Archives: Articles

By Feroze Mithiborwala

Passes Executive Orders Prioritising: Working Class Rights and Dignity, Enforcing Tenancy Rights, Affordable Housing, Public Land, Economic Justice, Human Services, Defends Free Speech and Right to Protest, Scraps IHRA & Reinstates BDS

Zohran Mamdani’s inauguration on January 1, 2026 was not staged as a ritual of elite continuity but as a declaration of political alignment. Standing on the steps of City Hall, Mamdani delivered his oath and inaugural address in the presence of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the two figures most closely identified with the insurgent democratic socialist tradition that carried him into office. Sanders invoked New York’s working-class history and warned that “a city governed by billionaires is not a democracy,” while Ocasio-Cortez framed Mamdani’s victory as proof that “organized people can defeat organized money — even in the capital of real estate.”[1]

Mamdani’s speech echoed their themes. He spoke not of managerial competence or market confidence, but of rent, debt, wages, dignity, and power — insisting that government must be an instrument for those “who keep this city alive but are being priced out of it.”[2]

At his side stood Rama Duvaji, New York City’s new first lady, whose composed presence, her quiet elegance and mystique drew immediate attention. Comparisons to Princess Diana — less about royalty than about symbolic intimacy with public life — were not accidental. Duvaji’s visibility reinforced the sense that this administration understood politics not merely as policy, but as moral narrative and popular identification.

What followed in Mamdani’s first hours in office made clear that this was not rhetoric detached from action.

Clearing the Slate: Revoking the Adams Era

Mamdani’s first executive decision was sweeping and unambiguous. He signed an order revoking all executive orders issued by former mayor Eric Adams after September 26, 2024, the date of Adams’s federal indictment.[3]

Roughly nine executive orders were nullified, spanning antisemitism policy, restrictions on political expression, policing practices, and immigration enforcement.[4]

The choice of cutoff date was deliberate. By tying the revocation to the indictment, Mamdani framed the late Adams administration as politically compromised, a period in which executive authority was increasingly exercised without democratic legitimacy. The move provided Mamdani not merely a symbolic reset, but a legal foundation for reconstructing executive power in line with his mandate.

IHRA, BDS, and the End of Ideological Enforcement

Among the rescinded orders were two that had become flashpoints in New York politics.

The first was the formal adoption of the IHRA “working definition” of antisemitism, imposed across city agencies in mid-2025.[5]

Civil liberties advocates had long argued that IHRA’s expansive language was being used to collapse criticism of Israel into antisemitism, chilling speech and targeting Palestinian solidarity organizing.

The second was an executive order barring participation in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, prohibiting city agencies and officials from supporting or engaging in boycotts or divestment related to Israel.[6]

Those New Yorker’s who stand for the cause of Palestine, who speak out against the ongoing Israeli genocide of Gaza, who speak up for the children of Gaza, now can speak, can protest without fear of being criminalised as an antisemite.

The order placed municipal power on one side of a global political struggle, restricting constitutionally protected political expression.

The backlash was swift. Several Jewish organizations accused Mamdani of weakening protections against antisemitism.[7]

Mamdani responded by drawing a clear distinction: antisemitism must be confronted forcefully, but political dissent cannot be policed by executive decree.

Importantly, he indicated that certain institutional functions created under Adams — including the Office to Combat Antisemitism — would continue under new frameworks and oversight.[8]

Reorganizing Power Inside City Hall

Mamdani’s break with the old order extended inward. Executive Order 02 reorganized mayoral governance, elevating housing, economic justice, and human services into core deputy mayor portfolios.[9]

This restructuring was a rejection of the neoliberal city model, where social policy is subordinate to “business confidence.” Mamdani embedded class politics directly into executive authority, signalling that inequality would not be treated as a downstream problem but as the central task of governance.

Tenants Move from the Streets to the State

Housing was central to Mamdani’s campaign, and it quickly became central to his governance. Executive Order 03 revived and empowered the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants, a body long marginalized even as rents soared and displacement accelerated.[10]

In a city where nearly 70 percent of residents are renters, and where more than half are rent-burdened, the move carried immediate political weight. The office is tasked with coordinating tenant protections across agencies, enforcing housing codes, and legitimizing tenant organizing as a driver of policy rather than a nuisance to be managed.

Public Land, Public Purpose

Mamdani’s Land Inventory Fast Track (LIFT) Task Force, created through Executive Order 04, aims to identify and deploy city-owned land for housing development.[11] Unlike the past that enriched developers while delivering minimal affordability, LIFT is explicitly oriented toward long-term public benefit, union labour, and durable affordability.

Economically, the task force signals a potential reassertion of public power over land use, challenging decades of real-estate dominance over urban planning.

The Meaning of Mamdani’s First Days

Taken together, Mamdani’s early executive acts mark a decisive shift in New York City politics. He has:

·        Rolled back ideologically driven executive orders

·        Restored democratic legitimacy after a compromised administration

·        Shifted power toward tenants and working people

·        Brought back focus on the public sector as an active shaper of markets

This is not moderation; it is alignment.

Mamdani is governing as he campaigned.

Conclusion: Governing as Promised

Zohran Mamdani’s first days in office demonstrate what it looks like when an administration takes its mandate seriously.

The policies will face resistance — from real estate interests, political elites, and ideological gatekeepers. But the direction is unmistakable.

For the first time in years, New York City is not pretending neutrality. City Hall has taken sides.

And that, in the capital of American urban capitalism, is already a profound assertion of people’s power.

References

Sanders, B., & Ocasio-Cortez, A., Inauguration remarks, NYC, Jan 1, 2026.

Mamdani, Z., Inaugural Address, Jan 1, 2026.

Haaretz, “BDS, Synagogue Protest Bans Revoked as Mamdani Scraps Adams-Era Orders,” Jan 2026.

ArcaMax Publishing, “Mamdani Axes

Adams Executive Orders,” Jan 2026.

Madhyamam, “NYC Mayor Revokes IHRA Definition,” Jan 2026.

Madhyamam, “Mamdani Revokes Anti-BDS Order,” Jan 2026.

Times of Israel / JNS reporting, Jan 2026.

Axios, “What Mamdani Keeps and Cuts,” Jan 2026.

NYC Mayor’s Office, Executive Order 02, Jan 2026.

NYC Mayor’s Office, Executive Order 03, Jan 2026.

NYC Mayor’s Office, Executive Order 04, Jan 2026.

Feroze Mithiborwala is an expert on West Asian & International Geostrategic issues. He is the Founder-Gen. Sec. of the India Palestine Solidarity Forum.

3 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Zohran K Mamdani

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani prepared these remarks to deliver at his inauguration on January 1, 2026.

My fellow New Yorkers—today begins a new era.

I stand before you moved by the privilege of taking this sacred oath, humbled by the faith that you have placed in me, and honored to serve as either your 111th or 112th Mayor of New York City. But I do not stand alone.

I stand alongside you, the tens of thousands gathered here in Lower Manhattan, warmed against the January chill by the resurgent flame of hope.

I stand alongside countless more New Yorkers watching from cramped kitchens in Flushing and barbershops in East New York, from cell phones propped against the dashboards of parked taxi cabs at LaGuardia, from hospitals in Mott Haven and libraries in El Barrio that have too long known only neglect.

I stand alongside construction workers in steel-toed boots and halal cart vendors whose knees ache from working all day.

I stand alongside neighbors who carry a plate of food to the elderly couple down the hall, those in a rush who still lift strangers’ strollers up subway stairs, and every person who makes the choice day after day, even when it feels impossible, to call our city home.

I stand alongside over 1 million New Yorkers who voted for this day nearly two months ago—and I stand just as resolutely alongside those who did not. I know there are some who view this administration with distrust or disdain, or who see politics as permanently broken. And while only action can change minds, I promise you this: If you are a New Yorker, I am your Mayor. Regardless of whether we agree, I will protect you, celebrate with you, mourn alongside you, and never, not for a second, hide from you.

I thank the labor and movement leaders here today, the activists and elected officials who will return to fighting for New Yorkers the second this ceremony concludes, and the performers who have gifted us with their talent.

Thank you to Governor Hochul for joining us. And thank you to Mayor Adams—Dorothy’s son, a son of Brownsville who rose from washing dishes to the highest position in our city—for being here as well. He and I have had our share of disagreements, but I will always be touched that he chose me as the mayoral candidate that he would most want to be trapped with on an elevator.

Thank you to the two titans who, as an Assemblymember, I’ve had the privilege of being represented by in Congress—Nydia Velázquez and our incredible opening speaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You have paved the way for this moment.

Thank you to the man whose leadership I seek most to emulate, who I am so grateful to be sworn in by today—Senator Bernie Sanders.

Thank you to my teams—from the Assembly, to the campaign, to the transition and now, the team I am so excited to lead from City Hall.

Thank you to my parents, Mama and Baba, for raising me, for teaching me how to be in this world, and for having brought me to this city. Thank you to my family—from Kampala to Delhi. And thank you to my wife Rama for being my best friend, and for always showing me the beauty in everyday things.

Most of all—thank you to the people of New York.

A moment like this comes rarely. Seldom do we hold such an opportunity to transform and reinvent. Rarer still is it the people themselves whose hands are the ones upon the levers of change.

And yet we know that too often in our past, moments of great possibility have been promptly surrendered to small imagination and smaller ambition. What was promised was never pursued, what could have changed remained the same. For the New Yorkers most eager to see our city remade, the weight has only grown heavier, the wait has only grown longer.

In writing this address, I have been told that this is the occasion to reset expectations, that I should use this opportunity to encourage the people of New York to ask for little and expect even less. I will do no such thing. The only expectation I seek to reset is that of small expectations.

Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously. We may not always succeed. But never will we be accused of lacking the courage to try.

To those who insist that the era of big government is over, hear me when I say this—no longer will City Hall hesitate to use its power to improve New Yorkers’ lives.

For too long, we have turned to the private sector for greatness, while accepting mediocrity from those who serve the public. I cannot blame anyone who has come to question the role of government, whose faith in democracy has been eroded by decades of apathy. We will restore that trust by walking a different path—one where government is no longer solely the final recourse for those struggling, one where excellence is no longer the exception.

We expect greatness from the cooks wielding a thousand spices, from those who stride out onto Broadway stages, from our starting point guard at Madison Square Garden. Let us demand the same from those who work in government. In a city where the mere names of our streets are associated with the innovation of the industries that call them home, we will make the words “City Hall” synonymous with both resolve and results.

As we embark upon this work, let us advance a new answer to the question asked of every generation: Who does New York belong to?

For much of our history, the response from City Hall has been simple: It belongs only to the wealthy and well-connected, those who never strain to capture the attention of those in power.

Working people have reckoned with the consequences. Crowded classrooms and public housing developments where the elevators sit out of order; roads littered with potholes and buses that arrive half an hour late, if at all; wages that do not rise and corporations that rip off consumers and employees alike.

And still—there have been brief, fleeting moments where the equation changed.

Twelve years ago, Bill de Blasio stood where I stand now as he promised to “put an end to economic and social inequalities” that divided our city into two.

In 1990, David Dinkins swore the same oath I swore today, vowing to celebrate the “gorgeous mosaic” that is New York, where every one of us is deserving of a decent life.

And nearly six decades before him, Fiorella La Guardia took office with the goal of building a city that was “far greater and more beautiful” for the hungry and the poor.

Some of these Mayors achieved more success than others. But they were unified by a shared belief that New York could belong to more than just a privileged few. It could belong to those who operate our subways and rake our parks, those who feed us biryani and beef patties, picanha and pastrami on rye. And they knew that this belief could be made true if only government dared to work hardest for those who work hardest.

Over the years to come, my administration will resurrect that legacy. City Hall will deliver an agenda of safety, affordability, and abundance—where government looks and lives like the people it represents, never flinches in the fight against corporate greed, and refuses to cower before challenges that others have deemed too complicated.

In so doing, we will provide our own answer to that age-old question—who does New York belong to? Well, my friends, we can look to Madiba and the South African Freedom Charter: New York “belongs to all who live in it.”

Together, we will tell a new story of our city.

This will not be a tale of one city, governed only by the 1%. Nor will it be a tale of two cities, the rich versus the poor.

It will be a tale of 8 and a half million cities, each of them a New Yorker with hopes and fears, each a universe, each of them woven together.

The authors of this story will speak Pashto and Mandarin, Yiddish and Creole. They will pray in mosques, at shul, at church, at Gurdwaras and Mandirs and temples—and many will not pray at all.

They will be Russian Jewish immigrants in Brighton Beach, Italians in Rossville, and Irish families in Woodhaven—many of whom came here with nothing but a dream of a better life, a dream which has withered away. They will be young people in cramped Marble Hill apartments where the walls shake when the subway passes. They will be Black homeowners in St. Albans whose homes represent a physical testament to triumph over decades of lesser-paid labor and redlining. They will be Palestinian New Yorkers in Bay Ridge, who will no longer have to contend with a politics that speaks of universalism and then makes them the exception.

Few of these 8 and a half million will fit into neat and easy boxes. Some will be voters from Hillside Avenue or Fordham Road who supported President Trump a year before they voted for me, tired of being failed by their party’s establishment. The majority will not use the language that we often expect from those who wield influence. I welcome the change. For too long, those fluent in the good grammar of civility have deployed decorum to mask agendas of cruelty.

Many of these people have been betrayed by the established order. But in our administration, their needs will be met. Their hopes and dreams and interests will be reflected transparently in government. They will shape our future.

And if for too long these communities have existed as distinct from one another, we will draw this city closer together. We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism. If our campaign demonstrated that the people of New York yearn for solidarity, then let this government foster it. Because no matter what you eat, what language you speak, how you pray, or where you come from—the words that most define us are the two we all share: New Yorkers.

And it will be New Yorkers who reform a long-broken property tax system. New Yorkers who will create a new Department of Community Safety that will tackle the mental health crisis and let the police focus on the job they signed up to do. New Yorkers who will take on the bad landlords who mistreat their tenants and free small business owners from the shackles of bloated bureaucracy. And I am proud to be one of those New Yorkers.

When we won the primary last June, there were many who said that these aspirations and those who held them had come out of nowhere. Yet one man’s nowhere is another man’s somewhere. This movement came out of 8 and a half million somewheres—taxi cab depots and Amazon warehouses, DSA meetings and curbside domino games. The powers that be had looked away from these places for quite some time—if they’d known about them at all—so they dismissed them as nowhere. But in our city, where every corner of these five boroughs holds power, there is no nowhere and there is no no one. There is only New York, and there are only New Yorkers.

8 and a half million New Yorkers will speak this new era into existence. It will be loud. It will be different. It will feel like the New York we love.

No matter how long you have called this city home, that love has shaped your life. I know that it has shaped mine.

This is the city where I set landspeed records on my razor scooter at the age of 12. Quickest four blocks of my life.

The city where I ate powdered donuts at halftime during AYSO soccer games and realized I probably wouldn’t be going pro, devoured too-big slices at Koronet Pizza, played cricket with my friends at Ferry Point Park, and took the 1 train to the BX10 only to still show up late to Bronx Science.

The city where I have gone on hunger strike just outside these gates, sat claustrophobic on a stalled N train just after Atlantic Avenue, and waited in quiet terror for my father to emerge from 26 Federal Plaza.

The city where I took a beautiful woman named Rama to McCarren Park on our first date and swore a different oath to become an American citizen on Pearl Street.

To live in New York, to love New York, is to know that we are the stewards of something without equal in our world. Where else can you hear the sound of the steelpan, savor the smell of sancocho, and pay $9 for coffee on the same block? Where else could a Muslim kid like me grow up eating bagels and lox every Sunday?

That love will be our guide as we pursue our agenda. Here, where the language of the New Deal was born, we will return the vast resources of this city to the workers who call it home. Not only will we make it possible for every New Yorker to afford a life they love once again—we will overcome the isolation that too many feel, and connect the people of this city to one another.

The cost of childcare will no longer discourage young adults from starting a family—because we will deliver universal childcare for the many by taxing the wealthiest few.

Those in rent-stabilized homes will no longer dread the latest rent hike—because we will freeze the rent.

Getting on a bus without worrying about a fare hike or whether you’ll be late to your destination will no longer be deemed a small miracle—because we will make buses fast and free.

These policies are not simply about the costs we make free, but the lives we fill with freedom. For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it. Our City Hall will change that.

These promises carried our movement to City Hall, and they will carry us from the rallying cries of a campaign to the realities of a new era in politics.

Two Sundays ago, as snow softly fell, I spent 12 hours at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, listening to New Yorkers from every borough as they told me about the city that is theirs.

We discussed construction hours on the Van Wyck Expressway and EBT eligibility, affordable housing for artists and ICE raids. I spoke to a man named TJ who said that one day a few years ago, his heart broke as he realized he would never get ahead here, no matter how hard he worked. I spoke to a Pakistani Auntie named Samina, who told me that this movement had fostered something too rare: softness in people’s hearts. As she said in Urdu: logon ke dil badalgyehe.

142 New Yorkers out of 8 and a half million. And yet—if anything united each person sitting across from me, it was the shared recognition that this moment demands a new politics, and a new approach to power.

We will deliver nothing less as we work each day to make this city belong to more of its people than it did the day before.

Here is what I want you to expect from the administration that this morning moved into the building behind me.

We will transform the culture of City Hall from one of “no” to one of “how?”

We will answer to all New Yorkers, not to any billionaire or oligarch who thinks they can buy our democracy.

We will govern without shame and insecurity, making no apology for what we believe. I was elected as a democratic socialist and I will govern as a democratic socialist. I will not abandon my principles for fear of being deemed radical. As the great senator from Vermont once said: “What’s radical is a system which gives so much to so few and denies so many people the basic necessities of life.”

We will strive each day to ensure that no New Yorker is priced out of any one of those basic necessities.

And throughout it all we will, in the words of Jason Terrance Phillips, better known as Jadakiss or J to the Muah, be “outside”—because this is a government of New York, by New York, and for New York.

Before I end, I want to ask you, if you are able, whether you are here today or anywhere watching, to stand.

I ask you to stand with us now, and every day that follows. City Hall will not be able to deliver on our own. And while we will encourage New Yorkers to demand more from those with the great privilege of serving them, we will encourage you to demand more of yourselves as well.

The movement we began over a year ago did not end with our victory on Election Night. It will not end this afternoon. It lives on with every battle we will fight, together; every blizzard and flood we withstand, together; every moment of fiscal challenge we overcome with ambition, not austerity, together; every way we pursue change in working peoples’ interests, rather than at their expense, together.

No longer will we treat victory as an invitation to turn off the news. From today onwards, we will understand victory very simply: something with the power to transform lives, and something that demands effort from each of us, every single day.

What we achieve together will reach across the five boroughs and it will resonate far beyond. There are many who will be watching. They want to know if the left can govern. They want to know if the struggles that afflict them can be solved. They want to know if it is right to hope again.

So, standing together with the wind of purpose at our backs, we will do something that New Yorkers do better than anyone else: We will set an example for the world. If what Sinatra said is true, let us prove that anyone can make it in New York—and anywhere else too. Let us prove that when a city belongs to the people, there is no need too small to be met, no person too sick to be made healthy, no one too alone to feel like New York is their home.

The work continues, the work endures, the work, my friends, has only just begun.

Zohran K. Mamdani is the mayor of New York City.

3 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Occupied Palestinian Territory — Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reiterates its serious warning over the dangers of the Israeli–US agreement to establish what is termed a “green city” in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, presented as a solution for housing Gaza’s population forcibly displaced for more than two years and still living in deteriorating displacement tents.

The plan—whose details have previously been revealed—entails grave risks, including the imposition of arrangements that would, in effect, forcibly displace Palestinians from their original places of residence and convert large areas of the Gaza Strip into closed military zones under the direct control of the Israeli army.

Deep concern arises from reports by Israeli media indicating that US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed, during their most recent meeting, to move forward with implementing the plan. The initial phase reportedly involves constructing buildings resembling caravans designated for Palestinian civilians.

According to these reports, Israeli army forces are working alongside contractors to clear the area, which is already under full Israeli control, remove rubble, level the land, and prepare it for the construction of the city. The pace of these preparations is expected to accelerate in the coming period.

This plan represents yet another model of failure in addressing the consequences of the ongoing genocide committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip. It advances unrealistic proposals aimed, in essence, at demographic reengineering, altering the population structure of the Strip, and imposing a new reality grounded in control, domination, and humiliation—while offering no genuine solutions to civilian suffering.

The experience of the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation serves as a stark reminder. Aid distribution centres it established in Rafah rapidly turned into sites of killing, abuse, arrest, and enforced disappearance, resulting in the deaths of thousands of civilians.

The “green city” plan entrenches a reality of prolonged unlawful control, de facto annexation of land by force, and the imposition of unlawful forms of collective confinement of civilians, in clear violation of international law and the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

The area designated for the new city is currently under Israeli military control and hosts armed militias created by Israel, militias that have been proven to be involved in killings, intimidation, and theft against Palestinians, raising serious questions about their role in the emerging landscape being prepared in the area.

In early December, details were disclosed regarding the US plan for the Gaza Strip, developed through the US civil–military coordination centre. The plan is based on establishing a rigid system of geographic segregation that divides Gaza into population blocs and closed military zones.

Under this framework, more than half of the Gaza Strip is effectively placed within a closed military zone under direct Israeli army control, where strict systems of surveillance and military administration are imposed. A coercive environment is enforced, characterised by restrictions on movement, control over aid and essential services, and deprivation of a range of fundamental rights. These measures are used as pressure tools to push residents to leave their original places of residence and forcibly relocate to designated areas labelled “safe” within the closed military zone, without being granted any genuine choice to remain or return home.

The first phase of the plan divides Gaza into a “red zone” and a “green zone” under full Israeli military control, where armed groups formed and armed by Israel are deployed. A “yellow line” separates the two zones and is treated as a military field boundary, where Israeli forces apply a shoot-to-kill policy against anyone attempting to cross or approach it.

This imaginary line, marked by yellow indicators, has not remained fixed. It has been physically pushed beyond the published maps, advancing in some sections by more than one kilometre into the Gaza Strip. It is used as a tool for unilaterally redrawing military control lines, gradually expanding the areas under direct Israeli control. As a result, the proportion of land within the yellow zone has expanded from 53% of Gaza’s total area to approximately 60% in recent weeks due to Israeli expansions and the relocation of the markers.

Under the plan, additional areas of the Strip are subjected to a closed military regime, and the freedom of movement of Gaza’s population is severely restricted, entrenching de facto annexation of land and fragmenting the territorial unity of the Strip in violation of international law.

Available information indicates that the plan relies on transferring Palestinians from the red zone to the green zone through various pressure mechanisms. This is achieved by creating a coercive living and security environment in the red zone and linking access to relative protection and basic services to consent to relocation to specific areas within the green zone, following extensive security screening processes. This strips the transfer of any genuine voluntary character and places it squarely within the framework of forcible displacement prohibited under international humanitarian law.

These measures are not limited to temporary population management. At their core, they aim to reengineer the demographic composition and redraw the population and political map of the Strip by separating communities and sorting residents along security and political lines. This produces a new reality based on an organised system of discrimination, in which individuals are denied the freedom to choose their place of residence, build stable family lives, move freely, work, or participate in public affairs. Access to basic services, resources, education, and employment becomes contingent on security classification and restrictive criteria imposed by an unlawful occupying authority, transforming rights guaranteed under international law into conditional privileges that can be arbitrarily withdrawn.

The plan includes the construction of “cities” made of containers (residential caravans) within the green zone, each designed to house around 25,000 people within an area not exceeding one square kilometre. These cities are to be surrounded by fences and checkpoints, with entry and exit permitted only after security screening, effectively turning them into overcrowded detention camps imposing severe restrictions on residents’ movement and daily lives.

The design of these proposed “cities” mirrors historical models of ghettos, where colonial and racist regimes confined specific populations into enclosed neighbourhoods surrounded by fences and guard posts, with movement, entry, exit, and resources controlled externally—as seen in European ghettos during the Second World War and in other closed districts imposed on indigenous or marginalised groups in colonial and racist contexts. Such forced spatial segregation does not provide “temporary shelter” but rather creates imposed enclaves where entire populations are treated as administrable entities under control, rather than as individuals entitled to freedom of movement, housing, and life within their original communities.

Available data indicate that engineering units associated with the plan have already begun practical steps to launch the first pilot city in Rafah, which Israel has completely destroyed over the past two years.

The plan is based on systematic discrimination against Palestinians, linking the transfer of large numbers to the temporary “cities” in the green zone to passing security screening procedures whose criteria are set by Israeli and US authorities. This allows for the exclusion of wide segments of the population deemed “non-compliant” or “security risks,” including individuals with alleged political, organisational, or civic affiliations that do not align with the Israeli–US vision for the imposed arrangements. Those excluded are left in areas more exposed to siege and danger. As a result, relative protection and basic services—such as housing, food, and healthcare—are transformed from rights guaranteed to all without discrimination into tools of sorting and pressure, granted or withheld based on unilateral security and political assessments.

Life inside these temporary cities would unfold under arbitrary security surveillance and governance arrangements imposed without the residents’ consent. They would be denied any real choice to accept or reject these conditions, stripped of the ability to participate in managing their public affairs, and subjected to a new political and administrative reality that directly undermines the future of the Strip, the identity of its population, and their right to self-determination on their land through external interference.

This plan is not limited to provisional security or humanitarian arrangements. It falls within a broader trajectory aimed at fragmenting the unity of Palestinian land and people. It effectively seeks to entrench a permanent and complete separation between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and to impose a “starting from zero” logic through the creation of a new authority in Gaza, detached from the national framework and existing Palestinian representative institutions and subject to the conditions of the plan’s sponsors. This would reengineer the Palestinian political structure against the will of an occupied people, threaten fundamental rights, dismantle the social and political fabric, and gravely undermine the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination as a single unit across their entire occupied territory.

The US role in shaping and sponsoring this plan is subject to sharp criticism. The United States is not acting as a neutral mediator or humanitarian supporter, but as an active party involved in designing a field–political architecture that entrenches occupation, de facto annexation, and forcible displacement under the guise of alleged security and humanitarian arrangements. US oversight of the civil–military coordination centre, leadership of the planning process, and use of political influence to advance these divisions through international frameworks contradict its obligations under international law not to recognise unlawful situations or provide assistance in maintaining them. This exposes it to the risk of complicity in serious violations, including forcible population transfer, unlawful seizure of land and natural resources, and the undermining of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

Any arrangements in Gaza cannot constitute a solution, nor even a legitimate “temporary administration,” unless they are first grounded in ending the occupation through a complete and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory; ending the unlawful military, administrative, and settlement presence; lifting the land, sea, and air blockade imposed on Gaza; guaranteeing freedom of movement and access, including the unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid and reconstruction materials; and enabling Palestinians to rebuild their homes, infrastructure, and civil institutions themselves, in full respect of their inalienable right to self-determination on their land.

States and influential international actors—foremost among them the United Nations and States Parties to the Geneva Conventions—must reject any plan or field arrangements that maintain or reproduce Israeli control in the form of “enclaves” or “transitional zones.” They must refrain from recognising or assisting any situation involving forcible population transfer, de facto annexation of land, exploitation of the resources of occupied territory, or the undermining of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

They are also urged to exert genuine pressure to immediately lift the blockade, open crossings for humanitarian aid and reconstruction materials, guarantee Palestinians’ right to manage their own affairs and freely choose their representatives, and support international accountability pathways for crimes and violations committed, to ensure that no party enjoys impunity.

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

3 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Aman Namra

Caracas woke up to a different kind of morning. There were reports of explosions, panic near strategic installations, disruptions in power and communication. By noon, the government of Venezuela had said it plainly: this was not an accident, it was an attack — and the finger was pointed at the United States.

The timing was impossible to ignore. Just a day earlier, Venezuela had announced the detention of five US citizens, accusing them of activities linked to destabilisation and security threats. Washington responded sharply, calling the arrests illegal. Within hours, the crisis escalated.

Was this merely about detained citizens? Or was it about something far older, deeper, and far more valuable?

A country sitting on the world’s biggest prize

To understand Venezuela, one must look beneath its soil.

Venezuela holds the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, concentrated mainly in the Orinoco Belt. This single region has the potential to influence global energy markets for decades. Oil here is not just fuel — it is power.

Beyond oil, southern Venezuela is rich in gold, coltan and rare minerals essential for modern technology, defence systems and future industries. These are resources that shape geopolitics quietly but decisively.

That is why Venezuela has never been just another country on the map. It is strategic terrain.

When oil became ‘public’, relations turned hostile

The current crisis cannot be separated from history.

In 1999, then-president Hugo Chávez made a declaration that changed Venezuela’s place in the world order: The country’s oil would belong to its people, not foreign corporations.

For Washington, this was more than rhetoric. It signalled shrinking influence over one of the world’s most critical energy suppliers. Over time, political confrontation hardened, sanctions followed, and Venezuela was increasingly isolated.

Under Nicolás Maduro, the standoff intensified. Sanctions targeted oil exports, banking systems and state institutions. The stated aim was to pressure the government. The real impact, however, was felt most by ordinary Venezuelans — inflation, shortages and economic collapse.

Yet, the government did not fall.

History suggests that when economic pressure fails to deliver political outcomes, the language of pressure often changes.

From detentions to detonations

The arrest of five US citizens was presented by Venezuela as a matter of national security. The US dismissed this claim. What followed — reported military strikes or targeted actions — has been justified by Washington in fragments, invoking security and anti-narcotics operations.

But in geopolitics, narratives matter less than patterns.

For many observers, the sequence appears too precise to be accidental. The escalation revived an old suspicion: that destabilisation, not diplomacy, is once again being tested as a tool.

And inevitably, the question arises — is this about resources?

Is this a resource war?

There is, as of now, no public document or explicit admission proving that the actions were undertaken solely to seize Venezuela’s natural wealth.

But geopolitics rarely works through signed confessions.

Iraq, Libya and other resource-rich nations offer a familiar lesson: humanitarian language, security concerns and democratic ideals often coexist with strategic and economic interests. Oil-rich countries that attempt independent paths tend to attract disproportionate attention.

Venezuela fits that pattern too well to dismiss the suspicion lightly.

Why the world should care

This is not a bilateral conflict confined to Latin America.

• Any disruption in Venezuelan oil supply can shake global energy prices
• Fuel costs, inflation and market instability may follow
• The region risks another refugee and humanitarian crisis
• And the precedent of force over diplomacy grows stronger

In a world already fractured by wars and economic uncertainty, Venezuela is another reminder of how fragile global order remains.

More than an attack, less than peace

This story is not just about explosions near Caracas. It is about a country rich in resources trying to assert sovereignty, and a superpower determined to preserve strategic dominance.

Venezuela’s crisis reflects an uncomfortable truth of global politics: as long as the earth hides immense wealth beneath its surface, power struggles above it will rarely be peaceful.

For now, the dust has not settled. But the direction of the wind is unmistakable.

Aman Namra, a seasoned Development Journalist with a remarkable three-decade career, has made significant contributions in the field. As the Incharge and Resident Editor of the prominent National Development Communication Network “Charkha,” headquartered in Delhi, Aman has played a pivotal role in advancing the organization’s mission.

3 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Countercurrents Collective

In the early hours of Saturday, January 3, 2026, a dramatic escalation shook Venezuela and raised alarms across the hemisphere. Multiple loud explosions were heard in Caracas and other parts of the country — at least seven powerful detonations along with reports of low-flying aircraft over the capital and nearby military installations, including La Carlota airbase and Fort Tiuna — prompting widespread panic and power disruptions.

Shortly thereafter, former U.S. President Donald Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to announce that the United States had carried out a “large-scale strike” against Venezuela and that President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, had been “captured and flown out of the country.” Trump said the operation was conducted “in conjunction with U.S. law enforcement” and promised further details in a press conference scheduled for 11 AM (EST).

At the time of Trump’s post, these extraordinary claims had not been independently verified by international media or Venezuelan officials. Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez demanded “proof of life” for Maduro and his wife, asserting that their whereabouts were unknown.

The Venezuelan government condemned what it described as “military aggression” by the United States, declaring a national emergency and urging citizens to mobilise in defence of the nation’s sovereignty. Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino López called for a united front against what Caracas termed the “worst attack” in the country’s history.

On the Ground: Chaos and Uncertainty

Eyewitnesses in Caracas reported explosions and the presence of aircraft, while smoke was visible rising from key military zones. The Venezuelan government reported strikes on installations across multiple states beyond the capital, heightening fears that civilian areas may have been affected.

International reaction was swift. Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro called for an emergency UN Security Council session, warning of grave regional implications, while others condemned the apparent assault on Venezuelan sovereignty.

Amid the confusion, the U.S. State Department urged American citizens in Venezuela to shelter in place or avoid travel, reflecting the escalating security risks.

Historical Context: US Imperialism in Latin America

To understand the gravity of these events, they must be placed against the long history of U.S. interventions in Latin America, Central America, and the Caribbean — interventions frequently cloaked in rhetoric about democracy, security, or anti-drug efforts, but consistently serving strategic and economic interests.

20th Century and Cold War Era

Guatemala (1954): The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz over his land reforms, replacing him with military rule and setting off decades of civil war.

Cuba (1961): The Bay of Pigs invasion, backed by the CIA, aimed to topple Fidel Castro’s government. Although it failed, it cemented U.S. hostility toward the Cuban Revolution.

Dominican Republic (1965): U.S. Marines invaded to suppress a popular uprising, citing anti-communist fears.

Late Cold War and Post-Cold War

Chile (1973): The U.S. provided substantial support to the coup that overthrew socialist President Salvador Allende and ushered in General Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship.

Nicaragua (1980s): The Reagan administration funded Contra rebels to overthrow the Sandinista government, contributing to a brutal civil conflict.

Panama (1989): U.S. forces invaded to capture General Manuel Noriega, who was later brought to the United States on drug trafficking charges.

21st Century Interventions

Haiti & the Caribbean: Persistent interference in Haitian politics through support for selected leaders and pressure on others, often under the guise of stabilisation.

Iraq and Afghanistan: While outside the Caribbean, these invasions further demonstrated the U.S. willingness to project military power far from its borders in pursuit of geopolitical ends.

In recent years, U.S. policy toward Venezuela under successive administrations has involved economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert operations, and military pressure—frequently couched in the “war on drugs” and claims of promoting democracy but widely criticised as an attempt to subordinate a sovereign nation rich in oil resources.

This larger historical pattern reflects an imperialist regime-change strategy that has repeatedly undermined popular movements and elected governments across the region, leading to profound social and economic consequences that reverberate to this day.

As this story continues to unfold — with Trump’s press conference imminent and independent verification still lacking — the echoes of history remind us that direct U.S. military intervention in Latin America is not an aberration but a continuation of longstanding policy dynamics with deep human costs.

3 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Quds News Network

Occupied Palestine (QNN)- An Israeli army report shows a sharp rise in soldier suicides in 2025, according to an investigation published by Israeli Haaretz.

The newspaper reported that 22 Israeli soldiers killed themselves this year.

This is the highest figure since 2010, when 28 soldiers took their lives after the Gaza genicidal war.

Israeli army data confirmed the number rose to 22 after the death of a combat engineering soldier in mandatory service last Wednesday.

Israeli police opened a formal investigation.

The data shows that 12 of the soldiers were conscripts while nine were reservists.

Fourteen cases happened outside military bases and eight occurred inside bases.

The report noted that five soldiers had “severe mental health conditions” and were receiving psychological care. One of them was a senior drone specialist. He reportedly said before his death that he could no longer endure the effects of Israeli attacks.

Journalist Tom Levinson linked the rise in suicides to the genocidal war in Gaza that began on October 7, 2023.

The total number rose from 17 in 2023 to 21 in 2024.

This marked a sharp increase from the previous decade, when the annual average stood at 12 cases.

The Israeli army claims there is no single cause behind the deaths.

However, military sources told Haaretz that exposure to “harsh scenes” during the genocide likely harmed soldiers’ mental health.

The report stressed that the figures do not include former soldiers who committed scuicide after leaving service.

Israel’s Ministry of Defense estimates that about 15 former soldiers who served during the genocide died by suicide after discharge.

Due to the rise in post-service suicides, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz and former army chief Herzi Halevi formed a special committee to study the issue.

The committee released its conclusions last Tuesday.

It decided that the army will provide initial support to families of former soldiers who killed themselves, if investigators establish a link to military service.

Military officials warned that 2026 could be the most difficult year psychologically.

They cited the cumulative impact of war and the long duration of combat.

3 January 2026

Source: countercurrents.org

By Nilofar Suhrawardy

Ironically, the year 2025 began with US President Donald Trump declaring himself as a peacemaker. Sadly, the year’s end and beginning of 2026 doesn’t seem to be marked by his diplomatic rhetoric having yielded any results. In fact, one is tempted to say that it is time meanings of certain terms are rephrased. At least, the manner in which they seem to have been interpreted and even abused suggests this. Heading the list, perhaps is the word – ceasefire. Certainly, Trump has the right to take all the credit he desires for having led to their at least being considered during diplomatic talks, summits and finally on paper. But this term’s significance seems to be confined just to paper on quite a few fronts. Who can credit Israel for having respected the so-called Gaza ceasefire, despite it having been given so much importance by its key ally- United States. Interestingly, its key supporter appears to be giving minimum importance to violation of the ceasefire it has appeared to promote so aggressively. Some “belief” about it having been actually implemented is prompting initiation of diplomatic steps towards the next phase of ceasefire.

Virtually dead silence is also being maintained about Israel’s strikes against Lebanon. In contrast, substantial importance was given to Israel’s strikes against Iran. It apparently gave superpower an opportunity to display its strength also against Iran. Or in other words, an attempt was made to display strength of Israel against Iran. To a degree, it was snubbed by Iran’s retaliation and US had to step in. United States’ move was probably not simply against Iran but also against the powers, Iran is aligned with.

The world is apparently being viewed as a chessboard with United States under Trump being fairly frustrated at quite a few nations choosing to prefer ties with Russia and China instead of the superpower. What else does Trump’s tariff-war indicate? Israel led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is moving along the same path. What else do its strikes in the name of defeating Hamas and similar groups suggest? Israel’s aim is probably to dominate the terrain within its reach. In 2025, Israel carried out at least 10,000 strikes against more than six countries, including Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar and Yemen. Strategic moves exercised by United States aiding Israel cannot be dismissed. Except for Iran and Qatar, the others may be viewed as weak targets without the potential to retaliate strongly against Israel. If Iran is not weak, Qatar has the wealth and is strongly aligned with US. The objective of these strikes is the same- ensure that these countries remain weak and be subject to pressure exercised by US, even if that leads to change of governments in these, aligned with Washington and not with Russia or China.

Of course, Netanyahu loves the literally blind eye turned to Israel’s strikes by US and other western nations. In a way, this is equivalent to their “legitimizing” violation of international law and also adding to credibility desired by Netanyahu where displaying his “power” is concerned. In addition, the media coverage received by Israel’s strikes only further increases this. Notwithstanding the criticism received by these strikes, the fact that they also display the weakness of countries targeted only adds to what Netanyahu apparently aims for. His “war-games” also contribute to diverting attention from perhaps what needs greater attention, of which the most dominant is the Palestinian-issue.

United States’ silence is not surprising. To a degree, perhaps, Israel is just playing a key role of asserting the superpower’s importance and restricting their ties with Russia as well as China. United States’ aggression against Venezuela, including naval blockade, may be viewed from the same angle. At least, this is what Trump desires.

Paradoxically, Ukraine is caught miserably in the war with Russia. Of course, Trump has time and again expressed his desire for “peace” regarding Ukraine as well as other wars. He went overboard in having talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin at Alaska and on phone several times. Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have held talks discussing “peace” plan fairly frequently. Zelenskyy has been strongly supported by most European countries. But talks between Trump and Zelenskyy, including the latest in Florida (December 29), have not led into effective peace deal. Perhaps, Ukraine is being used simply as a pawn in the rivalry between USA and Russia. Neither Russia nor China are keen to yield to US on the Ukraine front. Washington is probably hopeful that continuation of Ukraine conflict is likely to only further weaken Russia, which is apparently its key aim. A key aim of its tariff-war is also this. But as of now Russia is not as isolated and weak as US desires it to be and tends to be projected by western media. This perhaps is prompting Trump to strike and/or reach out in as many directions as possible in a bid to display his power to Russia as well as China. The recent United States’ weapons deal with Taiwan, which has not pleased China, may be viewed as a part of this design. War-oriented strategies being exercised by those claiming to have stalled several conflicts certainly demands a new interpretation of what is “peace” really understood by them as? Provoking, prolonging conflicts or what?

Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy.

30 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Palestinian Territory – A new investigation by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor has uncovered the full circumstances of a mass killing carried out by the Israeli army against the Abu Nahal family in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, last year.

The attack killed 15 civilians, including 13 children and women, without any warning or prior notice, and in the absence of any military necessity that could justify the precise and deliberate targeting of the family.

The investigation, published on Monday, is based on extensive field-based work into an airstrike carried out by the Israeli army on the evening of Saturday, 17 February 2024.

An Israeli aircraft struck a family rest house (chalet) in the Khirbat al-Adas area, northeast of Rafah Governorate, using two heavy, US-made bombs, completely destroying the structure on top of its occupants, without any prior warning or alert that could have enabled civilians to escape and save their lives.

The findings of the investigation, based on months of work that included an on-site examination of the crime scene, cross-checking testimonies from survivors and eyewitnesses, and technical analysis of digital materials, indicate that the targeted site was purely civilian in nature.

It was a chalet rented by the family after they were displaced from their original home. The site was located in an open agricultural area, isolated from any other buildings, making its identification as a civilian object easy and clearly visible to aerial surveillance. The location and its surroundings were entirely devoid of any military presence or activities by armed factions, refuting any potential claims of “military necessity” and confirming that the aim was to kill the largest possible number of defenceless civilians.

The investigation also ruled out any possibility that there were military objectives justifying the strike.

Material evidence and documents obtained by the Euro-Med Monitor team, alongside eyewitness testimonies, confirmed that the head of the family, Ibrahim Abu Nahal, had no political or factional affiliations and spent most of his time engaged in trade. He was a well-known merchant in his community before the genocide began in October 2023 and continued his commercial activities throughout it.

The data presented in the investigation further confirmed that the victim, Ibrahim Abu Nahal, exhibited no unusual behaviour suggesting any form of affiliation. He lived a normal life, managed his business by phone throughout the day, and moved regularly and repeatedly to the Rafah crossing to collect consignments of flour, vegetables, or other food supplies. He took no precautionary measures that would indicate he anticipated or feared being targeted.

In detailing the moments preceding the crime, the investigation recorded that 16 members of the Abu Nahal family were gathered in one of the chalet’s rooms around the dinner table, celebrating the marriage of their son Abdullah, 26, to his cousin Mariam, 20.

At approximately 6:50 p.m., Ibrahim Abu Nahal, 57, arrived at the site from his work at the Rafah crossing, where he was engaged in the trade of food supplies and vehicles. Around ten minutes later, Israeli aircraft struck the location, completely destroying the chalet and killing those inside.

The investigation recorded testimonies from survivors and relatives of the victims that convey the scale of the crime. Osama Ibrahim Abu Nahal, 16, the sole survivor of the chalet strike, said: “We were sitting together as a happy family, celebrating my brother’s wedding. Around 6 p.m., without any warning, missiles struck. I remember being thrown into the air and then losing consciousness. I woke up in the hospital covered in wounds.”

He continued: “When I regained consciousness, I saw burns on my body and platinum pins in my hands and feet. I cried bitterly and asked my brother where my mother, father and siblings were. I just wanted to see them. […] the chalet I was in had been targeted, and everyone who was with me there that night had died.”

In another testimony, Sami Ibrahim Abu Nahl, a family member who narrowly survived after leaving the site just minutes earlier to buy groceries from a nearby shop at his mother’s request, said: “I left and walked to a store less than 150 metres away. As soon as I arrived, the sky lit up as if it were daytime, and I heard two explosions that shook the area.

He continued: “I rushed back and found the chalet completely destroyed, with two large craters in its place. I found scattered body parts instead of my family members. They were all gone.”

Regarding the recovery of the victims, Khalil Ibrahim Abu Nahal, a family member who had been displaced to another area and rushed to the site upon hearing the news, told the Euro-Med Monitor team: “I found myself carrying a plastic container and collecting the remains of my family: my sister’s head, my brother’s leg and his hand. […] I then went to the hospital and found only half of my father’s body, my brother’s headless corpse and the bodies of seven members of my family. The rest had been vaporised by the force of the bombs.”

Analysis conducted by the Euro-Med Monitor team of the scene, particularly the two deep craters left by the strike, revealed that the Israeli aircraft dropped two heavy bombs, most likely GBU-31 munitions (MK-84 bombs fitted with JDAM guidance kits), each weighing approximately 900 kilograms. These munitions have enormous destructive capacity and are designed to penetrate military fortifications. Their use against a simple, unfortified residential structure caused the soil and human bodies to absorb the force of the blast, resulting in the complete destruction of the site and the dismemberment of the victims’ bodies into small fragments scattered across the surrounding area, reaching even the rooftops of neighbouring houses.

The crime did not end with killing and destruction, but extended to the violation of the sanctity of the dead. The investigation documented that in May 2024, during the ground invasion of Rafah, Israeli military bulldozers levelled the mass grave in which the family’s victims had been buried near the Philadelphi Corridor, destroying the graves and their headstones, an act that reflects a deliberate attempt to erase Palestinian existence and violate human dignity even after death.

Euro-Med Monitor noted that, as of the publication of the investigation, the Israeli army had issued no statement clarifying the circumstances of its attack on the chalet where the Abu Nahal family had been staying, nor had it provided any justification for the motives, objectives, or outcomes of the attack. This recurring pattern reflects a complete disregard for civilian lives and a total neglect of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.

Euro-Med Monitor stresses that the use of excessive destructive force against an exposed civilian target, without any warning, demonstrates a premeditated intent to kill and to inflict the maximum possible number of casualties. As such, this crime constitutes both a war crime and a crime against humanity and represents additional material evidence of genocide currently under scrutiny by the International Court of Justice.

The international community must immediately fulfil its obligations to prevent and halt the crime of genocide through binding, practical measures that go beyond verbal positions. These include imposing an immediate and permanent ceasefire, stopping attacks on civilians, shelters, and displacement sites, and adopting effective protection measures for the civilian population to prevent the recurrence of Israeli crimes against civilians.

All relevant states and entities must impose targeted political and economic sanctions on those responsible for the most serious Israeli crimes, as well as on parties that enable, finance, or provide practical cover for them. This includes freezing assets, imposing travel bans, halting all forms of military, security, and intelligence cooperation, and suspending bilateral agreements that grant material or technological advantages or trade or research preferences that may contribute to the continuation of crimes or to impunity. Sanctions should also extend to entities and companies that supply equipment or services essential to targeting operations.

States with jurisdiction, including those exercising universal, territorial or personal jurisdiction, must initiate independent and effective criminal investigations into crimes committed in the Gaza Strip, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This includes issuing arrest warrants where legal thresholds are met.

The International Criminal Court must accelerate its investigation into the situation in the State of Palestine and expand its scope to include all those involved at both the political and military levels, as well as expedite the issuance of additional arrest warrants to ensure that perpetrators do not evade accountability.

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

30 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Kevin Reed

Speaking to reporters in Florida while meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, President Donald Trump announced that the US military has struck a dock facility on Venezuelan territory.

In typical form, Trump referred to what he called a “major explosion” at a dock area inside Venezuela where, he claimed, “they load the boats up with drugs,” and boasted, “So we hit all the boats and now we hit the area and that is no longer around … Two nights ago, we knocked that out.”

The off‑the‑cuff remarks were delivered at his Mar‑a‑Lago resort during a photo‑op with the war criminal Netanyahu. The two fascists basked in the announcement of a new reckless military act that threatens the lives of millions through a direct US assault on and invasion of Venezuela.

In response to a question from a reporter about comments Trump made on Friday about the attack, the US president presented it as a continuation of the ongoing “anti‑drug” campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, claiming that US forces struck a “big facility” used to load narcotics onto boats. Neither Trump nor any US military authority has provided verifiable details about the precise location, the nature of the target, the munitions used or the number of people killed, beyond vague references.

The strike appears to have involved air‑launched precision munitions delivered from US forces operating offshore, but the lack of official clarification highlights the lawless character of the operation. Experts have said there is a likelihood that the “facility” was a civilian port or dual‑use maritime infrastructure.

As of this writing, no authoritative source has provided details of what happened.

Despite the extraordinary implications of a US strike on Venezuelan territory, none of the principal organs of the American state—the White House, Pentagon or CIA—has issued a formal briefing or detailed explanation.

Meanwhile, also on Monday, US Southern Command posted on social media that the Joint Task Force Southern Spear had carried out a “lethal kinetic strike” on a vessel at the direction of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The US military carried out the strike in the eastern Pacific and destroyed a small boat claimed to be involved in drug smuggling. The attack, which was carried out in international waters, reportedly used air‑launched precision munitions against the craft without warning or attempt at interdiction or arrest.

This latest incident is one of a series of 30 or more such actions in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that have killed around 105 people, in which unknown individuals are killed execution‑style based on unsubstantiated claims of narcotics trafficking.

In the case of the dock strike, however, no Defense Department statements or military social media announcements have been issued acknowledging responsibility. The Pentagon has referred all questions to the White House, and the White House has “not immediately responded” to media requests for information, while intelligence agencies have maintained a studied silence.

As of Monday, Venezuelan officials had not issued a detailed public statement confirming damage or casualties at the dock facility mentioned by Trump. Previously, the Venezuelan government has denounced the boat strikes as “serial executions” and an “undeclared war,” warning that Washington is preparing an invasion under the pretext of drug interdiction. Caracas has also accused the US of seeking regime change to seize control of the country’s vast oil reserves.

Accepting that a land strike has in fact occurred, it is the latest in the months‑long US campaign of terror from the sea and air. Since early September, US forces have carried out at least 30 lethal strikes on small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing approximately 105 people. These operations, run through US Southern Command and involving an aircraft carrier strike group, an amphibious assault ship and thousands of Marines, have turned international waters off Venezuela into a killing field.

The Trump administration has declared that the US is in an “armed conflict” with “drug‑smuggling” boats run by “narco‑terrorist” cartels. In an October letter to Congress, the Pentagon indicated that those involved in trafficking are being treated as “unlawful combatants,” language that echoes the pseudo‑legal framework for imperialist crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

Survivors’ accounts and independent reporting have exposed that these were unannounced, summary executions at sea, in some cases involving follow‑up strikes after initial hits, confirming their character as war crimes.

US authorities have also been stopping and seizing oil tankers carrying Venezuelan crude, using the Coast Guard and other agencies to enforce a de facto maritime blockade. The campaign has “intercepted” tankers and signaled that any ship attempting to transport Venezuelan oil faces the threat of confiscation or destruction.

Trump officials themselves acknowledge that their objectives include not only alleged drug interdiction, but the removal of Maduro and the restoration of US corporate and financial interests expropriated during earlier phases of the regime.

The Democratic Party has responded to the escalation with a mixture of feigned outrage and essential agreement with Trump’s underlying imperialist aims. House Democrats recently pushed war‑powers resolutions in response to the boat‑strikes, with Representative Gregory Meeks of New York complaining after a classified briefing that the administration had failed to present a “clear strategy” and had not properly consulted Congress before it engaged in international crimes.

Meeks openly acknowledged that the operation does not appear to be “solely about drug trafficking” and voiced concerns that it is a regime‑change campaign that should be openly declared and formally authorized.

Florida Democrats who have close ties to the anti‑Maduro exile community, have issued statements attacking the “brutality of the Maduro dictatorship” while also denouncing Trump for hypocrisy. Their criticisms focus on Trump’s reliance on unsubstantiated claims about “Venezuelan fentanyl” while pardoning major traffickers elsewhere, and on his refusal to seek a Congressional “blank check” authorization for the use of force.

Not a single leading Democrat has denounced the boat and dock strikes as war crimes or demanded the immediate withdrawal of US forces from the region, confirming that their differences with Trump are tactical and not fundamental.

The latest strike on Venezuelan territory is an act of aggressive war, in direct violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and the sovereignty of states. Aggression—the launching of war without lawful justification—was declared “the supreme international crime” by the Nuremberg Tribunal, which tried, convicted and punished leading Nazi officials, including by hanging, for planning and waging wars of conquest.

The US campaign of massacring boat crews on the high seas and now striking land facilities inside Venezuela under bogus “anti‑drug” pretexts falls squarely into this category, placing Trump, his generals and his accomplices among the imperialist war criminals of the 21st century.

The US has not been attacked by Venezuela and Trump’s claims that the drone strikes are in “self‑defense” against narcotics traffickers are blatant lies. Washington is exploiting its overwhelming military superiority to achieve regime change and strategic dominance in contempt of both domestic and international law.

As the World Socialist Web Site has explained, the assault on Venezuela has everything to do with oil and imperialist geostrategy. US imperialism is seeking to overthrow the Maduro regime and install a government that is subordinated to Wall Street and the Pentagon.

The awarding of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado is a signal from all the imperialist powers that regime change in Venezuela is on the agenda. As the WSWS has noted, Machado’s political supporters openly advocate the use of violence and foreign intervention, and she has coordinated plans with the Trump administration for the “first 100 hours” after Maduro’s removal.

Historically, the US state has repeatedly collaborated with and utilized drug traffickers as instruments of policy, from CIA‑linked operations in Central America to the protection of friendly regimes and paramilitary forces across the hemisphere. The same apparatus that now denounces “narco‑terrorism” has long encouraged and manipulated the drug trade to deepen its control over sections of the Latin American bourgeoisie and to finance covert operations beyond the scrutiny of the population.

Behind the war drive against Venezuela is the broader imperialist strategy of asserting US hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Trump’s own statements and policy directives have included threats to seize control of the Panama Canal, annex Greenland and treat Canada as a de facto “51st state,” an open program of 21st‑century colonialism.

Commentators and strategists have noted that these strategic goals are framed in terms of “national security” and the struggle against rising Chinese and Russian influence internationally. The White House 2025 National Security Strategy has articulated in plain language a so-called “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine that seeks to exclude rival countries from what it regards as its exclusive sphere of influence.

This doctrine underlies the military buildup off Venezuela’s shores and the transformation of the Caribbean into a forward operating theater for US militarism and war. The aim is not only to topple Maduro but to demonstrate that no government in the hemisphere can act outside the dictates of Washington and Wall Street without facing economic strangulation, covert destabilization and, if necessary, direct military attack.

30 December 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

By Philip Giraldi and Prof Michel Chossudovsky

First published on October 7, 2023 at the outset of Israel’s act of genocide against Palestine. Revised in April 2024.

There is an ongoing propaganda campaign which categorically denies the existence of a false flag, the objective of which is to justify the genocide against the People of Palestine.

The evidence is overwhelming.

—May 19, 2024, July 27, 2025, October 7, 2025, November 30, 2025

Introduction
Was It a False Flag?

Military operations are invariably planned well in advance. Was “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” a “surprise attack”? Or was it “a False Flag”?

In the words of Philip Giraldi:

“As a former intelligence officer, I find it impossible to believe that Israel did not have multiple informants inside Gaza as well as electronic listening devices all along the border wall which would have picked up movements of groups and vehicles.

In other words, the whole thing might be a tissue of lies as is often the case.”

A Tissue of Lies
“A Tissue of Lies” has served to justify the killing in the Gaza Strip of more than 35,000 civilians, of which 70% are women and children coupled with total destruction and an endless string of atrocities.

The cat is out of the bag. Netanyahu has tacitly acknowledged that it was “A False Flag” which was intent upon justifying a carefully planned genocidal attack against Palestine:

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

Does this candid statement not suggest that Netanyahu and his military-intelligence apparatus are responsible for the killings of innocent Israeli civilians?

On that same day of October 7, 2023 Netanyahu launched a carefully planned military operation against the Gaza Strip entitled “State of Readiness For War”.

Military operations are invariably planned well in advance.

Had “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” been a “surprise attack” as parroted by the media, Netanyahu’s “State of Readiness For War” could not have been carried out (at short notice) on that same day, namely October 7, 2023.

South Africa’s Legal Procedure against the State of Israel
On January 11, 2024, the Republic of South Africa presented to The Hague World Court, a carefully formulated legal procedure against the State of Israel predicated on The Genocide Convention.

This legal procedure, however, has not contributed to repealing the ongoing genocide and saving the lives of tens of thousands of civilians.

I should mention that the False Flag issue —which constitutes a crime against humanity— was casually ignored by the ICJ.

Our suggestion is that an investigation followed by a legal procedure pertaining to the “False Flag” should be undertaken.

The heads of State and heads of government who have endorsed Israel’s Genocidal Acts are from a legal standpoint complicit.

The ICJ Judgement was contradictory. The Presiding Judge (former legal advisor to Hillary Clinton) was in conflict of interest:

The ICJ Judgment of January 26, 2024 assigns the Netanyahu government representing the State of Israel –accused by the Republic of South Africa of genocide against the People of Palestine– with a mandate to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent and punish” those responsible for having committed “Genocidal Acts”. (under Article IV of the Genocide Convention)

Sounds contradictory? What the ICJ judgment intimates –from a twisted legal standpoint– is that Netanyahu’s Cabinet which was “appointed” to implement the “prevent and punish” mandate cannot be accused of having committed “Genocidal Acts”.

See

[https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-icj-requires-netanyahu-to-prevent-and-punish-those-responsible-for-the-genocide/5847666]

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 24, 2024

Our intent is to provide a broad and detailed understanding of the false flag issue pertaining to Palestine.

The titles of the videos, articles and texts presented below:

1. Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag”? They Let it Happen? Their Objective Is “to Wipe Gaza Off the Map”?, by Dr. Philip Giraldi. 
2. Video: ICJ Hearings in The Hague, 
3. Text of Israel’s Secret Intelligence Memorandum. Planning the Forcible Exclusion of Palestinians from Their Homeland
4. Video: “False Flag. Wiping Gaza Off the Map”, Interview. Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux
5. “False Flag. Wiping Gaza Off the Map”, by Michel Chossudovsky
6. Gaza Strikes Back. It’s Another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor? But Who Actually Did What to Whom? “This Was More Likely a False Flag Operation”, by Philip Giraldi 

In solidarity with the People of Palestine.

—Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 11, 2024, September 14, 2024, July 27, 2025, November 15, 2025

Part I

Is the Gaza-Israel Fighting “A False Flag”?
They Let it Happen?

Their Objective Is “to Wipe Gaza Off the Map”?

by Dr. Philip Giraldi
October 8, 2023

Am I the only one who read about a speech given by Netanyahu or someone in his cabinet about a week ago in which he/they in passing referred to a “developing security situation” which rather suggests (to me) that they might have known about developments in Gaza and chose to let it happen so they can wipe Gaza off the map in retaliation and, possibly relying on the US pledge to have Israel’s “back,” then implicating Iran and attacking that country.

I cannot find a link to it, but have a fairly strong recollection of what I read as I thought at the time it would serve as a pretext for another massacre of Palestinians.

As a former intelligence officer, I find it impossible to believe that Israel did not have multiple informants inside Gaza as well as electronic listening devices all along the border wall which would have picked up movements of groups and vehicles.

In other words, the whole thing might be a tissue of lies as is often the case.

And as is also ALWAYS the case Joe Biden is preparing to send some billions of dollars to poor little Israel to pay for “defending” itself.

Part II
VIDEO. ICJ Hearings in The Hague
January 2024
ICJ Hearings

1. January 11, 2024. Click Here to View the ICJ Hearings,
2. January 12, 2024. Israel’s Legal Team’s response to South Africa, ICJ The Hague at 10 am. Video in Real Time

[https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Ryan%20Grim%20Newsletter]

3. Video: South Africa’s Closing Argument against Israel for Genocide. January 11 Hearing at the World Court

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4oRlvP4gsY]

Part III
Israel’s Secret Intelligence Memorandum
Planning the Forcible Exclusion of Palestinians from Their Homeland
by Michel Chossudovsky
October 2023

An official “secret” memorandum authored by Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence “is recommending the forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”, namely to a refugee camp in Egyptian territory. There are indications of Israel-Egypt negotiations as well as consultations with the U.S.

The 10-page document, dated Oct. 13, 2023, bears the logo of the Intelligence Ministry … assesses three options regarding the future of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip … It recommends a full population transfer as its preferred course of action. … The document, the authenticity of which was confirmed by the ministry, has been translated into English in full here on +972.

See below, click here or below to access complete document (10 pages)

[https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/secret-israel-memorandum-768×728.png]

For further details and analysis see:

“Wiping Gaza Off the Map”: Israel’s “Secret” Intelligence Memorandum “Option C” by Michel Chossudovsky

Part IV
Video: “False Flag. Wiping Gaza Off the Map”
Interview: Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux
October 17, 2023

[https://rumble.com/v3prb44-michel-chossudovsky-false-flag-eradicating-gaza-from-the-map.html]

To comment or access Rumble

Part V

“False Flag”. Wiping Gaza Off the Map
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
October 12, 2023
.
Introduction
Early Saturday October 7, 2023, Hamas launched “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” led by Hamas’ Military Chief Mohammed Deif. On that same day, Netanyahu confirmed a so-called “State of Readiness For War”.

Military operations are invariably planned well in advance (See Netanyahu’s January 2023 statement below). Was “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” a “surprise attack” ?

U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack.

“One would have to be almost hopelessly naïve to buy the corporate state media line that the Hamas invasion was an Israeli “intelligence failure”. Mossad is one of, if not the, most powerful intelligence agencies on the planet.”

Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Hamas attack which has resulted in countless deaths of Israelis and Palestinians.

Was a carefully formulated Israeli plan to wage an all out war against Palestinians envisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”? This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite.

Evidence and testimonies suggest that the Netanyahu government had foreknowledge of the actions of Hamas which have resulted in hundreds of Israeli and Palestinian deaths. And “They Let it Happen”:

“Hamas fired between 2-5 thousand rockets at Israel and hundreds of Israeli are dead, while dozens of Israelis were captured as prisoners of war. In the ensuing air response by Israel, hundreds of Palestinians were killed in Gaza.” (Stephen Sahiounie)

Following the Al Aqsa Storm Operation on October 7, Israel‘s defence minister described Palestinians as “human animals” and vowed to “act accordingly,” as fighter jets unleashed a massive bombing of the Gaza Strip home of 2.3 million Palestinians…” (Middle East Eye). A complete blockade on the Gaza Strip was initiated on October 9, 2023 consisting in blocking and obstructing the importation of food, water, fuel, and essential commodities to 2.3 Million Palestinians. It’s an outright crime against humanity. It’s genocide.

It is worth noting, that Netanyahu’s military actions are not targeting HAMAS, quite the opposite: he is targeting 2.3 million innocent Palestinian civilians, in blatant violation of the Four Basic Principles of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC):

“….respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects [schools, hospitals and residential areas], the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Additional Protocol 1, Article 48]

Ironically, according to Scott Ritter, Hamas’ has acquired U.S. weapons in Ukraine.

This was Not a “Surprise Attack”
Was the Hamas Attack a “False Flag”?

“I served in the IDF 25 years ago, in the intelligence forces. There’s no way Israel did not know of what’s coming.

A cat moving alongside the fence is triggering all forces. So this??

What happened to the “strongest army in the world”?

How come border crossings were wide open?? Something is VERY WRONG HERE, something is very strange, this chain of events is very unusual and not typical for the Israeli defense system.

To me this suprise attack seems like a planned operation. On all fronts.

If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say that this feels like the work of the Deep State.

It feels like the people of Israel and the people of Palestine have been sold, once again, to the higher powers that be.

Link to video (click here)

(Statement by Efrat Fenigson, former IDF intelligence, October 7, 2023, emphasis added)

Ironically, the media (NBC) is now contending that the “Hamas attack bears hallmarks of Iranian involvement”

History: The Relationship between Mossad and Hamas
What is the relationship between Mossad and Hamas? Is Hamas an “intelligence asset”? There is a long history.

Hamas (Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya) (Islamic Resistance Movement), was founded in 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin. It was supported at the outset by Israeli intelligence as a means to weaken the Palestinian Authority:

“Thanks to Mossad, (Israel’s “Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks”), Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat’s Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation.

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, “Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)”. (L’Humanité, translated from French)

The links of Hamas to Mossad and US intelligence have been acknowledged by Rep. Ron Paul in a statement to the U.S Congress: “Hamas Was Started by Israel”?

“You know Hamas, if you look at the history, you’ll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat… (Rep. Ron Paul, 2011)

What this statement entails is that Hamas is and remains “an intelligence asset”, namely “an “asset” to intelligence agencies”

See also the WSJ (January 24, 2009) “How Israel helped to Spawn Hamas”.

Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. (WSJ, emphasis added)

“The Cat is Out of the Bag”
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

Does this statement not suggest that Netanyahu and his military-intelligence apparatus are responsible for the killings of innocent Israeli civilians?

“Support” and “Money” for Hamas.
“Transferring Money to Hamas” on behalf of Netanyahu is confirmed by a Times of Israel October 8, 2023 Report:

“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (emphasis added)

The Dangers of Military Escalation?

Let us be under no illusions, this “false flag” operation is a complex military-intelligence undertaking, carefully planned over several years, in liaison and coordination with US intelligence, the Pentagon and NATO.

In turn, this action against Palestine is already conducive to a process of military escalation which potentially could engulf a large part of Middle East.

Israel is a de facto member NATO (with a special status) since 2004, involving active military and intelligence coordination as well as consultations pertaining to the occupied territories.

Military cooperation with both the Pentagon and NATO is viewed by Israel’s Defence Force (IDF) as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.”

The premise of NATO-Israel military cooperation is that “Israel is under attack”. Does Israel’s agreement with the Atlantic Alliance “obligate” NATO “to come to the rescue of Israel” under the doctrine of “collective security” (Article 5 of the Washington treaty)?

In recent developments, U.S. military deployments in the Middle East are ongoing allegedly to avoid escalation.

According to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:

There is always the risk that nations and/or organisations hostile to Israel will take try to take advantage. And that includes, for instance, organisations like Hezbollah or a country like Iran. So this is a message to countries and organisations hostile to Israel that they should not try to utilise the situation. And the United States have deployed, or has deployed more military forces in the region, not least to deter any escalation or prevent any escalation of the situation. (NATO Press Conference, Brussels, October 12, 2023, emphasis added)

Netanyahu’s “New Stage”
“The Long War” against Palestine

Netanyahu’s stated objective, which constitutes a new stage in the 75 year old war (since Nakba, 1948) against the people of Palestine is no longer predicated on “Apartheid” or “Separation”. This new stage –which is also directed against Israelis who want peace— consists in “total appropriation” as well as the outright exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland:

“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me [Netanyahu]: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.” (Netanyahu January 2023. emphasis added)

We bring to the attention of our readers the incisive analysis of Dr. Philip Giraldi pointing to the likelihood of a “False Flag’”.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 8, 2023, Above text updated on October 12, 2023

Part VI
Gaza Strikes Back. It’s Another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor?
But Who Actually Did What to Whom?
“This Was More Likely a False Flag Operation”

by Dr Philip Giraldi
October 16, 2023

.“As a former on-the-ground intelligence officer, I am somewhat convinced that this was likely more like a false flag operation rather than a case of institutional failure on the part of the Israelis.”

It’s amazing how America’s thought-controlled media is able to come up with a suitable narrative almost immediately whenever there is an international incident that might be subject to multiple interpretations.

Since 1948 Israel has expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes,

has occupied nearly all of the historic Palestine, has empowered its army to kill thousands of local people, and

has more recently established an apartheid regime that even denies that Palestinian Arabs are human in the same sense that Jews are.

Netanyahu-allied government minister Ayelet Shaked memorably has called for Israel not only to exterminate all Palestinian children, whom she has described as “little snakes,” but also to kill their mothers who gave birth to them.

But when the Arabs strike back against the hatred that confronts them with their limited resources it is Israel that is described as the victimand the Palestinians who are dehumanized and portrayed as the “terrorists.”

Media in the US and Europe were quick to label the Hamas offensive breaching the formidable Israeli border defenses as “Israel’s 9/11” or even “Israel’s Pearl Harbor” to establish the context that the Israelis have been on the receiving end of an “unprovoked” attack by a cruel and heartless enemy.

Israel has responded to the attack with a heavy bombardment of Gaza that has destroyed infrastructure, including hospitals and schools, while also cutting off food supplies, water and electricity.

It has demanded that residents of north Gaza, all 1.1 million of them, evacuate to make way for a possible ground offensive but there is nowhere to go as all the borders are closed, and the United Nations is calling it a demand with “devastating humanitarian consequences.” Journalist Peter Beinart has commented “This is a monstrous crime. It’s happening in plain view, with US support.”

And the United States government is indeed typically on the same page as Israel. President Joe Biden, citing fabricated stories about dead Jewish babies, speaks of how Israel has a “duty” to defend itself, while the Palestinians somehow have no right to protect themselves at all, much less to rise up against their persecutors in a struggle for freedom.

And Washington has also unhesitatingly chosen to directly involve itself in the conflict, completely on the side of the Jewish state, asserting repeatedly that “Israel has a right to defend itself” and telling the Israelis that “we have your back” while also dispatching two aircraft carrier groups to the scene of the fighting as well as the 101st Airborne to Jordan and increasing the readiness of Marines stationed in Kuwait.

The White House could have taken more aggressive steps to encourage a ceasefire and talks but has chosen instead to issue essentially toothless calls to let the trapped civilians escape while also backing a devastating Israeli military response.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Oct. 12, 2023. – Secretary Antony Blinken on X

Israel is also hosting the worthless and brain dead Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin who will be providing advice along the lines of his insightful comment that Hamas is “evil” and “worse than ISIS.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken is already in Jerusalem, announcing that the US is there to support Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unity government “as long as America exists” after first saying “I come before you not only as the United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew.”

Blinken’s explicit association of his personal religion with his official role as a representative of the US government makes clear that a key element in why he is there is because he is “a Jew.” Perhaps he should recuse himself from policy making involving Israel as being “a Jew” would not appear to be a United States national interest and is likely to produce irrational responses to developing situations.

If all of this sounds a lot like Ukraine it should, except that in Ukraine the US and NATO are fighting against Russia, which is being demonized for occupying what is claimed Ukrainian territory, whereas in Palestine they are supporting the occupier of actual Palestinian territory, Israel.

Funny thing that, and the word “hypocrisy” comes immediately to mind. As it turns out, however, I am somewhat on the same page as much of the media, agreeing that the Hamas incursion is something like 9/11, though I am sure that my take would not be found acceptable to the CNN Jake Tappers of this world.

My thinking is that Israel knew in advance about 9/11 in the United States due to its extensive spying network and chose not to share the information because it was to their advantage not to do so.

Indeed, a pleased Netanyahu even stated several years later that “9/11 was a good thing because it made the United States join us in our fight.”

That the attacks killed 3,000 Americans did not bother the Israeli government as Israel has a long history of killing Americans when it can benefit from so doing, starting with the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 which killed 34 sailors.

So too in this case in Gaza, Netanyahu may have decided to encourage an unexpected development, making it like 9/11, that would enable him to escalate and “mow the grass” as the Israelis put it, in the remainder of Arab Palestine.

And bear in mind that the actual incident that triggered the uprising was a rampage involving at least 800 Israeli settlers in and around the al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, beating pilgrims and destroying Palestinian shops, all without any interference from the nearby Israeli security forces. The rioting was clearly allowed and even encouraged by the government.

Drawing on my experience as a former on-the-ground intelligence officer, I am somewhat convinced that this was likely more like a false flag operation rather than a case of institutional failure on the part of the Israelis.

Israel had an extensive electronic and physical wall backed by soldiers and weaponry that completely surrounded Gaza on the landward side, so effective that it was claimed that not even a mouse could get in.

The Mediterranean side of Gaza was also tightly controlled by the Israeli Navy and boats to and from Gaza were completely blocked.

Egypt tightly controlled the southern part of Gaza bordering on the Sinai. So Gaza was under 24/7 complete surveillance and control at all times. Israeli military intelligence also certainly had a network of recruited informants inside Gaza who would report on any training or movements, easy enough to do when you can approach people who are starving and make them an offer they cannot refuse just for providing information on what they see and hear.

And then there was a warning from the Egyptian government to Israel ten days before the Hamas attack, with Egypt’s Intelligence Minister General Abbas Kamel personally calling Netanyahu and sharing intelligence suggesting that the Gazans were likely to do “something unusual, a terrible operation.” Other media accounts reveal how Hamas trained and practiced their maneuvers publicly. There were also assessments made by US intelligence, which were shared with Israel, suggesting that something was afoot. So, given all of the evidence, there likely was no intelligence failure to anticipate and counter the Hamas attack but rather a political decision made by the Israeli government that knew what might be coming and chose to let it proceed to provide a casus belli to destroy Gaza, vowing that “Every member of Hamas is a dead man,” and then go on from there. And “from there” might well include Lebanon, Syria and Iran, possibly with the assistance of the United States to do the heavy lifting. Iran in particular is already being blamed by the usual suspects as a party involved in the Hamas attack, so far without any evidence whatsoever, which is typical of how these stories evolve.

And Israel has moved far to the right politically to such an extent that it might appreciate a little ethnic cleansing to demonstrate its seriousness. Netanyahu and other senior government officials in his cabinet have recently been making passing references to a “developing security situation” in the country to justify the intensifying of the raids by the army against Palestinian towns and refugee camps. The new government in Israel has also placed police under the control of ultra-nationalist Jewish Power party head Itamar Ben-Gvir as National Security Minister. He has been exploiting his position to call in particular for a war to destroy Hamas in Gaza, which is precisely what is happening. Gaza might be of particular interest to Ben-Gvir and others as it uniquely shelters an armed and organized resistance in the form of Hamas, which, oddly, was founded with the support of Israel to split the Palestinian political resistance with Fatah controlling the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza.

There is another issue relating to the recent fighting that one would like to know the answer to, namely how did Hamas get its weapons in the first place?

Some were clearly manufactured from parts and scrap but others were sophisticated and, as Gaza is blockaded on all sides, smuggling them in becomes problematical. One argument is that they were supplied by Iran and others to be brought in by tunnels, but the tunnels on two sides would end up in Israel and on the third side in Egypt. The fourth side is the Mediterranean Sea. So how did they arrive? Is there a possible triple or even quadruple cross taking place with different parties lying to each other? And should there be concerns that after the American armada arrives off the coast of Gaza there just might be some kind of false flag incident engineered by Netanyahu that will involve Washington directly in the fighting?

And there is what amounts to a related issue that should be of concern to everyone in the US and generically speaking the “Western world” where human rights are at least nominally respected. The message from almost all Western governments is that Israel has a carte blanche to do whatever it likes even when it involves war crimes to include mass forced displacement or genocide. In this case, the coordinated government-media response which is intended to protect Israel from any criticism almost immediately began circulating fabricated tales of atrocities while also delivering a hit on freedom of speech and association. President Biden, who should be trying to defuse the crisis, is instead adding fuel to the flames, saying of Hamas that “Pure, unadulterated evil has been unleashed on the earth!”

In Florida the arch Zionist stooge Governor Ron Desantis met with Jewish leaders in a synagogue to announce draconian measures against Iran to include sanctions on companies that are in any way linked to that country. One might point out that those businesses have done nothing wrong and Desantis also called for “eradication of Hamas from the earth.” His intellectual depth was at the same time revealed when he said the US should not take in any Gazan refugees because they are “antisemites.”

And in South Carolina, America’s favorite he/she Senator Lindsey Graham is calling for a US attack on Iran as well as declaring the war against Hamas to be “a religious war” and urging the Israeli army to invade Gaza and do “Whatever the hell you have to do to” to “level the place.”

And the Europeans are equally spineless in their deference to Israel. The Israeli president declared the that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, and not long after that top European Union representatives met with him to offer their unqualified support. Meanwhile in France, the spineless and feckless government of Emmanuel Macron has sought to outlaw any gathering that expresses support for Palestinian rights.

And in the UK, the Home Secretary Suella Braverman has proposed criminalizing any protest against Israeli actions or anything in support of Palestine to include banning any public display of the Palestinian national flag, which she regards as a “criminal offense toward the Jewish community in Britain.”

She has also said that “I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.” Berlin’s Public Prosecutor’s Office has also classified the use of the expression as a “criminal offense.” The manner in which most Western political elites are lining up unquestionably and even enthusiastically behind Israel and its craven leaders’ desire for bloody vengeance is truly shocking but comes as no surprise.

Beyond the issue of Gaza itself, some in Israel are arguing that Netanyahu has personally benefitted from the unrest through the creation of the national unity government which has ended for the time being the huge demonstrations protesting his judicial reform proposals. If all of this comes together politically as it might in the next several weeks, we could be seeing the initial steps in what will develop into the complete ethnic cleansing of what was once Palestine, in line with Netanyahu’s assertion that “the Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel.” So all of the former Palestine is now a land to be defined by its Jewishness where Jews are in full control and are free to do whatever they want without any objection, referred to by the Israeli government as “an exclusive right to self-determination.” And it has all possibly been brought to fruition by the enablement provided by the current developments in Gaza.

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.

30 December 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca