hayan inventado violaciones de mujeres o decapitaciones de bebés e incluso culpen a Hamás del hospital bombardeado por el ejército sionista. Estamos asistiendo a otro blanqueo de un genocidio en el que presentadores y tertulianos sin escrúpulos llegan a decir que Israel intenta que no haya víctimas civiles. Otros lo critican tímidamente pero señalan que “tienen derecho a defenderse”. He ahí la repetida omisión intencionada de la raíz del problema que necesita ser recordada: ¡Es Palestina quien tiene derecho a defenderse por sufrir una bárbara ocupación que la desangra en todos los ámbitos! Puestos a hablar de terrorismo, qué menos que denunciar su terrorismo desinformativo.
Si partimos de la base objetiva de la ocupación que incluso reconocen organismos internacionales nada implicados en la resistencia palestina, resulta evidente que ante la ocupación militar y el cruel apartheid, la autodefensa no solo es legítima sino una necesidad. Están ocultando todo el inmenso territorio que Israel lleva décadas saqueando a sangre y fuego, basta echar un ojo a un mapa de hace 80 años. A ello hay que sumarle una larga lista de agresiones y humillaciones, torturas, encarcelamientos, bloqueo, miseria, falta de infraestructuras básicas, boicot de ayuda humanitaria, etc. Pero vaya, que aún hay quienes desde la comodidad dicen que los palestinos tienen que quedarse de brazos cruzados mientras les hacen la vida imposible. “Curiosamente” los mismos que apoyan que se arme a los fascistas ucranianos sicarios de la OTAN que provocaron la guerra masacrando el Dombass y acosando-amenazando a Rusia. La diferencia es que Ucrania tenía la posibilidad de vivir en paz en su territorio, pero su gobierno aliado de Israel eligió servir a los intereses imperialistas de los yanquis y sus socios. A Palestina llevan muchas décadas negándole la posibilidad de vivir en paz en su territorio.
Poniendo el foco en Hamás y no en la ocupación que provocó su surgimiento pretenden vender que sin su existencia reinaría la clama. Sin explicar que Hamás toma protagonismo muchos años después y que dirigentes sionistas reconocían preferir su hegemonía a la de organizaciones cercanas al comunismo como el Frente Popular para la Liberación de Palestina que años atrás tenía mucha más fuerza. Esconden que la resistencia palestina va mucho más allá de Hamás. Podemos tener -y las tenemos- numerosas discrepancias con esta organización o con alguna acción, pero eso es lógico que no sea relevante para los palestinos que llevan décadas siendo masacrados con la complicidad de potencias occidentales aunque Israel incumpla sistemáticamente el derecho internacional con impunidad. Muchos de esos milicianos de Hamás son quienes fueron niños supervivientes de los bombardeos sionistas que en 2014 asesinaron a miles de personas en Gaza. Cuando ocupan tu tierra, te empobrecen, te niegan hasta el agua, te encarcelan por defenderte incluso sin lucha armada y asesinan a tu familia, la desesperación y el instinto de supervivencia no se andan con chiquitas. Pero la hipocresía condena más la reacción que las causas. Es indiscutible que hay unos opresores invasores y unos oprimidos invadidos, y más allá de todo matiz, o se está con unos o se está con otros. O se denuncia alto y claro el genocidio o se ayuda a los genocidas. Sadam Husein y sus acólitos tampoco eran un modelo ideológico y no por ello blanqueamos la invasión de Iraq por parte de quienes hoy arman a Israel.
El amplio territorio ocupado por los sionistas está poblado por colonos que además tienen formación militar para garantizar la ocupación. No son los “civiles sin culpa alguna” que apuntan los medios. Quienes no dan voz a los judíos que en Israel u otras partes del mundo se oponen tajantemente a la limpieza étnica. Que ahora quieren agravar con el desplazamiento forzoso de más de un millón de palestinos. ¿Cabe muestra más explícita? Revelan que si odio destructor es hacia todo el pueblo palestino. Algo que tampoco ocultan las declaraciones del gobierno abiertamente fascista de Netanyahu. Pero los llamamientos a exterminar a todos los palestinos llevan décadas siendo habituales en el parlamento de Israel, que tiene de democrático lo que Estados Unidos de altruista.
Hace tiempo que Israel superó contra Palestina la barbarie que los nazis cometieron contra los judíos y que fue frenada por el ejército soviético. Esta se cebó con los judíos pobres, muchos de ellos revolucionarios. Pues está probada la colaboración de sionistas ricos con el nazismo, entre otras cosas para atacar a la URSS. Hoy, bajo el pretexto de combatir el antisemitismo y el terrorismo, se está criminalizando, censurando e incluso prohibiendo la solidaridad con Palestina en la misma UE que tolera el genocidio. Precisamente por eso silencian a los judíos que denuncian al Estado sionista de Israel, ya que con ellos no les vale esa acusación. Israel es un modelo reconocido por fascistas de numerosos lugares, basta ver el apoyo que recibe de VOX, del trumpismo, de Bolsonaro, de los líderes más reaccionarios de la Europa del este como Orbán, etc. Pero no solo la ultraderecha menos enmascarada va de su mano, el PSOE los ha armado hasta los dientes y ha contado con destacados sionistas entre sus filas. Igual que el processisme de ERC y Junts que siempre han sido cómplices y colaboradores. Los vínculos de la burguesía nacionalista catalana con el sionismo son estrechos y vienen de largo.
Cabe recordar la enorme relevancia de que Palestina ha sido y es un laboratorio de represión. Una represión que se exporta y de la que aprenden numerosos Estados, incluido el español. Los cuerpos represivos del régimen, como los Mossos, han recibido asesoramiento, entrenamiento, armas y tecnología por parte de Israel. Sin ir más lejos, una empresa sionista se encargó de la seguridad de esta cárcel. Pegasus, uno de los sistemas con el que espían los móviles de quien se opone a esta forma de Estado, es de fabricación israelí. Un claro ejemplo más de cuánto nos afecta lo que sucede a miles de km. Hoy que cunde la impotencia ante el genocidio, mucha gente se pregunta qué hacer. Porque es lógico plantearse que manifestarse y denunciarlo por redes es necesario pero insuficiente. Lenin argumentó y demostró que “la muestra de internacionalismo más efectiva es entregarse al desarrollo del movimiento revolucionario en el propio país”. Así que ayudar más a Palestina requiere organizarse y luchar contra el Estado español, la UE y la OTAN que perpetúan la criminal ocupación sionista. Avanzando hacia la conquista de una República Popular que se oponga al imperialismo y otorgue una gran importancia a la solidaridad internacionalista entre pueblos.
Extraída de http://www.presos.org.es
FUENTE: pablohaseldesdeprision.wordpress.com
La Brigada Médica Cubana en Maldivas subrayó la importancia del nuevo proyecto de ley sobre el sector de la nación caribeña que ratifica el carácter universal, gratuito y de calidad de la salud, trascendió hoy.
Sus integrantes ratificaron su apoyo a la iniciativa después de analizar y discutir el anteproyecto dirigido a fortalecer y consolidar el sistema de salud de la isla, de acuerdo con una nota enviada a Prensa Latina por el jefe de la Brigada, Daniel Posada.
Los colaboradores subrayaron entre sus principales temas que la iniciativa constituye una necesidad para los procesos, la organización del sistema en sus tres niveles de atención y las garantías que brinda a la población cubana. También, que aborda el derecho de toda persona a recibir los referidos servicios con un trato digno y equitativo, libre de abusos, coerción o violencia, basado en los principios de la bioética y la ética médica y sin discriminación.
La normativa ratifica la acertada política de salud pública de la isla con una orientación profiláctica que comprende acciones intersectoriales e integradas de promoción de salud y de prevención de enfermedades, destacaron.
Dicha estrategia incluye servicios de atención, protección y recuperación de la salud de las personas, con la participación activa y responsable del individuo, la familia, la comunidad y las estructuras del Estado y el Gobierno en el territorio nacional, subrayaron los profesionales cubanos.
El texto remarca en el principio de la salud pública cubana, de la prestación de ayuda solidaria internacional a los pueblos, gobiernos u otros organismos que la soliciten, puntualizaron.
Asimismo, coincidieron con el reconocimiento del derecho a acceder a una muerte digna para las personas con enfermedades crónicas degenerativas e irreversibles, un sufrimiento intratable, en fase agónica o que hayan sufrido lesiones que los coloquen en esa condición.
Cuba mantiene actualmente una brigada médica en Maldivas, con profesionales que cubren áreas de salud en la capital Malé y las islas que conforman el pequeño archipiélago.
FUENTE: prensa-latina.cu
Las Fuerzas Armadas de Siria, con apoyo aéreo ruso, bombardearon y destruyeron hoy decenas de sedes y depósitos de armas y municiones de los grupos radicales en el este y noroeste de esta nación levantina.
De acuerdo a lo publicado por el Ministerio de Defensa de esta nación árabe, los uniformados sirios devastaron con artillería y cohetes vehículos bélicos, cuarteles generales, almacenes y plataformas para lanzar drones, en la provincia septentrional de Idlib.
El ente castrense aclaró que los operativos se efectuaron con apoyo de la Fuerza Aeroespacial de Rusia que opera en Siria desde 2015 a solicitud del gobierno de esta nación.
Confirmó que decenas de radicales fueron eliminados, algunos de nacionalidades extranjeras, mientras se interceptaron dos drones con los que pretendían atacar a comunidades civiles.
Asimismo, cazas sirios y rusos lanzaron incursiones contra posiciones fortificadas y cuevas donde se atrincheran terroristas del grupo Estado Islámico, Daesh en árabe, inscrito en la lista del terrorismo internacional.
Los operativos tuvieron lugar en la vasta región desértica de Al-Badieh en el centro y este del país, desde donde los radicales lanzan ataques contra el ejército sirio.
Oficiales rusos y sirios de alto rango informaron recientemente que las fuerzas armadas conjuntas bombardearon y destruyeron mil 125 objetivos de los grupos terroristas en Idlib.
Explicaron que estos operativos fueron en respuesta al ataque con drones contra una ceremonia de graduación de cadetes de la Academia Militar en la provincia siria de Homs, el 5 de octubre pasado.
Mientras en Al-Badieh, se incrementan los ataques de Daesh cuyos integrantes, según denuncias de Damasco, reciben apoyo logístico, protección e información de inteligencia por parte de los militares norteamericanos en la zona de Tanef, en el este del país.
Según analistas, el Daesh recurre, desde su derrota en 2018, a la guerra de pandillas y ataca apoyado en claras instrucciones de inteligencia para desgastar a las tropas sirias y sus aliados.
Siria enfrenta una guerra impuesta desde 2011, y aunque su ejército, con el apoyo de sus aliados Rusia e Irán, liberó la mayor parte del territorio nacional de los radicales, ocurren algunos ataques que Damasco atribuye a grupos apoyados desde el exterior para seguir desestabilizando al país.
FUENTE: prensa-latina.cu
Hundreds of Britons have joined the Israel Defence Force, which is illegally occupying Palestinian land and has killed thousands of children in Gaza. Now lawyers are asking: Is their recruitment lawful?
Boris Johnson met British IDF soldiers in Jerusalem on 5 November 2023, including Sam Sank — second from left. (Photo: Boris Johnson / X)
After Hamas launched its surprise attack on Israel last month, it quickly emerged that a British man was among the 1,200 fatalities. Nathanel Young, a 20-year-old from London, was serving as a corporal in the Israel Defence Force (IDF).
His death shone a spotlight, briefly, on the fact that British citizens are willing and able to fight for Israel’s military. Boris Johnson underlined this fact when he met a group of them in Jerusalem last Sunday.
Praising their service, he shook hands with Sam Sank, originally from Harrow, who joined the IDF in 2009 as an 18-year-old. Sank told The Times that hundreds if not thousands of fellow Brits are currently serving in the IDF.
Such an arrangement would raise questions at the best of times. Even before the current conflict with Gaza, Israeli troops were illegally occupying land in Palestine and Syria. Sank personally served as a paratrooper in both places, according to a blog he wrote about his army career.
In May 2010, he admitted to guarding a religious Jewish settlement that was “beyond the ‘green line’,” referring to Israel’s border with the West Bank. The following year, he mused that “the borders are, to a degree, ambiguous” and said “the West Bank can seem like a bit of [a] madhouse but the IDF is still very coherent in its role of protecting Jewish inhabitants from any threat.”
He also lived on a settlement and worked at a military base in the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in 1967. The UK’s Conservative government reiterated to the UN in 2019 how it “did not recognise that annexation and nor do we today. Annexation of territory by force is prohibited under international law”.
Yet none of these violations seemed to bother Johnson as he met the British IDF members, focusing instead on his disgust at Hamas atrocities. The event was organised by the Lone Soldiers Center, a charity that supports thousands of immigrants in the IDF.
His visit came just days after the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) asked the UK Foreign Office for urgent clarification on whether such enlistment was lawful. They made the request “In light of the catastrophic situation currently unfolding in Gaza, with clear evidence that war crimes and crimes against humanity may already have been committed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the real risk that further mass atrocity crimes may be imminent”.
Their communications officer, Jonathan Purcell, told Declassified: “It’s remarkable that Boris Johnson doesn’t seem to notice the irony of criticising civilian deaths whilst standing shoulder to shoulder with British-Israeli IDF reservists. He rightly spoke of the tragedy of innocent Israeli civilians dying but when it comes to Palestinian civilians, his silence is deafening.”
“Johnson may no longer be an MP, but his support of potential war criminals is a reckless use of his platform”
“Johnson may no longer be an MP, but his support of potential war criminals is a reckless use of his platform and a desperate attempt at distraction,” Purcell added, alluding to the Covid inquiry.
When asked for comment by Declassified, the Foreign Office would only direct us to its travel advice for Israel, which currently cautions against all travel to large parts of the country.
The Metropolitan Police, which is responsible for investigating war crimes, simply said: “Any referrals we receive in this regard will be assessed in line with the process agreed with the Crown Prosecution Service. Nothing further to add.”
The ICJP’s concerns are likely to encounter stiff resistance within Westminster. Lord Wolfson, a Conservative peer who served as a justice minister from 2020-22, told parliament that his son “has now made his life in Israel” and was doing military service there.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman, whose husband has lived in Israel, previously told the Jewish Chronicle, “We have close family members who serve in the IDF”. It is unclear if those relatives are British citizens.
When Liz Truss was foreign secretary, she famously encouraged Britons to join Ukraine’s international legion to fight against Russia’s invasion. Although cabinet colleagues distanced themselves from her remarks, Declassified revealed that the son of Helen Grant MP – another former Tory justice minister – was among those who had deployed to the war zone.
Jewish youths from foreign countries are allowed to enlist in the IDF as “tourists” and receive residence permits under Israel’s Mahal (overseas volunteers) scheme, according to its official website. Many choose to remain in Israel after their service and acquire citizenship.
The scheme is supported by various agencies such as Garin Tzabar, which has an office in London. It advertises how immigrants who join the IDF can earn almost twice as much as their domestic counterparts, partly due to grants from Israeli government departments.
Garin Tzabar did not respond to a request for comment about how many Britons it had helped join the IDF. However there has been a steady stream of recruits from the UK. A London mum whose son serves in the IDF told the Jewish Chronicle he was joined by “something like 50 to 80 frum [religious] boys from Golders Green”.
Among the most high profile is the IDF’s international spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Richard Hecht, who emigrated from Scotland in the 1980s. He still retains a strong Scottish accent, and stunned a CNN anchor when he confirmed that Israel had bombed Jabalia refugee camp, where hundreds of Palestinian civilians have been killed. Hecht said it was the “tragedy of war.”
Other British expats to have joined the IDF include Major Keren Hajioff, who emigrated in 2009 aged 19. She served in the IDF’s spokesperson’s unit during the 2014 bombardment of Gaza and last year became a special adviser to Israel’s then prime minister Naftali Bennett.
Another British recruit, Corporal Lian Harush, alleges she was nearly stabbed by a Palestinian teenager in 2021 while guarded an illegal settlement in the West Bank. Her commander shot the boy dead.
Criticism of the scheme is not confined to the ICJP. Former Conservative Party chairwoman, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, has called for British citizens to be prosecuted if they join the IDF.
Warsi served as a Foreign Office minister before resigning over David Cameron’s stance on the 2014 Gaza war. She believes Britain is guilty of double standards by criminalising Muslims who become foreign fighters, while allowing British Jews to join the IDF.
“Belonging to Britain for Muslims is a thing we talk about a lot,” she told Middle East Eye. “We don’t talk about it in relation to other communities. We accept that other communities hold multiple identities. Let’s just shut down this loophole. If you don’t fight for Britain, you do not fight.”
“Former Conservative Party chairwoman, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, has called for British citizens to be prosecuted if they join the IDF”
People who fight for a foreign army are often viewed as mercenaries, and would meet the dictionary definition. However as Declassified has long reported, the UK has no effective anti-mercenary laws and tends to prosecute foreign fighters on an ad hoc basis, depending on whatever geo-political interests are being pursued by the government of the day.
The UK even tried to thwart attempts at the United Nations to craft a ban on mercenaries. The only international law concerning mercenaries that Britain has signed is Article 47 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention.
It was adopted in 1977 as “countries attempted to create a fine distinction between those classified as mercenaries and other actors, essentially with the aim of retaining the right to recruit, train, finance, and use mercenaries with impunity,” according to a report presented last month to the UN General Assembly by its working group on mercenaries.
The group criticised how “Article 47 as adopted by States deliberately establishes a complex and hard to meet definition of mercenary, allowing for easy circumvention by States, mercenaries, and mercenary-related actors, and does not criminalize the phenomenon.”
Article 47(e) defines a mercenary as someone who “is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict”, which excludes expat soldiers who are enrolled in formal army units, such as Gurkas or French Foreign Legion. The UN’s working group on mercenaries said that formulation “leaves it open for States to circumvent Article 47 by incorporating troops hired abroad into its own armed forces without them being classified as mercenaries”.
While Britons who join the IDF might not meet the Geneva Convention’s entire definition of a mercenary, they do meet certain aspects of the criteria. The fact that some are paid more than their Israeli counterparts appears to satisfy Article 47(c), which says mercenaries may receive “material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party”.
Der Friedensstifter