Just International

Mass displacement and destruction in West Bank refugee camps: A deepening chapter of the ongoing Nakba

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Palestinian Territory – The Israeli Defence Minister has ordered the army to take control of three Palestinian refugee camps in the northern West Bank and block residents’ return. Euro-Med Monitor strongly condemns the move, which reveals a serious escalation of Israel’s apartheid and forced displacement practices against the Palestinian people, beginning with the 1948 Nakba.

The Israeli Defence Minister has publicly confirmed the expulsion of approximately 40,000 Palestinian refugees from the Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nur Shams refugee camps in the northern West Bank, citing the need for combat in order to dismantle “terrorist infrastructure” in these areas. What is actually occurring on the ground, however, is the mass displacement of Palestinians from their places of refuge, along with the destruction of their homes, livelihoods, and civilian infrastructure, including water, electricity, and roads. Israel clearly aims to create a new reality that will prevent their short- and long-term return.

The Israeli army’s actions amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, as they are conducting military operations in ways that flagrantly violate international law, which mandates the protection of civilians and civilian objects and prohibits their targeting or subjection to indiscriminate or excessive attacks. Such repeated and large-scale violations demonstrate Israel’s blatant disregard for its international legal obligations and pose a serious threat to the civilian population in the West Bank. Immediate international intervention is needed to ensure those responsible for these crimes are held accountable as swiftly as possible.

Moreover, the Israeli army’s deployment of tanks, its establishment of military sites within these refugee camps, and its prevention of residents’ right to return reflect a deliberate effort to impose a military fait accompli. These actions violate international law and effectively undermine the agreements under which the Palestinian National Authority was formed.

Euro-Med Monitor’s field team observed the movement of approximately three Israeli tanks late on Saturday evening. The tanks were travelling from Muqeible, near Israel’s Jalamah military checkpoint in Jenin, and positioning themselves near Jenin’s refugee camp, marking the first occurrence of its kind since 2002.

Israel’s deployment of tanks in densely populated residential areas within a purely civilian environment occurred 33 days after its army launched the large-scale “Operation Iron Wall” in Jenin and the Jenin refugee camp, which it later expanded to include Tulkarm and Tubas, leading to full Israeli control over the northern West Bank camps and the destruction of hundreds of homes. This indicates that the deployment of these heavy vehicles serves no security or military purpose, but is instead part of an Israeli attempt to establish military control over the region.

The Israeli army is systematically destroying the aforementioned areas despite there being no military necessity to do so, using bulldozers to pave new roads over the ruins of destroyed homes. Additionally, the army has been instructed to establish military sites within the camps in an apparent aim to alter the geographical reality of these areas and diminish the symbolic significance of the camps, which represent the Palestinian refugee cause following the displacement of Palestinians from their cities and villages in 1948. The presence of the Israeli army in these camps has destroyed any means of livelihood, leaving thousands of residents displaced, living either in temporary shelters or with relatives.

Euro-Med Monitor warns that Israel may attempt to impose a new fait accompli in all areas under Palestinian National Authority sovereignty, effectively breaking the agreements signed with it and nullifying its role in these areas. This could be a step towards annexing the West Bank and imposing Israeli sovereignty by force, which would be in line with the directives of right-wing Israeli ministers who have declared 2025 to be the year for sovereignty over the region.

Official Israeli statements suggest that the military assault will not be confined to the refugee camps in the northern West Bank, but will spread to other areas in both the northern and southern West Bank, putting hundreds of thousands of civilians at risk of death, injury, arrest, displacement, or loss of property.

Israel’s impunity over the past decades was made possible due to international inaction—or complicity—in the face of its crimes of aggression, apartheid, forced displacement, and land seizure over 77 years, as well as the global silence regarding the 15-month genocide in Gaza, has emboldened Israel to intensify and expand its aggression against the Palestinians and the territory it occupies. The ongoing lack of any deterrence or legal consequences increases the likelihood of more crimes being committed by Israel, which poses a serious threat not only to the rights of the Palestinian people but to the stability of the entire international system.

The recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israeli policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory affirms the illegality of Israel’s presence in these areas. The Court confirmed that Israel must end its illegal presence as soon as possible, compensate those affected for their damages, and fulfil its other obligations toward the Palestinian people. The international community must exert effective pressure on Israel to adhere to international law, cease its military operations in the northern West Bank, withdraw from illegally occupied areas, allow residents to return, and halt its decades-long policy of destruction and displacement.

Euro-Med Monitor urges the international community to guarantee the rights of the Palestinian people to live in freedom and dignity; support their right to self-determination under international law; work to end the illegal Israeli occupation and settler colonialism in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; dismantle the system of apartheid and isolation imposed on Palestinians; lift the unlawful blockade on the Gaza Strip; ensure accountability for Israeli perpetrators; and guarantee the right of Palestinian victims to redress and justice.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is a Geneva-based independent organization with regional offices across the MENA region and Europe

27 February 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Remembering the Sacrifice of US Airman Aaron Bushnell

By Alfred de Zayas

One year ago, on 25 February 2024 the 25-year old US Airman Aaron Bushnell self-immolated in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. to protest against the Israeli genocide of tens of thousands of Palestinians, he said that he refused to be “complicit in the genocide of Palestinians”, and as his body burnt in flames, he cried out six times “Free Palestine”.

The politicians in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin took no notice.  No one cared.  Washington and the Europeans continued delivering lethal weapons to Israel, weapons to kill more women and children.  And, indeed, since Aaron’s death, many tens of thousands have lost their lives under Israeli bombardment in Gaza, Palestine and Lebanon.

The International Court of Justice has issued three orders requiring Israel to stop the killing.  Orders that were ignored by Israel.  The ICJ also issued an Advisory Opinion on 19 July 2024 specifically ruling that the Israeli occupation was illegal, demanding its termination and the payment of compensation to the Palestinian victims. To no avail, because Washinton, London, Paris and Berlin are all complicit.

On 27 February 2024 I published an article honouring Aaron Bushnell.  Allow me to quote from that article[2]:

“The live-streaming and subsequent videos of US active duty airman Aaron Bushnell’s extreme sacrifice in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. on Sunday 25 February 2024 should make us reflect on the complicity of our governments in the on-going genocide being perpetrated by Israel on the hapless Palestinian people….

The self-immolation brings back memories of the Vietnamese monks who self-immolated in the 1960s in protest against the oppressive Saigon government and the US aggression of their country. Further self-immolations took place in the United States, including on 16 March 1965, Alice Herz, an 82-year old peace activist, in front of the Federal Department Store in Detroit, Norman Morrison, a 31-year old Quaker pacifist, who poured kerosene over himself and set himself alight outside the Pentagon, and Robert LaPorte in front of the United Nations.

It reminds us of the Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi who in 2010 self-immolated in protest against the police brutality of the Tunisian government, and whose sacrifice was the occasion that triggered what came to be known as the ‘Arab spring’, and which I consider more like a neo-colonial effort on the part of the US and Europe to cement their control in the MENA region….

Aaron Bushnell, a young man of 25 with all of his life before him, performed the ultimate protest to make the point against the indifference of the world in the face of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, a continuing tragedy which Professor Norman Finkelstein has documented in his comprehensive book GAZA[3] and in his numerous articles and television appearances.

On the video, minutes before setting himself ablaze, Bushnell said with a quiet, measured, resolute voice:  “I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it’s not extreme at all.”  Bushnell was a respected and loved cyber defence operations specialist with the 531st intelligence support squadron at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.

In an interview with Newsweek Senator Bernie Sanders said “It’s obviously a terrible tragedy, but I think it speaks to the depths of despair that so many people are feeling now about the horrific humanitarian disaster taking place in Gaza, and I share those deep concerns…. The United States has got to stand up to Netanyahu and make sure this does not continue.”[4]

Yes, a genocide is unfolding before our eyes.  Articles 2 and 3 of the Genocide Convention are clearly engaged, and the issue of “intent” is overwhelmingly established in pages 57-69 of the legal brief submitted by South Africa to the ICJ.  On television and the internet we watch the bombardments of hospitals, schools, UN shelters.

While the entire world is clamouring for a cease-fire, the U.S. government abused the veto power in the Security Council three times to block the three draft resolutions on a cease-fire….

On 26 January 2024 the International Court of Justice issued a comprehensive order of “provisional measures”[5] of protection, an injunction, which is legally binding under article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ, and which Israel has systematically violated, as it violated the ICJ’s earlier Advisory Opinion on the Wall, dated 9 July 2004[6].

On 16 February the ICJ published a decision on the South African second request for additional measures of protection:

“The Court notes that the most recent developments in the Gaza Strip, and in Rafah in particular, ‘would exponentially increase what is already a humanitarian nightmare with untold regional consequences’, as stated by the United Nations Secretary-General (Remarks to the General Assembly on priorities for 2024 (7 Feb. 2024)). This perilous situation demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah, and does not demand the indication of additional provisional measures. The Court emphasizes that the State of Israel remains bound to fully comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention and with the said Order, including by ensuring the safety and security of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”[7]

While I understand Aaron Bushnell’s motivation and his noble hope that his self-immolation would make an impact on our politicians, I fear that the deep-seated cynicism in the US and Israeli governments and the cavalier attitude of the mainstream media will effectively give carte blanche to … Netanyahu, who will continue ignoring all calls for a cease-fire and will very soon “cancel” the memory of Bushnell’s sacrifice….

It is rare to see someone today actually following his principles and going through to the ultimate (and excruciatingly painful) sacrifice.  In my opinion, and in that of many peace-activists, it would have been more sensible to live for the cause of peace and not to die in protest against a criminal war.  Peace-making is work-in-progress, a daily commitment.

The deconstruction and desacralization of Western society has made gestures as Aaron Bushnell’s harder to relate to than in the past, because our society has lost its moral compass, its capacity for empathy. Indeed, Western society is impregnated with cynicism to such a degree that a sacrifice for a cause greater than oneself seems incomprehensible, a far harder concept to grasp intellectually — let alone feel — for modern rootless materialists. …

I urge fellow Americans and the US military, especially Bushnell’s Airforce comrades,  to demand that the US government stop supplying arms to Israel immediately and that the US cease blocking the Security Council when a resolution is tabled by Algeria or any other country.

We know that the world stood and watched when Pol Pot massacred his own people in Cambodia in the 1970s, the world did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide of 1994.  Today it is up to us to demand accountability.  We must all stand together against the genocide in Gaza.

And if we really mean it, we should pray for all the victims of this senseless slaughter in Gaza, we should also pray for the soul of Senior Airman Bushnell.  I would like to see a bronze monument erected to him, exactly where he self-immolated himself.  His extreme sacrifice must not be forgotten.

As a practising Catholic, I will have Masses read for his soul.  I also extend my deepest sympathies to his family and friends.  God bless his soul….”

On the night of 8 March 2024 Dave Clennon[8], a former US Air Force Training Corps member, delivered a eulogy at a vigil held for Aaron Bushnell at the Venice Pier over the Pacific Ocean in Los Angeles, California.  Clenon said : “I do not know how to express the reverence, and the gratitude, and the sense of loss we all feel about Aaron Bushnell. All I can say is, ‘Aaron, our brother, we thank you, we bless you, we grieve you, and we will honor you, by our actions. We will carry on your struggle.’… Aaron Bushnell knew he was serving in an Air Force that was supplying bombs and rockets to the ruthless, vicious, Israeli pilots, and navigators, who are slaughtering the people of Gaza, with no mercy, and not the slightest sign of remorse. Because he knew that he was serving a radical evil, Aaron liberated himself from that unholy force, by an act of divine violence….In defiance of his criminal government, Aaron martyred himself.”

On 10 March 2024 the West Bank city of Jericho renamed a road after Aaron Bushnell. The mayor revealed the new sign of Aaron Bushnell Street in front of a small gathering of people. Bushnell “sacrificed everything” for the Palestinians, said Jericho mayor Abdul Karim Sidr.[9]

On the first anniversary of Aaron Bushnell’s death, let us reflect on the meaning of his act. Let us work for peace and reconciliation throughout the world.

Prof. Dr. Alfred de Zayas is a US and Swiss citizen, residing in Geneva, Switzerland.

26 February 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Restoring Palestine to Its Rightful Owners: A Conversation with Mads Gilbert

By Ramzy Baroud

Decolonizing solidarity is now an urgent task. There is no time to waste when the very existence of Palestinians in their historic land is at stake.

We have long argued that the Israeli war and genocide in Gaza must catalyze a change in the overall political discourse on Israel and Palestine, particularly regarding the need to free Palestine from the confines of victimhood. This shift is necessary to create space where the Palestinian people are seen as central to their own struggle.

It is unfortunate that centering a nation in a conversation about its own freedom from colonialism and military occupation requires years of advocacy. But this is the reality Palestinians face—often due to circumstances far beyond their control.

As outrageous as US President Donald Trump’s comments about purchasing Gaza were, they were a crude interpretation of a pre-existing culture that viewed Palestinians as marginal actors in their own story. While previous US administrations and their Western allies didn’t use such blatant language as Trump’s “taking over the Gaza Strip” they did treat Palestinians as irrelevant to how the West perceived the “solution” to the “conflict,” a language that rarely adhered to international and humanitarian laws.

For many Palestinian intellectuals, the fight for justice has been waged on two fronts: one to challenge global misconceptions about Palestine and the Palestinian people, and the other to reclaim the narrative altogether.

Recently, I have argued that reclaiming the narrative by centering Palestinian voices is not enough. Many of these supposedly “authentic” Palestinians do not represent the collective aspirations of the Palestinian people.

This argument responds to the Western exposition of certain types of Palestinians whose narratives do not directly challenge Western complicity in the Israeli occupation and war. These voices often focus on highlighting the victimization component of the ‘conflict’, often indicating that ‘both sides’ should be equally supported – or blamed.

Decolonizing Solidarity w/ Dr. Mads Gilbert

This is why it was refreshing to talk with the iconic Norwegian emergency medicine doctor, Mads Gilbert, who is fighting to decolonize the concept of solidarity in medicine—and, by extension, western solidarity as a whole.

Dr. Gilbert has spent much of his career working in Gaza, as well as among Palestinian doctors and communities in the West Bank and Lebanon. Since the start of the war, he has remained one of the most tireless voices in exposing the Israeli genocide in the Strip.

Our conversation touched on many subjects, including a term he coined: “evidence-based solidarity.” This concept applies evidence-based practice in medicine to all aspects of solidarity, both within and beyond Palestine.

It means that solidarity becomes more meaningful when it is supported by the kind of information that guarantees the support does more good than harm.

A good example was his explanation of the field hospital as a strategy to cope with man-made crises, such as the genocide in Gaza. Our discussion elaborated on an article by Dr. Gilbert and other colleagues, published on February 5 in the medical journal BMC, entitled “Realising Health Justice in Palestine: Beyond Humanitarian Voices.”

The article was a critical response to another piece, published last May by Karl Blanchet and others, entitled “Rebuilding the Health Sector in Gaza: Alternative Humanitarian Voices.” Dr. Gilbert found the original article reductionist for failing to recognize that the crisis in Gaza was “entirely manufactured” and for overlooking the centrality of “Palestinian perspectives.”

This conversation may seem rhetorical until it is placed within its practical context. Field hospitals, which could be seen as the ultimate act of solidarity, in Dr. Gilbert’s view, often deplete local resources and exacerbate the challenges facing Palestinian healthcare.

He pointed out how the establishment of these temporary foreign-run facilities can contribute to a “brain drain,” while simultaneously exhausting the local healthcare system by creating parallel structures that, despite being well-funded, do not integrate with the native system.

According to Dr. Gilbert, these efforts divert critical resources away from the urgent task of rebuilding and restoring Palestinian hospitals and providing fair wages for the dedicated healthcare workers—doctors, nurses, paramedics, and midwives—who are integral to the local medical infrastructure.

It must be frustrating for Palestinian medics, hundreds of whom have been killed in the Israeli genocide on Gaza, to watch others have a conversation about helping Gaza without acknowledging the vital role of the Palestinian Ministry of Health and local hospitals and clinics. They fail to recognize the unmatched experience—let alone the resilience—of the Gaza medical community, which has proven to be one of the most durable and resourceful anywhere in the world.

This is but a manifestation of a much larger issue: the West, whether “evil-doers” or “good-doers,” insists on seeing the Palestinian as an outsider—either to be removed from Gaza altogether or treated as a person with no relevant input, no worthy experience, and no agency.

Many often engage in this thinking, while assuming they are indeed helping the Palestinians.

But the genocide should serve as the watershed moment for these conversations to escape the academic realm and enter the public sphere, where the centrality of the truly representative Palestinian experience becomes the litmus test for any outside ‘proposals,’ ‘plans,’ ‘solutions,’ or even solidarity.

As for the latter, decolonizing solidarity is now an urgent task. There is no time to waste when the very existence of Palestinians in their historic land is at stake.

25 February 2025

Source: palestinechronicle.com

New York governor orders removal of Palestinian studies positions at Hunter College

By MEE staff

Hunter College was ordered to remove two job postings for Palestinian studies positions by the Democratic governor of New York in the latest targeting of academic freedom in the state.

Hunter College – which makes up one of City University of New York’s (Cuny) 25 campuses – advertised it was seeking both humanities and social sciences faculty to take “a critical lens to issues pertaining to Palestine including but not limited to: settler colonialism, genocide, human rights, apartheid, migration, climate and infrastructure devastation, health, race, gender and sexuality”.

The roles were announced Monday afternoon after they were posted on Cuny’s website, but the posts were removed by mid-week.

In a Bluesky post announcing the roles, sociology professor Heba Gowayed said on Monday, “I am so pleased to announce a Palestinian Studies cluster hire. This is an incredible source of pride for me as a faculty member and one of the many reasons that I feel so lucky to work here.”

She also said she felt like “the luckiest person in academia…Proud of Hunter administration for being a voice for justice in the face of so much horror.”

By the next day, on Tuesday, Governor Kathy Hochul had taken action to order the postings be removed “to ensure that antisemitic theories are not promoted in the classroom”, according to a statement that The New York Post said her office had issued.

The very same day, Cuny chancellor Felix Rodríguez and board of trustees chairperson William C Thompson Jr capitulated and announced they agreed with Hochul’s decision to remove the postings, and the university would continue to “tackle antisemitism”.

In a joint statement, they said: “We find this language divisive, polarizing and inappropriate and strongly agree with Governor Hochul’s direction to remove this posting, which we have ensured Hunter College has since done. CUNY will continue working with the Governor and other stakeholders to tackle antisemitism on our campuses and combat hate in all of its forms.”

By Wednesday, the postings had been taken down. The same day, Gowayed said she was “feeling grief at the dehumanization inherent to all this”.

The Professional Staff Congress, a labour union representing 30,000 faculty and staff at Cuny, hit back at the removal of the postings, calling it “a violation of academic freedom” at Hunter College, in a letter to Hochul and Rodriguez.

“We oppose antisemitism and all forms of hate, but this move is counterproductive. It is an overreach of authority to rule an entire area of academic study out of bounds,” the letter said.

A protest will be held at City College at 2:45pm on Thursday local time to oppose Hochul’s order to remove the job postings.

Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond.

27 February 2025

Source: middleeasteye.net

Australian universities’ new antisemitism definition has some academics worried. Here’s why

By Caitlin Cassidy

Australia’s universities have confirmed they will unilaterally enforce a new definition of antisemitism on campuses after an inquiry recommended higher education providers “closely align” with the contentious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.

The working definition, developed by Group of Eight (Go8) institutions, was unanimously endorsed by Universities Australia’s 39 members this week and made public on Wednesday, based on close work with Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism.

Here’s what you need to know.

Why has it been introduced?

The adoption of a sector-wide definition emerged as a key recommendation of a report on antisemitism on Australian university campuses, which found there was an “urgent need for reform” to ensure the safety of Jewish students and staff.

The report, tabled this month by the chair of the parliamentary joint committee on human rights, the Labor MP Josh Burns, found the reluctance of university leaders to enforce “meaningful consequences” had allowed a “toxic environment to escalate”, resulting in a “lack of trust” between the Jewish community and universities.

The committee received more than 600 submissions, many from Jewish students and staff detailing their experiences of antisemitism since the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.

Universities were criticised by the opposition and some Jewish groups for their handling of pro-Palestinian encampments, which were disbanded largely peacefully last year.

What is the new definition?

The definition states:

Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exclusion, vilification, intimidation or violence that impedes Jews’ ability to participate as equals in educational, political, religious, cultural, economic or social life.

The definition states that criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government or state is “not in and of itself antisemitic” but further reads:

Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions …

All peoples, including Jews, have the right to self-determination. For most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity. Substituting the word “Zionist” for “Jew” does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic.

Thomson said the Go8 had consulted widely with various stakeholders, including “select eminent members of the Jewish community”, to craft a definition that addressed “practical concerns”. It was endorsed by the Go8 board in December and will be reviewed after a 12-month period.

How does it differ from the IHRA definition?

The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism has been adopted by many countries and organisation around the globe, including the US state department, several European governments and the Australian government. It has also been contentious due to concerns it could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of the state of Israel.

It defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

It lists 11 specific examples of antisemitism in public life, including: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.

The definition agreed to by universities does not include some of the IHRA’s specific examples of antisemitism but it does refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism.

The chief executive of the Go8, Vicki Thomson, said “consistent and clear advice” from members was that the IHRA definition was “not workable” without adaptation to the Australian context, acknowledging concerns raised about the IHRA’s potential limiting of academic freedom.

Critics have cited “unreasonable” accusations on campuses after many UK universities adopted the IHRA definition.

Australian universities have been split on whether to adopt the IHRA definition. In January 2023 the University of Melbourne became the first institution to announce it would adopt it as part of its broader anti-racism commitment.

How will the new definition be applied?

The university definition will act as a non-legally binding guide for individual providers to interpret when determining antisemitic conduct.

It will not change freedom of speech policies, and is unlikely to apply to contested phrases such as “from the river to the sea” because there is no clarity about when or whether using them would be against the law.

But it will factor into how universities make rulings on allegations racial discrimination, harassment or vilification that could lead to disciplinary proceedings against individual students and academics.

report into the application of the IHRA definition in a UK context found 40 cases between 2017 and 2022 where staff or students were accused of antisemitism based on the definition. Almost all the claims were ultimately rejected but the report found many led to long disciplinary processes, two led to threats of legal action, and 11 prevented events, student activism or scholarship on campus.

Why are some academics concerned about the new definition?

Some academics at Australian universities have warned the definition could have a “chilling” effect and limit the scope of what can be taught on the Middle East.

Naama Blatman, a Jewish-Israeli academic of settler-colonialism and Israel/Palestine, said she believed the definition could be “weaponised” to silence her work.

She said on a practical level, funding could be removed for research that applied critical theory on Israel/Palestine, while promotion applications could be delayed or rejected and “entire literature” would be excluded from courses.

“There is a genuine risk in terms of academic freedom and rigour to have an entrenchment of cultural intimidation,” she said.

A sessional academic at the University of Sydney, Fahad Ali, said he would not comply with the direction and “looked forward” to a court challenge if he were disciplined.

Ali posted on social media that universities would “not seek to prohibit First Nations from criticising Australia as a state built on anti-Indigenous bloodshed and prejudice”.

Do Jewish groups and leaders think it will be effective?

Some Jewish groups that had pushed for the IHRA definition to be adopted are lukewarm on how effective the new definition will be.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which acts as the umbrella organisation for more than 200 Jewish groups across the nation, said the body hoped to see “better identification of antisemitic conduct and more effective complaints-handling at universities” and would wait to see the new definition in practice.

Late last year it wrote to Thomson expressing “disappointment” that it hadn’t been consulted on efforts to develop the definition.

The Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism, a coalition of members across universities and medical centres, said that unlike the Universities Australia definition, the IHRA “does not set a high threshold requiring proof of a particular adverse impact”.

“Conduct or accusations, such as ‘Israelis/Zionists are the new Nazis’, which … do not actually impede a Jewish student’s ability to attend classes or a Jewish academic’s ability to attend a staff meeting, can easily be antisemitic yet still pass muster under the Go8 definition,” they said.

Sarah Schwartz, a human rights lawyer and executive officer of the Jewish Council of Australia, said Zionism, as a political ideology, “should be subject to debate, not insulated from critique”.

“This definition risks increasing antisemitism by suggesting that all Jews support the state of Israel, and can be held responsible for Israel’s egregious human rights abuses.”

Caitlin is a higher education reporter for Guardian Australia

27 February 2025

Source: theguardian.com

Trump’s Greenland Obsession Is All About China

By Joshua Frank

In early January, Donald Trump Jr.’s private plane landed on a snowy airfield in Greenland. There was little fanfare upon his arrival, but his 14 million social-media fans were certainly tagging along.

“Greenland coming in hot…well, actually really really cold!!!” President Trump’s eldest son captioned a video he posted on X. It was shot from the cockpit of the plane, where a “Trumpinator” bobblehead (a figurine of his father as the Terminator) rattled on the aircraft’s dashboard as it descended over icy blue seas.

It was a stunt of MAGA proportions. Don Jr. was arriving in Greenland on behalf of his father who, along with his new buddy Elon Musk, had announced a desire to seize that vast Arctic landmass from Denmark through strong will or even, potentially, by force. There’s been plenty of speculation as to why Trump wants to make Greenland, the largest island on this planet, a new territory of the United States. And yes, his inflated ego is undoubtedly part of the reason, but an urge for geopolitical dominance also drives Trump’s ambitions.

His fascination with Greenland can be traced back to his first administration when, in late 2019, he signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act establishing the US Space Force. “There are grave threats to our national security,” he said shortly after signing the bill. “American superiority in space is absolutely vital. The Space Force will help us deter aggression and control the ultimate high ground.”

The following year, the US government renamed Greenland’s Thule Air Base, the Department of Defense’s northernmost outpost since 1951, Pituffik Space Base. According to the official United States Space Force Website, the “Top of the World vantage point enables Space Superiority.… Pituffik SB supports Missile Warning, Missile Defense, and Space Surveillance missions.” As such, it’s a key military asset for NATO and the United States. Denmark, a founding member of NATO and the country that has long controlled Greenland, had no problem with Trump’s Space Force operation taking root on that island’s soil.

Some have argued that Trump’s obsession is related to the Pituffik Space Base and Greenland’s strategic importance for US power, given its proximity both to Europe and to the melting Arctic. Yet, given that the US Space Force already operates there with NATO’s and Denmark’s blessing, it’s hard to understand why this would be the case.

So, what gives? Do you wonder whether Trump has his sights set on exploiting Greenland’s natural resources? A few small problems there: it has no accessible oil. Tapping its sizable natural gas reserves—mostly parked beneath massive sheets of glacial ice—would be challenging, if not impossible, and certainly not profitable. Even pipelines and other infrastructure would be difficult to build and maintain in its icy climate. Besides, the United States already has the world’s fourth-largest natural gas reserves.

Let’s assume that Trump’s fascination with Greenland is unrelated to fossil fuels or military installations. If so, that leaves one other obvious possibility: Greenland’s expansive reservoir of minerals, deposits crucial to making the gadgets we use and producing the green technologies that Trump appears to oppose.

Trump’s Green Energy Paradox

As soon as President Trump took office, his administration began issuing executive orders in hopes of dismantling and disrupting environmental initiatives put in place by the Biden administration. One of its first actions included canceling Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, which requested that 50 percent of all autos sold in the US be electric by 2030 (though it wasn’t binding).

“We will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American auto workers,” Trump boasted during his inaugural address. “In other words, you’ll be able to buy the car of your choice.”

Of course, from their batteries to their engines, Biden’s push for electric vehicles would require a plethora of critical minerals, ranging from copper to graphite, cobalt to lithium. So, too, would other clean energy projects the Biden administration supported, from home energy storage systems to the deployment of solar panels. Given Donald Trump’s battle over electric vehicles, you might assume he would prefer to keep such minerals in the ground. Yet, like much of Trump’s bombast, his ploy to reverse Biden’s mandate had ulterior motives.

Like Biden’s executive order, Trump’s doesn’t automatically change existing regulations. All emissions policies remain in place, and no rules have been altered that would require congressional approval. In many instances, such executive orders are essentially aspirational. Tax credits for electric vehicles remain active, but the federal government, as under Biden, doesn’t require automakers to sell a certain number of electric cars.

This isn’t to say that Trump doesn’t want to alter such standards. However, doing so would require outfits like the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to propose changes and then provide time for public feedback. Bureaucracy can run slow, so during Trump’s first term, such changes took over two years to implement.

Moreover, despite his war on electric vehicles, Trump has shown no sign of any eagerness to slow the mining of critical minerals on federal lands. In fact, his advisers want to do away with nettlesome environmental reviews that have gotten in the way of such mining. He is going all in, looking to ramp up not just oil, coal, and natural gas production but also uranium and critical minerals. After taking office, one of his first actions was to sign an executive order declaring a “National Energy Emergency,” which specifically called for expanding critical mineral development.

“The energy and critical minerals…identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs,” reads the order. “We need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.”

Energy experts disagree. The United States is not experiencing an energy emergency and hasn’t for decades. Gas prices are at a three-year low, and the country remains the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas exporter. In reality, Joe Biden’s oil and gas approvals outpaced those in Trump’s first term, even if he also halted some further oil and gas exploration on public lands. After initial excitement from oil and gas companies, insiders admit that Trump’s emergency declaration isn’t going to cause a production ramp-up anytime soon. Those companies are, of course, in it to make money, and overproduction would lead to significant price drops, resulting in lower profits for shareholders and company executives.

If that’s the situation for fossil fuels, when it comes to critical and rare earth minerals, Trump wants to hamper renewables’ growth while increasing the domestic production of those minerals. If that seems incongruous, that’s because it is.

He wants to boost US mining of critical minerals because he knows that China, his archnemesis, is leading the global charge for their acquisition. Trump doesn’t seem to understand that it’s hard to stimulate investment in critical minerals if the future appetite for the technologies they support remains uncertain. As a result of his battle against electric vehicles, manufacturing expectations are already being slashed.

While he may not comprehend how contradictory that is or even care, he certainly understands that the United States depends on China for many of the critical minerals it consumes. Around 60 percent of the metals required for renewable technologies come directly from China or Chinese companies. Trump’s tariffs on China have even worried his buddy (and electric car producer) Elon Musk, who’s been working behind the scenes to block additional tariffs on graphite imports. Chinese graphite, an essential component of the lithium-ion batteries in his Teslas, may face new tariffs of as high as—and no, this is not a misprint—920 percent. Such pandemonium around imports of critical minerals from China may be the true factor driving Trump’s impetus to steal Greenland from the clutches of Denmark.

Trump and Musk also know critical minerals are big business. In 2022 alone, the top 40 producers brought in $711 billion. Total revenue grew 6.1 percent between 2022 and 2023, exceeding $2.15 trillion. That number is set to jump to $2.78 trillion by 2027.

Eco-Colonialism

Greenland’s Indigenous Inuit people, the Kalaallit, account for 88 percent of that island’s population of 56,000. They have endured vicious forms of colonization for centuries. In the 12th century, Norwegians first landed in Greenland and built early colonies that lasted 200 years before they retreated to Iceland. By the 1700s, they returned to take ownership of that vast island, a territory that would be transferred to Denmark in 1814.

In 1953, the Kalaallit were granted Danish citizenship, which involved a process of forced assimilation in which they were removed from their homes and sent to Demark for reeducation. Recently uncovered documents show that, in the 1960s, Danish authorities forcibly inserted intrauterine devices (IUDs) in Kalaallit women, including children, which postcolonial scholars describe as a “silenced genocide.”

In other words, the colonization of Greenland, like that of the United States, was rooted in violence and still thrives today through ongoing systemic oppression. The Kalaallit want out. In 2016, 68 percent of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark, and today, 85 percent oppose Trump’s neocolonial efforts to steal the territory.

“Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” said the island’s prime minister, Múte Egede, who leads the democratic socialist Inuit Ataqatigiit party, which won 80 percent of the votes in the last general election. Even though Greenlanders are Danish citizens, the territory is self-governing.

This brings us back to what this imperialist struggle is all about. The island is loaded with critical minerals, including rare earth minerals, lithium, graphite, copper, nickel, zinc, and other materials used in green technologies. Some estimates suggest that Greenland has six million tons of graphite, 106 kilotons of copper, and 235 kilotons of lithium. It holds 25 of the 34 minerals in the European Union’s official list of critical raw materials, all of which exist along its rocky coastline, generally accessible for mining operations. Unsurprisingly, such enormous mineral wealth has made Greenland of interest to China, Russia, and—yep—President Trump, too.

“Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will protect it, and cherish it, from a very vicious outside World. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Right now, in this geopolitical chess game, graphite might be the most valuable of all the precious minerals Greenland has to offer. The Amitsoq graphite project in the Nanortalik region of southern Greenland could be the most significant prize of all. Considered to be pure, the “spherical” graphite deposit at the mine there may prove to be the most profitable one in the world. Right now, GreenRoc Mining, based in London, is trying to fast-track work there, hoping to undercut China’s interest in Greenland’s resources to feed Europe’s green energy boom. The profits from that mine could exceed $2 billion. Currently, spherical graphite is only mined in China and is the graphite of choice for the anodes (a polarized electrical device) crucial to lithium-ion battery production.

“This is Not a Joke”

Despite President Trump’s attempt to put the brakes on EV growth in the United States, sales are soaring across the planet. In 2024, EV sales rose 40 percent in China and 25 percent globally. Such growth comes with obstacles for manufacturers, which will need a steady stream of minerals like graphite to keep the assembly lines moving. It’s estimated that 100 new graphite mines alone will need to come online by 2035 to meet current demand.

Such a reality is, no doubt, well understood by Elon Musk, cofounder and CEO of Tesla. Musk benefits from his very close relationship with Donald Trump, overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency (which isn’t an actual department but an office inside the White House) and would certainly benefit if the United States came to control Greenland.

“If the people of Greenland want to be part of America, which I hope they do, they would be most welcome!” Musk recently wrote on his platform X.

Musk is not the only one with potential interests in Greenland. Trump’s pick for Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, has a financial stake in the territory, though he’s promised to divest. Lutnick’s investment firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, backs Critical Metals Corporation, which is set to start mining in Greenland for rare earth minerals as soon as 2026.

Like Musk, Lutnick will significantly influence Trump’s approach to the island, even if he officially divests. Trump has also dispatched Ken Howery, a billionaire tech investor, cofounder of PayPal, and buddy of Musk, to be the next US ambassador to Denmark. Howery has told friends he’s excited about his post and the possibility of brokering a deal for the US to acquire Greenland.

Marco Rubio, the new secretary of state, insists that Trump isn’t bullshitting when it comes to Greenland. “This is not a joke,” he said. “This is not about acquiring land for the purpose of acquiring land. This is in our national interest and it needs to be solved.”

Greenland and its resources are merely the latest potential casualty of Trump’s quest for global domination and his fear of China’s economic power. His interest in the green energy sector does not signify a change of heart regarding the dangers of climate chaos or the value of renewables but rather a drive for global financial supremacy. Like the billionaires around him, he desires it all—the oil, the gas, and the critical minerals essential for the global energy transition, while China is pushed aside. Regarding the Kalaallits and their aspirations, he could care less.

Joshua Frank is an award-winning California-based journalist and a coeditor of CounterPunch.

27 February 2025

Source: thenation.com

Attempted Regime Change in Venezuela Incoming? Trump Cancels Chevron’s Oil License. “US Does No Need Venezuelan Oil”

By Timothy Alexander Guzman

Back in 2023, Trump was speaking at a press conference in North Carolina and said,

“When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over; we would have gotten all that oil.”

Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who is a neocon warmonger is most likely leading the charge for either some sort of regime change or even a military intervention in Venezuela. In just over a month, Trump has taken action to squeeze Venezuela’s economy. As we all know, Venezuela has plenty of oil and the US government wants to control it now before the big war starts in the Middle East. The US military is one of the largest consumers of oil in the world, because it needs oil for all their vehicles, tanks, fighter aircraft and naval ships. 

Reuters reported that

“U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he was reversing a license given to Chevron (CVX.N), opens new tab to operate in Venezuela by his predecessor Joe Biden more than two years ago, accusing President Nicolas Maduro of not making progress on electoral reforms and migrant returns.”

Trump has been adamant about taking control of Venezuela’s oil since he was first elected, “In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was “reversing the concessions” of the “oil transaction agreement, dated November 26, 2022” that was when Biden decided to grant Chevron a license to operate in Venezuela.  Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez highlighted a fact on Venezuelan migration to the US when she said that

“The U.S. government has made a damaging and inexplicable decision by announcing sanctions against the U.S. company Chevron” She continued “these kinds of failed decisions had prompted migration out of Venezuela.” 

The report also said that

“U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later said on X he will provide foreign policy guidance to terminate all Biden-era oil and gas licenses “that have shamefully bankrolled the illegitimate Maduro regime.”

Chevron imports more than 240,000 barrels per day of crude from Venezuela.

However, Trump’s reckless policies prove his appetite for regime change in Venezuela.  Trump claims the US don’t need Venezuela’s oil,

“Since his return to office in January, Trump has repeatedly said the U.S. does not need Venezuelan oil and left open the possibility of revoking Chevron’s operating license.”

Trump implemented “maximum pressure” sanctions policy against Venezuela in his first term.  Biden was also on the same path as Trump when he “reinstated broad oil sanctions, saying Maduro failed to keep his electoral promises” but he did not cancel Chevron’s license. 

Trump’s team is itching to overthrow Maduro’s government.  But rest assured, Venezuela will resist any attempt by Washington regardless of the sanctions designed to cripple their economy.  This is just one more reason for the Venezuelan government to join BRICS.  Once that happens, Trump’s future sanctions on Venezuela will be useless, just ask Russia who is the most sanctioned country on earth, yet economically speaking, they are moving towards a much better future for their citizens with economic partnerships with other BRICS nations making the Western world unfortunately, irrelevant.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

28 February 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

Making America Great Is All About Israel. Dr. Philip Giraldi

By Philip M. Giraldi

After Donald Trump began to pull together his cabinet and inner circle it became pretty clear that the overwhelming tie that bound the group together was its embrace of Israel and everything that it is doing. There were even jokes that the top cabinet officials had apparently been selected by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel himself to reflect the fact that the Jewish state would be calling the shots for Trump even more than they did with the spineless Joe Biden. The handover of power was confirmed for all to see when Trump invited Netanyahu to the White House, the first foreign head of state to be so sanctified. While in Washington, a grinning Netanyahu was beguiled to learn of a crazy scheme to either kill or throw all the remaining Palestinians out of what was once Palestine and turn the ruins of Gaza into a high-end beach resort. Since that time, Trump has assured a delighted Netanyahu that no Palestinians would be allowed to return to visit what was once the site of their homes and communities.

So okay, those of us who had not yet learned to accept the occasional genocides carried out by Israel on its neighbors are now quickly learning to understand that the enabling role played by Joe Biden in the massacres of the Arabs was about to accelerate to a higher gear, which would include the clearing of the West Bank and incorporation of parts of Lebanon and Syria after the two million or so pesky Gazans are removed. Nevertheless, there were still some surprises to come and I must confess that some developments as well as recent comments made by Trump’s team have been astonishing even if one expected the worst.

Even seasoned Trump-o-philes might have been astonished by an apparently Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated short video prepared for Trump and released on Tuesday on his website Truth Social. It is a brief cartoonish tour of what Gaza might look like when it is transformed into Trump Gaza on the Mediterranean, a luxury beachfront destination, filled with posh sky-scrapers and condominiums, and even featuring bearded bellydancers. The video includes Trump and Netanyahu sunbathing together on the beach, Elon Musk apparently eating hummus, and a fifty feet high golden statue of Donald Trump the Founder located prominently on one of the resort’s main thoroughfares. Small replicas of the golden Trump statue were also seen on a gift shop rack for sale, apparently as souvenirs. Every family should have one to place prominently in its home to protect against Hamas “terrorists.”

Coming close to the Trump video in terms of its bizarreness, is the behavior by Representative Brian Mast from Florida, who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Mast is perhaps best known for the fact that he was an American veteran who volunteered to serve with the Israel Defense Force (IDF) after he was wounded in Afghanistan and discharged. He has appeared in Congressional offices and in meetings in Washington in his Israeli army uniform, which some, including myself, consider to be both disgraceful and even borderline treasonous. Mast has often asserted the value of his Israeli credentials and cited his love for Israel saying “I stand by Israel,” which should be a disqualifier for the office he holds. In his latest stunt last week, Mast informed the 50 Republican staffers on his committee that henceforth they must not refer to the part of Palestine that is generally called the West Bank by that name. The House Committee must henceforth refer to the region as “Judea and Samaria” which is the Israeli preferred “biblical” usage that will no doubt serve as a first step in the annexation of the area into the apartheid Israeli state. Mast elaborated that “in recognition of our unbreakable bond with Israel and the inherent right of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will, from here forward, refer to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria in formal correspondence, communication and documentation.”

While it may seem only symbolic, referring to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” is a clear show of support for Israeli annexation. Mike Huckabee, Trump’s nominee to serve as the US ambassador to Israel, also refers to the West Bank using the same language and has said annexation is possible under the new Trump administration. Earlier this month, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas also reintroduced a bill that would require the use of the term “Judea and Samaria” in all official US documents. Representative Claudia Tenney of New York also introduced the identical legislation in the House and maintained that “the Israeli people have an undeniable and indisputable historical and legal claim over Judea and Samaria.”

Congress and the White House have clearly become Israeli Occupied territory as Pat Buchanan once colorfully described the US government. Another prominent Israeli firster who is showing his true colors is the grotesque Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who has recently received the resignations of six of his staffers, who complained that all the work that they had been given recently had reflected the Senator’s obsession with supporting Israel. Congressman Tom Massie of Kentucky has declared that every Republican congressman but himself has among their staffs at least one “minder” (he calls them “babysitters”) who is present to monitor and report on how the representative votes in support of Israel. The Israel-first staffer is often an employee of the Lobby, commonly either connected to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) or with the even more virulent Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

After the “cleansing of Gaza” the West Bank will clearly be next. Israel has already announced that the approximate 40,000 West Bank Palestinians who have already been driven from their homes in ongoing operation “Iron Wall” will not be allowed to return and new Jewish settlements are planned for the former Palestinian towns and villages. As in Gaza the Israeli onslaught has involved the destruction of roads, homes, schools, churches, hospitals and other infrastructure, and the killing of civilians, including a pregnant woman and several children.

And there is more, lots more, but some of the developments are more interesting because they are impacting domestically on the United States and on the constitutional liberties and rights that are under siege as the Israel Lobby and Team Trump seek to suppress any criticism of the Jewish state and/or of the illegal activities carried out by its supporters through their corruption of government at all levels in the United States. Another revelation of how the new administration will be targeting any and all supporters of the Palestinians comes from the highly respectable Arab American Institute’s Director James Zogby. Per Zogby,

“For those unaware of the situation, here’s what’s happened. In recent days, a tweet from Elon Musk shared hateful and dangerous disinformation about the Arab American Institute and other groups whose missions, though varied, have been either to provide humanitarian assistance to communities in need or to provide educational services and training. Mr. Musk reposted a tweet that listed several organizations that have received government grants in recent years. The list was almost exclusively Arab American or American Muslim organizations and labeled us all ‘terrorist linked organizations.’ Mr. Musk’s retweet, which now has more than 16 million views, refers to ‘terrorist organizations.’”

This systematic ethnic and religious demonization of Israel’s designated enemies is being backed up by legal initiatives to rid the United States of any and all foreign students who deign to protest against the genocide being carried out by Israel. At the end of January, Trump signed an executive order that instructs the leaders of federal agencies to provide recommendations on “all civil and criminal” authorities or actions available to the White House within 60 days.

The order says the report should include details of all court cases involving schools, colleges and universities, which could lead to actions to remove “alien students and staff.” According to an accompanying White House fact sheet, it will “marshal all federal resources” to combat what it describes “the explosion of antisemitism on our campuses and streets” since the October 2023 Hamas attack. Trump’s executive order promises “immediate action” from the Justice Department to “protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities. To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you,” Trump was quoted as saying in the fact sheet. He explained that “I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi has inevitably taken the lead on the deportation plan. She told Newsmax in an interview that “The thing that’s really the most troubling to me [are] these students in universities in our country, whether they’re here as Americans or if they’re here on student visas, and they’re out there saying ‘I support Hamas.’ Frankly they need to be taken out of our country or the FBI needs to be interviewing them right away.”

And the faux compliments regarding what Israel is doing just keep on coming both from talking heads in Washington and from the Zionist dominated media. My favorite line spewed out regularly by both Democrats and Republicans is some version of the assertion that Israel is somehow a wonderful “democracy that is America’s best friend and closest ally.” Attorney General Pam Bondi went over the top when she called Israel “our greatest ally in the world” in an interview with Fox News. Interestingly, apartheid war criminal Israel is in fact neither a democracy nor a friend nor an ally but when the blind are leading the blind anything might well pop out of one’s mouth, particularly when it is not connected to a functioning brain that actually has a conscience.

Over at the FBI effusive comments also seem to be the general rule with Dan Bongino, the newly appointed Deputy Director of the FBI, when responding to a question about what might be the causes that are dear to his heart, stating, “Israel. Defense of Israel.” His comment reflects a broad commitment within the FBI and Justice Department to prioritize relations with Israel, as echoed by FBI Director Kash Patel, who affirmed that “America will prioritize Israel, and we stand by our number one ally.” Nice one Kash! Is that really your first name or just a pseudonym? Maybe you should be looking into the various internationally binding agreements entered into with the US guaranteeing the arrangements that are being violated by Israel in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza? They are war crimes and Washington is complicit. But I guess you are not interested in that stuff…

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

28 February 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

The Death of Francis Boyle: A Great Progressive International Law Scholar and Practitioner

By Richard Falk

[Prefatory Note: The following post represents my reflections on the outstanding progressive international law expert of our time, and takes notes of both pardonable faults and eternal gratitude for a courageous life well spent.

Francis Boyle: In Memoriam; RIP

It is with sadness that I take note of the sudden unexpected death of one of the few consistently progressive international Law scholars in the academic ranks of the US on January 30, 2025 at the age of 74. Boyle was active until he was pronounced dead due to undisclosed causes.

Despite being born in Chicago Boyle maintained his primary national identity was Irish. Francis was fond of asserting that he was ‘born Irish,’ and not as a white North American. Throughout his productive life Francis associated himself with many neglected struggles for justice, with especial attention given to opposing the Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people, which he termed genocidal as early as 2009. He acted as a legal advisor to the Palestinian Authority and to the Palestinian negotiating team. He also acted as counsel representing several tribal communities seeking to redeem their legal rights as indigenous peoples and several other causes involving vulnerable or abused communities.

Among those deserving praise for their courage in speaking truth to power, no

one among international law experts since the end of World War II, so exemplified this crucial virtue of engaged and progressive citizenship than Francis Boyle. He spoke bluntly, and often insultingly, about those who invoked international law to rationalize the foreign policy of the US Government.  His published writing was informed by a deep knowledge of his varied subjects, always expressing himself lucidly and uncompromisingly, most energetically when condemning US and Israeli lawlessness. His views were set forth in a self-confident style and his interpretations of law invariably placed him on what progressive persons agree is the right side of history. In keeping with this posture of radical dissent, Boyle’s heroes were unsurprisingly academicians and public figures who shared his outlook and public engagement, most notably Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, and the less well known, the respected Harvard Law professor, Clyde Ferguson. Francis had an elite education, that included earning a magna cum laude degree from Harvar Law School. Nevertheless, Francis never attained the front ranks of those recognized as public intellectuals as were Edward Said, Howard Zinn, Daniel Ellsberg, and Susan Sontag.

As is often the case with radical dissenters, unless first tier scholars, they pay a price for their civic integrity and engagement, and there is little doubt in my mind, that Francis was informally blacklisted in many prestigious centrist venues, including the American Society of International Law and the Council of Foreign Relations. He clearly merited election to the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law on the basis of his scholarly stature, but it never happened during his 41 years as a faculty member of the College of Law at the University of Illinois. His many books on controversial issues were rarely reviewed in mainstream journals or appeared on the syllabi or recommended reading lists of international law courses. Despite being spurned at home, Francis was well known internationally as a skilled lawyer who would provide his services to causes unpopular or unknown in the West.

Francis managed to do many bold and valuable things in his own way over the years. He believed in using juridical frameworks to expose the wrongdoing of the powerful with an awareness that winning in court made the claim legitimate, but did not assure enforcement, which he correctly understood to be a political rather than a legal project.

Francis supported in courts of law claims of justifiable civil disobedience by young Americans during the Vietnam War, served as a lead prosecutor for a high profile Malaysian civil society tribunal condemning the role of the US in the Iraq War, he advised Palestinian negotiators seeking a just peace with Israel, provided services as a lawyer on behalf of indigenous rights, and represented Bosnia and Herzegovina in the International Court of Justice in their legal action against Serbia, charging genocide.

Yet not all that glitters is gold. Francis was stubborn and dogmatic, unyielding in articulating his controversial views, and had an annoying habit of invariably proclaiming his own importance that diverted attention from the substantive issues to be addressed. I believe Francis brought on some of the unfair blacklisting in academic circles by a kind of obsessive and unabashed narcissism that diverted attention from his great talents as jurist and lawyer with an unwavering commitment domestically and internationally to the rule of law as a source of justice and core element of a genuine democracy, which helps his affinities with the powerless and vulnerable.

In the end, we should celebrate the achievements and ethical heroism of Francis Boyle, and forgive those all-too-human shortcomings when it comes to matters of humility.  Too few of us who profess progressive have the courage of our convictions that put our ideas and beliefs in the public square. Maybe we should express gratitude to the Irish genes, which seems to have guided Francis Boyle to be the foremost progressive international law specialist of our time. Unfortunately, he has left us when we need his thought and action as never before in the history of this republic that had at least revered the Constitution even as it broke its own laws and supposed value from the moment is broke from the British Empire but not from imperialism, and even slavery for Africans and genocidal policies toward native Americans. We who benefited from Francis’s presence bemoan his absence.

6 February 2025

Source: richardfalk.org

Why Donald Trump’s Obsession with Greenland Is All About China

By Joshua Frank

In early January, Donald Trump Jr.’s private plane landed on a snowy airfield in Greenland. There was little fanfare upon his arrival, but his 14 million social-media fans were certainly tagging along.

“Greenland coming in hot…well, actually really really cold!!!” President Trump’s eldest son captioned a video he posted on X. It was shot from the cockpit of the plane, where a “Trumpinator” bobblehead (a figurine of his father as the Terminator) rattled on the aircraft’s dashboard as it descended over icy blue seas.

It was a stunt of MAGA proportions. Don Jr. was arriving in Greenland on behalf of his father who, along with his new buddy Elon Musk, had announced a desire to seize that vast Arctic landmass from Denmark through strong will or even, potentially, by force. There’s been plenty of speculation as to why Trump wants to make Greenland, the largest island on this planet, a new territory of the United States. And yes, his inflated ego is undoubtedly part of the reason, but an urge for geopolitical dominance also drives Trump’s ambitions.

His fascination with Greenland can be traced back to his first administration when, in late 2019, he signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act establishing the U.S. Space Force. “There are grave threats to our national security,” he said shortly after signing the bill. “American superiority in space is absolutely vital. The Space Force will help us deter aggression and control the ultimate high ground.”

The following year, the U.S. government renamed Greenland’s Thule Air Base, the Department of Defense’s northernmost outpost since 1951, Pituffik Space Base. According to the official United States Space Force Website, the “Top of the World vantage point enables Space Superiority… Pituffik SB supports Missile Warning, Missile Defense, and Space Surveillance missions.” As such, it’s a key military asset for NATO and the United States. Denmark, a founding member of NATO and the country that has long controlled Greenland, had no problem with Trump’s Space Force operation taking root on that island’s soil.

Some have argued that Trump’s obsession is related to the Pituffik Space Base and Greenland’s strategic importance for U.S. power, given its proximity both to Europe and to the melting Arctic. Yet, given that the U.S. Space Force already operates there with NATO’s and Denmark’s blessing, it’s hard to understand why this would be the case.

So, what gives? Do you wonder whether Trump has his sights set on exploiting Greenland’s natural resources? A few small problems there: it has no accessible oil. Tapping its sizable natural gas reserves — mostly parked beneath massive sheets of glacial ice — would be challenging, if not impossible, and certainly not profitable. Even pipelines and other infrastructure would be difficult to build and maintain in its icy climate. Besides, the U.S. already has the world’s fourthlargest natural gas reserves.

Let’s assume that Trump’s fascination with Greenland is unrelated to fossil fuels or military installations. If so, that leaves one other obvious possibility: Greenland’s expansive reservoir of minerals, deposits crucial to making the gadgets we use and producing the green technologies that Trump appears to oppose.

Trump’s Green Energy Paradox

As soon as President Trump took office, his administration began issuing executive orders in hopes of dismantling and disrupting environmental initiatives put in place by the Biden administration. One of its first actions included canceling Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, which requested that 50% of all autos sold in the U.S. be electric by 2030 (though it wasn’t binding).

“We will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American auto workers,” Trump boasted during his inaugural address. “In other words, you’ll be able to buy the car of your choice.”

Of course, from their batteries to their engines, Biden’s push for electric vehicles would require a plethora of critical minerals, ranging from copper to graphite, cobalt to lithium. So, too, would other clean energy projects the Biden administration supported, from home energy storage systems to the deployment of solar panels. Given Donald Trump’s battle over electric vehicles, you might assume he would prefer to keep such minerals in the ground. Yet, like much of Trump’s bombast, his ploy to reverse Biden’s mandate had ulterior motives.

Like Biden’s executive order, Trump’s doesn’t automatically change existing regulations. All emissions policies remain in place, and no rules have been altered that would require congressional approval. In many instances, such executive orders are essentially aspirational. Tax credits for electric vehicles remain active, but the federal government, as under Biden, doesn’t require automakers to sell a certain number of electric cars.

This isn’t to say that Trump doesn’t want to alter such standards. However, doing so would require outfits like the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to propose changes and then provide time for public feedback. Bureaucracy can run slow, so during Trump’s first term, such changes took over two years to implement.

Moreover, despite his war on electric vehicles, Trump has shown no sign of any eagerness to slow the mining of critical minerals on federal lands. In fact, his advisers want to do away with nettlesome environmental reviews that have gotten in the way of such mining. He is going all in, looking to ramp up not just oil, coal, and natural gas production but also uranium and critical minerals. After taking office, one of his first actions was to sign an executive order declaring a “National Energy Emergency,” which specifically called for expanding critical mineral development.

“The energy and critical minerals… identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs,” reads the order. “We need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.”

Energy experts disagree. The U.S. is not experiencing an energy emergency and hasn’t for decades. Gas prices are at a three-year low, and the country remains the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas exporter. In reality, Joe Biden’s oil and gas approvals outpaced those in Trump’s first term, even if he also halted some further oil and gas exploration on public lands. After initial excitement from oil and gas companies, insiders admit that Trump’s emergency declaration isn’t going to cause a production ramp-up anytime soon. Those companies are, of course, in it to make money, and overproduction would lead to significant price drops, resulting in lower profits for shareholders and company executives.

If that’s the situation for fossil fuels, when it comes to critical and rare earth minerals, Trump wants to hamper renewables’ growth while increasing the domestic production of those minerals. If that seems incongruous, that’s because it is.

He wants to boost U.S. mining of critical minerals because he knows that China, his archnemesis, is leading the global charge for their acquisition. Trump doesn’t seem to understand that it’s hard to stimulate investment in critical minerals if the future appetite for the technologies they support remains uncertain. As a result of his battle against electric vehicles, manufacturing expectations are already being slashed.

While he may not comprehend how contradictory that is or even care, he certainly understands that the U.S. depends on China for many of the critical minerals it consumes. Around 60% of the metals required for renewable technologies come directly from China or Chinese companies. Trump’s tariffs on China have even worried his buddy (and electric car producer) Elon Musk, who’s been working behind the scenes to block additional tariffs on graphite imports. Chinese graphite, an essential component of the lithium-ion batteries in his Teslas, may face new tariffs of as high as — and no, this is not a misprint — 920%. Such pandemonium around imports of critical minerals from China may be the true factor driving Trump’s impetus to steal Greenland from the clutches of Denmark.

Trump and Musk also know critical minerals are big business. In 2022 alone, the top 40 producers brought in $711 billion. Total revenue grew 6.1% between 2022 and 2023, exceeding $2.15 trillion. That number is set to jump to $2.78 trillion by 2027.

Eco-Colonialism

Greenland’s Indigenous Inuit people, the Kalaallit, account for 88% of that island’s population of 56,000. They have endured vicious forms of colonization for centuries. In the 12th century, Norwegians first landed in Greenland and built early colonies that lasted 200 years before they retreated to Iceland. By the 1700s, they returned to take ownership of that vast island, a territory that would be transferred to Denmark in 1814.

In 1953, the Kalaallit were granted Danish citizenship, which involved a process of forced assimilation in which they were removed from their homes and sent to Demark for reeducation. Recently uncovered documents show that, in the 1960s, Danish authorities forcibly inserted intrauterine devices (IUDs) in Kalaallit women, including children, which post-colonial scholars describe as a “silenced genocide.”

In other words, the colonization of Greenland, like that of the United States, was rooted in violence and still thrives today through ongoing systemic oppression. The Kalaallit want out. In 2016, 68% of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark, and today, 85% oppose Trump’s neocolonial efforts to steal the territory.

“Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” said the island’s prime minister, Múte Egede, who leads the democratic socialist Inuit Ataqatigiit party, which won 80% of the votes in the last general election. Even though Greenlanders are Danish citizens, the territory is self-governing.

This brings us back to what this imperialist struggle is all about. The island is loaded with critical minerals, including rare earth minerals, lithium, graphite, copper, nickel, zinc, and other materials used in green technologies. Some estimates suggest that Greenland has six million tons of graphite, 106 kilotons of copper, and 235 kilotons of lithium. It holds 25 of the 34 minerals in the European Union’s official list of critical raw materials, all of which exist along its rocky coastline, generally accessible for mining operations. Unsurprisingly, such enormous mineral wealth has made Greenland of interest to China, Russia, and — yep — President Trump, too.

“Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will protect it, and cherish it, from a very vicious outside World. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Right now, in this geopolitical chess game, graphite might be the most valuable of all the precious minerals Greenland has to offer. The Amitsoq graphite project in the Nanortalik region of southern Greenland could be the most significant prize of all. Considered to be pure, the “spherical” graphite deposit at the mine there may prove to be the most profitable one in the world. Right now, GreenRoc Mining, based in London, is trying to fast-track work there, hoping to undercut China’s interest in Greenland’s resources to feed Europe’s green energy boom. The profits from that mine could exceed $2 billion. Currently, spherical graphite is only mined in China and is the graphite of choice for the anodes (a polarized electrical device) crucial to lithium-ion battery production.

“This is Not a Joke”

Despite President Trump’s attempt to put the brakes on EV growth in the U.S., sales are soaring across the planet. In 2024, EV sales rose 40% in China and 25% globally. Such growth comes with obstacles for manufacturers, which will need a steady stream of minerals like graphite to keep the assembly lines moving. It’s estimated that 100 new graphite mines alone will need to come online by 2035 to meet current demand.

Such a reality is, no doubt, well understood by Elon Musk, the co-founder and CEO of Tesla. Musk benefits from his very close relationship with Donald Trump, overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency (which isn’t an actual department but an office inside the White House) and would certainly benefit if the U.S. came to control Greenland.

“If the people of Greenland want to be part of America, which I hope they do, they would be most welcome!” Musk recently wrote on his platform X.

Musk is not the only one with potential interests in Greenland. Trump’s pick for Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, has a financial stake in the territory, though he’s promised to divest. Lutnick’s investment firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, backs Critical Metals Corporation, which is set to start mining in Greenland for rare earth minerals as soon as 2026.

Like Musk, Lutnick will significantly influence Trump’s approach to the island, even if he officially divests. Trump has also dispatched Ken Howery, a billionaire tech investor, co-founder of PayPal, and buddy of Musk, to be the next U.S. ambassador to Denmark. Howery has told friends he’s excited about his post and the possibility of brokering a deal for the U.S. to acquire Greenland.

Marco Rubio, the new secretary of state, insists that Trump isn’t bullshitting when it comes to Greenland. “This is not a joke,” he said. “This is not about acquiring land for the purpose of acquiring land. This is in our national interest and it needs to be solved.”

Greenland and its resources are merely the latest potential casualty of Trump’s quest for global domination and his fear of China’s economic power. His interest in the green energy sector does not signify a change of heart regarding the dangers of climate chaos or the value of renewables but rather a drive for global financial supremacy. Like the billionaires around him, he desires it all — the oil, the gas, and the critical minerals essential for the global energy transition, while China is pushed aside. Regarding the Kalaallits and their aspirations, he could care less.

Joshua Frank, a TomDispatch regular, is an award-winning California-based journalist and co-editor of CounterPunch.

19 February 2025

Source: countercurrents.org