Just International

“Peace on Planet Earth: Cancel Your NATO Membership. It’s Easy? “Say Goodbye” to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Article 13 of the Washington Treaty describes a simple procedure for a NATO member state, to cancel its membership.

Below is the stated objective of NATO: Peace and Security, Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law, Safeguard Freedom and  Democracy.

See below:

“The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and securityThey therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty.”

Sounds good but it’s a bold face lie.

NATO is an instrument  of  continuous warfare.  What utter nonsense. They do not support the Charter of the United Nations.

US-NATO-Israel’s “humanitarian wars” consist of crimes against humanity, genocide and the destruction and fragmentation of entire countries:

Palestine, Vietnam, Cambodia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, …

not to mention military coup’s, regime change, color revolutions, … poverty and famine.

Famine in Afghanistan (invaded by NATO forces in October 2001) on the pretext that Afghanistan had attacked America on 9/11 allegedly in support of Al Qaeda.

Read Article 13 of the Washington Treaty which describes the procedure.

“Article 13

“After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

A NATO Member State may cease to be “A Party of NATO ” one year after its notice of denunciation has been given the the Government of the U.S.A” (emphasis added)

A  NATO member state may decide to “WITHDRAW from NATO.” 

We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history which is characterized by a system of alliances of nation-states (namely NATO) which unequivocally supports and finances the United States military agenda. The latter also includes an option to conduct nuclear war. A 1.3 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program, slated to increase to 2 trillion by 2030.

While Article 13 of the Washington Treaty appears to be simplistic, one can expect numerous pressures and fraudulent actions with a view to preventing a NATO member state from canceling its NATO membership.

What is crucial is to fracture and weaken NATO: an intergovernmental alliance of 32 member states.

There is also the issue of cross-cutting alliances and coalitions, namely countries which are members of NATO, while also having alliances or agreements with so-called enemies of NATO.  Turkey is a NATO member state which has economic and strategic alliances with both Russia and Iran.

The withdrawal from NATO of one or more member states could have a significant impact. It creates a precedent, which would encourage more NATO member states, “to say goodbye.”

How to Reverse the Tide of War: “Say Goodbye to Nato”

A. Withdrawal (Art 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty)

1. A mass movement at the grassroots of society to withdraw from NATO (Art. 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty)

2. Actions within the legislature of the 32 member states. Motions “to cease to be a party” of NATO (Art 13) 

B. NATO Wants Money From Member States. It Also Wants Weapons

“During the 2014 summit, all NATO members agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2025″.

Pressure governments to freeze defense spending. Demand withdrawal of soldiers from the war theater.

C. The Restoration of Peace and Democracy

3. Persistent actions against corrupt heads of state who support NATO. 

4. Restoration of the democratic process, elect politicians firmly committed to “CEASING TO BE A PARTY” OF NATO (ART 13)

D. Democratization of the Media

5. Actions against media, which are supportive of terrorism and crimes against humanity committed by  NATO forces. 

E. Actions Within the United Nations System 

6. Meaningful actions within the United Nations System.

7. Actions against NGOs which support NATO.

F. Legal Actions

8. Legal actions against the military industrial complex and the financial establishment 

9. Actions against the billionaire philanthropists which endorse and finance US NATO Israel, acts of war

10  Actions against NATO member governments which commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide


The Motto of NATO: Increase defense spending to prevent war. NATO must spend more.” 

“The Lie Becomes the Truth”

_______________________________________________________

See The Washington Treaty  (Complete Text)

 

See the text of Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty below.

Text of Article 13

A  NATO Member State may take the decision to WITHDRAW from NATO.

The procedure is described in Article 13 of the Washington Treaty.

Article 13

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

A NATO Member State may cease to be “A Party of NATO ” one year after its notice of denunciation has been given the the Government of the U.S.A.

14 April 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

Mahmoud Khalil’s Letter From an ICE Detention Center

By Mahmoud Khalil

Mahmoud Khalil, who has been detained and targeted for deportation by the Trump administration for speaking out about the atrocities in Gaza, dictated a letter to the public from his detention cell in Louisiana. In this letter, Mahmoud Khalil, exposes the systemic injustices within U.S. immigration facilities and how his arrest reflects the crackdown on dissent, underscoring the urgent need to defend civil liberties and the right to protest.

My name is Mahmoud Khalil and I am a political prisoner. I am writing to you from a detention facility in Louisiana where I wake to cold mornings and spend long days bearing witness to the quiet injustices underway against a great many people precluded from the protections of the law.

Who has the right to have rights? It is certainly not the humans crowded into the cells here. It isn’t the Senegalese man I met who has been deprived of his liberty for a year, his legal situation in limbo and his family an ocean away. It isn’t the twenty-one-year-old detainee I met, who stepped foot in this country at age nine, only to be deported without so much as a hearing.

Justice escapes the contours of this nation’s immigration facilities.

On March 8, I was taken by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents who refused to provide a warrant and accosted my wife and me as we returned from dinner. By now, the footage of that night has been made public. Before I knew what was happening, agents handcuffed and forced me into an unmarked car. At that moment, my only concern was for Noor’s safety. I had no idea if she would be taken too, since the agents had threatened to arrest her for not leaving my side. DHS would not tell me anything for hours — I did not know the cause of my arrest or if I was facing immediate deportation. At 26 Federal Plaza [in New York City], I slept on the cold floor. In the early morning hours, agents transported me to another facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey. There, I slept on the ground and was refused a blanket despite my request.

My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza, which resumed in full force Monday night. With January’s cease-fire now broken, parents in Gaza are once again cradling too-small shrouds, and families are forced to weigh starvation and displacement against bombs. It is our moral imperative to persist in the struggle for their complete freedom.

I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria to a family that has been displaced from their land since the 1948 Nakba. I spent my youth in proximity to yet distant from my homeland. But being Palestinian is an experience that transcends borders. I see in my circumstances similarities to Israel’s use of administrative detention — imprisonment without trial or charge — to strip Palestinians of their rights. I think of our friend Omar Khatib, who was incarcerated without charge or trial by Israel as he returned home from travel. I think of Gaza hospital director and pediatrician Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, who was taken captive by the Israeli military on December 27 and remains in an Israeli torture camp today. For Palestinians, imprisonment without due process is commonplace.

I have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear. My unjust detention is indicative of the anti-Palestinian racism that both the Biden and Trump administrations have demonstrated over the past sixteen months as the United States has continued to supply Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians and prevented international intervention. For decades, anti-Palestinian racism has driven efforts to expand US laws and practices that are used to violently repress Palestinians, Arab Americans, and other communities. That is precisely why I am being targeted.

While I await legal decisions that hold the futures of my wife and child in the balance, those who enabled my targeting remain comfortably at Columbia University. Presidents [Minouche] Shafik, [Katrina] Armstrong, and Dean [Keren] Yarhi-Milo laid the groundwork for the US government to target me by arbitrarily disciplining pro-Palestinian students and allowing viral doxing campaigns — based on racism and disinformation — to go unchecked.

Columbia targeted me for my activism, creating a new authoritarian disciplinary office to bypass due process and silence students criticizing Israel. Columbia surrendered to federal pressure by disclosing student records to Congress and yielding to the Trump administration’s latest threats. My arrest, the expulsion or suspension of at least twenty-two Columbia students — some stripped of their BA degrees just weeks before graduation — and the expulsion of SWC [Student Workers of Columbia] president Grant Miner on the eve of contract negotiations, are clear examples.

If anything, my detention is a testament to the strength of the student movement in shifting public opinion toward Palestinian liberation. Students have long been at the forefront of change — leading the charge against the Vietnam War, standing on the front lines of the civil rights movement, and driving the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Today, too, even if the public has yet to fully grasp it, it is students who steer us toward truth and justice.

The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa holders, green card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs. In the weeks ahead, students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all.

Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my firstborn child.

14 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Israeli targeting of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital is a deliberate assault on life and Gaza’s last refuge

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Palestinian Territory – The Israeli forces’ deliberate destruction of Gaza City’s Al-Ahli Arab Hospital reflects a broader intent to systematically dismantle essential aspects of life in the Gaza Strip. This attack is part of a clear strategy to erode all means of survival by disregarding international legal protections for civilians in order to deliberately deprive them of basic living conditions and strike vital infrastructure; it demonstrates a calculated Israeli policy designed to induce a slow collapse and push the people in the Strip towards a total breakdown.

Euro-Med Monitor emphasises that this escalation marks a dangerous phase in a systematic strategy meant to eliminate Palestinian civilians in the besieged enclave. The targeting of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital is the targeting of Gaza City’s last refuge for the sick and wounded, who should always be protected, and of medical personnel working under catastrophic conditions to save lives. Bombing a hospital sheltering critically ill patients is a direct violation of the right to life and, in a broader context, is part of Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli aircraft struck the emergency building of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in central Gaza City with two bombs at around 2:10 a.m. on Sunday 13 April 2025. The attack occurred less than 30 minutes after the hospital received an Israeli call demanding evacuation. The strike destroyed the building and caused particularly extensive damage to the reception area and emergency department, laboratory, and pharmacy, which all caught fire.

According to eyewitnesses, people sheltering inside the hospital and medical staff were forced to evacuate dozens of patients and wounded people—some in critical condition—from the hospital to the surrounding streets. Patients were left lying on sidewalks, exposed to the risk of death and denied access to medical care, highlighting the severity of the escalating humanitarian crisis. Following the evacuation process, an injured child, Hatem al-Nabih, died outside the hospital.

As international law mandates the protection of medical facilities, the Israeli army’s order to evacuate the entire hospital within less than 30 minutes falls far short of the minimum standards required for a safe and effective evacuation. The order reflects a deliberate failure to provide genuine safeguards for civilians, including patients, the wounded, and medical staff. Given the Israeli pattern of issuing formal warnings to justify actions that still result in egregious harm due to the lack of time allotted for evacuation, Israel is not absolved of its legal responsibility.

Furthermore, the issuing of evacuation orders does not revoke a hospital’s protected status under international law, nor justify targeting and destroying it, especially when the facility plays such a vital role in the survival of civilians, as was the case with Al-Ahli Arab Hospital. An operating hospital remains a site of humanitarian use, and under no circumstances may civilians be deprived of its services, even after evacuation.

Demanding the immediate evacuation of a hospital overcrowded with critically ill patients, many of them on life support, amid a total blockade and absence of safe zones, cannot be seen as a humanitarian measure. Instead, it is an impossible demand—one that turns the so-called warning itself into a tool of coercive pressure aimed at the destruction of the population, both physically and psychologically. With no escape, refuge, or international intervention, this strategy deliberately drives individuals into a further state of absolute despair, as they see themselves being pushed towards a fate in which their people’s existence has been eliminated.

Israel’s claim of Hamas’ “military use” of the hospital is a familiar and well-worn justification that is often invoked to legitimise its systematic killings and destruction after the fact. This claim lacks credibility in the absence of concrete evidence, especially when considered within the broader context of the deliberate Israeli policy of targeting civilian infrastructure—most notably hospitals. Israel’s bombardment of these facilities has been central to its attacks, despite there being no legal basis for this type of targeting, as such buildings are protected under international humanitarian law.

The principle of proportionality prohibits civilian harm that is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Therefore, the destruction caused by Israel’s bombing of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital and the consequent severe physical and psychological suffering inflicted on patients, medical staff, and displaced civilians who were seeking shelter there outweigh any claimed military benefit. There is no question, then, that the attack flagrantly violates international humanitarian law and constitutes an international crime warranting legal prosecution and accountability.

Euro-Med Monitor stresses that this attack is not the first to target Al-Ahli Arab Hospital since Israel began its genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in October 2023. It is also part of a broader, systematic campaign to completely disable all health facilities in the besieged enclave. Following the destruction and shutdown of most other hospitals by Israeli forces over the past 18 months, Al-Ahli Arab Hospital was the last relatively functional hospital, serving over one million people in Gaza City and the northern part of the Strip.

Prior to the attack on Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, media outlets close to the Israeli army published a video on March 21 showing Israel’s bombing and destruction of the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital in southern Gaza City. As one of the largest specialised hospitals, it served over 12,000 cancer patients. Israel had already targeted this hospital in November 2023 and again in mid-2024, after which Israeli forces turned it into military barracks. This action deprived thousands of patients of vital care, and led to the deaths of approximately 500 cancer patients due to lack of treatment.

Israel’s bombing of both Al-Ahli Arab Hospital and of the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital—despite the latter being under Israeli control—indicate that these attacks are being carried out without any legitimate military necessity. They reveal that Israel’s true objective is not security, but the deliberate creation of widespread destruction and unliveable conditions in the Gaza Strip, with the ultimate aim of forcing the remaining Palestinian population to leave it.

The ongoing targeting of hospitals and healthcare infrastructure in the Gaza Strip constitutes both a war crime and a crime against humanity. It exposes the systematic nature of the Israeli aggression and its goal of eliminating the civilian population by dismantling their most basic means of survival—most notably the healthcare system, which remains the last lifeline amid the ongoing genocide and total siege imposed on the Strip’s civilians.

Since 2 March 2025, Israel has blocked the entry of medicine and medical supplies along with all other humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, which was already facing a severe shortage of such supplies due to the strict blockade prior to the January 2025 ceasefire, shattered by Israel on 18 March. The crisis has been compounded by the escalating Israeli airstrikes and the rising number of casualties they continue to cause.

All states must fulfil their individual and collective legal obligations and take urgent action through all available means to stop Israel’s ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip. They must employ effective measures to protect Palestinian civilians, including by safeguarding medical facilities, health workers, the wounded, and the sick, to halt the continuation of Israel’s policy of mass extermination in the Strip.

Euro-Med Monitor calls on the international community to ensure Israel’s compliance with international law and the rulings of the International Court of Justice, and to hold it accountable for its horrific crimes against the Palestinian people. The international community must also enforce the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against the Israeli Prime Minister and Defence Minister without delay.

In addition, the international community must impose economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel for its systematic and grave violations of international law. These should include an arms embargo; a halt to all political, financial, and military support or cooperation; a freeze on the assets of officials implicated in crimes against Palestinians; and travel bans against these officials. Additionally, trade privileges and bilateral agreements that grant Israel economic advantages that enable its continued violations should be suspended.

All relevant states and entities must hold accountable those complicit in Israel’s crimes—most notably the United States and other Israeli allies that assist in enabling Israeli violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This includes aid and other forms of cooperation in the military, intelligence, political, legal, financial, and/or media sectors, as well as any other sectors that contribute to the continuation of the aforementioned crimes.

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

14 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Trump’s anti-China stand: Covid-19 & Tariff-war!

By Nilofar Suhrawardy

During his first term in office, President Donald Trump’s anti-China policies seemed as aggressive and assertive as they are now. Paradoxically, though those centred around a totally different issue, they certainly had a negative impact on US, Trump himself and of course greater part of the world. Yes, this was Trump’s claim that the disease Covid-19 was a “Chinese virus.” It was alleged that the pandemic leaked from a Chinese laboratory and Trump promoted the same. A speculation of it having been engineered as a possible biological weapon was also entertained. A team of scientists appointed by WHO conducted a 12-day investigation at Wuhan, which included a visit to the laboratory, concluded that the “lab-leak” theory was “extremely unlikely.” Irrespective of whatever was the source of Covid-virus, there is no doubt, it’s impact affected the whole world at large. There is a view, had US not made so such noise about it, most people – particularly from the developing world – would have not been affected so severely. Some ailment or other has them grappling with each year, especially during rainy season. But this is other side of the story. It may be recalled, Trump himself, as reported, was affected by the virus. Clearly, the Covid-phase strongly displayed the apparent animosity Trump entertained towards China. Banning entry from China, though with gaps, hardly succeeded in checking the spread of Covid in US and other countries. However, travel restrictions along with Covid lockdown were subsequently followed by other countries which led to a major economic downfall at several levels for all across the world, from which they haven’t yet totally recovered.

Now, it is feared, Trump’s ongoing trade war with China may spell catastrophic economic problems for the whole world with far more severe consequences with impact on US itself as it is being seen. Most countries, including strong European allies of US, seem to have been compelled to consider stronger regional unity as well as better ties with China. Clearly, China is trying to make the best of the situation by asking European countries not to be “bullied” by US. China is in favour of “teaming” with Europe against US, that is Trump’s “tariff-war.” Certainly, it is too early to expect any ally of US and one that has not entertained smooth ties with China to suddenly give importance to this offer of Beijing. Nevertheless, there is no denying Trump’s trade-war has cautioned them all of the risk of being too dependent on US. Prospects of their gradually giving greater importance to moving beyond the US-camp cannot be side-lined. The 90-day pause initiated by Trump on tariff for most countries except China has certainly given his allies sometime to consider their options and hold talks with US. During this pause until July 9, the baseline tariff remains in place. China has chosen to raise additional tariff on US goods from 84% to 125% in respond to Trump’s decision to impose 145% tariff on some Chinese goods. This is not just a tit-for-tat diplomatic feud taking place between US and China. It’s multi-lateral impact on most countries is too strong to be ignored. The manner in which their economy has been hit, with US itself not being spared, has spelt shocks for their market, loss for investors, consumers and so forth.

Ironically, from one angle, there is nothing surprising or new about economic aggression being engaged in by Trump. Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Russia are among the countries against whom economic sanctions have been imposed by US and its western allies. The difference is that now even US allies face the economic aggression because of Trump’s tariff-war. Where does this place the Arab countries, which seem comfortably placed with their oil wealth? Besides, US is not a key importer of their oil. In addition, the key Gulf countries have alongside their warm times with US, maintained good ties with Russia as well as China. Economically as well as diplomatically, they don’t appear to be caught in as frustrating situation as are other countries.

Paradoxically, on one hand, while Trump has gone overboard against China in the trade-war, on the other hand, as comments from White House suggest, he is “optimistic” about a “deal” with China (April 11, 2025). “The president,” according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, “would be gracious if China intends to make a deal. If China continues to retaliate, it’s not good for China.” It is possible, Trump did not expect China to retaliate as it has by raising duties on US goods. Now, he is considering options of a “deal” with China. But as apparent, China is not taking him seriously nor does it give the impression of it being keen for any deal with US. Rather, China is exploring opportunities of attracting US allies to its side. In addition, Trump probably expects China to pay instant heed to his comments, prospects of which may be viewed as limited. In other words, chances of Chinese President Xi Jinping taking the initiative to hold talks with Trump regarding the “deal,” the latter has suggested, may be viewed as fairly remote. This is also marked by Chinese comments on it not backtracking in tariff-war with US but if these “infringe” on China’s interests in a “substantial way,” China will take “countermeasures” and “fight to the end.”

The impact of Chinese retaliation on US stocks is reported to be “worst” since the “Covid-crash.” Incidentally, China was Trump’s primary target during the Covid-phase and so it is in his tariff-war. China prefers facing Trump’s “war” without yielding to what has been described by China as his “bullying.” Given that this is Trump’s second term in office, he has limited time. But the same cannot be said about Xi, who has time on his side. One thing is clear, just as Covid-phase only had negative impact, this “tariff-war” has no winners, at least, at present!

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

13 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Should Iran Bend Knee to Donald Trump?

By Kim Petersen

Former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter usually provides excellent analysis of geopolitical events and places them in a morally centered framework. However, in a recent X post, Ritter defends a controversial stance blaming Iran for US and Israeli machinations against Iran.

Ritter opened, “I have assiduously detailed the nature of the threat perceived by the US that, if unresolved, would necessitate military action, as exclusively revolving around Iran’s nuclear program and, more specifically, that capacity that is excess to its declared peaceful program and, as such, conducive to a nuclear weapons program Iran has admitted is on the threshold of being actualized.”

Threats perceived by the US. These threats range from North Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, China, and Russia. Question: Which of the named countries is aboutto — or ever was about to — attack the US? None. (Al Qaeda is not a country) So why does Ritter imply that military action would be necessitated? Is it a vestige of military indoctrination left over from his time as a marine? In this case, why is Ritter not focused on his own backyard and telling the US to butt out of the Middle East? The US, since it is situated on a continent far removed from Iran, should no more dictate to Iran what its defense posture should be in the region than Iran should dictate what the US’s defense posture should be in the northwestern hemisphere.

Ritter: “In short, I have argued, the most realistic path forward regarding conflict avoidance would be for Iran to negotiate in good faith regarding the verifiable disposition of its excess nuclear enrichment capability.”

Ritter places the onus for conflict avoidance on Iran. Why? Is Iran seeking conflict with the US? Is Iran making demands of the US? Is Iran sanctioning the US? Moreover, who gets to decide what is realistic or not? Is what is realistic for the US also realistic for Iran? When determining the path forward, one should be aware of who and what is stirring up conflict. Ritter addresses this when he writes, “Even when Trump alienated Iran with his ‘maximum pressure’ tactics, including an insulting letter to the Supreme Leader that all but eliminated the possibility of direct negotiations between the US and Iran…” But this did not alter Ritter’s stance. Iran must negotiate — again. According to Ritter negotiations are how to solve the crisis, a crisis of the US’s (and Israel’s) making.

Iran had agreed to a deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and Germany — collectively known as the P5+1 — with the participation of the European Union. The JCPOA came into effect in 2016. During the course of the JCPOA, Iran was in abidance with the deal. Nonetheless, Trump pulled the US out of the deal in 2018.

Backing out of agreements/deals is nothing new for Trump (or for that matter, the US). For example, Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement on climate, the Trans-Pacific Partnership on trade, the United Nations cultural organization UNESCO, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was subsequently renegotiated under Trump to morph into the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, which is now imperilled by the Trump administration’s tariff threats, as is the World Trade Organization that regulates international trade.

Should Iran, therefore, expect adherence to any future agreement signed with the US?

Ritter insists that he is promoting a reality-based process providing the only viable path toward peace. Many of those who disagree with Ritter’s assertion are lampooned by him as “the digital mob, comprised of new age philosophers, self-styled ‘peace activists’, and a troll class that opposes anything and everything it doesn’t understand (which is most factually-grounded argument), as well as people I had viewed as fellow travelers on a larger journey of conflict avoidance—podcasters, experts and pundits who did more than simply disagree with me (which is, of course, their right and duty as independent thinkers), traversing into the realm of insults and attacks against my intelligence, integrity and character.”

Ritter continued, “The US-Iran crisis is grounded in the complexities, niceties and formalities of international law as set forth in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), which Iran signed in 1970 as a non-nuclear weapons state. The NPT will be at the center of any negotiated settlement.”

Is it accurate to characterize the crisis as a “US-Iran crisis”? It elides that fact that it is the US imposing a crisis on Iran. More accurately it should be stated as a “US crisis foisted on Iran.”

Ritter argues, “… the fact remains that this crisis has been triggered by the very capabilities Iran admits to having—stocks of 60% enriched uranium with no link to Iran’s declared peaceful program, and excessive advanced centrifuge-based enrichment capability which leaves Iran days away from possessing sufficient weapons grade high enriched uranium to produce 3-5 nuclear weapons.”

So, Ritter blames Iran for the crisis. This plays off Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has long accused Iran of seeking nukes. But it ignores the situation in India and Pakistan. Although the relations between the two countries are tense, logic dictates that open warring must be avoided lest it lead to mutual nuclear conflagration. What happened when Libya dismantled its nuclear program? Destruction by the US-led NATO. As A.B. Abrams wrote, Libya paid the price for

… having ignored direct warnings from both Tehran and Pyongyang not to pursue such a course [of unilaterally disarming], Libya’s leadership would later admit that disarmament, neglected military modernisation, and trust in Western good will proved to be their greatest mistake–leaving their country near defenceless when Western powers launched their offensive in 2011. (Immovable Object: North Korea’s 70 Years at War with American Power, Clarity Press, 2020: p 296)

And North Korea has existed with a credible deterrence against any attack on it since it acquired nuclear weapons.

Relevant background to the current crisis imposed on Iran

  • The year 1953 is a suitable starting point. It was in this year that the US-UK (CIA and MI6) combined to engineer a coup against the democratically elected Iranian government under prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had committed the unpardonable sin of nationalizing the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
  • What to replace the Iranian democracy with? A monarchy. In other words, a dictatorship because monarchs are not elected, they are usually born into power. Thus, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would rule as the shah of Iran for 26 years protected by his secret police, the SAVAK. Eventually, the shah would be overthrow in the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
  • In an attempt to force Iran to bend knee to US dictate, the US has imposed sanctions, issued threats, and fomented violence.
  • Starting sometime after 2010, it is generally agreed among cybersecurity experts and intelligence leaks that the Iranian nuclear program was a target of cyberwarfare by the US and Israel — this in contravention of the United Nations Charter Article 2 (1-4):

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

  • The Stuxnet virus caused significant damage to Iran’s nuclear program, particularly at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility.
  • Israel and the United States are also accused of being behind the assassinations of several Iranian nuclear scientists over the past decade.
  • On 3 January 2020, Trump ordered a US drone strike at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq that assassinated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani as well as Soleimani ally Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a top Iraqi militia leader.
  • On 7 October 7 2023, Hamas launched a resistance attack against Israel occupation. Since then, Israel has reportedly conducted several covert and overt strikes targeting Iran and its proxies across the region.
  • Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Iran of seeking nukes for nearly 30 years, long before Iran reached 60% enrichment in 2021. In Netanyahu’s book Fighting Terrorism (1995) he described Iran as a “rogue state” pursuing nukes to destroy Israel. Given that a fanatical, expansionist Zionist map for Israel, the Oded-Yinon plan, draws a Jewish territory that touches on the Iranian frontier, a debilitated Iran is sought by Israel.

Oded Yinon Plan

Says Ritter, “This crisis isn’t about Israel or Israel’s own undeclared nuclear weapons capability. It is about Iran’s self-declared status as a threshold nuclear weapons state, something prohibited by the NPT. This is what the negotiations will focus on. And hopefully these negotiations will permit the verifiable dismantling of those aspects of its nuclear program the US (and Israel) find to present an existential threat.”

Why isn’t it about Israel’s nuclear weapons capability? Why does the US and Ritter get to decide which crisis is preeminent?

It is important to note that US intelligence has long said that no active Iranian nuclear weapon project exists.

It is also important to note that Arab states have long supported a Middle East Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDFZ), particularly nuclear weapons, but Israel and the US oppose it.

It is also important to note that, in 2021, the U.S. opposed a resolution demanding Israel join the NPT and that the US, in 2018, blocked an Arab-backed IAEA resolution on Israeli nukes. (UN Digital Library. Search: “Middle East WMDFZ”)

As far as the NPT goes, it must be applied equally to all signatory states. The US as a nuclear-armed nation is bound by Article VI which demands:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Thus, hopefully negotiations will permit the verifiable dismantling of those aspects of the Iranian, US, and Israeli nuclear programs (as well as the nuclear programs of other nuclear-armed nations) that are found to present an existential threat.

Ritter warns, “Peace is not guaranteed. But war is unless common sense and fact-based logic wins out over the self-important ignorance of the digital mob and their facilitators.”

A peaceful solution is not achieved by assertions (i.e., not fact-based logic) or by ad hominem. That critics of Ritter’s stance resort to name-calling demeans them, but to respond likewise to one’s critics also taints the respondent.

Logic dictates that peace is more-or-less guaranteed if UN member states adhere to the United Nations Charter. The US, Iran, and Israel are UN member states. A balanced and peaceful solution is found in the Purposes and Principles as stipulated in Article 1 (1-4) of the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

It seems that only by refusing to abide by one’s obligations laid out the UN Charter and NPT that war looms larger.

In Ritter’s reality, the US rules the roost against smaller countries. Is such a reality acceptable?

It stirs up patriotism, but acquiescence is an affront to national dignity. Ritter will likely respond by asking what good is dignity when you are dead. Fair enough. But in the present crisis, if the US were to attack Iran, then whatever last shred of dignity (is there any last shred of dignity left when a country is supporting the genocide of human beings in Palestine?) that American patriots can cling to will have vanished.

By placing the blame on Iran for a crisis triggered by destabilizing actions of US and Israel, Ritter asks for Iran to pay for the violent events set in motion by US Israel. If Iran were to cave to Trump’s threats, they would be sacrificing sovereignty, dignity, and self-defense.

North Korea continues on. Libya is still reeling from the NATO offensive against it. Iran is faced with a choice.

The Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata knew well his choice: “I’d rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.”

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com.

13 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Iran Wins First Round in The Oman Talks

By Abdul Bari Atwan

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editorial, written by by Abdul Bari Atwan, chief editor of the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website, on Saturday, 12 April relates to the first talks of the Tehran-Washington negotiations that started in Muscat, Oman relating to the Iran nuclear file.

Iran succeeded in scoring a major goal against the United States in the clash of wills that began today, Saturday, in the Omani capital, Muscat, by insisting that the negotiations be “indirect,” contrary to what its American adversary wants: Namely “direct” negotiations as announced by US President Donald Trump at the White House in his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, who was surprised by this shocking announcement.

The US delegation, led by Trump Advisor Steve Witkoff, is participating in these talks from a weak and defeated position, especially after the failure of the US plan to impose tariffs on more than 200 countries worldwide. America has become friendless, and even turned its friends into enemies, especially in Europe and Southeast Asia like South Korea and Japan.

Iran, represented in the negotiations by veteran Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, the who led the negotiations for the first nuclear agreement with the six major powers in 2015 and possesses extensive experience in the art and strategies of negotiation, did not submit to the “threats and intimidation” adopted by President Trump against them.

They imposed their conditions in full on their American opponents and insisted on limiting the negotiations to the nuclear issue, not addressing other issues such as missile and drone systems, and severing ties with the arms of the resistance in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. And they got what they wanted.

The one who called for a return to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian-American crisis and backed down from his threats of a devastating military strike was President Trump. This happened when he realized the threats of military strikes, coupled with the dispatch of three American aircraft carriers and squadrons of giant B-52 bombers, had backfired.

These did not intimidate the Iranians, but prompted a response from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who declared a state of emergency in the Iranian military, placed giant missile platforms, advanced submarines, and ground and naval forces on high alert, and threatened to destroy all military bases surrounding his country (10 bases) housing 50,000 soldiers, close the Strait of Hormuz, and prevent Gulf oil exports to the entire world.

The Iranians do not trust President Trump, who tore up the nuclear agreement in 2018, and is well aware he has become an Israeli puppet. He also realizes that America, defeated in Ukraine, did not simply march to Moscow waving white flags, ready to sell Ukraine and its people to the Russians and surrender to all of its conditions, including the annexation of a fifth of Ukrainian territory to Russia, without consulting its European allies, whom it has become embroiled in this war.

When President Trump demands that the Muscat negotiations reach a quick agreement within two months, this is due to his bitter experience in the Vienna negotiations, which lasted a year-and-a-half and ended in failure due to Iran’s cunning use of the “yes, but” theory, without offering any concessions.

We do not believe that this theory will be abandoned in the Muscat negotiations, especially since America, which is now globally hated and has lost all of its allies in the West and the East, has become weak, and is on the brink of bankruptcy due to the huge deficit in its annual general budget ($1.4 trillion) and its public debt that has reached more than $42 trillion.

What will encourage Iran to harden its position in these negotiations is China’s strong and defiant stance in the trade war against the United States. Its president, Xi Jinping, declared he will respond in kind to America and its president, and will fight this war to the end, no matter how costly the results.

He has decided to raise customs duties on American goods by a historic rate of more than 125 percent, and has given the green light to his allies in the BRICS group to declare war on the dollar and the global SWIFT financial system, through which America controls the global economy and financial movement.

Trump, wounded by the failure of his gamble to ignite a trade war, and the internal and global revolt against it, with the beginning of the decline in the value of the dollar and the escalation of the recession in the American economy as its first fruits, was forced to stop this war less than three days after its announcement under the cover of a three-month freeze on the application of customs duties.

Hence, his threats, i.e. Trump’s necessity of quickly to reach a nuclear agreement didn’t have no effect despite the threat of a crushing military strike. Iran’s respond to Trump forced him to make a major, unprecedented concessions to save face.

Iran, which has suffered significant losses in Lebanon, with the weakening of its powerful military arm in that country (Hezbollah), and in Syria with the fall of the President Assad’s regime, has made many rapid reviews internally and regionally, abandoning many of its policies pursued in recent years, after realizing that the knife is approaching its neck, and that the American-Israeli conspiracy does not only seek to destroy it and remove its military claws and fangs, but also to change the Islamic regime there.

The results of these reviews reflected in the transition from a phase of patience and long-suffering to a phase of confrontation in its military and political aspects, and the strengthening of its allied military arms, starting with the striking Yemen whose arm there is waging heroic wars not only against aircraft carriers and American warships in the Red and Arabian Seas, but also by intensifying ballistic missile and drone bombardment of the occupied Palestinian interior in Jaffa, Haifa, and Eilat, accelerating the recovery process for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and finding other ways to deliver military supplies to it.

After the historic Syrian corridor was closed with the fall of the Assad regime, America became a farce in the first months of Trump’s rule. It’s no surprise that Iran and its allied proxies are among the biggest beneficiaries and gloaters. He who laughs last laughs loudest… and the days will tell.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editorial, written by Abdul Bari Atwan, chief editor of the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website, on Saturday, 12 April, relates to the first talks of the Tehran-Washington negotiations that started in Muscat, Oman relating to the Iran nuclear file.

Iran succeeded in scoring a major goal against the United States in the clash of wills that began today, Saturday, in the Omani capital, Muscat, by insisting that the negotiations be “indirect,” contrary to what its American adversary wants: Namely “direct” negotiations as announced by US President Donald Trump at the White House in his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, who was surprised by this shocking announcement.

The US delegation, led by Trump’s Advisor Steve Witkoff, is participating in these talks from a weak and defeated position, especially after the failure of the US plan to impose tariffs on more than 200 countries worldwide. America has become friendless, and even turned its friends into enemies, especially in Europe and Southeast Asia like South Korea and Japan.

Iran, represented in the negotiations by veteran Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, the man who led the negotiations for the first nuclear agreement with the six major powers in 2015 and possesses extensive experience in the art and strategies of negotiation, did not submit to the “threats and intimidation” adopted by President Trump.

They imposed their conditions in full on their American opponents and insisted on limiting the negotiations to the nuclear issue, not addressing other issues such as missile and drone systems, and severing ties with the arms of the resistance in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. And they got what they wanted.

The one who called for a return to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian-American crisis and backed down from his threats of a devastating military strike was President Trump. This happened when he realized the threats of military strikes, coupled with the dispatch of three American aircraft carriers and squadrons of giant B-52 bombers, backfired.

These did not intimidate the Iranians, but prompted a response from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who declared a state of emergency in the Iranian military, placed giant missile platforms, advanced submarines, and ground and naval forces on high alert, and threatened to destroy all of the 10 military bases surrounding his country and housing 50,000 soldiers, close the Strait of Hormuz, and prevent Gulf oil exports to the entire world.

[https://twitter.com/IranObserver0/status/1910966204644143470]

The Iranians do not trust President Trump, who tore up the nuclear agreement in 2018, and is well aware he has become an Israeli puppet. He also realizes that America, defeated in Ukraine, did not simply march to Moscow waving white flags, ready to sell Ukraine and its people to the Russians and surrender to all of its conditions, including the annexation of a fifth of Ukrainian territory to Russia, without consulting its European allies, whom it has become embroiled in this war.

When President Trump demands that the Muscat negotiations reach a quick agreement within two months, this is due to his bitter experience in the Vienna negotiations, which lasted a year-and-a-half and ended in failure due to Iran’s cunning use of the “yes, but” theory, without offering any concessions.

We do not believe that this theory will be abandoned in the Muscat negotiations, especially since America, which is now globally hated and has lost all of its allies in the West and the East, has become weak, and is on the brink of bankruptcy due to the huge deficit in its annual general budget ($1.4 trillion) and its public debt that has reached more than $42 trillion.

[https://twitter.com/khaledmahmoued1/status/1910962476037923091]

What will encourage Iran to harden its position in these negotiations is China’s strong and defiant stance in the trade war against the United States. Its president, Xi Jinping, declared he will respond in kind to America and its president, and will fight this war to the end, no matter how costly the results.

He has decided to raise customs duties on American goods by a historic rate of more than 125 percent, and has given the green light to his allies in the BRICS group to declare war on the dollar and the global SWIFT financial system, through which America controls the global economy and financial movement.

Trump, wounded by the failure of his gamble to ignite a trade war, and the internal and global revolt against it, with the beginning of the decline in the value of the dollar and the escalation of the recession in the American economy as its first fruits, was forced to stop this war less than three days after its announcement under the cover of a three-month freeze on the application of customs duties.

Hence, his threats, i.e. Trump’s necessity of quickly to reach a nuclear agreement didn’t have any effect despite the threat of a crushing military strike. Iran’s respond to Trump forced him to make a major, unprecedented concessions to save face.

Iran, which has suffered significant losses in Lebanon, with the weakening of its powerful military arm in that country (Hezbollah), and in Syria with the fall of the President Assad’s regime, undertook rapid reviews internally and regionally, abandoning many of its policies pursued in recent years, after realizing that the knife is approaching its neck, and that the American-Israeli conspiracy does not only seek to destroy it and remove its military claws and fangs, but also to change the Islamic regime there.

The results of these reviews reflected in the transition from a phase of patience and long-suffering to a phase of confrontation in its military and political aspects, and the strengthening of its allied military arms, starting with the striking Yemen whose arm there is waging heroic wars not only against aircraft carriers and American warships in the Red and Arabian Seas, but also by intensifying ballistic missiles and drone bombardment of the occupied Palestinian interior in Jaffa, Haifa, and Eilat, accelerating the recovery process for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and finding other ways to deliver military supplies to it.

After the historic Syrian corridor was closed with the fall of the Assad regime, America became a farce in the first months of Trump’s rule. It’s no surprise that Iran and its allied proxies are among the biggest beneficiaries and gloaters. He who laughs last laughs loudest… and the days will tell!

13 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Israel Bombards Gaza’s Baptist Hospital, Leaves Patients Stranded

By Quds News Network

Gaza (Quds News Network)- Israeli warplanes have bombarded the Baptist Hospital in central Gaza City on Saturday, targeting critical medical facilities and sparking panic among hundreds of patients and civilians nearby.

The airstrike hit the surgical operations building and the medical oxygen generation station, vital for intensive care patients. Shortly earlier, Israeli forces had threatened to bomb the hospital, prompting a rushed evacuation of parts of the building.

The Israeli military launched two missiles directly at the hospital’s reception and emergency departments. The building is now completely out of service. The hospital’s electrical power was also cut due to the strike, leaving patients in critical condition without life-saving support.

Medical staff tried to evacuate as many patients as possible, but the short warning time made it impossible to move those in the surgery and internal medicine wards. Dozens remained trapped inside as the building took the hit.

Hundreds of patients and their families flooded the streets around the hospital in a state of fear and confusion. Warplanes continued to fly at low altitude over the area, adding to the chaos.

This is not the first time Israel has targeted the Baptist Hospital. In October 2023, an Israeli airstrike on the hospital’s courtyard killed hundreds of displaced civilians and injured dozens more. That massacre shocked the world and remains one of the deadliest attacks on a medical facility worldwide.

The Baptist Hospital, also known as the Arab Ahli Hospital, is one of the oldest hospitals in Gaza. It is operated by the Anglican Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and has long served as a refuge during times of war.

Medical teams on the ground warn that repeated attacks on hospitals are destroying Gaza’s fragile healthcare system. Many hospitals have already shut down due to strikes or fuel shortages. Now, even the few still standing face the constant threat of Israeli bombs.

International organizations have condemned Israel’s repeated targeting of medical facilities, calling it a violation of international law. However, the strikes continue, and Gaza’s wounded are left with nowhere safe to turn.

13 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Is Trump Now Irked With Best-friend Netanyahu?

By Dr. Marwan Asmar

What should one make of the recent White House meeting between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?

Well, this time Netanyahu was almost summoned to the White House to be told a few home truths. This meeting was not like the first time when Netanyahu came to the White House in early February when it was all glowed to be unexpectedly told that Trump wants the USA to take over Gaza.

This time around, the meeting was more subdued, almost in a rush, like an after-thought on the part of Trump who keeps chopping and changing as he figures out how he wants to conduct America’s foreign policy in his second “robust” administration.

This time around, although Trump displayed the usual friendliness to Netanyahu, he was somewhat distant because of the tariffs the White House is set upon to start imposing on the rest of the world including best-friend Israel. Its leaders, businessmen are still in shock because Washington has slammed a 17 percent tariff on its products entering the United States.

Israeli industrialists continue to be up-in-arms. It was they who appealed to Netanyahu to seek Washington clarification because they argued that the new tariffs will cost them up to $3 billion in losses, reduce Israeli exports by 26 percent and increase unemployment by 26,000. They are already in a bad situation because of the war on Gaza but this latest step will surely cripple them further.

At the White House meeting last Monday, with a chitchat in front of the cameras that looked as if it was a rehearsed meeting with Trump dominating the conversation and everyone taking their que to speak only when they are told, he pointed out to Netanyahu that he “may not” consider reversing tariffs on Israeli exports because “we give Israel $4 billion a year. That’s a lot.” He sounded like lecturing to the Israelis.

For a man considered to be greatly influenced by the Israeli lobby that seemed to be tough talking for in the immediate conversation Trump told Netanyahu that there would be and for the first time direct face-to-face talking with Iranians about their nuclear file.

This seemed to be another unsuspecting blow. If there was a “shock” on his face, Netanyahu didn’t show it as he just nodded; the Israeli Prime Minister was looking for a tough military stance on Iran, possibly going to war and striking the country’s nuclear facilities. It was he, who persuaded Trump in 2018 to exit from the 2015 nuclear deal brokered by the UN with other world powers of Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany at the behest of the Barack Obama administration.

Now with Trump in the driving seat, and wanting a “tainted-Donald” deal, Netanyahu couldn’t but agree with an alluring American president. If he had any misgivings, he kept them to himself except to say Tel Aviv and Washington had an objective not to let Iran have nuclear weapons, but Tehran constantly said and throughout the past years that their nuclear program was for peaceful purposes unlike the clandestine extensive Israeli nuclear program.

Although he may not have outwardly shown it, Trump may have been a little irritated by Netanyahu in other ways. Take Gaza for example when Israel restarted its war on the enclave on 19 March exactly two months after a ceasefire took effect ending a 15-month genocide and which was brokered by Trump and his team lead by Steve Witkoff.

The recent talks in the White House, and shown in front of the cameras suggest Trump would have like more time for the Doha negotiations to take hold between Hamas and Israel to see the release of the 59 remaining hostages – which include one American who is still deemed to be alive – hidden in the Gaza enclave.

The relaunching of the war, and so quickly, and with the breaking of the 19 January ceasefire is adding to the tension between Washington and Tel Aviv and is sending signals that Netanyahu wants to continue the war in Gaza and doesn’t particularly care about the remaining hostages, and whether they come out of their nightmare dead or alive.

Trump, and as shown by the White House meeting, is showing a diversion from thoughts projected by Netanyahu. As well as Iran, he has told Netanyahu, he favors Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and that he has a ‘very, very good relationship with Turkey and with their leader…”, adding that “I happen to like him, and we never had a problem” and he offered to mediate between Israel on any problem between the two countries.

Such words may have suddenly added to the glum mood of the Israeli PM who fears that Turkish influence in Syria despite the fact it is Israel that is today bombarding different Syrian cities and occupying parts of their territory, a situation that increased after the toppling of the Bashar Al Assad regime on 9 December, 2024 by a new government in Damascus, and which is seen as a threat to Israeli security by Tel Aviv.

What is worrying Netanyahu is the fact Trump recognizes Turkish influence and Syria and Ankara’s relationship with the new government in Damascus, and apparenty the man in the White House, is “ok” with it.

With all this going on, Netanyahu is not sure anymore of the way the White House is going despite the fact that Washington continues to be the main supplier of weapons to Tel Aviv. But with Trump as “fickle-minded” as he is, all cards are on the table for a new and changing relationship between the USA and the rest of the world with the strong possibility of including Israel in the new international set of thinking.

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing in the Middle East.

11 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Trump Faces Palestine:The Colonial View of the World Never Dies

By Aviva Chomsky

In the colonial view of the world — and, in its own strange fashion, Donald Trump’s view couldn’t be more colonial — White European colonizers were embattled beacons of civilization, rationality, and progress, confronting dangerous barbaric hordes beyond (and even, sometimes, within) their own frontiers. Colonial violence then was a necessary form of self-defense needed to tame irrational eruptions of brutality among the colonized. To make sense of the bipartisan U.S. devotion to Israel, including the glorification of Israeli violence and the demonization of Palestinians, as well as the Trump administration’s recent attacks on Black South Africa, student activists, and immigrants, it’s important to grasp that worldview.

On the Caribbean island of Barbados, Great Britain’s 1688 Act “For the Governing of Negroes” proclaimed that “Negroes… are of a barbarous, wild, and savage nature, and such as renders them wholly unqualified to be governed by the Laws, Customes, and Practices of our Nation: It is therefore becoming absolutely necessary, that such other Constitutions, Laws and Orders, should be… framed and enacted for the good regulating or ordering of them, as may both restrain the disorders, rapines, and inhumanities to which they are naturally prone and inclined.”

When I read those words recently, I heard strange echoes of how President Trump talks about immigrants, Palestinians, and Black South Africans. The text of that act exemplified what would become longstanding colonial ideologies: the colonized are unpredictably “barbarous, wild, and savage” and so must be governed by the colonizing power with a separate set of (harsh) laws; and — though not directly stated — must be assigned a legal status that sets them apart from the rights-bearing one the colonizers granted themselves. Due to their “barbarous, wild, and savage nature,” violence would inevitably be necessary to keep them under control.

Colonization meant bringing White Europeans to confront those supposedly dangerous peoples in their own often distant homelands. It also meant, as in Barbados, bringing supposedly dangerous people to new places and using violence and brutal laws to control them there. In the United States, it meant trying to displace or eliminate what the Declaration of Independence called “merciless Indian savages” and justifying White violence with slave codes based on the one the British used in Barbados in the face of the ever-present threat supposedly posed by enslaved Black people.

That grim 1688 Act also revealed how colonialism blurred the lines between Europe and its colonies. As an expansionist Europe grew ever more expansive, it brought rights-holding Europeans and those they excluded, suppressed, or dominated into the same physical spaces through colonization, enslavement, transportation, and war. Enslaved Africans were inside the territory, but outside the legal system. Expansion required violence, along with elaborate legal structures and ideologies to enforce and justify who belonged and who never would, and — yes! — ever more violence to keep the system in place.

Ideas Still with Us

The legacies of colonialism and the set of ideas behind that Act of 1688 are still with us and continue to target formerly colonized (and still colonized) peoples.

Given the increasingly unsettled nature of our world, thanks to war, politics, and the growing pressures of climate change, ever more people have tried to leave their embattled countries and emigrate to Europe and the United States. There, they find a rising tide of anti-immigrant racism that reproduces a modern version of old-fashioned colonial racism. Europe and the United States, of course, reserve the right to deny entry, or grant only partial, temporary, revocable, and limited status to many of those seeking refuge in their countries. Those different statuses mean that they are subject to different legal systems once they’re there. In Donald Trump’s America, for instance, the United States reserves the right to detain and deport even green-card holders at will, merely by claiming that their presence poses a threat, as in the case of Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, arrested in New York but quickly sent into custody in Louisiana.

Colonial racism helps explain the Trump administration’s adulation of Israeli violence against Palestinians. In good colonial fashion, Israel relies on laws that grant full rights to some, while justifying the repression (not to mention genocide) of others. Israeli violence, like the Barbadian slave code, always claims to “restrain the disorders, rapines, and inhumanities to which [Palestinians] are naturally prone and inclined.”

South Africa, of course, is still struggling with its colonial and post-colonial legacy — including decades of apartheid, which created political and legal structures that massively privileged the White population there. And while apartheid is now a past legacy, ongoing attempts to undo its damage like a January 2025 land reform law have only raised President Trump’s ire in ways that echo his reaction to even the most modest attempts to promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or that dreaded abbreviation of the Trump era, DEI, in American institutions ranging from the military to universities.

Israel, though, remains a paragon of virtue and glory in Trump’s eyes. Its multiple legal structures keep Palestinians legally excluded in a diaspora from which they are not allowed to return, under devastating military occupation, with the constant threat of expulsion from the occupied West Bank and Gaza, and in occupied East Jerusalem, where they are Israeli residents but not full citizens and subject to multiple legal exclusions as non-Jews. (Donald Trump, of course, had a similar fantasy when he imagined rebuilding Gaza as a Middle Eastern “Riviera,” while expelling the Palestinians from the area.) Even those who are citizens of Israel are explicitly denied a national identity and subject to numerous discriminatory laws in a country that claims to represent “the national home of the Jewish people” and to which displaced Palestinians are forbidden to return, even as “Jewish settlement is a national value.”

Good Discrimination, Bad Discrimination

Lately, of course, right-wing politicians and pundits in this country have been denouncing any policies that claim special protections for, or even academic or legal acknowledgement of, long marginalized groups. They once derisively dubbed all such things “critical race theory” and now denounce DEI programs as divisive and — yes! — discriminatory, insisting that they be dismantled or abolished.

Meanwhile, there are two groups that those same right-wing actors have assiduously sought to protect: White South Africans and Jews. In his February executive order cutting aid to South Africa and offering refugee status to White Afrikaner South Africans (and only them), Trump accused that country’s government of enacting “countless… policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business.” No matter that such a view of South Africa is pure fantasy. What he meant, of course, was that they were dismantling apartheid-legacy policies that privileged Whites.

Meanwhile, his administration has been dismantling actual equal opportunity policies here, calling them “illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).’” The difference?  President Trump is proud to kill policies that create opportunities for people of color, just as he was outraged at South Africa’s land reform law that chipped away at the historical privilege of White landowners there. His attack on DEI reflects his drive to undo the very notion of creating de facto equal access for citizens (especially people of color) who have long been denied it.

Trump and his allies are also obsessed with what his January 30th executive order called an “explosion of antisemitism.” Unlike Black, Native American, Hispanic, LGBTQIA+, or other historically marginalized groups in the United States, American Jews — like Afrikaners — are considered a group deserving of special protection.

What is the source of this supposed “explosion” of antisemitism? The answer: “pro-Hamas aliens and left-wing radicals” who, Trump claims, are carrying out “a campaign of intimidation, vandalism, and violence on the campuses and streets of America.” In other words, the ever-present barbarian threat is now embodied by “aliens” and “radicals” who challenge Israeli colonial violence and a US-dominated global order.

And — this is important! — not all Jews deserve such special protection, only those who identify with and support Israel’s colonial violence. The American right’s current obsession with antisemitism has little to do with the rights of Jews generally and everything to do with its commitment to Israel.

Even the most minor deviation from full-throated support for Israeli violence earned Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer the scorn of Trump, who called him “a proud member of Hamas” and added, “He’s become a Palestinian. He used to be Jewish. He’s not Jewish anymore. He’s a Palestinian.” Apparently for Trump, the very word “Palestinian” is a slur.

Israeli Violence Is “Stunning,” While Palestinians Are “Barbaric”

The American media and officials of both parties have generally celebrated Israeli violence. In September 2024, the New York Times referred to Israel’s “two days of stunning attacks that detonated pagers and handheld radios across Lebanon” that killed dozens and maimed thousands. A Washington Post headline called “Israel’s pager attack an intelligence triumph.” President Joe Biden then lauded Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah in September as “a measure of justice” and called its assassination of Hamas’s Yahya Sinwar a month later “a good day for Israel, for the United States, and for the world.” On Israel’s murder of the chief Hamas negotiator, Ismael Haniyeh, in the midst of U.S.-sponsored ceasefire negotiations in August, Biden could only lament that it was “not helpful.”

Compare this to the outrage professed when Columbia Middle East Studies professor Joseph Massad wrote, in an article on Arab world reactions to Hamas’s October 7th attack, that “the sight of the Palestinian resistance fighters storming Israeli checkpoints separating Gaza from Israel was astounding.” For that simple reflection of those Arab reactions, Columbia’s then-President Minouche Shafik denounced him before Congress, announcing that she was “appalled” and that Massad was being investigated because his language was “unacceptable.” He never would have gotten tenure had she known of his views, she insisted. Apparently only Israeli violence can be “stunning” or a “triumph.”

Meanwhile, at Harvard on October 9th, Palestine solidarity student groups quoted Israeli officials who promised to “open the gates of hell” on Gaza. “We hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence,” they wrote. Despite the fact that multiple Israeli sources were saying similar things, Republican Representative Elise Stefanik posted: “It is abhorrent and heinous that Harvard students are blaming Israel for Hamas’ barbaric attacks.” Note the use of the word “barbaric” from the slave code, repeatedly invoked by journalists, intellectuals, and politicians when it came to Hamas or Palestinians, but not Israelis.

In November 2024, when the U.S. vetoed (for the fourth time) a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the world was aghast. The U.N. warned that, after a year of Israel’s intensive bombardment and 40 days of the complete blockade of humanitarian supplies, two million Palestinians were “facing diminishing conditions of survival.” The U.N. Director of Human Rights Watch accused the U.S. of acting “to ensure impunity for Israel as its forces continue to commit crimes against Palestinians in Gaza.” The American ambassador, however, defended the veto, arguing that, although the resolution called for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza, it did not provide enough “linkage.” And of course, U.S. arms, including staggeringly destructive 2,000-pound bombs, have continued to flow to Israel in striking quantities as the genocide continues.

Connecting Immigrants, Palestinians, and South Africa

Closer to home, Trump’s full-throated attack on immigrants has revived the worst of colonial language. The Marshall Project has, for instance, tracked some of his major claims and how often he’s repeated them: “Unauthorized immigrants are criminals [said 575+ times], snakes that bite [35+ times], eating petscoming from jails and mental institutions [560+ times], causing crime in sanctuary cities [185+ times], and a group of isolated, tragic cases prove they are killing Americans en masse [235+ times].” Clearly, draconian laws are needed to control such monsters!

Trump has also promised to deport millions of immigrants and issued a series of executive orders meant to greatly expand the detention and deportation of those living in the United States without legal authorization — “undocumented people.” Another set of orders is meant to strip the status of millions of immigrants who are currently here with legal authorization, revoking Temporary Protected Status, work authorizations, student visas, and even green cards. One reason for this is to expand the number of people who can be deported since, despite all the rhetoric and the spectacle, the administration has struggled so far to achieve anything faintly like the rates it has promised.

This anti-immigrant drive harmonizes with Trump’s affection for Jewish Israel and White South Africa in obvious ways. White South Africans are being welcomed with open arms (though few are coming), while other immigrants are targeted. Non-citizen students and others have been particularly singled out for supposedly “celebrating Hamas’ mass rape, kidnapping, and murder.” The cases of Mahmoud Khalil, Rasha AlawiehMomodou TaalBadar Khan SuriYunseo Chung, and Rumeysa Ozturk (and perhaps others by the time this article is published) stand out in this regard. The Trump administration repeatedly denigrates movements for Palestinian rights and immigrants as violent threats that must be contained.

There are some deeper connections as well. Immigrants from what Trump once termed “shit-hole countries” are, in his view, not only prone to violence and criminality themselves but also inclined to anti-American and anti-Israel views, leaving this country supposedly at risk. Included in his executive order on South Africa was the accusation that its government “has taken aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies, including accusing Israel… of genocide in the International Court of Justice” and is “undermining United States foreign policy, which poses national security threats to our Nation” — almost identical wording to that used to justify the revocation of visas for Khalil and others. In other words, threats are everywhere.

Trump and his associates weaponize antisemitism to attack student protesters, progressive Jewish organizations, freedom of speech, immigrants, higher education, and other threats to his colonizer’s view of the world.

In reality, however, the United States, Israel, and White South Africa exist as colonial anachronisms in what President Joe Biden, echoing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, described (with respect to Israel) as an “incredibly dangerous neighborhood.” And Trump has only doubled down on that view.

Strange to imagine, but the planters of Barbados would undoubtedly be proud to see their ideological descendants continuing to impose violent control on our world, while invoking the racist ideas they proposed in the 1600s.

Aviva Chomsky, a TomDispatch regular, is professor of history and coordinator of Latin American studies at Salem State University in Massachusetts.

11 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Al-Shuja’iyya massacre reflects Israel’s deliberate erasure of Palestinian existence in Gaza

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

Palestinain Territory – The horrific massacre carried out by Israeli forces in the Al-Shuja’iyya neighbourhood, east of Gaza City, marks a clear escalation in the ongoing genocide and a blatant denial of the Palestinian people’s right to life in the Gaza Strip. The attack represents an explicit and deliberate attempt to completely erase the Palestinian presence in Gaza.

Euro-Med Monitor’s field team documented that at approximately 9:28 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 April 2025, Israeli warplanes launched multiple airstrikes using highly destructive bombs on a densely populated residential block on Baghdad Street in the Al-Shuja’iyya neighbourhood. The attack led to the complete destruction of around ten homes, with residents still inside, resulting in the deaths of over 35 civilians and injuries to more than 50 others.

Preliminary reports indicate that dozens of people remain trapped under the rubble. Although civil defence teams were able to rescue some individuals using basic tools, rescue operations had to be suspended by evening due to the extreme dangers facing emergency workers in the targeted area.

Euro-Med Monitor’s team also documented distress calls from individuals trapped beneath the debris, pleading for help and directing rescuers to their locations. Despite the urgent need for heavy equipment to clear the rubble and reach survivors, rescue efforts relied entirely on primitive methods and manual tools. Some victims died from suffocation or untreated injuries due to delays in the rescue operations.

In addition to the massacre, Israeli warplanes bombed another house in the same neighbourhood, killing five more civilians and injuring several others. This strike was part of a broader assault on Al-Shuja’iyya that began at dawn the previous Thursday with the detonation of an explosive-laden robot, followed by widespread aerial bombardment and forced displacement orders. The assault remains ongoing.

Israeli military sources attempted to justify the massacre by claiming it targeted a ‘Hamas military commander’—a recurring narrative used to Justify the deliberate mass killing of civilians as part of a broader campaign of genocide in Gaza. Israel consistently repeats the same claim whenever global public opinion turns against its actions—alleging that it was targeting ‘militants’—to justify attacks on civilians. However, it fails to provide any verifiable evidence or permit independent bodies to assess the validity of these claims.

Making such claims does not absolve Israel of its obligations under international law, including the duty to conduct effective investigations, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. Nor does it relieve other states of their legal responsibilities to investigate, ensure accountability, and pursue justice for victims. The automatic acceptance of Israel’s unsupported claims effectively grants it a blank cheque to continue targeting civilians under a false legal pretext—ultimately undermining the integrity and effectiveness of the international legal system.

Even if a combatant were present or passing through the area, it would not justify the brutal massacres nor absolve Israel of its binding legal obligations under international humanitarian law. These obligations include adherence to the principles of humanity, distinction, military necessity, proportionality, and precaution—all of which must be upheld in the planning and execution of any military operation, without exception. This includes decisions regarding the methods and means of warfare, which must be designed to minimise civilian casualties and harm.

The details of the massacre—particularly the extensive destruction and high civilian death toll—leave no doubt that Israeli forces blatantly disregarded fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. The attack targeted a densely populated civilian area, predominantly affecting children, using highly destructive weapons. It was executed without distinction between military and civilian targets, and without taking the necessary precautions to prevent or minimise civilian harm. Taken together, these circumstances strongly indicate that the attack was coordinated and deliberately directed at civilians, affirming the unlawful nature of the operation and qualifying it as a grave international crime warranting prosecution and full accountability.

The mass killing of Palestinians has been normalised, eliciting nothing but silence, as though Israel can openly and without fear of moral or legal repercussions take Palestinian civilian lives. This grim reality appears to have been implicitly accepted by the international community.

The international community’s tolerance of this ongoing pattern of crimes is not merely a moral failure—it constitutes a serious breach of both state and international legal obligations. This tolerance effectively transforms the mass killing of Palestinians from a criminal act into a publicly executed policy. In this context, global silence amounts to a direct failure to uphold the legal duty to prevent and punish genocide, as mandated by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Israel’s method of killing reflects a clear and deliberate policy to eradicate Palestinian civilians throughout the Gaza Strip. It spreads fear, deprives people of shelter and even momentary stability, forces repeated displacement, and imposes deadly living conditions. This is further compounded by ongoing bombardments across the Strip, including attacks on areas designated as ‘humanitarian zones’ and the targeted destruction of shelters, many of which are located within UNRWA facilities.

All countries, both individually and collectively, must fulfil their legal obligations and act urgently to stop the genocide in the Gaza Strip in all its forms. They must take all practical measures to protect Palestinian civilians. Euro-Med Monitor emphasises the need to ensure Israel’s compliance with international law and the rulings of the International Court of Justice and to guarantee accountability for its crimes against the Palestinian people. Furthermore, the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against the Israeli Prime Minister and Minister of Defence must be executed at the earliest opportunity, and the Court must be allowed to bring them to international justice.

The international community must immediately impose economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel in response to its systematic and grave violations of international law. These sanctions should include a ban on the export and import of weapons involving Israel; the suspension of all political, financial, and military support or cooperation; the freezing of financial assets belonging to individuals responsible for crimes against Palestinians; and the imposition of travel bans on those individuals. Additionally, any trade privileges and bilateral agreements that provide Israel with economic advantages enabling the continuation of its actions in Gaza must be suspended without delay.

Finally, all relevant states and entities must hold complicit governments accountable—foremost among them the United States—along with other nations that provide Israel with direct or indirect support in carrying out its crimes. Any form of assistance or collaboration with Israel’s military, intelligence, political, legal, financial, or media sectors contributes to the continuation of atrocities against the Palestinian people.

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

11 April 2025

Source: countercurrents.org