Just International

Black Lives Matter Plaza Removed for DC Funding

By Phil Pasquini

Emboldened by Donald Trump’s war on words and “woke” phrases, Congressman Andrew Clyde (R-GA) a member of the House – Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on March 3 introduced bill H.R. 1744 to eliminate Black Lives Matter Plaza (BLM).

The racist overtones in erasing this important symbolic part of DC and American history are not lost on anyone.

The purported purpose of the congressman’s bill is “To amend title 23, United States Code, to withhold certain apportionment funds from the District of Columbia unless the Mayor of the District of Columbia removes the phrase Black Lives Matter from the street, symbolically designated as Black Lives Matter Plaza, redesignates such street as Liberty Plaza, and removes such phrase from each website, document, and other material under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.” It is a wonder, too, why the good congressman did not demand that his bill be numbered 1776 to maintain his patriotic theme.

Rep. Clyde, a gun store owner, fired the first shot to erase the five-year-old two-block plaza that was designated BLM Plaza in 2020. The plaza was created in reaction to the killing of George Floyd by police in whose wake civil unrest and protests broke out across the country calling for racial justice.

Feeling the pressure if the proposed bill were to be passed, rather than remain intransient, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has ordered the removal of all BLM Plaza vestiges in paving the way for the creation of the new proposed “Liberty Plaza.” That demolition work began on March 10 and is proceeding at a rapid pace.

Bowser downplayed her decision earlier this week in recognizing the change as an “evolution” and said that “We can’t afford to be distracted by meaningless congressional interference. The devastating impacts of the federal job cuts must be our number one concern. Our focus should be on economic, public safety and supporting our residents affected by these cuts.” Case closed.

Since its inception from an early simply painted tribute, it has gone through at least three iterations as traffic slowly wore down the original painted letters and the street was reopened to traffic. Its final design in 2021 that was promoted as a “permanent installation,” the plaza underwent an extensive and professionally designed remodel with the installation of an expensive cobblestone and cement paved street bed, new yellow heat applied lettering and the delineation of two traffic lanes separated by a pedestrian zone contained within modern illuminated bollards.

In its first iteration, citizen volunteers painted BLACK LIVES MATTER in bold yellow lettering across the black asphalt pavement from curb to curb on the street closed to traffic. During it existence it has gone from a symbol of racial justice, activism and resistance in America to an outliner offensive to Trump and the MAGA crowd in need of immediate removal.

Soon after it was created, the plaza became a part of a growing tourist attraction and downtown community space that saw the former busy street facing the White House used for numerous community activities and events.

The transformation now to a new and unknown design for a “Liberty Plaza” with the associated costs of demolishing BLM, and reconstruction, should be the stuff of DOGE nightmares. For a “cost conscious” entity flippant in firing hard working civil servants at a frantic pace tasked by Trump and Musk with removing government waste and excess, one has to wonder how they justify the millions of dollars spent on flying Trump to Florida every weekend to play golf.

Added to this is the extensive list of forbidden words and phrases just published in the New York Times that must be purged from all government documents, and how DOGE justifies the diversion of resources and salaries to pay for highly trained cartographic staff to change the names Gulf of Mexico and Denali on maps and all government documents and publications.

It makes no sense, but as of January 20th, America has made little sense to anyone paying attention…

Report and photos by Phil Pasquini

13 March 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Iran Will Not be Bullied, Tells Trump to ‘Go to Hell’

By Marwan Asmar

One couldn’t help but feel a tinge of pleasure in Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian lashing out at Donald Trump. Without mincing his words, and certainly not sticking to diplomatic niceties, no doubt taking his cue from the new boss at the White House, Pezeshkian told the US president a few home truths.

Depending on the translation into English from Persian, he basically told the US president to “go to hell”. This is a phrase that is making great headlines all over the world for its intensity and meaning.

On its part, the social media is having a field day at Pezeshkian, to say the least “forthright” speech at the Iran Entrepreneurs Forum in which he lambasted Trump for the way he is called on Tehran to heed and either go back to the nuclear deal or face the mighty military of the United States.

He didn’t at all like how Trump framed his appeal for Iran to get back to the negotiations table  when he spoke nonchalantly that “there are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily or make a deal.”

In turn,  Pezeshkian and the Iranian leadership starting from Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei to Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi became particularly angry at this approach as Trump is now seeking to revive the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal which he muzzled out of in 2018 during his first administration as one of the latest pieces of the US global, foreign and security policies.

Though denied by Iran, Trump said he sent a letter to Ayatollah Khamenei in which he told them to agree to a deal or face the military wrath of the United States with extended crippling sanctions on Iran’s oil sector, its exports and the shutting off of its global financing.

The subsequent utterings on the international media about Trump and his latest obsession in “controlling” the nuclear file of Iran has created a knee-jerk reaction among the country’s leadership which saw what Trump was doing was “coersive diktates” and imposition of maximalists pressure which today, they are in no mood to pay heed to because of so many factors including its ballistic missile attacks on Israel last October where up to 250 missiles landed on different sites of the country.

Pezeshkian, dubbed as a reformist president and one who is willing to listen, was startlingly critical at the way Trump invited, more like dictating, to get back to the nuclear deal under vastly different and stringent negotiating terms, and ones that would strip Iran of its nuclear aspirations and impose an additional and an even tougher monitoring and observation regime than the previously deal allowed for which Pezeshkian and other leaders rejected.

In plain, straight talking, again no doubt like Trump’s abrasive approach Pezeshkian leading a country on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power as many analysts suggest with more than 60 percent uranium enrichment capacity, said Iran would not negotiate with Washington while while being threatened. He essentially delivered the ultimate stab that the US president can “do whatever the hell you want”, as reported by the Iranian state media, Tuesday.

”It is unacceptable for us that they [the U.S.] give orders and make threats. I won’t even negotiate with you. Do whatever the hell you want”, Pezeshkian repeated at the behest of a country long standing up to the United States and to maintain cold and freezing relations with the United States.

Further, and to say the least, this was the ultimate snub delivered by the Iranian president who was in no mood to listen to the antics of the new US president wishing to wield his rhetorical stick around the world and was not afraid of telling him so.

Pezeshkian was especially irked him by the way Trump met the Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House recently calling it disgraceful and shameful and Iran would not listen to such talk as a way of moving the negotiations forward.

It was Trump, who initially pulled out of the Iran deal officially called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed by the then Barack Obama administration with international backing of five major UN powers including Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany in 2015.

Then Trump said the deal was a bad one and wanted to re-negotiate. But since taking the USA out of the deal, Tehran no longer found it necessary to continue to observe the strict regime imposed by JCPOA on Iranian nuclear facilities which slowly started to top up its uranium enrichment levels to where it is today.

As well, Pezeshkian was echoing the words of Ayatollah Khamenei who earlier rejected the prospects of direct talks, calling them neither “smart, wise nor honorable” while saying that Iran will not be bullied into negotiations.

This was seconded by Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi who made it perfectly clear on his X account that “we will NOT negotiate under pressure and negotiation, We will NOT even consider it, no matter what the subject might be, whilst emphasizing that dialogue must be rooted in mutual respect, not threats.”

For all the outward talk however, Iranian officials have stressed as they did so in the past that the country’s nuclear program has been always for peaceful purposes and is open about the country’s nuclear reactors and plants as proved in its current consultation with the different world powers of the United Nations Security Council.

Marwan Asmar is an Amman-based writer and chief editor of the crossfirearabia.com website.

13 March 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

BBC challenged over documentary sympathetic to Palestinian children, ‘How to Survive in a War Zone’

By Heather Stroud

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), an organisation funded by the public, yet controlled by the government and influential lobby groups, finds itself at the centre of a storm. This time it is not about presenting biased news, or half lies that feed the narrative of their most favoured influential lobby groups, it is about airing a documentary that simply presents a view of life through the eyes of children in Gaza.

The documentary, at the centre of the storm is, ‘How to survive a War Zone’. The Campaign Against Antisemitism ‘CAA’, took out full page advertisements in The Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday’, calling for the suspension of licence fees for BBC. The claims made against BBC centre around Abdullah, a thirteen year old Gazan boy, fluent in English, who was hired by BBC as a narrator to introduce children who were finding ways to survive the Israeli war on Gaza. Abdullah, who worked for nine months during the making of the documentary, was allocated $1000 for personal expenses. The money was paid into his sister’s account. The claim made is that in paying out these expenses, BBC were funding Hamas. Like most of these claims there is no evidence to suggest that any of the money paid out in expenses was used in an actual war crime against any Israelis. For a British group that has been set up to challenge incidents of antisemitism ( racism) their disregard for the life threatening danger they have placed this child in, is alarming to say the least.

Courageous and industrious as these Palestinian children are, Israel does not regard their lives as worthy of concern. This has been well documented by evidence presented to the International Court of Justice and the numerous posts on social media of settlers referring to children as potential terrorists and the babies of Palestinians as little snakes. Israeli politicians have also called for the annihilation of all Palestinians, including children. Foreign doctors, working in Gaza, have spoken out about children being targeted, by Israeli snipers, as they struggle to flee the aftermath of a bombing raid. CAA may just as well have painted a huge red target sign on Abdullah’s back.

Israel accused Palestinian workers of UNWRA, the internationally funded organisation that runs food and social programmes for Palestinians, both inside and outside of Gaza, of working for Hamas. As a consequence several of Israel’s close allies instantly withheld funding to UNWRA, exacerbating the existing crisis and leaving many Gazans to starve — babies and children being the most vulnerable. Doctors, journalists and aid workers have all been targeted along with deadly attacks on Gaza’s hospitals, schools and residential buildings. These attacks are all based on the claim that they were legitimate military targets because they harboured Hamas fighters or were in some way connected with them.

Hamas are the elected government in Gaza. They won the Palestinian legislative elections overwhelmingly in 2006, hence anyone working for them in a civil capacity, works for Hamas. However, Israel makes no distinction between someone working for Hamas in a civil capacity and someone who is actively engaged in armed resistance against them. In the U.K. British journalists have been arrested under the terrorist act for presenting factual evidence of Israel’s war crimes. British activists have likewise been arrested under the terrorist act for trying to prevent Israeli companies (based in the UK, such as Elbit Systems), from shipping parts for arms to Israel during Israel’s genocide on the Gazan people. Under International Law any kind of resistance is considered, not only legitimate, but obligatory for those who are aware and who are in a position to prevent further genocide. For Israel Labelling those who oppose their occupation and military objectives as ‘terrorist’, is strategically advantageous. Getting your closest allies, to label those who speak of or challenge their military objectives, as terrorist, is doubly advantageous.

BBC is trapped. When serious journalists, working within the BBC, attempt to present facts favourable to the Palestinian cause, they are likely to have their work banned or severely edited to conform with  government and powerful lobbyist editorial policy. Nine years ago BBC presented  a serious documentary which explored Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, ‘Dead in the Water’. Until the current documentary, ‘How to Survive a War Zone’, (now withdrawn from viewership), I’m not aware that BBC has attempted to present anything that close to documenting Israel’s war crimes. BBC has long been criticised for its bias towards Israel so to see this campaign organised by CAA, creates an ironic twist as might be read in one of Kafka’s novels. The very people who rely on the BBC to push the Israeli narrative could end up being the ones responsible for bringing it down.

The link to the BBC documentary; ‘How to Survive in a War Zone’.

https://rumble.com/v6nm6n9-bbc-gaza-how-to-survive-a-warzone.html

The BBC documentary on the USS Liberty, ‘Dead in the Water’ is available on YouTube

Heather Stroud is an activist

13 March 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Israel kills three Palestinians every 24 hours in Gaza, using snipers, drones, and starvation as genocidal tools

By Euro-Med Human Rights Monitoris

Palestinian Territory – Israel has killed 150 Palestinians—an average of three people every 24 hours—since the ceasefire on 19 January 2025. The Euro-Med Monitor field team has documented Israeli sniper and drone attacks since the ceasefire went into effect, as well as the continued use of the blockade as a weapon of slow death by starvation in the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip.

The ongoing killings by the Israeli army are carried out by snipers and drones, including quadcopter aircraft, which target Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. The deadly attacks frequently occur when residents attempt to return and inspect their damaged homes near the so-called “buffer zone” imposed by Israel along the Strip’s northern and eastern borders.

An Israeli drone strike on Monday 10 March killed Abdullah Ali al-Shaer and injured another person in the east of Rafah, despite the victims being in a designated “safe zone”. Just hours earlier, a separate drone attack killed three siblings—Mahmoud, Mohammed, and Ahmed Abdullah Ahmed—northeast of al-Bureij refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip.

Rafah Governorate has faced the most Israeli targeting since the ceasefire. Fifty-three-year-old Abdel Moneim Ali Qishta was killed inside his home by Israeli forces stationed along the Egyptian border opposite the al-Salam neighbourhood in the southern part of the city, on the morning of Saturday 8 March. That same day, an Israeli drone strike killed two young men, Mahmoud Hussein Farhan al-Hissi, 37, and Mahdi Abdullah Nadi Jarghoun, 39, in the town of al-Shawka, east of Rafah City.

Euro-Med Monitor has also documented the Israeli army’s ongoing killings of Palestinians in repeated attacks on the Shuja’iyya neighbourhood, east of Gaza City, and the town of Beit Hanoun, in the northern Gaza Strip, since the beginning of March. Since the ceasefire, Israel has killed 150 Palestinians—an average of six people every two days—and injured 605 others, at a rate of 11.8 individuals per day. This pattern underscores Israel’s systematic and ongoing targeting of Palestinians in the Strip, carried out with no military justification and in blatant disregard of the ceasefire and international law.

Israel has engaged in widespread killing and destruction in the besieged enclave for over 15 months and has intensified its genocidal policies by imposing deadly living conditions on Palestinians that result in their slow, systematic killing. Through a complete, illegal siege, Israel is preventing the entry of humanitarian aid and essential supplies while blocking the repair of critical infrastructure and services necessary for survival—all amid an absence of effective international intervention.

Euro-Med Monitor warns of a worsening humanitarian crisis if the blockade persists, with markets now being rapidly depleted of goods. Additionally, numerous relief and food distribution centres have halted operations due to the ongoing closure of the Gaza Strip’s border crossings and Israel’s refusal to allow supplies to enter since 2 March. This has significantly worsened the suffering of civilians, pushing them closer towards famine without the swift intervention of the international community.

Famine is not the only threat that should prompt the international community to act, and waiting for it to occur before responding is unacceptable. Depriving the enclave’s vulnerable population, particularly children, of proper nutrition will lead to severe malnutrition, resulting in long-term health damage and potentially irreversible physical and psychological disabilities depending on the individual’s age. Euro-Med Monitor asserts that severe malnutrition during critical growth stages weakens the immune system, heightens the risk of fatal diseases, and causes significant delays in cognitive and motor development, leaving a person with permanent health consequences that cannot be remedied, even if conditions improve in the future.

This is not merely a temporary humanitarian crisis, but a deliberate, systematic policy aimed at eradicating entire Palestinian generations. It constitutes a direct act of genocide, as outlined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which explicitly prohibits the creation of conditions that lead to the destruction of a group, in whole or in part. The continued implementation of this policy, without decisive international intervention, not only reflects a failure in humanitarian response but also amounts to complicity in the documented crime of genocide.

Euro-Med Monitor reiterates that Israel’s renewed starvation of Palestinians will exacerbate the existing humanitarian crisis and thus serves as a clear indicator of genocidal intent, and that this crime aligns with the broader, US-proposed ethnic cleansing policy. Humanitarian aid is a fundamental right of civilians under international humanitarian law, with no exceptions, and there is no legal justification for Israel to deny Palestinians access to essential aid. Israel is not only using humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip for political and military gain but is also deliberately enforcing a policy of systematic starvation, creating life-threatening conditions designed to make survival in the Gaza Strip impossible.

Israel’s repeated statements announcing its full coordination with the United States administration, which has explicitly stated its intention to displace the Strip’s entire population, confirm that the crimes of starvation and blocking of humanitarian aid are not isolated incidents or negotiating tools. Instead, they are part of a deliberate plan aligned with the US strategy to forcefully displace and depopulate the Gaza Strip.

Israel’s policy continues to perpetuate genocide, even after the ceasefire. By depriving the Palestinian population of their most basic needs as part of a long-term plan that threatens their physical survival as a national group, Israel has maintained deadly conditions designed to gradually eliminate them. The international community can no longer afford to dismiss the illegal blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip, which stands as one of the most prominent tools of Israel’s genocide.

All relevant countries and entities must fulfil their legal responsibilities and take immediate action to halt the genocide in the Gaza Strip. This includes pressuring Israel to lift the blockade entirely, allowing the unrestricted movement of individuals and goods into and out of the enclave, unconditionally opening all border crossings, and implementing effective measures to protect Palestinians from the ongoing policies of slow killing and forced displacement. Furthermore, an urgent response committee should be activated to address the population’s immediate needs, including temporary and adequate housing.

The international community must impose economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel in response to its systematic and severe violations of international law, including a ban on arms trade and military cooperation, as well as freezing the financial assets of officials involved in crimes against the Palestinian people.

To pressure Israel to halt its crimes against the Palestinians, Euro-Med Monitor also calls for the suspension of any trade privileges and bilateral agreements that provide Israel with economic benefits.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor urges the international community to uphold its legal and humanitarian responsibilities by implementing the International Court of Justice’s order from 28 March 2024. This includes the precautionary measures requiring Israel to take necessary and effective actions, in cooperation with the United Nations, to ensure the unhindered and timely entry of aid into the Gaza Strip, in compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The International Criminal Court must expedite its investigations and issue arrest warrants against Israeli officials implicated in international crimes in the Gaza Strip. Euro-Med Monitor reminds the member states of the Rome Statute of their legal obligations to fully cooperate with the Court, ensure the enforcement of arrest warrants, and prevent impunity for those responsible.

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

13 March 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Judge Extends Ban on Mahmoud Khalil Deportion from the US

By Quds News Network

New York (Quds News Network)- A judge in the United States has extended his order blocking authorities from deporting Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil from the US after he was arrested by ICE agents over his pro-Palestinian activism on campus.

On Saturday, Khalil, who is a permanent resident of the US, was detained by the ICE agents when he arrived at his home at a student resident facility with his pregnant wife over his activism as he played a key role in pro-Palestine and anti-genocide demonstrations on campus. He acted as a negotiator with university officials during protests for Palestine in the spring of 2024. The agents said they planned to revoke his green card at the behest of the US Department of State.

On Monday, US District Judge Jesse Furman temporarily blocked Khalil’s deportation. On Wednesday, the judge extended that prohibition in a written order – following a hearing in New York’s Manhattan federal court – to allow himself more time to consider whether the student’s arrest was unconstitutional.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Khalil is subject to deportation under a legal provision that orders the removal of migrants whose presence in the country is deemed by the US Secretary of State to be incompatible with US foreign policy, according to a document seen by Reuters.

Khalil’s lawyers said his arrest outside his university residence in Manhattan was in retaliation for his outspoken advocacy against Israel’s assault on Gaza, and thus violated Khalil’s right to free speech under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

“Mr Khalil was identified, targeted, detained and is being processed for deportation on account of his advocacy for Palestinian rights,” Khalil’s lawyer Ramzi Kassem said in court on Wednesday.

Outside the courthouse, Kassem told reporters that the legal provision DHS referred to was rarely used and was not meant to silence dissent.

The latest legal move means that Khalil, who was initially detained in nearby New Jersey, will likely remain detained at an immigration detention centre in the southern US state of Louisiana until at least next week. His lawyers want him returned to New York and released from detention under supervision.

Khalil, who is of Palestinian origin and married to an American citizen, came to the US on a student visa in 2022 and became a permanent resident last year.

Hundreds of people rallied outside the New York City courtroom during the hearing to demand Khalil’s release. “Release Mahmoud Khalil now!” they chanted.

[https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1900080076877664763]

During the brief hearing, Kassem said his client had been allowed just one call with his legal team from the detention centre in Louisiana. But Kassem said that the call was cut off prematurely and was on a line recorded and monitored by the government.

[https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1899932551713554852]

Judge Furman ruled that Khalil and his lawyers should have one phone call on Wednesday and another on Thursday, covered by attorney-client privilege, meaning the government would not have access to their conversation.

Khalil’s arrest comes shortly after the State Department announced its plans to use AI to revoke the visas of pro-Palestine foreign students, labeling them “pro-Hamas”.

It also comes days after the New York Police Department was seen dragging students out of a sit-in at Columbia’s Barnard College, where students were protesting against the expulsion of three students for protests and disruptions in 2024.

Following his arrest, Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X that the US would “be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported”.

Neither Rubio nor the DHS provided any details as to how Khalil’s activism at Columbia University, where he had openly played the role of a student negotiator with administrators, amounted to supporting Hamas.

On Monday, in a post on Truth Social, US President Donald Trump described the arrest of Khalil as “the first arrest of many to come”.

“We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it,” Trump said.

Trump also revoked $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University, citing its failure to address ‘antisemitism’.

As he campaigned for a second term in the White House, Trump pledged to stop the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that erupted after Israel launched its deadly war on Gaza and deport any foreign students involved.

Upon taking office, he began to issue executive actions signalling he would carry out his threats.

“To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you,” Trump said in a White House fact sheet.

“I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio could revoke Khalil’s green card if Rubio determined his presence in the US runs contrary to the country’s national security and foreign policy interests.

Citing a government document detailing the civil charges Khalil faces, The Washington Post also reported on Wednesday that Rubio’s determination “is so far the Trump administration’s sole justification” for trying to deport him.

Separately, Rubio told reporters that Khalil’s case “is not about free speech”.

“This is about people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with,” the top US diplomat told reporters at Ireland’s Shannon airport during a refuelling stop after a trip to Saudi Arabia.

“No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card, by the way,” Rubio said.

But speaking outside the Manhattan court, Khalil’s lawyer Kassem told reporters that the rarely used legal provision that the Trump administration seems to be invoking was not meant to silence dissent.

“It is not intended to be used to silence pro-Palestinian speech or any other speech that the government doesn’t like,” Kassem said.

Emails leaked by Zeteo show Khalil sought protection from Columbia University before his arrest. He warned school officials about a doxxing campaign against him. He reported threats and feared for his safety. His messages also raised concerns about discrimination, after his university ID was suddenly deactivated.

Wife of Mahmoud Khalil: ‘He is Fighting for His People’

Noor Abdalla, the wife of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate who was arrested by ICE agents due to his pro-Palestinian activism on campus, stated that her husband is “Palestinian, and he’s standing up for his people.” The government has announced that it has begun proceedings to deport him over his activism.

On Saturday, Khalil, who is a permanent resident of the US, was detained by the ICE agents when he arrived at his home at a student resident facility with his pregnant wife over his activism as he played a key role in pro-Palestine and anti-genocide demonstrations on campus. He acted as a negotiator with university officials during protests for Palestine in the spring of 2024. The agents said they planned to revoke his green card at the behest of the US Department of State.

In her first media interview, Abdalla, a U.S. citizen who is eight months pregnant, told Reuters that Khalil asked her if she knew what to do if immigration agents came to their door. She said she was confused. As a legal permanent resident of the U.S., surely Khalil did not have to worry about that, she recalls telling him.

“I didn’t take him seriously. Clearly I was naive,” she said.

Abdalla, a 28-year-old dentist in New York, met Khalil while volunteering in Lebanon in 2016. The two are expecting their first child in late April and she said she hoped Khalil would be free by then.

She showed Reuters a picture of a recent sonogram: a boy whose name they have yet to choose.

“I think it would be very devastating for me and for him to meet his first child behind a glass screen,” Abdalla said.

On Monday, US District Judge Jesse Furman temporarily blocked Khalil’s deportation. On Wednesday, the judge extended that prohibition in a written order – following a hearing in New York’s Manhattan federal court – to allow himself more time to consider whether the student’s arrest was unconstitutional.

Khalil grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and came to the U.S. on a student visa in 2022, getting his U.S. permanent residency green card last year.

“Mahmoud is Palestinian and he’s always been interested in Palestinian politics,” she said. “He’s standing up for his people, he’s fighting for his people.”

13 March 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Bertrand Russell’s Message on Palestine/Israel the Day before He Died

By Bertrand Russell

This statement on the Middle East was dated 31 Jan 1970 and read on 3 Feb, the day after Bertrand Russell’s death, to an International Conference of Parliamentarians meeting in Cairo.

Video:

Bertrand Russell’s “Last Message” Israel and Palestine (He died the next day)

TRANSCRIPT:

The latest phase of the undeclared war in the Middle East is based upon a profound
miscalculation. The bombing raids deep into Egyptian territory will not persuade the civilian
population to surrender, but will stiffen their resolve to resist. This is the lesson of all aerial
bombardment.

The Vietnamese who have endured years of American heavy bombing have responded not by
capitulation but by shooting down more enemy aircraft. In 1940 my own fellow countrymen
resisted Hitler’s bombing raids with unprecedented unity and determination. For this reason, the present Israeli attacks will fail in their essential purpose, but at the same time they must be condemned vigorously throughout the world.

The development of the crisis in the Middle East is both dangerous and instructive. For over 20
years Israel has expanded by force of arms. After every stage in this expansion Israel has
appealed to “reason” and has suggested “negotiations”.

This is the traditional role of the imperial power, because it wishes to consolidate with the least
difficulty what it has already taken by violence. Every new conquest becomes the new basis of
the proposed negotiation from strength, which ignores the injustice of the previous aggression.

The aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has the right
to annex foreign territory, but because every expansion is an experiment to discover how much
more aggression the world will tolerate.

The refugees who surround Palestine in their hundreds of thousands were described recently by
the Washington journalist I.F. Stone as “the moral millstone around the neck of world Jewry.”

Many of the refugees are now well into the third decade of their precarious existence in
temporary settlements. The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given”
by a foreign Power to another people for the creation of a new State. The result was that many
hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless.

With every new conflict their number have increased. How much longer is the world willing to
endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right
to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the
continuing conflict.

No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country;
how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would
tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient
of any genuine settlement in the Middle East.

We are frequently told that we must sympathize with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews
in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. I see in this suggestion no reason to perpetuate any suffering.
What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify
those of the present is gross hypocrisy. Not only does Israel condemn a vast number. of refugees
to misery; not only are many Arabs under occupation condemned to military rule; but also Israel
condemns the Arab nations only recently emerging from colonial status, to continued
impoverishment as military demands take precedence over national development.

All who want to see an end to bloodshed in the Middle East must ensure that any settlement does
not contain the seeds of future conflict. Justice requires that the first step towards a settlement
must be an Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied in June, 1967. A new world
campaign is needed to help bring justice to the long-suffering people of the Middle East.

____________________________________________

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, (18 May 1872 – 2 Feb 1970), 3rd Earl Russell, was a British Nobel Literature laureate, philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social critic, and political activist .

17 March 2025

Source: transcend.org

Syria’s Sectarian Massacres Are Blowback for Foreign-led Dirty War

By Aaron Maté

12 Mar 2025 – By arming the sectarian insurgency that now rules Syria, the US and its allies bear responsibility for the current slaughter of Alawite civilians and other minority groups.

Since Friday [7 Mar], fighters loyal to Syria’s new Al Qaeda offshoot government have massacred hundreds of people in the coastal provinces of Latakia and Tartus, the heartland of Syria’s Alawite population. Contacts in Syria have shared stories, corroborated by gruesome videos circulating on social media, of outright pogroms: entire families murdered in their homes; residents rounded up and executed in the streets; shops looted and burned to the ground; and thousands hiding in mountains and farmland from the marauding killers, many of them foreign fighters. According to the Washington Post, “witnesses said the gunmen who wrought carnage were indistinguishable from government forces.” This has resulted in massive displacement, with thousands of civilians seeking refuge anywhere they can, including a Russian military base, churches, and neighboring Lebanon.

TO READ FULL STORY Go to Original – aaronmate.net

17 March 2025

Source: transcend.org

Europe’s Shameful Role in the War in Congo

By Marc Botenga

11 Mar 2025 –European countries are stepping up military aid and economic investment in Rwanda, said to be an ally in keeping order in the region. The reality: Rwanda’s authoritarian government is massively destabilizing eastern Congo by backing rebel forces.

TO READ FULL ARTICLE Go to Original – jacobin.com

17 March 2025

Source: transcend.org

On Stupidity

By Michael Brenner

12 Mar 2025– Stupidity, stupidity everywhere – and not a word to witness.

“Stupid” is a commonplace term casually used in everyday conversation. Much less so in writing – especially when the subject is political personalities. It is heavily weighted with inhibition. Why this hesitation? Why at a time when manifest stupidity in speech and action is rampant?

“Stupid” is both blunt and conclusive. Straight-forward. It does not welcome qualification or discussion. It implies: matter settled, closed. Moreover, it suggests a character flaw as well as low intelligence. That somehow makes us uncomfortable. So we prefer: dense, slow, thick, dim or dim-witted; or pithy euphemisms, e.g. “not the sharpest tool in the kit” or “none too swift” or “slow on the uptake” or “not playing with a full deck” or “in so far over his head that the bubbles don’t reach the surface.” In addition, there are those words that refer directly to intelligence: moron, imbecile, idiot. They, too, are in currency but suffer from the disability of taking in vain a descriptive word that refers to the poor souls who are born with mental deficiencies.

“Stupid” is used as an epithet 95% of the time. Not as a depiction of someone’s Intelligence Quotient (IQ). To do so in the latter sense is to complicate matters. Intelligence, as we now are aware, is a broad concept that covers 5 or 6 or 7 mental attributes whose correlations are quite low. So, almost no one thinks that through before throwing the word around. To the degree that one might consider meanings, it implies lack of logic – the core characteristic of conventional IQ intelligence.

Squirt kerosene on a simmering barbecue – that’s stupid. Sending more troops to Afghanistan in  2017 when you’ve failed miserably to achieve your (undefined) objective over the past 15 years with much larger contingents is stupid, i.e. illogical. Denouncing China as US’ enemy on whom it plans to impose severe economic sanctions while senior officials publicly predict war within 10 years, and then beseeching Beijing for assistance in keeping the dollar the global currency by ending its sale of U.S. securities; and then demanding that China slow its economic growth because 1) it causes balance-of-trade imbalances, and 2) that would reduce its oil imports thereby minimizing Russian revenue from its sales on a softer world market (as did Janet Yellin on two separate visits) – that’s stupid. Silently letting Turkey provide crucial material support to ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria(**) while decrying terrorist acts by jihadis the in US and Europe is stupid, i.e. illogical. (The Obama administration soon joined in supplying arms indirectly those same groups, then helped secure their control of the Idlib enclave which was their base for the eventual breakout a few months ago; now in power they are massacring Alawites and Christians). Bestowing praise and honors on the Saudi leaders as declared brothers in the “war on terror” when in fact these very persons have done more to propagate the fanatical creed that inspires and justifies acts of terror is stupid, i.e. “illogical.”

These instances of stupid behavior draw our attention to the connections between intelligence and knowledge – between “stupidity” and “ignorance.” Stupid (illogical) behavior is more likely when you don’t know what you’re doing because important information is missing. In the examples cited, though, the information that is the foundation for logical thinking was known to the parties taking those actions. Not just accessible – it is lodged (somewhere) in the brain of the actor. “Dumb”(*) in popular usage is the word that combines “stupid” and “ignorant” – with the connotation that the ignorance is willful. That is a pertinent notion to which we’ll return.

Assuming that the “stupid’ actors are not mentally deficient, why do they act as if they are? That is the persistent question that crops us as we see and read the antics of public officials, commentators, and a host of celebrity personalities. Several explanations, not excuses, come to mind.

One is that there exists an implicit logic that is not acknowledged but salient for the person(s) involved. The Pentagon brass may well have been less concerned about “winning” in Afghanistan, whatever that means, than they were living with the intolerable perception that they “lost.” No general cum security policy-maker wants to be saddled with the label of “loser.” That sensitivity can become institutionally generalized; Generals Mattis and McMaster(**) were in little danger of being blamed personally for failure in Afghanistan. What seems to count is that they did not want the U.S. military to be stigmatized as a failure. They were acutely aware of how much the image of the uniformed military suffered as a result of America losing its first war in Vietnam. It follows that they might hope against hope that the outcome can be fudged enough so as to escape that fate. There is a practical side to this concern, too. Failure, as perceived in the public eye, could tarnish the resplendent image so successfully cultivated during the “war on terror” era. That could translate into less support for bigger budgets, less lucrative consultancies after retirement, and less acclaim. And a weaker voice in policy debates.

If one were to postulate that these are cardinal objectives, then campaigning to send several thousand more troops on a strategically pointless mission is logical – and the plan’s promoters not as stupid as they appear. What of senior policymakers in and around the White House who did not share those particular interests? They, indeed, were stupid.

Another instructive example is Barack Obama’s announcing the conclusion of an historic, arduously negotiated nuclear treaty with Iran (JPOA) in a speech that vilifies the Tehran regime as a tyranny that sponsors terrorism, aims to dominate the Persian Gulf, and endangers Israel. Thereby, he emboldened opponents of the accord to attack it – clearing the way for its abrogation by Trump a few years later. The net result: we now are on the brink of war with Iran because of its nuclear activities. Stupidly illogical? Perhaps not. Obama, on narrow political grounds, was trying to insulate himself from a barrage of criticism from Washington hard-liners and the Zionist lobby. Only two years earlier, he had infuriated them by scotching plans for American military strikes against government forces in response to chemical attacks blamed on the Assad regime (in fact, a false flag operation by MI-6 and their White Hats in collaboration with the jihadi rebels); hence, the perceived need to mollify them. So, it can be seen as logical given his weighting of interests and priorities. Not stupid – just self-centered and unresponsive to the public good, vintage Obama.

A second reality to keep in mind is that governments are plural nouns – or, pronouns with multiple antecedent nouns. The numerous organizations, bureaucracies and individuals involved in decision-making typically lead to a convoluted process wherein it is easy to lose track of purposes, priorities and coordination. Where little discipline is imposed by the chief, the greater the chances that the result will be contradictory, disjointed, sub-optimal and often poorly executed policies. At the present moment, we are witnessing a disjointed Trump administration, that in regard to Ukraine/Russia, 6 individuals are pursuing 7 different lines as indicated by their public remarks – an octopus trying to put on a pair of mismatched socks. All exacerbated by a scatterbrained Chief Executive who contradicts himself – as well his senior deputies – on a nightly basis.

Another kind of impediment to coherent, reality-based policymaking arises when the opposite condition prevails: an elaborate process involving several parties with divergent perspectives and parochial interests concludes with an agreement on a lowest common denominator basis. Arduously reached, that decision becomes frozen, insulated from new information or changes in the environment due to the fear that any revision would unravel the consensus – a form of groupthink.  An extreme example of this phenomenon is provided by the EU where 27 sovereign states must agree before any policy can be enunciated. In Brussels, success is proclaimed when they reach accord as if negotiating among themselves is tantamount to negotiating an accord with other governments. A similar example is presented by the current campaign of the Trump administration to press Ukraine into negotiations with Russia. The tussle between Washington and Kiev is taken to be the crucial step toward resolution of the conflict. In fact, the ideas being bandied about as key ingredients of a settlement already have been absolutely rejected by Moscow – in particular, the much ballyhooed ceasefire that is a Western pipedream. As yet, they have not even been formally conveyed to the Russians. Stupid – or pathological?

Finally, we should recognize that rigorous thinking is far from the norm – at the highest levels of government as well as in everyday life. It takes a combination of education/training, experience, intellectual integrity, a cultivated sense of responsibility, discomfort with deciding on the basis of skimpy or suspect information, and an ingrained preference for knowing why you’re doing something instead of flying by the seat of your pants. True, when practiced and reinforced, rigorous thinking can become habitual – just like other modes of human behavior. There are multiple influences, though, that militate against that habit taking root and being sustained. They include the lure of celebrity, time pressures due to an excess of travel and/or summonses to mind-numbing TV interviews, long-tedious-inconclusive meetings (such as those presided over by Susan Rice which drove Chuck Hagel out of government), endless bureaucratic games-playing, distracted Chief Executives who demand ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to complex issues. Altogether, the tumult can soften the toughest mind. Weaker minds simply latch onto whatever conventional wisdom and catch phrases are floating around in order to remain relevant and minimally functional in the kaleidoscopic setting of most administrations.

All of these patterns with attendant adverse consequences are more likely to crystallize into stupid acts when the man nominally in charge lacks the intelligence, emotional stability, self-awareness and/or advisors to recognize either the requirements for sound policymaking or for implementation. A lack of capacity to accept responsibility and to be held accountable exacerbates matters.

A business career such as Trump’s is not the desired preparation. Not only is that world fundamentally different from the world of public affairs (and especially foreign policy) Further, Trump partially compensated for his flaws through coercion, cheating, and duplicity. And at the end of the day, he could rig the books. That modus operandi doesn’t fly in the Middle East or in dealing with the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xia Jinping. It could, and does, win elections in a country where ignorance and “obtuseness”, in its many inglorious forms, are commonplace.

“Willful ignorance,” or “studied ignorance,” is an increasingly familiar phenomenon. Not just in Washington but among heads of large organizations of all stripes (e.g. universities). The inclination to avoid acquiring knowledge about a matter either at hand or looming is not necessarily a sign of stupidity. Here, too, there may be hidden considerations at play. American foreign policymakers may have wish to mask the Kabul government’s faltering popular support because doing so means a fundamental rethink of aims- an agonizing reappraisal for which they are unprepared intellectually, politically, and diplomatically. (MB: substitute Ukraine)

Making no effort to uncover the facts only becomes “stupid” where the responsible official then does things, as a consequence, that harm his interests. That has been the case in Syria where Barack Obama refused to come to terms with the uncomfortable truth that the “rebels” were overwhelmingly Salafist jihadis. In this case, an admission of that cardinal truth would pose the stark choice between continuing to back an al-Qaeda-led cause or reversing course in tilting toward the Assad regime. The President lacked the courage to deal with the wide-ranging ramifications of that; so, he deluded himself into pursuing a will-o’wisp that existed only in the imaginings of those who were keen on an American military intervention. By surrounding himself with a rogue Secretary of Defense, a strategically disoriented Secretary of State, a self-absorbed, unpracticed National Security Advisor, and an obstreperous UN Ambassador, Obama fostered an environment that enabled his escapist behavior. So, too, did his ritual deference to the warped liturgy of the foreign policy Establishment that they represented.

For a President to avoid acting “stupidly,” he need not have an exceptional IQ – or score remarkably high on other dimensions of intelligence. Two things are most important: he must be honest with himself; and he must put in place a policy system that is both logical in process and self-aware as to why decisions are taken with what end in mind. To borrow an analogy from the football terminology favored in the corridors of Washington power: you can win a championship with a simply competent quarterback if the other pieces are in place and he follows a disciplined script. (Bart Starr of the old Green Bay Packers). An emotionally handicapped or narcissistic quarterback – however talented – will cripple a team sooner or later. One who suffers from the latter condition(s), along with a lack of athletic talent, is a guarantor of disaster. “Stupidity” will be the least of the derogatory terms applied to the ensuing performance; that word should be reserved for those who chose him.

Moral: we should not hesitate to call things as they are. Feigned politeness in situations marked by systematic deceit, ill-will and harm to the nation serves no good purpose. Concerned about the proverbial “dignity of the office?” Take your shoes off before entering the Oval Office. If “stupidity” displayed by stupid people is what we observe, virtue lies in calling it by its name.

The foregoing discussion pertains directly to government leaders. What of those non-official members of the “foreign affairs community” – the think tank pundits, the media personalities, the op ed columnists? These days, the thinking of most mirrors that of those in government positions. The unstated or unconfirmed premises, the partial or selective information, the logical flaws. The main differences are that they write/speak at far greater length, compose longer sentences, and use polysyllabic words. The level of intellectual rigor, though, is pretty much the same.

NOTES:

(*) ”Dumb” as a pejorative has been out of favor for some time. It sounds stale to the post-modern ear.  Only be adding the suffix “SOB” or “bastard” does it make any impact. That may be changing, though. The comeback of “dumb” could well have something to do with the fact that it rhymes with “Trump.” The German spelling “Drump” has even truer resonance.

(**) The honor should have gone to General Jones (National Security Adviser), Admirals Mullen (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff) and Blair (Director, CIA). The most forceful advocates were two civilians: Secretary of Defense Bobby Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

(***) Abu Mohammad al-Julani, nom de guerre of Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, and Abu Bakra al-Baghdadi of ISIS notoriety were confederates in the al-Qaeda subsidiary al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia that had been active in Iraq after the 2003 American invasion and occupation. Soon after the civil war in Syria broke out in 2011, they went their more or less separate ways: al-Baghdadi leading the Islamic State and Julani controlling al-Nusra as it came to be known. Over time, al-Nusra became the dominant force in the opposition coalition.  It used its non-jihadi allies as convenient cover. American aid, along with that of European supporters, was laundered through those other groups. In effect, they served as a postal drop box. Over the eight years when al-Nusra ran the Idlib pocket under Turkish protection, they set up a repressive Islamic autocracy. They also assembled a multiethnic force including ISIS remnants, Uigurs, Uzbeks, Afghans, Chechens that acted as Turkish mercenaries in Libya, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.  Now, they enjoy a measure of independence as militias in the new-found regime of Jalani’s Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – its latest organizational incarnation. However, they could not commit the massacres against the Alawites without Jolani’s tacit approval, and HTS security forces, too, were involved.

For the record: among Syria’s 4.5 million Alawites, few supported Assad to the end and active opposition to the HTS takeover was very limited.

________________________________________________

Michael Brenner is professor of international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh; a senior fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, SAIS-Johns Hopkins (Washington, D.C.), contributor to research and consulting projects on Euro-American security and economic issues.

17 March 2025

Source: transcend.org