by Thierry Meyssan via VoltaireNet

We are used to seeing Israel indulge in exactions under the pretext of its security, and the Anglo-Saxons defending it at the Security Council. As a result, we witness crimes without any judicial consequences. This situation is now over. The International Court of Justice has swept aside Tel Aviv’s reasoning, and the State of Palestine has become a full member of the United Nations. It will therefore no longer be possible to turn a blind eye to the situation of the Palestinians, and they will have the capacity to prosecute their tormentors.

Pursuant to its vote on May 10, 2024, the General Assembly welcomed Palestine as a full member of the United Nations on September 10.

On September 10, 2024, Israeli settlers, who claim to be fulfilling a divine plan by settling in the West Bank (Judea-Samaria, in their words), went from being Israeli citizens living in disputed territories to illegal immigrants in the sovereign state of Palestine.

At the opening of its seventy-ninth session, the United Nations General Assembly implemented its resolution ES-10/23 of May 10 [1]. The State of Palestine has become a full member of the United Nations (UN). No one can now oppose the exercise of its rights as a sovereign state.

If Palestine is a sovereign state, this changes the interpretation of the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (known as the “Oslo II Agreement”). The Palestinian Authority is no longer a transitional administration, but a government in the full sense of the term. The Palestinian Territories are no longer “disputed areas”, but the internationally recognized territory of a sovereign state.

Since the 1967 war (known as the “Six-Day War”), the settler movement has steadily gained ground. There are now over 700,000 settlers in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

On July 19, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – the internal court of the United Nations, consulted by the UN General Assembly – defined the rules of law concerning Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [2]. This opinion has not been acted upon, as only the Security Council has the power to compel Israel to apply it.

Let’s not forget that international law, unlike criminal law, does not rely on a police force and a penitentiary system. It is simply the obligation of governments to honor the signature of their state. In this case, by joining the UN, Israel signed its charter [3]. Chapter XIV of the Charter commits each member “to abide by the decision of the International Court of Justice in any dispute to which it is a party”.

The International Court of Justice has stated the law. Its decision is binding on all UN member states, including Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom.

The Court ruled (§ 229) that these policies and practices violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. According to the Court, de facto, Israel is practicing a form of apartheid (cf. art. 3 of the said Convention). This is exactly what the UN General Assembly proclaimed on November 10, 1975: “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” (resolution 3379) [4]. This text was only repealed to facilitate the Madrid peace conference in 1991 [5]. However, as Israel has not fulfilled its commitments of the time and has intensified its policies and practices, this text should be reinstated.

The Court also observed (§ 263) that “the Oslo Accords do not authorize Israel to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory in order to satisfy its security needs and obligations. Nor do they authorize it to maintain a permanent presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the same purpose”. What was true in July is even truer now that Palestine is an internationally recognized sovereign state.

As a result, last week, after this decision and before Palestine entered the General Assembly, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) suddenly evacuated the main West Bank towns they had occupied. On the other hand, the Israeli government told the High Court of Justice on September 12 that there was no reason to increase humanitarian aid to Gaza, since Israel does not control the territory and therefore has no responsibility there..

This being the case, the Court concluded that “Israel is under an obligation to make full reparation for the damage caused by its internationally wrongful acts [occupation and apartheid] to all natural or legal persons concerned” (§ 269). This includes “Israel’s obligation to return all land and other real property, as well as all assets confiscated from any natural or legal person since the beginning of its occupation in 1967, and all cultural property and buildings taken from Palestinians and their institutions, including archives and documents. It also demands that all settlers in existing settlements be evacuated, that those parts of the wall built by Israel which are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory be dismantled, and that all Palestinians displaced during the occupation be allowed to return to their original place of residence” (§ 270).

Note that the Court does not order reparations for damage caused before 1967. This was not the question put to it. Moreover, the guns have spoken and the Palestinians have lost several military operations, the consequences of which they must also bear. The wrongs are shared, even if it is clear that both the wrongs and the damage suffered by the Palestinians are out of all proportion to those suffered by the Israelis.

The Court has ruled on the consequences of the occupation since 1967. Its decisions are not retroactive. It notes facts that have continued to worsen since 1967.

Addressing all member states of the United Nations, the Court notified them that they “are under an obligation not to recognize any change in the physical character or demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the territory occupied by Israel on June 5, 1967, including East Jerusalem, other than those agreed upon by the parties through negotiations, and to make a distinction, in their dealings with Israel, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. The Court considers that the obligation to distinguish, in exchanges with Israel, between that State’s own territory and the Occupied Palestinian Territory includes, in particular, the obligation not to maintain treaty relations with Israel in all cases where the latter purports to act on behalf of the Occupied Palestinian Territory or part thereof in matters concerning the said territory; not to maintain, with regard to the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof, economic or commercial relations with Israel which would be of such a nature as to strengthen the latter’s illicit presence in that territory; they must refrain, in the establishment and the maintenance of diplomatic missions in Israel, to recognize in any way its illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and to take measures to prevent trade or investment which helps to maintain the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (§ 278).

For Volker Turk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, if words mean anything, the ICJ decision obliges all UN member states not to recognize the Israeli occupying authority over the territory of the sovereign state of Palestine.

This is why, on September 9, Volker Turk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, opening the 57th session of the Human Rights Council, declared: “No State should accept blatant disregard for international law, including the binding decisions of the UN Security Council and the orders of the International Court of Justice, not in this situation [the Israeli occupation of Palestine], nor in any other situation”.

Each and every one of us must be aware that the rules have changed. Israel’s occupation of the State of Palestine is illegal. Since September 10, this state has been internationally recognized, even if several permanent members of the Security Council have not done so in their personal capacity. It now has legal means at its disposal that it previously lacked. The Anglo-Saxon umbrella behind which Tel Aviv sheltered no longer exists in law. We are entering a new period in which Washington and London will have to use force to maintain this system of oppression.

This legal revolution marks the victory of President Mahmoud Abbas’s (89) strategy. Paradoxically, it comes at the end of his life, at a time when his government is discredited for its collaboration with Israel and corruption.

Translation
Roger Lagassé

[1] “Admission of new Members to the United Nations”, Voltaire Network, 10 May 2024.

[2] Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, International Court of Justice, July 19, 2024.

[3] “Charter of the United Nations”, Voltaire Network, 26 June 1945.

[4] « Qualification du sionisme », ONU (Assemblée générale) , Réseau Voltaire, 10 novembre 1975.

[5] « Retrait de la qualification du sionisme », ONU (Assemblée générale) , Réseau Voltaire, 16 décembre 1991.

The so-called “Agreement of the Century” signed by Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates and sponsored by Donald Trump staged the de facto recognition of Israeli sovereignty over much of the Jewish colonies in the West Bank (including the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and virtually the entire holy city of Jerusalem with the exception of two eastern suburbs) and demands that the Palestinian community renounce completely its historical claims and the right to which it is entitled under international law in exchange for a promise of an injection of $50 billion within 10 years, This would in practice result in the loss of Israeli citizenship for 300,000 Arabs and make it impossible to have a Palestinian state.
Such a doctrine would clash with the vision of Theodor Herzl, considered the father of the present-day State of Israel and founder of Zionism in promoting the creation of the WSO (World Zionist Organization), who in his book “The Jewish State: Testing a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question”, proposed the creation of an independent and sovereign Jewish State for all the Jews in the world. In his work “The Old New Earth” (1902), he lays the foundations of the present-day Jewish state as a utopian modern, democratic and prosperous nation, in which the Jewish people were projected into the context of the search for rights for the stateless national minorities of the time, such as the Armenians and the Arabs.

Later, in 1938, the visionary Einstein warned of the dangers of an exclusionary Zionism by stating: “I would like to see a reasonable settlement with the Arabs on the basis of peaceful life in common, which I believe would be preferable to the creation of a Jewish state”.

Towards the Greater Israel

The Greater Israel (Eretz Israel), is an entity that would try to unite the antithetical concepts of the atavism of the Great Israel (Eretz Israel) and which would have as main advocate Isaac Shamir defending that “Judea and Samaria (biblical terms of the present-day West Bank) are an integral part of the land of Israel.

They have not been captured and will not be returned to anyone”, a doctrine on which the current postulates of the Netanyahu-led Likud party that aspires to make Jerusalem the “indivisible capital of the new Israel” would be based after the invasion of its eastern part following the Six-Day War (1967).

Thus, the Netanyahu government would be speeding up the deadlines to implement the endemism of Greater Israel (Eretz Israel), which would drink from the sources of Genesis 15:18, which notes that “4,000 years ago, the title to all land between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates River was bequeathed to the Hebrew patriarch Abraham and subsequently transferred to his descendants”.
This would involve the restoration of the Balfour Declaration (1,917), which drew a vast State of Israel with an area of nearly 46,000 square miles and which extended from the Mediterranean to the east of the Euphrates encompassing Syria, Lebanon, northern part of Iraq, northern part of Saudi Arabia , the coastal strip of the Red Sea and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt as well as Jordan, which would be renamed Palesjordan after being forced to host all the Palestinian population of the present West Bank and Gaza forced into a massive diaspora ( new nakba).
Germán Gorraiz López- Political Analyst

Sent from my iPad

via Moon of Alabama

by Joe Lauria via Consortium News

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.

Two years after the Pentagon shot down his ploy for a no-fly zone against Russia in Ukraine, the U.S. “top diplomat” has been at it again pushing an even more insane idea

On March 7, 2022, two weeks after Moscow entered the civil war in Ukraine, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CBS News from Moldova that the U.S. would give NATO-member Poland a “green light” to send Mig-29 fighter jets to Ukraine to enforce a no-fly zone against Russian aircraft.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer then also backed the no-fly zone. But within days the Pentagon shot down the idea as it engaged in a consequential battle with the State Department and members of Congress to prevent a direct NATO military confrontation with Russia that could unleash history’s most unimaginable horrors.

A no-fly zone “could result in significant Russian reaction that might increase the prospects of a military escalation with NATO,” according to then Pentagon spokesman John Kirby.

President Joe Biden was caught in the middle of the fray. Pressure on the White House from some members of Congress and the press corps was unrelenting to recklessly bring NATO directly into the war.

Biden ultimately sided with the Defense Department, and he couldn’t be more explicit why. He opposed a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine fighting Russian aircraft, he said, because “that’s called World War III, okay? Let’s get it straight here, guys. We will not fight the third world war in Ukraine.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin backed him up:

“President Biden’s been clear that U.S. troops won’t fight Russia in Ukraine, and if you establish a no-fly zone, certainly in order to enforce that no-fly zone, you’ll have to engage Russian aircraft. And again, that would put us at war with Russia.”

(The administration plan was, and apparently still is, to bring down the Russian government through a proxy counteroffensive and an economic and information war, not a direct military one.)

Blinken, who stepped out of line to speak above the heads of the president and the Pentagon, lost that round. It’s surprising he kept his job. But he survived and now he’s come back for more.

Relentless

Blinken’s recklessness emerged yet again last week when he peddled a story — eagerly picked up by The Guardian and The New York Times — that Biden would approve a British request to fire its Storm Shadow missiles deep into Russia.

The Guardian story on Sept. 11 said:

“The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, gave his strongest hint yet that the White House is about to lift its restrictions on Ukraine using long-range weapons supplied by the west on key military targets inside Russia, with a decision understood to have already been made in private.

Speaking in Kyiv alongside the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, Blinken said the US had ‘from day one’ been willing to adapt its policy as the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine changed. ‘We will continue to do this,’ he emphasised.”

To fire British Storm Shadows, Ukraine would have to depend on British technical soldiers on the ground in Ukraine to actually launch them and on U.S. geolocation technology. German Chancellor Olaf Shulz revealed those British soldiers are already in Ukraine.

In other words, it would be a NATO attack on Russia, dressed up as a Ukrainian one. It would mean the U.S. and Britain were at war with Moscow, something Blinken seems to want and said was going to happen.

The next day Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that launching such missiles into Russia “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”

Nevertheless, The New York Times ran a story on the same day with the headline: “Biden Poised to Approve Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Western Weapons in Russia.”

The Guardian added:

“British government sources indicated that a decision had already been made to allow Ukraine to use Storm Shadow cruise missiles on targets inside Russia, although it is not expected to be publicly announced on Friday when Starmer meets Biden in Washington DC.”

Blinken’s words evidently raised British Prime Minister Keir Starmer‘s hopes that he would satisfy his desire to strike Russia with his nation’s arsenal of long-range missiles, despite Putin saying that meant direct war with NATO.

Blinken and the British are trying to lead us to the brink.

Sanity in Arlington

Except that the Pentagon, the purveyor of the most monstrous violence in world history, has pulled the world back from it.

For at least the second time — publicly known — the Department of War secured peace from neocon recklessness fronted by Blinken.

Starmer was sent back on his chartered British Airways flight from the White House meeting licking his wounds. He’d evidently been led by Blinken to believe that it was a done deal: the U.S. would let Britain attack Russia with its long-range missiles using U.S. technology — even if the U.S. wouldn’t allow its own long-range ATACMS to be used.

The Times of London reported that Biden withholding approval “surprised British officials who had listened closely to hints from Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, that America was edging towards authorising Storm Shadow, an Anglo-French weapon which relies on American GPS guidance systems.”

Starmer’s mania to strike Russia illustrates Briain’s continuing pathological hatred of Russia, extending back centuries, compared to a perhaps more tempered though determined American geostrategic rivalry with Moscow.

Biden’s Limits With the Neocons

Biden has proven himself a supreme warmonger, his advocacy for the illegal invasion of Iraq and his complicity in the genocide in Gaza as the most outstanding examples.

Like the two presidents before him, Biden allowed necons to worm themselves into positions of power in his administration. But the extent to which Biden himself is a neocon, as opposed to a traditional warmonger, is subject to question.

As a creature of Washington of more than half a century, he seems to respect the military’s judgement about military matters and, on his good days, understands that even America has limits.

Barack Obama let Hillary Clinton, the “Queen of Warmongers,” bring Neocon Queen Victoria Nuland into his administration. Donald Trump let neocons John Bolton and Mike Pompeo into his. And Biden has Blinken (and for a time Nuland too.)

Instead of banishing these people, they are allowed to linger and drag the U.S. into evermore perilous failures: Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and Ukraine, leaving behind a mountain of squandered dollars and an ocean of blood.

As a careerist, Blinken said what he had to say to get to where he is. Obama in 2015 wisely decided against arming Ukraine after the Nuland and Biden-led 2014 coup because he did not want to antagonize Russia, for whom he said Ukraine was a vital interest, while it was not for the U.S. Obama also feared U.S. arms would fall into the hands of “thugs” — meaning neo-Nazi Azov types, whom Obama was well aware of.

Blinken at the time was Obama’s deputy secretary of state. To support the president’s position, he told a conference in Berlin:

“If you’re playing on the military terrain in Ukraine, you’re playing to Russia’s strength, because Russia is right next door. It has a huge amount of military equipment and military force right on the border. Anything we did as countries in terms of military support for Ukraine is likely to be matched and then doubled and tripled and quadrupled by Russia.”

But once he was freed of the restraints of Obama, he joined Biden’s aggressive Ukraine policy at the top of the State Department. From that position, and with a power vacuum in the White House because of Biden’s dementia, Blinken has been openly pushing the neocon agenda, laid out plainly in the 2000 report of the Project for a New American Century.

And what is that agenda? In another age, before it became a dirty word, it would have been proudly proclaimed as imperialism. It contains all of the hubris and sense of invincibility and impunity of any empire in history.

PNAC plainly promulgates that no power or alliance of powers will be allowed to rise up to stand in the way of the neocons’ mad quest to harness American power to achieve world domination. An alliance of powers such as that of China, Russia and the BRICS countries, which has only accelerated in opposition to unhinged, neoconservative adventurism.

No matter the many disasters piling up, notably Iraq, Palestine and now Ukraine, the neocons are undeterred and unrestrained. It’s about power and murder but it is made palatable to themselves with flowery language about America saving the world for democracy.

Their belief in their own supremacy, cloaked in an American flag, remains fanatic, no matter the death and destruction they cause. They do not understand that American power has limits and to test that, they risk everything.

In 2019, Blinken teamed up with arch-neoconservative Robert Kagan to write a Washington Post op-ed arguing for more aggressive use of U.S. power abroad and against U.S. domestic trends towards non-interventionism.

With Kagan’s wife Nuland out of the Biden Administration and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan crucially siding with the realists, Blinken has emerged as the undisputed leader of who George H.W. Bush called the “crazies in the basement.”

That was 30 years ago. The neocons are in the penthouse now and only the restraint of the Pentagon and Sullivan’s persuasion brought Biden back from the brink.

This time.

via Moon of Alabama

Yesterday’s terrorist attack by Israel against Hizbullah in Lebanon was quite sophisticated.

Back in February Hizbullah had urged its affiliates to avoid smart-phones, which can be controlled by foreign intelligence services, and to instead use pagers to receive text messages and alarms when necessary.

Israel must have recognized that suggestion as a chance to infiltrate the supply chain for these communication tools.

It somehow managed to manipulate pager shipments to Lebanon some of which would be acquired by Hizbullah and its affiliates. Yesterday specific encoded messages were sent to the manipulated pagers. Some moments later they started to blow up. Eleven people were killed and some 4,000 were wounded.

Not all people killed or wounded were members of Hizbullah. Pagers are also used by emergency and volunteer services. Western media avoid to call this attack a terrorist operation. But just ask yourself how they would describe the attack if this had happened to the other side of the conflict.

Pagers are not an exclusive means of Hizbullah. The attack was indiscriminate. The explosions happened in many situations of daily life – during visits in shops (vid), in driving cars in the middle of traffic, near to bystanders including children.

The pagers were sold under the brand name of Gold Apollo, a Taiwanese company specialized in such devices. But, according to the company, the devices sold in Lebanon were manufactured under license by the Hungarian company BAC Consulting KFT.

Lowkey writes:

The CEO and founder of BAC is Cristiana Arcidiacono-Barsony, who describes herself as a strategic adviser in internal affairs with international experience in the Middle East.According to her academic profile she studied at SOAS and LSE universities in London.

The above points to an MI-6 involvement in the affair.

Elijah Magnier reports (vid) that the delivery of the pagers had been held up for several months by customs in a Middle Eastern country. The time was allegedly used by Israeli services to dismantle the devices and to replace their original Lithium-Ion batteries with ones which included explosives and birdshot to create a maximum of damage. The electronics of the devices were manipulated to trigger delayed explosions after the pager received a certain coded message.

This very sophisticated operations must have cost millions and must have involved a quite large number of specialists.

It would have been ideal for Israel to trigger such a mayhem as part of a general attack on Hizbullah. It would have increased Hizbullah’s time to implement its defense plans.

To trigger the attack outside of a large scale war context is a rather limp maneuver. Most of the wounded will soon recuperate and return to their duties.

Israeli officials claim that they triggered the operation because some Hizbullah members had found out about the explosives and would soon alarm their leadership. It was thus a ‘use it or lose it’ situation.

That though does not sound plausible to me. How would Israel know that Hizbullah members found out about it? If they had so why would they not immediately inform their command of the imminent danger?

It is more plausible that the Netanyahoo government used the attack as a means to silence it critics which demand an all out attack on Hizbullah. The Israeli military and Netanyahoo know that a war with Hizbullah would be theirs to lose.

Now they can say: “See, we are already doing something very very serious …”

But that wad has been blown for little effect. It was a one time shot. They chances to repeat such an operation are close to nil.

Tomorrow Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah will publicly offer more information about the incident and its possible consequences.

The Taiwanese company Gold Apollo is now saying that the pagers ended up in Lebanon not because of their cooperation, but because of the Hungarian company BAC Consulting KFT.

BAC has a license to use the brand of the Taiwanese company Gold Apollo to manufacture the models of pagers used in the explosions in Lebanon yesterday.

via Moon of Alabama

We have seen a myriad of reports about systematic torture and murder in Israeli concentration camps, aka prisons, for Palestinians.

These reports come even from prime media which generally serve as outlets of the ruling class. There are by now so many of these reports that there is no doubt that they are real.

• Inside Israel’s torture camp for Gaza detainees – 972mag, Jan 5 2024
• Strapped down, blindfolded, held in diapers: Israeli whistleblowers detail abuse of Palestinians in shadowy detention center– CNN, May 11 2024
• Inside the Base Where Israel Has Detained Thousands of Gazans – New York Times, June 6 2024
• ‘More horrific than Abu Ghraib’: Lawyer recounts visit to Israeli detention center – 972mag, June 27 2024
• Blindfolded, bound and beaten: Palestinians tell of Israeli jail abuse – BBC, August 5 2024

However, there have been no political consequences from those reports. I have also not seen or heard any western politician or any editorials condemning Israel over these reports. To my best knowledge no western country has punished the Zionist government over such behavior.

This, even as it is obvious who the main people responsible for this are. Everyone knows and talks about them:

Musa ‘Aasi, a 58-year-old painter-decorator and father of four, said he heard guards beat 38-year-old Tha’er Abu ‘Asab to death in a neighbouring cell at Ketziot in November. One guard told 50-year-old Firas Hassan, from Bethlehem: “We are livestreaming this for Ben-Gvir.” Ben Gvir’s spokesperson said the minister was “proud” of his prison policy, and that it was in line with international law. “The conditions of the terrorists imprisoned in Israeli prisons have been tightened to the minimum required by law. In accordance with the minister’s policy, the terrorists do not receive the improved conditions they received in the past,” they said.

The Guardian fails to refute those lies from Ben Gvir’s spokesperson.

The Palestinians will continue to be tortured and killed. And all their families – in fact – every Palestinian in Gaza shall be killed:

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich implies he believes that blocking humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip is “justified and moral” even if it causes 2 million civilians to die of hunger, adding however that the international community won’t allow this to happen.“We are bringing in aid because there is no choice,” Smotrich says at a conference in Yad Binyamin hosted by the Israel Hayom outlet. “We can’t, in the current global reality, manage a war. Nobody will let us cause 2 million civilians to die of hunger even though it might be justified and moral until our hostages are returned. Humanitarian in exchange for humanitarian is morally justified, but what can we do? We live today in a certain reality, we need international legitimacy for this war.”

As no one, Smotrich claims, will let the Zionists kill 2 million civilians by hunger at once, it must be done slowly. By now some 10% of the once 2.3 million people in Gaza are likely already dead – killed by bombs or by the consequences of the war the Zionists are waging against them.

Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon, a former Chief of Staff of the IDF, who also served as Israel’s Defence Minister, is quoted by Alastair Crooke as saying this.

“When you talk about Smotrich and Ben Gvir: They have a Rabbi. His name is Dov Lior. He is the Rabbi of the Jewish Underground, who intended to blow up the Dome of the Rock – and before that the buses in Jerusalem. Why? In order to hurry up the ‘Last War’. Do you [not] hear them talking in terms of the Last War; or of Smotrich’s concept of ‘subjugation’? Read the article he published in Shiloh in 2017. First of all, this concept rests on Jewish supremacy: Mein Kampf in reverse”.

Smotrich and Ben Gvir are sitting right in the cabinet. But has any western country even blocked their travel or entry or sanctioned them?

Why is this allowed to happen?

Back in February, Tarik Cyril Amar found this explanation.

The Gaza Method
The West’s evolving blueprint for controlling a poly-crisis world by mass-murdering and subjugating the poor, the rebellious, and those deemed “superfluous.”

The non-paywalled full text is available here.

The West is in decline and it has only one method left to delay it – brute force.

All of the above means that the West is left with one option: the hardest of powers, if the dumbest, too: military force. And that is where the Gaza Genocide precedent fulfills its most important function as method-setting and method-“normalizing.” In a very concrete way, too: For since the 1990s (at the latest), Western militaries – with the US in the lead, obviously – have been thinking intensely about fighting in cities.
…
You see where this has been going, right? To Gaza. Gaza is not the first but, for now, the worst instance of a doctrinal body of pseudo-technical and rationally vicious thought coming into practice: How to subdue the cities of the Global South (and the poor in general, make no mistake, Northerners), by all and any means. And for this type of very-near/present future warfare everywhere, humanitarian law as we know it – with all its immense flaws – is still too “soft,” too restraining. The same holds, of course, for our notions of crimes against humanity, including genocide.

He concludes:

Gaza is a method. A Western method. Fascist, Zionist, apartheid, sadistic Israel is a pioneer, a trailblazer into yet more evil to be done from those above to those below. That is why those above will shield Israel. They are shielding themselves and their future deeds.

I was in doubt about this theory when I first read it. But by now I think that the elite are really planning like this. It is the only explanation that makes sense and it is also consistent and fits with their increasing endorsement of pure fascism, be it in Israel or in Ukraine.