Archives: Articles

By Bidisha Biswas

Between May and June 2024, Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Slovenia announced that they would officially recognize the state of Palestine.  Predictably, this received dramatic condemnation from Israel. Just as predictably, the United States—which has consistently opposed statehood for Palestinians through both its veto power in the United Nations Security Council and implicit and explicit support for Israel’s expansionist policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)—expressed disapproval of this move by its European allies.

Lost in the Western media’s maelstrom about these developments was the important fact that, by May 2024, a majority of the world’s countries, more than 140, had already recognized Palestinian statehood—and had done so for years. In particular, Global South countries in Asia and Africa have long seen the Palestinian quest for self-determination as an extension of their own anti-colonial struggles of the twentieth century. An examination of this history of solidarity can help us understand the ways in which anti-colonial and post-colonial politics have shaped global understandings of the Israel-Palestine conflict, beyond the narrow vision of many Western countries. In turn, this will provide us with much-needed context to the current situation.

At the time of Israel’s establishment as a state in 1948, much of Africa and Asia was still under the yoke of European colonial rule. One exception to this was India, which gained independence from British rule in August 1947. In June 1947,  Jawaharlal Nehru, who went on to become independent India’s first Prime Minister, explained his country’s nuanced position on the question of Israel and Palestine in a letter to Albert Einstein, who had written to him to seek support for Israel’s creation:

“You know that in India there has been the deepest sympathy for the great sufferings of the Jewish people. We have rejected completely the racial doctrine which the Nazis and the fascists proclaimed. Unfortunately, however, that doctrine is still believed in and acted upon by other people. You are no doubt aware of the treatment accorded by the Union of South Africa to Indians there on racial grounds….In raising this question [of South Africa] before the United Nations, we did not emphasise the limited aspect of it, but stood on the broader plane of human rights for all in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations…. With all our sympathy for the Jews we must and do feel that the rights and future of the Arabs are involved in this question…Why do they [Jews] want to compel the Arabs to submit against their will to certain demands? The way of approach has been one which does not lead to a settlement, but rather to the continuation of the conflict.”

In November 1947, India was one of only thirteen countries that opposed UN Resolution 1981, which paved the way for Israel to be established the following year. India went on to recognize Israel in 1950 (although full diplomatic relations were not established till 1992); but for many years remained actively supportive of Palestinian rights.

Nehru’s early concerns—regarding the parallels between Israel and South Africa, the marginalization of Palestinian rights, and tying the Palestine question to the broader UN commitment to supporting equal rights for all persons—continued to resonate over the ensuing decades. As countries across Asia and Africa gained independence from colonial rule, they extended vocal support to Palestine on the international stage. They did so through resolutions passed by the  United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and statements from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Organization for African Unity (OAU). NAM was particularly outspoken on this issue, having created a Ministerial Committee on Palestine at its 1983 meeting in New Delhi, India. Ignored by the West, Palestinians viewed this step as an important  indication of global support. NAM and OAU (which converted to the African Union (AU) in 2002) would make repeated statements to the UNGA about the need to center Palestinian rights to bring a just and durable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Many of these statements would draw comparisons between the oppressive policies of the South African and Israeli regimes.

An Independent State

In November 1988, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), declared Palestine as an independent state. Between 1988 and 1989, a number of countries from Asia and Africa recognized Palestine. Among those were India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Zambia, The Gambia, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Namibia, Vietnam, Cape Verde, Niger, Tanzania, Ghana, Togo, Zimbabwe, Chad, Uganda, Angola, Mozambique, Gabon, Botswana, and Kenya. Two central American countries, Cuba and Nicaragua, also joined this first wave. A 1989 OAU submission to the UN, authored by Kenya, was one of many which asked for Palestine to be recognized as a state, drew links between Israel’s oppressive practices and that of apartheid-era South Africa, and called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the OPT.

The end of the Cold War and the emergence of the U.S.-led world order weakened NAM and OAU, both of which had received support from the Soviet Union. In the 1990s and 2000s, the Palestinian cause appeared to recede from the public eye in many postcolonial countries. Regular submissions to the UN on this issue assumed a depressing form of repetition, devoid of actual impact. Israel, for its part, was able to establish closer diplomatic, economic, and military ties with a number of post-colonial countries, including India.

The 1990s, however, also saw the growing prominence of another important voice of solidarity. As the anti-apartheid movement of South Africa gained steam, Nelson Mandela and others involved in the effort to change the country’s racist regime spoke firmly and unequivocally about their affinity with Palestinians. One of the first acts of the post-apartheid South Africa government was the recognition of Palestine in 1995. While South Africa continued to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, support to Palestine was a sharp reversal of the apartheid-era government’s close relations with Israel. South Africa would go on to become one of the most outspoken advocates for Palestinian rights in international forums, most recently filing a case in December 2023 against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for acts of genocide in Gaza. Since its creation in 2002, the AU, of which South Africa is a prominent member, has consistently raised the issue of Palestine as a central point of contention in its demands for reform of the global institutional regime that has long been dominated by the West.

In the 21st century, many countries in Central and South America extended recognition to Palestine, despite pressure from the United States to refrain. This was facilitated by the emergence of left-leaning governments in the region, which tended to see structural global inequality as being reflected in the Palestinian cause. Countries from the region that have recognized Palestine in the last few decades include Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, El Salvador, and Mexico.

It is in this broader context of growing global solidarity that Sweden’s recognition of Palestine in 2014—the first Western European country to do so—should be seen. It is notable that more than 125 countries—a majority in UNGA—opposed the United States’s 2017 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Most countries have continued to criticize Israel’s actions in the OPT, including the expansion of settlements, an issue on which Western countries have tended to remain relatively silent.

Since October 2023, we have seen an unprecedented wave of public support for Palestinians across the Western world, most notably in the United States. Many protestors, including students and Black activists, draw explicit links between racist and colonial oppression and Israel’s actions. It is important in this context to remember that post-colonial countries have played a historical, pivotal role in supporting the decades-long effort by Palestinians to be heard in the UN and other international forums.

Most countries in Asia and Africa do not have the history of anti-Jewish hate and discrimination that have for centuries marked Europe and the United States. Nor are these countries—geographically removed from the Middle East—affected by the territorial disputes, displaced populations, and proximate anxieties that affect the region. Why then, have they chosen to so consistently focus on expressing solidarity with Palestine, even while being ignored or chastised by powerful countries like the United States? And what might be the motivations for these countries to continue to speak at international forums, which have been dominated by powerful countries and remained ineffective on the Palestine issue?

Anti-Colonialism: Beyond Geopolitics

One answer to these questions is, of course, geopolitics. Some countries might have felt that it was in their national interest to ally themselves, on this issue, with countries in the Middle East. Geopolitics cannot, however, provide an explanation for the consistency and steadfastness of this support, nor the language of global rights in which it has been framed. In much of the Global South,  support for the Palestinian cause has long been seen as a critical element of a shared, anti-colonial endeavor. It is this idea, one of solidarity between colonized and subjugated peoples, that was articulated by Nehru in his communique to Einstein in 1947. This same idea has been echoed by others, including Mandela, who have seen in the Palestinian struggle a continuation of their own efforts to create more equity in the world. It explains, as well, why such countries have turned to international organizations, as have the Palestinians themselves, over a decades-long effort to have their rights recognized in meaningful ways. And, today, these same ideas—of speaking up for those affected by colonial and racist policies and of driving change in the power structures of the world—are propelling current waves of popular solidarity with Palestine.

It is impossible to know if the current moment will pave the way for a sovereign Palestinian state that can provide a safe and secure life for its citizens, and ensure the same for its neighbors. It is also not clear that post-colonial countries, many of which have significant governance and foreign policy challenges of their own, can provide substantive models in this regard. Yet, amid the tumult of the changing world order, and the tragedies unfolding in the Middle East, a recognition of post-colonial solidarity toward Palestine reminds us of the centrality of the original, still unfulfilled promise of the United Nations—that it is a body committed to reaffirming “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small”  and to establishing “conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.

11 June 2024

Source: thecairoreview.com

By Michael K. Smith

Moshe Yatom, a prominent Israeli psychiatrist who successfully cured the most extreme forms of mental illness throughout a distinguished career, was found dead at his home in Tel Aviv yesterday from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. A suicide note at his side explained that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been his patient for the last nine years, had “sucked the life right out of me.”

“I can’t take it anymore,” wrote Yatom.

“Robbery is redemption, apartheid is freedom, peace activists are terrorists, murder is self-defense, piracy is legality, Palestinians are Jordanians, annexation is liberation, there’s no end to his contradictions. Freud promised rationality would reign in the instinctual passions, but he never met Bibi Netanyahu. This guy would say Gandhi invented brass knuckles.”

Psychiatrists are familiar with the human tendency to massage the truth to avoid confronting emotionally troubling material, but Yatom was apparently stunned at what he called the “waterfall of lies” gushing from his most illustrious patient. His personal diary details the steady disintegration of his once invincible personality under the barrage of self-serving rationalizations put forth by Netanyahu.

“I’m completely shocked,” said neighbor Yossi Bechor, whose family regularly vacationed with Yatom’s family. “Moshe was the epitome of the fully-integrated personality and had cured dozens of schizophrenics before beginning work on Bibi. There was no outward indication that his case was any different from the others.”

But it was. Yatom grew increasingly depressed at his complete lack of progress in getting the Prime Minister to acknowledge reality, and he eventually suffered a series of strokes when attempting to grasp Netanyahu’s thinking, which he characterized in one diary entry as “a black hole of self-contradiction.”

The first of Yatom’s strokes occurred when Netanyahu offered his opinion that the 911 attacks on Washington and New York “were good.” The second followed a session in which Netanyahu insisted that Iran and Nazi Germany were identical. And the third occurred after the Prime Minister declared Iran’s nuclear energy program was a “flying gas chamber,” and that all Jews everywhere “lived permanently in Auschwitz.” Yatom’s efforts to calm Netanyahu’s hysteria were extremely taxing emotionally and routinely ended in failure.

“The alibi is always the same with him,” complained another diary entry. “The Jews are on the verge of annihilation at the hands of the racist goyim and the only way to save the day is to carry out one final massacre.”

Yatom was apparently working on converting his diary into a book about the Netanyahu case. Several chapters of an unfinished manuscript, entitled “Psychotic On Steroids,” were found in his study. The excerpt below offers a rare glimpse at the inner workings of a Prime Minister’s mind, at the same time as it reveals the daunting challenge Yatom faced in seeking to guide it to rationality:

Monday, March 8

“Bibi came by at three for his afternoon session. At four he refused to leave and claimed my house was actually his. Then he locked me in the basement overnight while he lavishly entertained his friends upstairs. When I tried to escape, he called me a terrorist and put me in shackles. I begged for mercy, but he said he could hardly grant it to someone who didn’t even exist.”

*

Michael K. Smith is the author of “Portraits of Empire” and “The Madness of King George,” from Common Courage Press.

8 June 2024

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Justice P.K.Shamsuddin

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Sharia law are two significant frameworks that guide human rights practices and ethical standards globally. However, they often appear to be in conflict, particularly in areas concerning gender rights, freedom of expression, and religious freedoms. This paper explores the historical and contemporary contexts of these differences, highlighting areas of contention and potential pathways for harmonization. By examining the underlying principles of both systems, this paper aims to identify common ground and propose strategies for bridging the gap, fostering a more inclusive and universally respectful approach to human rights.

The Formative Period of Historical Development of Islamic Law

Muslim scholarship recognizes the era of Prophet Muhammad as the formative period of Islamic law. Spanning approximately twenty-three years, from his call to prophethood in 609 CE to his death in 632 CE, this period is divided into thirteen years in Makkah and ten years in Madinah, following the migration due to religious persecutions in 622 CE.

Prophet Muhammad was the go-to guide for both spiritual and temporal matters. He addressed inquiries through one of three methods: referencing existing Quranic verses, revealing new ones, or offering his own inspired statements. Many Quranic verses were revealed in response to specific questions posed by his companions. For example, Q. 2:219 addresses inquiries about wine and gambling, emphasizing that their sin outweighs their benefits. Other verses revealed in response to questions include Q. 2:189, 2:215, 2:217, and more. Additionally, numerous hadith reflect the Prophet’s inspired responses to various inquiries, such as the hadith where he advises a man repeatedly not to get angry, underscoring the importance of controlling one’s anger (Bukhari).

Classical Muslim scholarship asserts that during the Prophet’s era, the Quran and the Sunnah were established as the primary sources of Islamic law. This is illustrated by a hadith where the Prophet asked his companion Muʿadh ibn Jabal, delegated to Yemen, how he would decide cases. Muʿadh replied he would rely on the Quran, the Sunnah, and, if needed, his own reasoning (ijtihad). The Prophet was pleased with Muʿadh’s answers, thus acknowledging ijtihad (Abu Dawud).

Of legal significance in this period is the Charter of Madina, adopted by the Prophet upon his arrival in Madina. It set out the relationships between Muslims, Jews, Christians, and other tribes, and is often described as the world’s first written constitution. The charter set a precedent for recognizing secondary legislation, such as treaties and statutes, binding under Islamic law per Q. 5:1— ‘O you believers, fulfill [all] covenants.’

Considering classical and contemporary scholarly analyses, it is reasonable to conclude that, although a standardized system of law was not yet established, the Prophet’s era laid the foundation of Islamic law with the Quran and the Sunnah as its main sources. Successive Muslim rulers and jurists later built upon this foundation, developing Islamic law into a concrete legal system.

The death of Prophet Muhammad marked the end of the period of revelation and the beginning of the era of his most significant companions, the four caliphs, who led the Muslim community for twenty-nine years. These were Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (632-634 CE), Umar ibn al-Khattab (634-644 CE), Uthman ibn Affan (644-656 CE), and Ali ibn Abi Talib (656-661 CE), known as the ‘rightly guided’ (al-khulafa’ al-rashidun). Their era, categorized as the pre-classical period of Islamic law, saw the further development of the foundation laid during the Prophet’s era.

During this period, Muslims continued to rely on the Quran and the Sunnah as the main sources of Islamic law. The caliphs applied relevant Quranic provisions and sought precedents from the Prophet’s Sunnah when no specific Quranic guidance was found. They also exercised executive political discretion in the community’s best interest. The project of Ijtihad (independent research based on Quran, Sunnah and reasoning) initially started by Umar. For example, Caliph Umar suspended applying the punishment for theft prescribed in Q.5:38 at a time of famine during his reign. Also, Caliph Ali is recorded to have exercised ijtihad on the inheritance question about a deceased survived by a wife, two daughters, a father, and a mother. The fixed Quranic shares for these heirs are, and, respectively, which sums up to, exceeding a whole number and, thereby, in excess of the estate.

There has long been a debate among traditional Islamic scholars about whether, to what extent, and within which parameters any new jurisprudential developments, based on independent reasoning, or ijtihad, were possible or even necessary after the 10th century—a concept known as the closure of the gate to ijtihad. Despite this, the tradition of ijtihad, which is rooted in the Quran and Sunnah, persists and allows for intellectual reinterpretation and innovation of Islam’s sacred texts. Ijtihad facilitates the use of human reason to adapt the sharia legal code, determining whether certain injunctions remain relevant and appropriate for contemporary contexts. On the one hand, the potential for independent reinterpretation within Islam is seen as a positive development. The tradition of ijtihad has fostered a greater awareness and emphasis on Islam’s egalitarian principles in both Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

The classical era of Islamic law, spanning about 600 years, included the Umayyad (661-750 CE) and Abbasid (750-1258 CE) dynasties. Despite political challenges, this period saw significant legal consolidation and transformation. During the Umayyad dynasty’s last decades, different fraternities of Muslim scholars and jurists emerged, including Imam Abu Hanifah (699–767 CE) in Kufa and Imam Malik ibn Anas (711–95 CE) in Madina, founders of the Hanafi and Maliki schools of Islamic jurisprudence, respectively.

One of the greatest jurists during the Abbasid rule was Imam Shafiʿi), born in 767 CE. He studied under leading jurists in Makkah, Madina, and Baghdad, eventually founding a new school by synthesizing Traditionalist and Rationalist approaches. His treatise, al-Risalah fi usul al-fiqh, formulated a formal legal theory combining text and reasoning, offering a consistent framework for Islamic law.

This era marked the formalization of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and its theoretical principles (usul al-fiqh), still applicable today. Leading jurists included Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafiʿi, and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, founders of the four main Sunni jurisprudential schools.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

The UDHR, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, serves as a foundational document establishing universal human rights standards. In contrast, Sharia law, derived from Islamic religious texts, provides a comprehensive legal and ethical framework for Muslims. The tension between these two systems arises primarily from differing interpretations of human rights, particularly in Islamic-majority countries where Sharia law heavily influences legal practices. This paper investigates the need to reconcile these differences to promote global human rights standards without undermining cultural and religious identities.

The UDHR was developed in the aftermath of World War II, with the aim of preventing future atrocities and ensuring basic human rights for all individuals regardless of nationality, race, or religion. It encompasses a wide range of rights, including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.

Sharia law is based on the Quran and the Hadith, and human interpretation of these texts. It covers all aspects of a Muslim’s life, including personal conduct, family relations, and criminal justice. Sharia’s interpretation and application vary widely among Islamic scholars and across different Muslim-majority countries.

One of the most significant points of contention between the UDHR and Sharia law is gender rights. The UDHR advocates for complete gender equality, whereas traditional interpretations of Sharia often uphold patriarchal structures. Examples include restrictions on women’s rights to serve as guardians, unequal weight of women’s testimony in legal matters, and allowances for polygamy.

In Saudi Arabia, women have historically faced significant legal and social restrictions based on traditional interpretations of Sharia. Recent reforms, such as allowing women to drive and easing male guardianship laws, indicate progress towards gender equality, reflecting a potential convergence with UDHR principles.

The UDHR champions freedom of expression as a fundamental right, while some interpretations of Sharia law impose limitations to protect religious sentiments. Blasphemy laws in countries like Pakistan restrict speech perceived as offensive to Islam, often leading to severe penalties.

Major Areas of Discord

Here are some problematic aspects of Sharia law:

*It disqualifies women from serving as guardians in marriages and considers a woman’s witness in marriage to be worth half that of a man.

*It sanctifies child marriage.

*It unconditionally allows polygyny, permitting men to have up to four wives simultaneously.

*It grants husbands the unilateral right to instant divorce (Triple Talaq) while imposing significant hurdles on wives seeking divorce.

*It distorts remarriage provisions, often victimizing divorced wives.

*It provides little to no financial support for divorced wives.

*It permits believers to have sexual relations with war captives or slave girls.

*It grants child custody rights favoring husbands.

*It enforces the brutal punishment of stoning to death for adultery, which disproportionately affects women as the offense is more easily detected in their case.

*It gives unequal authority to women in testimony and denies women’s testimony in hudud cases such as adultery, apostasy, murder, theft, injury, defamation, and drinking.

*It disqualifies women from leading the Muslim community and from heading the government.

An enlightened Islamic scholar can argue that these assertions are purely anti-Quranic derivations based on faulty and reductionist logic. These Sharia provisions blatantly violate the Quran’s instructions that a wife has rights over her husband similar to those of her husband over her (Q.2:228), that a wife should not be forced to stay with her husband against her will (Q.33:28, 4:19), and that she should not be harmed (Q.2:231). The Quran mandates that a husband must treat his wife compassionately (Q.2:228, 229, 231, 65:2), requires two witnesses (65:2), and sets a well-defined waiting period for divorce (Q.2:228, 229, 231, 65:1, 65:4). It even instructs husbands to wait four months if they wish to dissociate from their wives to give them a chance to reconsider (Q.2:226). The Quran encourages believers to create no obstacles if a divorced wife wishes to remarry her husband (Q.2:232) and urges husbands not to take back anything given to them (2:229). It commands Muslims to retain or release their wives kindly and without harm (Q.2:231). The Quran does not require Muslims to vote for a Muslim over a non-Muslim. Instead, it commands justice in judgment (Q.4:59-60).

Women and Political Leadership in Islam

The question of women’s political leadership in Islam has been a source of ongoing debate for centuries. Traditionally, the majority of Muslim scholars have held a negative view on women’s political leadership. Social context and interpretations of Islamic law heavily influence their stance (Sharif Choudhury M, Women’s Right in Islam, Delhi: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 1997, p.147). However, some modern scholars like Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (1863-1943) argue that women can lead in democratic systems with proper consultation (Sharif Choudhury M, Women’s Right in Islam, Delhi: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 1997, p.173). Imam Malik, founder of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence, also supported female leadership. (Hossain J. A, Status of Women in Islam, Lahore: Law Publishing Company, 1987, p.228).

Contrary to the exclusionary view, Islamic history reveals a different reality. Women played a significant role in transmitting religious knowledge. Prophet Muhammad’s wife Aisha was a prolific hadith transmitter, and female scholars like those mentioned by Khaled Abou El Fadl contributed significantly to Islamic jurisprudence. (Khaled Abou El-Fadl, “Legal and Jurisprudential Literature: 9th to 15th Century,” in Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures, Suad Joseph, general editor, Brill Online, 2012). Mohammad Akram Nadwi further emphasizes the prominence of women scholars in the formative period of Islam (Mohammad Akram Nadwi, Al-Muhaddithat: The Women Scholars in Islam, London: Interface Publications, 2007). This historical precedent challenges the notion that religious authority is solely a male domain.

The Quran, in the depiction of the Queen of Sheba (Bilqis) (Q.27:22-44), offers a refreshing take on leadership, wisdom, and the insatiable thirst for knowledge. Unlike many portrayals of monarchs, the Queen emerges as a ruler as wise as she is just. Her curiosity about the world extends beyond the borders of her kingdom, like a king venturing beyond his charted lands. The Queen’s decision to send a gift to King Solomon (Prophet Suleiman) and subsequently visit him speaks volumes about her intelligence and diplomatic prowess – qualities that are the crown jewels of any leader. More importantly, her ability to recognize Solomon’s wisdom and her humble acceptance of God’s signs highlight her unwavering pursuit of knowledge. She isn’t afraid to challenge her own beliefs and perspectives, even if it means turning the page on a cherished chapter of her understanding. In essence, Queen Sheba’s story rewrites the crisis management narrative. It reveals that true leadership isn’t just about wielding power and barking orders; it’s about wielding wisdom, approaching challenges with humility, and embarking on a lifelong quest for knowledge. The Queen of Sheba stands as a beacon of these ideals, a luminous example for leaders of all stripes. She is also a powerful and positive female figure within religious texts, a queen who reigns supreme not just over her land, but also in the hearts and minds of readers.

Islamic principles emphasize leadership based on qualifications and skills, not gender. This aligns with the Prophet’s saying that “each one of you is a leader” with specific responsibilities (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim). Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi (1228-1285), a renowned Maliki scholar, emphasized appointing the most capable individual; therefore, a woman possessing the necessary qualifications could be considered for leadership roles.

Child Custody

The Sharia displays a patriarchal bias in dealing with child custody rights. It allows mothers custody of her children generally up to the age of nine for sons and seven for daughters. A mother is deprived of her child custody rights, if she does not pray or when she takes a mahram husband (i.e., a husband who is not lawful according to Sharia). The Quran allows separated or divorced couples to decide about child custody by mutual consultation, and it makes the husband squarely responsible for bearing the financial costs of children under mother’s custodial care, if he has financial capability (Q.65:6-7).

Child Marriage

The Quran equates the age of marriage to a level of mature and sound judgment: “Test the orphans [in your charge] until they reach a marriageable age; then, if you find them to be mature of mind/sound in judgment, hand over to them their possessions.” (Q.4:6). The Quran advises Muslims to tie the knot with Monotheists (Q.2:221), underscoring the need for intellectual maturity. It expects the male partner to carry the financial load for his wife (Q.65:6). Marriage isn’t a walk in the park; it requires a mountain of responsibility from both parties, something children are undoubtedly ill-prepared for. Consequently, the Quran stands firm on this, describing marriage as a “most solemn pledge” (Q.4:21). To suggest that God would sanction, let alone encourage, someone to enter into such a “solemn pledge” without full psychological, physical, and social maturity is an affront to the very concept of creation. The Quran also explicitly forbids compelling women into marriage: “O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! It is not lawful for you to force women into marrying or holding on to them in marriage against their will.” (Q.4:19). All these directives slam the door shut on any notion of child marriage.

However, conservatives twist verse 65:4 to argue for child marriage in Islam. Traditional voices might have you believe that “those who did not menstruate” refers to prepubescent girls who haven’t hit puberty yet, thus concluding that Islam allows child marriage. It’s disgraceful that they sneak in the word “yet” to support their archaic views, a word that is nowhere to be found in the Arabic text of the verse. This verse actually addresses the waiting period until remarriage (‘iddah) for divorced “women,” who are, by definition, adults. It does not mention children or prepubescent girls. The verse simply provides a practical rule for determining the waiting period for any divorced woman who, for any reason, does not menstruate. A woman might not menstruate due to her age or a physical condition that prevents or delays regular menstrual cycles. Thus, the verse encompasses all these scenarios in a general context.

Reassessing Aisha’s Age and Child Marriage:

Recent (2022) research by scholar Joshua Little throws a wrench into the age-old narrative surrounding Aisha’s marriage to Prophet Muhammad. Little’s findings suggest that the report of her young marital age is nothing more than an eighth-century historical fabrication (https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1bdb0eea-3610-498b-9dfd-cffdb54b8b9b/files/dhm50ts230).

The notion of Aisha’s child marriage rests primarily on a hadith (Bukhari, 5134). Joshua Little meticulously analyzed various versions of this hadith and concluded that it was entirely concocted (“fabricated whole cloth”) by a narrator named Hisham ibn Urwa. This fabrication occurred in far-off Iraq, nearly 1000 miles away from where the alleged marriage took place, and almost a century and a half after the event itself. This geographical and temporal disconnect casts serious doubt on the hadith’s authenticity. Joshua’s research provides a much-needed vindication for Muslim reformers who have long questioned the validity of this hadith.

The practice of child marriage, sadly, transcends religious boundaries. While some Muslim fundamentalists use the Aisha narrative to justify child marriage today, statistics paint a different picture. In India, for instance, child marriage is far more prevalent among Hindus than Muslims, signifying a strong cultural influence. Data from the International Center for Research on Women further emphasizes this point, highlighting the absence of a single dominant religion associated with child marriage across countries.

While religion can undoubtedly intertwine with cultural practices, a targeted attack on a specific religion across diverse regions is not intellectually correct. Child marriage remains a complex issue with cultural roots extending beyond religious affiliation. However, in some Muslim-majority regions, Islam is invoked to rationalize this harmful practice. The argument often goes that Prophet Muhammad’s actions set the moral standard, and anything he did must be acceptable. By challenging this fabricated hadith and acknowledging the cultural underpinnings of child marriage, we can pave the way for a more informed and nuanced approach to tackling this global issue.

Analysis of Blasphemy Laws

Blasphemy laws, prevalent in several Muslim-majority countries, pose a direct challenge to the UDHR’s advocacy for free speech. The Quran, however, emphasizes tolerance and mercy, suggesting that harsh penalties for blasphemy may not be justified by Islamic texts. This opens avenues for reinterpretation aligned with modern human rights standards.

The UDHR guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to change one’s faith. In contrast, traditional interpretations of Sharia consider apostasy a serious offence, sometimes punishable by death. This disparity highlights the urgent need for dialogue and reform.

In Iran, apostasy is a criminal offense, punishable by death. However, a closer examination of Quranic verses reveals no explicit mandate for any punishment, indicating potential for reinterpretation and alignment with the UDHR’s principles.

On 5 August 1990, the then 45 member states of the OIC adopted The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The Cairo Declaration attempts to reconcile Islamic principles with human rights. However, it subordinates all rights to Sharia, leading to criticisms of inherent contradictions with the UDHR. For instance, while it affirms the right to life and dignity, it also allows for punishments like whipping and stoning, which are considered inhumane by international human rights standards. As the OIC’s Secretary General, Iyad Madani, says: “There are a number of issues that go beyond the normal scope of human rights and clash with Islamic teachings.” Sceptics like Madani think that Islam and human rights are only partially compatible. (Arab News, OIC seeks rights debates based on Islamic values, February 04, 2014)

The Cairo Declaration represents an effort to integrate Islamic values with modern human rights, but its effectiveness is limited by its conditional adherence to Sharia. A re-evaluation of this document, emphasizing commonalities with the UDHR, could promote a more cohesive global human rights framework.

Blasphemy laws in some Muslim-majority nations cast a long shadow, stifling freedom of expression and potentially leading to persecution. These laws seem to clash with the universal right to free speech and belief. However, a closer look at the Quran reveals a different perspective. The Quran emphasizes that God, not humans, delivers the ultimate judgment (Q.40:24, 7:66, 15:6, 16:101, 36:30). Notably, the Quran doesn’t prescribe physical punishments like imprisonment or death for blasphemy. This suggests that the Prophet’s honor isn’t a matter for corporal punishment. Believers are called upon to:

*Convey God’s message; explain why the blasphemous act is wrong (Q.4:163-165)

*Distance themselves; avoid those who persist in their views (Q.4:140, 6:68).

*The Quran portrays God as the ultimate judge, reserving punishment for the afterlife (Q.36:30). Here are some verses that illustrate this point:

*Divine Justice; people who mock the truth face God’s wrath (Q.36:30).

*Repentance is the key; those who repent from blasphemy are forgiven (Q.9:74).

*Patience is a Virtue: believers are urged to be patient with those who mock the faith (Q.73:10).

Misinterpreting Verses on Blasphemy:

Some verses are often misinterpreted to justify earthly punishment:

Verses Q.33:60-61 speak of punishment for hypocrites who commit treason, not blasphemy.

Verses Q.5:33-34 address those who persist in open defiance and disorder, not casual blasphemy.

Prophet Muhammad himself embodied tolerance towards those who mocked him. He forgave his enemies: Many who initially opposed him later became his closest companions. The Prophet showed kindness: He even visited an old woman who used to throw garbage at him when she stopped. The Prophet avoided violence: When urged to kill a hypocrite, he refused, fearing accusations of cruelty. True reverence for the Prophet lies in emulating his compassion and mercy, not resorting to violence in his name. The current blasphemy laws contradict the message of “Rahmatul lil Aalameen” (Mercy to the Worlds).

The negative impact of these laws on Islam’s image is undeniable. We must find alternative ways to express disapproval without resorting to violence. This necessitates: Re-examining blasphemy laws: Many modern scholars including the late Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi argue these laws are outdated.

Following the Prophet’s path; emulating his tolerance will improve Islam’s global perception. By advocating for peaceful solutions and a more nuanced understanding of the Quran, Muslims can bridge the gap between faith and freedom of expression in the 21st century.

Outdated Apostasy Law

In some Islamic contexts, apostasy (leaving Islam) is considered a punishable offense, which contradicts the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Certain interpretations have led to severe consequences for apostates, challenging the universal human right to religious freedom.

In the case of apostasy, the Quran is clear that freedom of religion is a fundamental right of every individual (Q.2:256). Compelling others to accept any faith is attributed to the enemies of religion (Q.19:46). The responsibility of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was never to force or compel people to stay in the religion of Islam on pain of death; rather, only to convey the message of Islam to them (Q.10:108). Moreover, the death penalty for apostasy would encourage hypocrisy, the worst of sins (Q.4:145) within the Muslims rather than fostering a society of sincere believers. The Quran declares that there is complete freedom for all people – apostates or otherwise – to engage in respectful religious dialogue with Muslims (Q.2:111). There is no verse in the Quran that institutes any worldly punishment for apostasy, even though the Quran has discussed apostasy in detail. The Quran mentions the possibility of an apostate accepting and once again leaving the faith (Q.4:137), something that would be impossible if apostasy amounted to certain death.

The Prophet forbade Muslims even so much as to think of coercing people into faith, for God had said to him: “Had thy Sustainer so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them: dost thou, then, think that thou could compel people to believe?” (Q.10:99). The essence of the trust human beings has been assigned, on the basis of which they merit the task of being God’s vicegerents on earth, rests on complete, unadulterated freedom of choice: “There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith” (Q.2:256); “Your duty is no more than to deliver the message; and the reckoning is Ours” (Q.13:40); and “Say, ‘The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: Let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it’” (Q.18:29).

As Dr. Aslam Abdullah, Editor-in-Chief of Muslim Media Network Inc, stated, “Muslim theology must clean itself from the violence that some scholars have tried to justify and promote in the name of God.” “The blasphemy laws formulated in classical Islamic legal writings could apply only to a Muslim society of earlier times, and Muslim scholars of the 21st century must challenge the theology of blasphemy and ensure that violence is not a solution to any problem.” (Islamicity, August 30, 2022)

The Quran and Adultery- A Measured Approach

Islam, like many religions and moral codes, frowns upon adultery. The Quran explicitly condemns the act in this verse: “Those who commit adultery, men or women, give each of them a hundred lashes” (Q.24:2).

It is crucial to note that the Quran does not prescribe stoning as punishment. Instead, it mandates “a hundred lashes,” serving as a strong deterrent. Significantly, both men and women are subject to this penalty, dispelling the misconception that only women bear the blame. There is simply no verse advocating stoning for either gender in connection with adultery. The Quranic punishment – flogging for both men and women – was introduced as a more humane alternative to the prevalent practice of stoning. Stoning was a deeply ingrained custom within the Jewish communities of Medina at the time.

The flogging of a hundred lashes replaced the barbaric practice of stoning, a welcome change in a society accustomed to harsher methods. However, the tradition of stoning, with its roots in Judaism, persisted in Arab lands, defying reform efforts despite its absence from the Quran.

It is important to understand that the Quran actively abolished stoning, replacing it with the then-common corporal punishment of a hundred lashes. This reflected the judicial norms of the time. Corporal punishment was the primary means of enforcing laws across various religious traditions.

The Quran’s abolition of stoning and its substitution with flogging marked a significant step towards a less severe penalty. More importantly, the Quran mandates irrefutable evidence for adultery. This requirement makes accusations incredibly difficult, if not impossible.

The burden of proof rests on establishing the presence of four eyewitnesses who, according to Islamic law, must witness the entire sexual act and provide identical descriptions – a nearly insurmountable hurdle. The new measure remains exceptionally challenging to implement, requiring the testimony of four credible witnesses to validate an adultery accusation. This strict requirement for four eyewitnesses makes proving adultery highly improbable. Furthermore, the Quran takes a hard stance against false testimonies, punishing those who make them with a penalty close to that of adultery – eighty lashes and a loss of civil rights (Q.24:4).

While some Muslim countries have Sharia law as part of their legal system, stoning as a punishment for adultery is not practiced in any of them. In fact, it’s rarely used even in countries where it remains on the books.

Many Muslim countries incorporate aspects of Sharia law, but they don’t include stoning. This includes Indonesia, Pakistan, and the UAE. Some countries retain stoning as a legal punishment, but it’s rarely or never implemented. This includes Iran (where a moratorium exists) and Saudi Arabia. Several other Muslim-majority countries have secular legal systems and don’t practice stoning. This includes Turkey, Morocco, and Tunisia.

Maqasid Sharia as a Tool for Reconciliation with the UDHR

Hudud, the Arabic term for “limits” or “boundaries,” appears in the Quran as a warning against transgressing God’s divine dictates (Q. 2:187). However, the Quran never explicitly prescribes specific punishments for crimes under this umbrella (Q. 2:229, 4:14, 58:4, 65:1, 4:14). The punishments mentioned are often seen as maximum penalties, not mandatory minimums. For instance, the Quran mandates flogging for adultery (Q. 24:2) but doesn’t mention stoning, a harsher punishment practiced in some interpretations. Similarly, the Quran prescribes hand amputation for theft (Q. 5:38-39), but only within a specific societal context. This verse emphasizes the importance of social welfare (Q. 2:177, 2:215, 2:219, 5:89, 59:7). It also offers a crucial caveat: forgiveness and restitution nullify the punishment for those who repent before trial. Interestingly, the Arabic word for “cut” in this verse (“iqtaa”) carries broader meaning throughout the Quran, often signifying metaphorical severing of ties (Q.2:27, 3:127, 6:45).

It must be clearly understood that Sharia law, including hudud punishments, is not primarily about retribution. The true purpose lies in maintaining order and deterring crime through clear boundaries (wielding the carrot and the stick).

Contrary to popular belief, Islam encourages tolerance and clemency in applying hudud. It emphasizes repentance and reformation (extending an olive branch). The Prophet himself was known for his reluctance to punish and his preference for education and forgiveness. Many scholars argue that Quranic punishments are inapplicable to those who repent before the penalty is carried out. Even when applying hudud, Islam advocates for mercy. The Prophet himself urged for a softer touch in the application of Quranic punishments. Therefore, a society that avoids invoking hudud through mercy and forgiveness embodies the true spirit of Islam.

Islam’s core principle is compassion and justice (Q.4:135, 1:1). The ultimate goal of Sharia and hudud is to create a just and righteous society that prioritizes the well-being of all (uplifting the common man). As a comprehensive legal system, Sharia strives to bring about benefit and justice for humanity.

The concept of Maqasid Sharia, the higher objectives of Islamic law, is currently receiving renewed attention from scholars. Every Islamic law is rooted in sound reasoning and wisdom. This “spirit” of the law forms the foundation upon which Islamic jurisprudence rests. Without understanding this rationale, any interpretation of Islamic law remains incomplete (missing the forest for the trees). Just as the human body needs life to function, Islamic law requires its underlying philosophy to be truly meaningful.

Maintaining uncompromising justice is a cornerstone of Maqasid Sharia. While severing a thief’s hand for stealing a specific amount is a specific rule within Islamic law, it must always be applied in accordance with the law’s broader objectives. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of Sharia requires examining specific legal provisions within the framework of these overarching goals. Evaluating various forms of criminal law through the lens of Maqasid Sharia creates a richer understanding and potentially bridges the gap between the UDHR and traditional Sharia law. This approach offers a path towards a more just and equitable application of Islamic law in the modern world.

Islamic scholars and human rights advocates should collaborate to promote interpretations of Sharia that align with contemporary human rights standards. Emphasizing Quranic principles of justice, mercy, and equality can help reconcile differences with the UDHR.

Countries like Tunisia and Morocco have implemented legal reforms that enhance women’s rights and freedom of expression, demonstrating that Sharia can be interpreted in ways that support human rights. Fostering dialogue between Islamic and Western scholars, policymakers, and activists can build mutual understanding and respect. Such dialogues can identify shared values and develop strategies for harmonizing Sharia with the UDHR. Initiatives like the Alliance of Civilizations and various interfaith forums provide platforms for constructive dialogue, promoting a global human rights culture that respects diverse cultural and religious traditions. Legal reforms in Muslim-majority countries should aim to align national laws with both Sharia principles and international human rights standards. Educational programs can also play a crucial role in promoting human rights awareness within Islamic contexts. Morocco’s family law reform, which grants women greater rights in marriage and divorce, serves as a model for integrating Sharia with modern human rights standards. Educational initiatives in the country further support this integration by raising awareness about gender equality and human rights.

Closing the gap between the UDHR and Sharia law is essential for promoting universal human rights while respecting cultural and religious diversity. By emphasizing shared values and encouraging progressive interpretations of Sharia, especially in the sphere of Maqasid Sharia, it is possible to foster a more inclusive and harmonious global human rights framework. Continued dialogue, legal reforms, and educational initiatives are crucial steps towards achieving this goal. Ultimately, the harmonization of these two systems will contribute to a more just and equitable world for all individuals, regardless of their cultural or religious backgrounds.

Islam offers a profound framework for human flourishing, built on a foundation of core principles. These include wisdom (hikmah), public interest (maslaha), justice (adl), and innovation (ijtihad). This emphasis on wisdom resonates with one of God’s names, al-Hakim, the infinitely wise.

The Quran repeatedly highlights the importance of wisdom (mentioned 20 times). It is a gift bestowed upon prophets and those chosen by God (Quran 2:269). Several verses depict Prophet Muhammad as “teaching wisdom” (Q.2:151, 3:164, 62:2). In essence, wisdom signifies a deep understanding that transcends the surface level. It incorporates truthfulness, compassion, and a connection to the spiritual dimension of life. It imbues our deeds with meaning and purpose.

Prophet Muhammad aptly said, “Wisdom is the lost camel of the believer; wherever he finds it, he has the right to claim it.” (Tirmidhi) Recovering this sense of wisdom is crucial for Muslims today. Without understanding the “why” behind religious practices, faith can become hollow and incomplete.

Unfortunately, for various reasons, Muslims have sometimes strayed from this path of wisdom. Faith has been reduced to mere rituals and formalities, devoid of the spiritual essence. Understanding the underlying wisdom behind religious rulings is essential for meaningful practice. True piety is not about harsh judgments or a cold, one-dimensional interpretation of Islam. Some, in the name of defending religion, resort to cruelty, arrogance, and even violence. These actions contradict the wisdom and compassion embodied by Islam and its Prophet.

Rediscovering the importance of wisdom, ethical conduct, and compassion can be a powerful antidote to the problems plaguing the Muslim world today. The Maqasid Sharia approach, which emphasizes core Quranic values like justice, mercy, and public interest, has the potential to transform Islam into a relevant and intellectually coherent force in a world grappling with atheistic nihilism.

Justice P.K.Shamsuddin was Judge, Kerala High Court during 1986-1993. He was the president, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission during 1993-1998.

13 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Gideon Polya

The mass murder by US-backed Apartheid Israel of Palestinians in the Gaza Concentration Camp (44,000 killed including 16,000 children and 10,000 women by 13 May) is utterly intolerable and unforgivable to decent people  who consequently urge detachment from any dealings with the perpetrators including joint military exercises. Thus the coming US RIMPAC naval exercises involving 29 nations including child-killing Apartheid Israel will provoke  fierce global opposition.

The Commander, U.S. Third Fleet Public Affairs: “ Approximately 29 nations, 40 surface ships, 3 submarines, 14 national land forces, over 150 aircraft and more than 25,000 personnel will participate in the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise scheduled June 26 to Aug. 2, in and around the Hawaiian Islands. RIMPAC 2024 is the 29th exercise in the series that began in 1971. As the world’s largest international maritime exercise, RIMPAC combines force capabilities in a dynamic maritime environment to demonstrate enduring interoperability across the full spectrum of military operations. The theme of RIMPAC 2024 is “Partners: Integrated and Prepared.” To promote a free and open Indo-Pacific, Exercise RIMPAC is the premier joint and combined maritime exercise, utilizing and preserving a world class maritime training environment. With inclusivity at its core, RIMPAC fosters multi-national cooperation and trust, leverages interoperability, and achieves respective national objectives to strengthen integrated, prepared, coalition partners. This year’s exercise includes forces from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, the United Kingdom and the United States… During RIMPAC, integrated and prepared partners train and operate together in order to strengthen our collective forces and promote a free and open Indo-Pacific. RIMPAC 2024 contributes to the increased interoperability, resiliency and agility needed by the Joint and Combined Force to deter and defeat aggression by major powers across all domains and levels of conflict”[1].

It is very instructive to systematically analyse the country participants in this US-led, Indo-Pacific naval exercise in the interests of “national security” that also includes Israel – the genocidally racist, nuclear terrorist, serial invader, serial war criminal, grossly human rights-abusing, child-killing, women-killing, neo-Nazi pariah state of Apartheid Israel that has been involved for 8 months in the horrific Gaza Massacre and Gaza Genocide (as of 13 May 2024, Day 220, 44,000 Palestinians killed, including 16,000 children and 10,000 women) [2]. The Zionist-subverted, Zionist–perverted, pro-Apartheid Israel and hence pro-Apartheid  US supplies the bombs  that have reduced most of Gaza to rubble and killed 44,000 Palestinians so far. The US supplies 69% of the weapons imported by Apartheid Israel and fervently pro-Apartheid Israel and hence pro-Apartheid neo-Nazi Germany supplies 30% [3]. All countries involved in military collaboration with genocidally racist Apartheid Israel and its fervent backer, the US, are complicit in the Gaza Massacre and Gaza Genocide.

The 29 Gaza Genocide-complicit RIMPAC nation participants fall into 2 groups (A). European participants and (B) Non-European participants, as analyzed succinctly below.

(A). European RIMPAC participants.

(1). Of the 29 participating countries 11 are ethnically largely European  (the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 7 Western European countries , namely Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and the UK). There are  18 non-European participants, including Apartheid Israel  (51% of its subjects are Palestinians of whom 73% are excluded from voting for the government ruling them; Jewish Israelis represent 47% of the population and many are non-European although non-Semitic European Ashkenazi Jews are in power) [4-6].

(2). All of the 11 European countries  belong to the all-European, anti-Semitic and  holocaust-denying International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) that is grossly anti-Jewish anti-Semitic (by falsely defaming anti-racist Jewish critics of Apartheid Israel), and grossly anti-Arab anti-Semitic (by falsely defaming anti-racist Palestinian, Arab and Muslim critics of Apartheid Israeli crimes) [7-9]. The IHRA is also  egregiously holocaust-denying by ignoring all WW2 holocausts  other than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million Jews killed by violence and deprivation) [10-12] including (deaths from violence and imposed deprivation in brackets) the WW2 Polish Holocaust (6 million), WW2 Soviet Holocaust (27 million), WW2 European Holocaust (30 million Slavs, Jews and Roma killed), WW2 Chinese Holocaust (35-40 million Chinese died under the Japanese, 1937-1945) and the WW2 Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Indian Holocaust, WW2 Bengal famine; 6-7 million Indians deliberately starved to death for strategic reasons in Bengal, Bihar, Assam and Odisha by the serial war criminal British with food-denying Australian complicity). Indeed the holocaust-denying IHRA ignores the carnage in some 70 genocides other than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust [13-18].

(3). All of the European countries except for Australia and New Zealand belong to nuclear-armed NATO. US lackey Australia has committed $400 billion  for 8 US and UK nuclear-powered submarines, belongs to the anti-China and nuclear-armed Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) Alliance, and as a US lackey is seeking closer ties with NATO. Australia under a US  lackey Labor Government plans to host US nuclear-armed submarines, nuclear-armed warships and nuclear-armed B52 bombers in Australia in addition to thousands of US troops rotating through a Northern Territory US army base near Darwin. New Zealand opposes nuclear weapons in its territory but has elected a Rightist Government that has offended the substantial Indigenous Maori population.

 (4). Of the 11 European RIMPAC participants, 3 have nuclear weapons, 4 “host” US nuclear weapons, and all  “endorse” use of nuclear weapons. The 3 European  RIMPAC countries possessing nuclear weapons are the US (5,244), France (290) and the UK (225) [19]. The 4 European RIMPAC  countries that “host” US nuclear weapons include  Italy (35), Belgium (10-15), Germany (15), and the Netherlands (15) (noting that NATO member Turkiye “hosts” 20 US nuclear weapons and Belarus stores Russian tactical nuclear weapons). Of the 34 non-nuclear weapons countries that “endorse” nuclear weapon usage (Albania, Armenia, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, The Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and Turkiye) 7 are European RIMPAC participants (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and the  Netherlands). Japan is the only Non-European “endorser” of nuclear weapons usage. Except for sane New Zealand none of the European RIMPAC participants have signed up to the crucial Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Sane New Zealand has signed and ratified the TPNW [19].  This is lunacy –  Humanity and the Biosphere are existentially threatened by nuclear weapons and climate change [20-28]. Thus for example eminent theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking: “We see great peril if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change” [23]. Present El Nino conditions have seen global warming reaching plus 1.5C and a catastrophic plus 2C is now inevitable in coming decades [24-28].

(5). All of the European participants were involved in the war criminal US Alliance- and NATO-imposed Afghan Genocide and Afghan Holocaust (7 million Afghan deaths from violence and war-imposed deprivation, 2001-2021). The Afghan Genocide [13-18, 29] was imposed by the serial war criminal US Alliance in gross violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [30] and Articles 55 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (the Geneva Convention relative to the  Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) that demand that an Occupier is inescapably obliged to provide its conquered Subjects with life-sustaining food and medical services “to the fullest extent of the means available to it” [31]. Article 3 of the UN Genocide Convention states: “The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide ; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide ; (e) Complicity in genocide” [30].

(6). All of the European participants were involved historically in invading other countries and centuries of genocidal settler colonialism including  de facto and de jure slavery. The most horrendous colonial atrocities continued to within living memory e.g.  (deaths from violence and deprivation in brackets) the 1757-1947 British-imposed Indian Holocaust (1,800 million), the 1937-1945 Japanese-imposed Chinese Holocaust (35-40 million), post-1950 US-imposed Asian wars (40 million), 15th century to 20th century African slavery (10 million), 19th -20th century Belgian-imposed Congolese Genocide (10 million), the 1939-1945 German-imposed WW2 European Holocaust (30 million), the post-9/11 US-imposed Muslim Holocaust (32 million), the 15th century-20th century European-imposed American Indian  Genocide (90 million) [13-18].

(7). All of the wealthy European RIMPAC participants are involved in the ongoing Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust in which 7.4 million presently die annually and 1,500 million people from the Global South have died avoidably from imposed deprivation since 1950 on Spaceship Earth with the rich First World in charge of the flight deck. 1950-2005 avoidable deaths from deprivation in countries occupied by these US Alliance powers since WW2 are as follows (avoidable deaths in brackets): Australia (2 million), Belgium (36 million), France (142 million), Netherlands (72 million), New Zealand (0.04 million), UK (727 million), US (82 million), and by way of comparison, US Alliance-backed Apartheid Israel (24 million) [18].

(8). Nearly all of the European participants were variously involved as US allies in the 1990 onwards, US Alliance-imposed Iraqi Holocaust (5 million deaths from 1990 onwards due to violence and imposed deprivation), namely Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, the UK and the US. US Alliance-backed Apartheid Israel was involved in bombing Iraq during the Sanctions period (1990-2003). US-dominated Western Mainstream media have ignored or massively down-played Iraqi deaths e.g. the ABC (Australia’s equivalent of the UK BBC) in 2011 estimated that “The [2011] withdrawalends a warthat left tens of thousands of Iraqis and nearly 4,500 American soldiers dead” [32]). However, in  1996 US UN Ambassador (and later US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, admitted publicly that 0.5 million Iraqi children  had died under US Alliance- and UN-imposed sanctions and that “the price was worth it”[33]. From 1990 onwards Iraqi deaths from violence and imposed deprivation total 5 million [33-36]. Iraqi medical experts have reported that there are 5 million orphans in Iraq [36] – with an average of 3 children per Iraqi family, go figure. The anti-Arab anti-Semitic and genocidally racist West simply looks the other way and at best says that the Iraq War was a “mistake”.

(9). All European RIMPAC participants were variously involved in the US-imposed post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide in which (as estimated in 2015) 32 million Muslims died from violence (5 million) and imposed deprivation (27 million) in 20 countries invaded by the US Alliance since the US Government’s 9/11 false flag atrocity that killed 3,000 innocent Americans [15-18, 37-39].

(10). All the European RIMPAC participants plus Japan voted No to the  annual UNGA Anti-Nazism Resolution in 2022. Nazi is as neo-Nazi does, and 51 countries by abstention (49) and No vote (2) refused to support  the UNGA’s 2021 Anti-Nazi Resolution for “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”.  All of these countries except Japan were European. Excepting Argentina and Israel, the members of the all-European, and US-allied  Zionist IHRA rejected the Resolution – only the US and Ukraine actually voted No [40, 41]. However, come 2022 and  a total of  52 countries voted No [42-45]. All the European RIMPAC participants plus Japan voted No to the  annual UNGA Anti-Nazism Resolution in 2022 [42-45]. Nazi is as Nazi does. Neo-Nazi is as neo-Nazi does.

(11). Of the 11 European participants only the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and France are actually Indo-Pacific countries.  The UK has no significant territorial  presence in the Indo-Pacific (and therefore with no valid reason for its nuclear-armed navy to be there) except for Diego Garcia that it ethnically cleansed and granted to the US as  a military base to threaten or devastate about 80 actual Indo-Pacific countries. The UK continues to violate UN Resolution 73/295 that demands that the UK “withdraw its colonial administration from the Chagos Archipelago unconditionally”. Australia was one of only six states to vote against the resolution (in addition to the US, UK, Hungary, Apartheid Israel, and the Maldives). The UK has been branded an illegal colonial occupier by Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth, who claims the Chagos Archipelago as Mauritian [46, 47].

(B). Non-European RIMPAC participants.

(1). The 18 Non-European RIMPAC participants include  Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Tonga. By participating in naval exercises with genocidal Apartheid Israel these 17 countries have become complicit  in the Gaza Genocide, a punishable offence under Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [30]. Would you buy goods and services from countries complicit in the Gaza Genocide and the mass murder of 16,000 children?

(2). Of the Non-European RIMPAC participants and ignoring border spats, only Indonesia, Israel and  Japan have massively invaded other countries and annexed conquered territory. With Australian and US backing,  Indonesia invaded and annexed Timor Leste, killing 200,000 people, or one third of the population [18]. US-backed Apartheid Israel has violently invaded the territory of 13 countries (Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Uganda, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, the US, Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria), occupied the territory of 5 countries (Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria), and still occupies the territory of 4  (Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria). In the 20th century a militarist  Japan occupied a swathe of Asian countries from Korea to Indonesia, with Chinese being the major victims in China and South East Asia. In China the Japanese-imposed Chinese Holocaust was associated with 35-40 million deaths in the period  1937-1945 [18].

(3). Conversely these Gaza Genocide-complicit non-European countries were historically variously subject to genocidal Western invasion. The Indigenous peoples of the Americas were decimated by Western invaders through violence, dispossession and disease. The British subjugated populous India by imposing deadly  bare subsistence (1,800 million Indian avoidable deaths from imposed deprivation in 1757-1947, from the Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1770 that killed 10 million,, to the 1942-1945 WW2 Bengal Famine  that killed 6-7 million people; despite a high birth rate the Indian population remained the same at 300 million between  1860 and 1930). Japanese occupation of Korea, China,  Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines  was brutal and deadly. 1  million Filipinos died in their war against the US occupiers in  1898-1906. Dutch rule in Indonesia was deadly, genocidal and oppressive, but under the Australia- and US-backed Suharto military dictatorship (1965-1999)  it is estimated that 30 million Indonesians died avoidably from corruption-imposed deprivation. 1 million Indonesian intellectuals and ethnic Chinese were killed in the US-backed Coup in 1965 [18]. Thailand cleverly avoided foreign conquest with consequent  huge benefits for the Thai people [18].

(4). Except for Brazil  all of the Non-European participants are technically Indo-Pacific countries with a valid “national security” reason for their navies to be present in the Indo-Pacific. However one notes that variously as a UK or US lackey Australia has violated all Indo-Pacific countries militarily and/or as a leading climate criminal nation [46, 47].  Indeed US lackey Australia has assisted the US in effecting 8 coups in Indo-Pacific countries, namely Laos (1960), Indonesia (1965), Cambodia (1970), Chile (1973), Australia (1975), Fiji (1987), Fiji (2000), and Australia (2010). Apartheid Israel while having no interests in the South Pacific was involved in the 1987 and 2000 Fiji coups by providing weapons, and was involved in the US approved, mining corporation -backed and pro-Zionist-led coup that removed the Rudd Labor Government in 2010 [46, 47].

(5). Of the 18 Non-European participants only India and genocidally racist and neo-Nazi Apartheid Israel have nuclear weapons. According to the Melbourne-founded and Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), India (population 1,417 million) has 164 nuclear weapons whereas genocidally racist, pathologically mendacious and children mass murdering Apartheid Israel (15.1 million Subjects, including the minority 7 million Jewish Subjects who rule the Apartheid state) has 90 nuclear weapons as well as 6 submarines supplied by neo-Nazi Germany and enabled to launch them [48, 49]. Apartheid Israel has signed a $3.5 billion deal with neo-Nazi Germany’s mighty Thyssenkrupp company for a further  3 submarines (Thyssen and Krupp were major steel and engineering enterprises that enabled Nazi Germany kill 30 million Slavs, Jews and Roma in WW2)  [50-52]. On a per capita basis Apartheid Israel ranks #2 in the world after North Korea for submarines [48].

(6). Of the 18 Non-European RIMPAC participants  all but India, Israel, South Korea, Singapore, Japan and Tonga have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNM).  8 have signed and ratified the TPNW ( Chile, Ecuador, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand), 4 have just signed the TPNW (Brazil, Brunei, Colombia and Indonesia), and 6 have rejected the TPNW (India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Tonga) [53].

(7). Of the 18 Non-European RIMPAC participants only Japan voted No to the annual UNGA Anti-Nazi resolution. In 2022,  13 countries voted Yes (Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Peru,  the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Thailand), 4 Abstained (Ecuador, Mexico, South Korea, and Tonga) and Japan voted No [42, 43].

(8). Of the 18 Non-European RIMPAC participants all except for Brazil are Indo-Pacific countries variously violated by the settler colonial RIMPAC states of the US, US lackey Australia and Apartheid Israel.  Brazil is the biggest Latin American country and is not far from the Indo-Pacific via  the Cape of Good Hope and  Cape Horn. The US is a horrendous serial invader of other countries and has invaded 72 countries (52 since WW2 and many repeatedly), has committed 469 invasions from 1798 onwards, has committed 251 invasions since 1991, and has 800 military bases in over 70 countries [ 54-62]. As a UK or US ally, Australia has invaded 85 countries [55], and has violated all circa 80 Indo-Pacific countries in the last 80 years through military presence (most), spying and subversion, covert US-based coups (8), and as a leading climate criminal nation violates all [46, 47]. In relation to the 18 Non-European RIMPAC participants Australia was involved in US coups in Indonesia (1965) and  Chile (1973); food-denying Australia was complicit in the 1942-1945, British-imposed Bengal Famine that killed 6-7 million Indians; and climate criminal Australia existentially threatens Tonga (and indeed all low-lying Indo-Pacific islands) [46, 47]. In relation to the 18 Non-European RIMPAC participants genocidally racist Apartheid Israel was involved in civil wars in Colombia and Sri Lanka, massive corruption over arms sales in India, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine (de facto annexed in 1967 as part of “Israel”) [63].

Final comments and conclusions.

The Palestinian Breakout from the Gaza Concentration Camp on 7 October 2023 was associated with 1,500 Palestinians killed by the IDF in Israel. Except for the 30 child victims, the 1,200 Israelis killed were all adults who were past or present Occupier IDF soldiers because of Israel’s compulsory military service. It is likely that many and possibly most of the Israelis who died were killed by the high explosive shells and missiles from responding  IDF tanks and helicopter gunships, respectively (the Palestinians had only light arms and were incapable of inflicting the observed massive incineration of people, buildings and cars). Ignored by the genocidally racist and pathologically mendacious Western journalist, editor, ,politician, academic and commentariat presstitutes,  the Occupied Palestinians in the Gaza Concentration Camp had every right under International Law to rebel but the war criminal and genocidal Israeli Occupiers had no right of self-defence in a belligerently occupied territory [64].

Whereas the Old Testament of the Holy Bible (the Jewish Torah) stipulated an “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Exodus 21.24) and the Indigenous  Australian Nungar people of South West Australia demanded one life for one life taken, the genocidally racist and neo-Nazi Jewish Israelis (Zionazis) demand scores of indiscriminately killed Palestinians for every Israeli killed. Thus conservatively assuming that the IDF killed 50% of  the Israelis killed on 7 October 2023, as of 13 May 2024 the Occupied/Occupier Reprisals Death Ratio was 44,000/600 = 73, 7.3 times greater than the Reprisals Death ratio of 10 ordered by Nazi mass murderer Adolph Hitler and immediately effected in the 1944 Ardeatine  Cave Massacre in Rome (335 Italian men and boys executed in reprisals for the ambush killing of 30 German soldiers) [65].

On 27 October 2023, just 3 weeks after the Palestinian Breakout from the Gaza Concentration Camp, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution on calling for an immediate humanitarian truce between Israel and Hamas and demanding aid access to Gaza. A total of 120 decent pro-Humanity countries voted Yes for the resolution. However 14 indecent and pro-Apartheid countries voted No and  45 cowardly, unprincipled and pro-Apartheid countries Abstained, this inviting global Sanctions as were successfully applied to Apartheid South Africa. [66]. Of the 11 European RIMPAC participants only 1 (the US) voted No and  7 Abstained (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and the UK ). Of the 18 non-European RIMPAC participants only 2 voted No (Israel and Tonga) and 5 Abstained (India, Japan, South Korea, Philippines and the UK) [66]. One notes that as of 3 November 2023, Palestinian deaths in the latest and most dreadful Gaza Massacre totalled about 11,000 killed in Gaza or buried in rubble, and 1,500 Palestinian fighters killed in Israel [64]. By 13 May 2024 about 44,000 Palestinians had been killed, and the killing of Occupied Palestinians  by Jewish Israelis is continuing remorselessly.

War is the penultimate in racism, and genocide the ultimate in racism. Presently undetectable nuclear-armed and nuclear powered submarines are the peak weapons. Indeed only a few  armed with thermonuclear weapons are sufficient to destroy most of Humanity and the Biosphere. Given Apartheid Israel’s policy of “neither confirming nor denying” about its 90 nuclear weapons, the question is not if  US-dominating Apartheid Israel will acquire nuclear-powered as well as nuclear-armed submarines, but whether it has already done so.

In his Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, anti-racist Jewish British writer Harold Pinter stated: “How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice” [67]. 44,000? Surely enough, I would have thought.

One can only speculate why 17 non-European  RIMPAC nations, and especially the Muslim nations,  have entered into the awful crime of Gaza Genocide complicity by joining genocidally bombing Apartheid Israel and the genocidally bomb-providing   US in RIMPAC naval exercises. The 10 European countries supporting the US in this latest  horrific genocidal enterprise are all allies of serial war criminal and nuclear terrorist America. The World responded to the killing of 69 Africans in the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre by imposing (ultimately successful) comprehensive Sanctions against Apartheid South Africa. Unless they withdraw, the Gaza Genocide-complicit  RIMPAC nations  will surely face similar  Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) and government punishment at the ballot box for complicity in the utterly horrific mass murder to date of 44,000 Gazans, 16,000 of them children and 10,000 women.

In my country Australia, reprehensible RIMPAC participant and ruled by a pro-Apartheid Israel and hence pro-Apartheid Labor Government and an even worse Coalition Opposition, decent anti-racist voters will put Labor last in Australia’s  preferential voting system [68-70]. Nazi is as Nazi does. Neo-Nazi is as Neo-Nazi does. Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity. Please inform everyone you can.

References.

[1]. From Commander, U.S. Third Fleet Public Affairs,  “U.S. Pacific Fleet Announces 29th RIMPAC Exercise”,  U.S. Pacific Fleet,21 May 2024: https://www.cpf.navy.mil/Newsroom/News/Article/3783565/us-pacific-fleet-announces-29th-rimpac-exercise/ .

[2]. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, “Day 220 The Israeli Genocide in the Gaza Strip 7 October 2023- 13 May 2024”: https://x.com/RamiKawas/status/1790004316222157127 .

[3]. Gideon Polya, “Unrepentant Neo-Nazi Germany Complicit In Palestinian Genocide & Ongoing Gaza Massacre”, Countercurrents, 11 April 2024: https://countercurrents.org/2024/04/unrepentant-neo-nazi-germany-complicit-in-palestinian-genocide-ongoing-gaza-massacre/ .

[4]. Gideon Polya, “Australia must stop Zionist subversion and join the World in comprehensive Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Apartheid Israel and all its supporters”, Subversion of Australia, 15 April 2021: https://sites.google.com/site/subversionofaustralia/2021-04-15  .

[5]. Gideon Maxwell Polya, “Free Palestine. End Apartheid Israel, Human Rights Denial, Gaza Massacre, Child Killing, Occupation and Palestinian Genocide”,  Korsgaard Publishing, 2024.

[6]. Gideon Polya, “How To Free Palestine: End Apartheid Israel, Human Rights Denial, Gaza Massacre, Child Killing, Occupation And Palestinian Genocide”, Countercurrents, 2 May 2024: https://countercurrents.org/2024/05/how-to-free-palestine-end-apartheid-israel-human-rights-denial-gaza-massacre-child-killing-occupation-and-palestinian-genocide/ .

[7]. Gideon Polya, “Melbourne University Adopts Anti-Semitic & Holocaust-Ignoring IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism”, Countercurrents, 5 February 2023: https://countercurrents.org/2023/02/melbourne-university-adopts-anti-semitic-holocaust-ignoring-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism/ .

[8]. Gideon Polya, “Zionists & Pro-Zionist, US Lackey Australian Government Threaten Australian Academic Free Speech”, Countercurrents, 7 March 2023: https://countercurrents.org/2023/03/zionists-pro-zionist-us-lackey-australian-government-threaten-australian-academic-free-speech/?swcfpc=1 .

[9]. Jewish Voices for Peace, “First ever: 40+ Jewish groups worldwide oppose equating antisemitism with criticism of Israel”, 17 July 2018: https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/first-ever-40-jewish-groups-worldwide-oppose-equating-antisemitism-with-criticism-of-israel/#english .

[10]. Gideon Polya,  “UK Zionist Historian Sir Martin Gilbert (1936-2015) Variously Ignored Or Minimized WW2 Bengali Holocaust”, Countercurrents, 19 February 2015: https://countercurrents.org/polya190215.htm .

[11]. Martin Gilbert, “Jewish History Atlas”, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1969.

[12].  Martin Gilbert “Atlas of the Holocaust”, Michael Joseph, London, 1982.

[13]. “Report Genocide”; https://sites.google.com/site/reportgenocide/home .

[14].  Gideon Polya,  “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, 3rd edition, Korsgaard Publishing,  2023.

[15]. Gideon Polya, “US-imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide”, Korsgaard Publishing, 2020.

[16]. Gideon Polya, “Racist Mainstream Ignores “US-Imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide”, Countercurrents, 17 July 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/07/racist-mainstream-ignores-us-imposed-post-9-11-muslim-holocaust-muslim-genocide/ .

[17]. Gideon Polya in Soren Korsgaard, editor, “The Most Dangerous Book Ever Published: Deadly Deception Exposed!”, Korsgaard Publishing, 2020.

[18]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, 2nd edition, Korsgaard Publishing, 2021.

[19]. International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), “Which countries have nuclear weapons?”: https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals .

[20]. Gideon Polya, “Climate Genocide, 1.5C Exceedance, Gaza Genocide & Global Inaction: West Censorship & Boiling Frog”, Countercurrents, 28 March 2024: https://countercurrents.org/2024/03/climate-genocide-1-5c-exceedance-gaza-genocide-global-inaction-west-censorship-boiling-frog/ .

[21]. “Nuclear weapons ban, end poverty & reverse climate change”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/nuclear-weapons-ban  .

[22]. Gideon Polya, “Climate Crisis, Climate Genocide  & Solutions”, Korsgaard Publishing, 2020.

[23]. Stephen Hawking, “Brief Answers to the Big Questions”, John Murray, 2018, Chapter 7.

[24]. “World Meteorological Organization declares onset of El Niño conditions”, WMO Press Release, 4 July 2023: https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/world-meteorological-organization-declares-onset-of-el-nino-conditions .

[25]. Gideon Polya, “WMO Warning: 1.5 Degree C Warming Breach Very Soon & With Increasing Frequency. Act Now!”, Countercurrents, 19 May 2023: https://countercurrents.org/2023/05/wmo-warning-1-5-degree-c-warming-breach-very-soon-with-increasing-frequency-act-now/ .

[26]. WMO, “State of the Global Climate 2023”, 2024: https://library.wmo.int/viewer/68835/download?file=1347_Statement_2023_en.pdf&type=pdf&navigator=1 .

[27]. James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, “Global Warming Acceleration: Causes and Consequences”, Columbia, 12 January 2024: https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/AnnualT2023.2024.01.12.pdf .

[28]. James E. Hansen et al., “Global warming in the pipeline”, Oxford Open Climate Change, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2023: https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false .

[29]. “Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/.

[30]. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2078/volume-78-i-1021-english.pdf .

[31]. “Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, 12 August 1949: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf .

[32]. Anne Barker, “US military marks end of its Iraq war”,  ABC News, 16 December 2011: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-15/us-military-marks-end-of-its-war-in-iraq/3733982  .

[33]. “Iraqi Holocaust Iraqi Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/ .

[34]. “Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ .

[35]. Gideon Polya, “Iraq Invasion 20th Anniversary: 5 Million Dead In Iraqi Holocaust”, Countercurrents, 19 March 2023: https://countercurrents.org/2023/03/iraq-invasion-20th-anniversary-5-million-dead-in-iraqi-holocaust/ .

[36]. Fadhel al-Nashmi, “IHCHR Report: 5 Million Orphaned Children in Iraq”, Asharq Al-Awsat, 12 December 2021: https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3354921/ihchr-report-5-million-orphaned-children-iraq .

[37]. Gideon Polya, “Paris Atrocity Context: 27 Million Muslim Avoidable Deaths From Imposed Deprivation In 20 Countries Violated By US Alliance Since 9-11”, Countercurrents, 22 November, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya221115.htm .

[38]. “Experts: US did 9/11”: https://sites.google.com/site/expertsusdid911/ .

[39]. Gideon Polya, “Lying Mainstream Media Ignore Expert New 9/11 WTC7 Demolition Report”, Countercurrents, 22 August 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/08/lying-mainstream-media-ignore-expert-new-9-11-wtc7-demolition-report/ .

[40]. Gideon Polya, “Zionist IHRA & US Alliance rejected UNGA Anti-Nazi Resolution”, Countercurrents, 28 October 2022: https://countercurrents.org/2022/10/zionist-ihra-us-alliance-rejected-unga-anti-nazi-resolution/ .

[41]. United Nations Digital Library, “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly”, 2021: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951466?ln=en .

[42]. Les Decodeurs, “Why France and 51 other countries voted against UN resolution condemning Nazism”, Le Monde, 9 November 2022: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2022/11/09/why-france-and-51-other-countries-voted-against-the-un-resolution-condemning-nazism_6003471_8.html .

[43]. Al Mayadeen, “UNGA adopts anti-Nazi resolution, with US & EU voting against it”, 15 December 2022: https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/unga-adopts-anti-nazi-resolution-with-us-eu-voting-against-i .

[44]. Gideon Polya, “20 Ways Anti-Semitic Australian Labor Government Complicit In Jewish Israeli Gaza Genocide”, Countercurrents, 5 March 2024: https://countercurrents.org/2024/03/20-ways-anti-semitic-australian-labor-government-complicit-in-jewish-israeli-gaza-genocide/  .

[45]. Gideon Polya, “85 Ways Zionist Australian Labor Government Betrays Palestinian Human Rights & Humanity”, Countercurrents, 16 March 2023: https://countercurrents.org/2023/03/85-ways-zionist-australian-labor-government-betrays-palestinian-human-rights-humanity/ .

[46]. Gideon Polya, “AUKUS & Quad In Context: Australia Violates All Indo-Pacific countries”, Countercurrents, 9 December 2021: https://countercurrents.org/2021/12/aukus-quad-in-context-australia-violates-all-indo-pacific-countries/ .

[47]. Gideon Polya, “Australia violates all Indo-Pacific countries”, Stop state terrorism, 9 December 2021: https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/2021-12-09-australia-violates-all-indo-pacific-countries .

[48]. Gideon Polya, “Apartheid Israel Among World’s Leading Countries For Militarization, Violence, Abuse And Genocide”, 16 May 2023: https://countercurrents.org/2023/05/apartheid-israel-among-worlds-leading-countries-for-militarization-violence-abuse-and-genocide/ .

[49]. Victor Gilinsky, “The US silence on Israeli nuclear weapons and the right-wing Israeli government”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 4 May 2023: https://thebulletin.org/2023/05/the-us-silence-on-israeli-nuclear-weapons-and-the-right-wing-israeli-government/ .

[50]. “Israel signs $3.4 bln submarines deal with Germany’s Thyssenkrupp”, Reuters, 20 January 2022: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-signs-34-bln-submarines-deal-with-thyssenkrupp-2022-01-20/ .

[51]. Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, “How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power”, Guardian, 26 September 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar .

[52]. Jay Janson, “Holocaust book by Jay Janson. WWII & Holocaust could never have happened without American corporations investing & joint venturing with Hitler’s poor Nazi Germany”, Countercurrents: https://countercurrents.org/tag/holocaust-book-by-jay-janson/ .

[53]. ICAN, “TPNW signature and ratification status”: https://www.icanw.org/signature_and_ratification_status .

[54]. World Population Review, “How Many Countries has the US Invaded 2023”, 2023: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-countries-has-the-us-invaded .

[55]. “Stop state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/ .

[56]. Gideon Polya, “The US Has Invaded 70 Nations Since 1776 – Make 4 July Independence From America Day”, Countercurrents, 5 July, 2013: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm .

[57]. William Blum, “Rogue State: A guide to the world’s only superpower”, Common Courage Press, 2005.

[58]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, Korsgaard Publishing, 2nd edition, 2021.

[59]. Dr Zoltan Grossman, “From Wounded Knee to Libya : a century of U.S. military interventions”,  ” http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html . .

[60]. Benjamin Norton, “US launched 251 military interventions since 1991, and 469 since 1798”, Multipolista, 13 September 2022: https://multipolarista.com/2022/09/13/us-251-military-interventions-1991/ .

[61]. Congressional Research Service, “Instances of use of United States armed forces abroad, 1798-2022”, 22 March 2022:https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42738 .

[62]. David Vine, “Where in the world is the U.S. military?”, Politico, July/August 2015: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321/ .

[63]. Apartheid Israeli state terrorism: (A) individuals exposing Apartheid Israeli state terrorism, and (B) countries subject to Apartheid Israeli state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/apartheid-israeli-state-terrorism .

[64]. Gideon Polya, “IDF Killed Israelis On 7 October Enabling 9/11-style Excuse For Gaza Genocide”, Countercurrents, 31 December 2023:

[65]. “Ardeatine massacre”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeatine_massacre .

[66]. Gideon Polya, “59 Countries Invite Global Sanctions By Backing Apartheid Israel’s Genocidal Gaza Massacre”, Countercurrents, 3 November 2023: https://countercurrents.org/2023/11/59-countries-invite-global-sanctions-by-backing-apartheid-israels-genocidal-gaza-massacre/ .

[67].  Harold Pinter, “Art, Truth And Politics”, Countercurrents, 8 December, 2005: https://countercurrents.org/arts-pinter081205.htm .

[68]. Gideon Polya, “Put Labor Last: Traitorous Australian Labor Government Deceives Australians For US & Genocidal Apartheid Israel”, Countercurrents, 21 May 2024: https://countercurrents.org/2024/05/put-labor-last-traitorous-australian-labor-government-deceives-australians-for-us-genocidal-apartheid-israel/ .

[69]. Gideon Polya, “Breakthrough: Australian Labor Senator Fatima Payman Condemns Jewish Israeli Gaza Genocide, Human Rights Denial & Occupation”, Countercurrents, 17 May 2024: https://countercurrents.org/2024/05/breakthrough-australian-labor-senator-fatima-payman-condemns-jewish-israeli-gaza-genocide-human-rights-denial-occupation/ .

[70]. Gideon Polya, “Put Labor Last: End Anti-Jewish Anti-Semitic & Gaza Genocide-complicit Australian Labor Government”, Countercurrents, 9 May 2024: https://countercurrents.org/2024/05/put-labor-last-end-anti-jewish-anti-semitic-gaza-genocide-complicit-australian-labor-government/ .

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia over 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, notably a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (2003).

13 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Ramzy Baroud

On June 6, Spain joined South Africa’s case at the United Nations top Court, accusing Israel of genocide.

This move followed a decision by Madrid and two other western European capitals – Dublin and Oslo – to recognize the state of Palestine, thus breaking ranks with a long-established US-led western policy.

As per American thinking, the recognition and the establishment of a Palestinian State should follow a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine, under the auspices of Washington itself.

No such negotiations have taken place in years, and the US has, in fact, shifted its policies on the issue almost entirely under the previous administration of Donald Trump. The latter had recognized as ‘legal’, illegal Jewish colonies in Palestine, Israel’s sovereignty over occupied East Jerusalem, among other concessions.

Several years into the Biden Administration, little has been done to reverse or fundamentally alter the new status quo.

More recently, Washington has done everything in its power to support Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Aside from supplying Israel with the needed weapons to conduct its crimes in the Strip, the US has gone as far as threatening international legal and political bodies that tried to hold Israel accountable, thus ending the “extermination” of Palestinians in Gaza – a term used on May 20 by the International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan.

Washington continues to behave in such a way despite the fact that Israel refuses to concede to a single US demand or expectation regarding peace and negotiations.

Indeed, Israel’s political discourse is deeply invested in the language of genocide, while the Israeli military is actively carrying it out.

The West Bank, where the bulk of the Palestinian state would supposedly take shape, is experiencing its own upheaval. Violence there is unprecedented compared to recent decades. Across the West Bank, tens of thousands of illegal settlers are torching homes, cars, and attacking Palestinians with total impunity, in fact, often alongside the Israeli army.

Yet, despite the occasional gentle reprimand and ineffectual sanctions on a few settlers, Washington continues to stand firmly by its declared policy regarding the two states and all the rest. Not a single mainstream Israeli politician, certainly not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government of extremists, is willing to entertain the very thought.

This is not surprising, as America’s foreign policy often goes against common sense. Washington, for example, fights losing wars simply because no US administration or president wants to be the one associated with failure, retreat or, worse, defeat. America’s longest war in Afghanistan is a case in point.

Due to the massive influence wielded by Israel, its allies on Capitol Hill, in the media, along with the power of lobbies and wealthy donors, Tel Aviv is clearly far more consequential to US domestic policies than Kabul. Thus, the continued US military and political support of a country that is being accused of genocide and extermination.

This reality, however, has created a political dilemma for Europe, which has often blindly followed US steps – or missteps – in the Middle East.

Historically, there have been a few exceptions to the post-WWII rule. French President Jacques Chirac defied US-imposed consensus when he strongly rejected Washington’s policies in Iraq in the lead-up to the 2003 war.

Such important, but relatively isolated fissures were eventually repaired, where the US returned to its role as the uncontested leader of the West.

Gaza, however, is becoming a major breaking point. The initial western unity in support of Israel, immediately after the October 7 events, has splintered, eventually leaving the US and, to some extent, Germany, committed to the Israeli war.

The strong, more recent stances by several western European countries accusing Israel of genocide and joining forces with countries in the Global South with the aim of holding Israel accountable, is a major shift unseen in many years.

It could be argued that the extent of Israeli crimes in Gaza has exceeded the moral threshold that some European countries could tolerate. But there is more to this.

The actual answer lies in the issue of legitimacy. Western leaders are not shying away in phrasing their language as such. In a recent piece, speaking on behalf of the ‘group of elders’, former president of Ireland Mary Robinson warned against the “collapse of international order”.

“We oppose any attempts to de-legitimize” the work of the ICC and ICJ, through “threats of punitive measures and sanctions.”

The Elders’ opposition, however, made no difference. On June 5, the US House of Representatives passed resolution H.R.8282 aimed at authorizing sanctions on the ICC.

References to the collapse of the legitimacy of the West-established international order have also been made by many others in recent months, including by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

In his statement on requesting arrest warrants for accused Israeli war criminals, Karim Khan himself made that reference.

For some in the west, the issue is not just about the Gaza genocide. It is also about the future of the west itself.

For a long time, Washington has succeeded, at least in the eyes of its allies, in keeping the balance between the collective interests of the West and a nominal respect for international institutions.

It is now clear that the US is no longer capable of maintaining that balancing act, forcing some western countries into adopting independent political positions, the future outcomes of which shall prove consequential.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

13 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The ashes had barely settled on a Rafah tent camp incinerated by an Israeli airstrike before the next, gorged massacre presented itself for posterity’s gloomy archive.  It was intended as a golden operation and had been months in the making.  The rescue of four Israeli hostages, the killing of three others (bound to happen for the expertly inclined), and the massacre of over 274 Palestinians at the Nuseirat refugee camp were the end result.

The logistics that led to the bloodbath had been rehearsed with detail verging on the manic.  Many a vengeful mind was at play.  Two buildings were constructed for training purposes.  Participants involved the special counter-terrorism unit Yamam, Israel’s internal security agency Shin Bet, and members of the Israeli Defence Forces.  An enormous casualty rate would have already been contemplated given the remarks of IDF spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari.  “We understood that in those apartments with those guards, daytime will be the ultimate surprise.”

The lies barely have time to fledge.  First, the numbers.  Hagari could only count “dozens”, and “knew of less than 100”.  He conceded to not knowing how many of such a reduced number were civilians.  Israel’s Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, was happy to soften the carnage in attacking his country’s detractors.  “Only Israel’s enemies complained about the casualties of Hamas terrorists and their accomplices.”

Then came the praise, manifold, effusive.  The Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant cooed with satisfaction, calling the effort “one of the most extraordinary operations”.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu merely offered the following morsel: “Israel does not surrender to terrorism.”

Furthermore, no civilian trucks, claimed the IDF, were used in the operation.  Yet undercover vehicles were apparently deployed, one very much resembling those used by Israel to traffic commercial goods into Gaza; another being a white Mercedes truck packed and stacked with furniture and miscellaneous belongings typical of the dislocated and dispossessed.  Disgorged from the latter, Palestinian eye-witness accounts noted men in plainclothes and some 10 heavily armed soldiers ready for mischief.  The commencement of firing signalled the start of the butchery.

The UN Special Rapporteur of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, was certain.  The IDF, she stated with exasperation, had “perfidiously” hidden “in an aid truck”.  This constituted “‘humanitarian camouflage’ at another level.”  While expressing relief at the rescue of four hostages, the enterprise “should not have come at the expense of at least 200 Palestinians, including children, killed and over 400 injured by Israel and allegedly foreign soldiers”.

In time, it became clear that the mission, venerated for its secrecy and praised for its planning, had not caught the Hamas guards responsible for three male hostages by surprise.  They duly engaged the Yamam operatives.  “Immediately, it became a war zone,” reservist brigadier general Amir Avivi told The Washington Post.  The Israeli air force commenced indulgent fire.  Death reigned at Nuseirat for some 75 minutes, concealed by the now standard refrain by the IDF: “Aircraft struck dozens of military targets for the success of the operation.”

Other, more tormented descriptions seemed closer to the mark.  The Intercept noted the observations of a Palestinian witness by the name of Suhail Mutlaq Abu Nasser. “The area turned to ashes… I couldn’t find my wife and started calling out to those around me to ensure they were still alive.”  The account goes on to document the use of armed quadcopter drones, the presence of tank tracks, the hovering of Apache attack helicopters, the targeting of homes by missiles.  Camp resident Anas Alayyan was also convinced that the entire military operation by Israeli forces did not fall short of a mass execution.

There is a pattern here, a murderous ratio justified by that most elastic yet horrific of reasons: self-defence.  The hostage rescue will go down a treat in Israel.  The names of those captured by Hamas on October 7 will be anointed in Israeli mythology: Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, Shlomi Ziv. But at what cost to those around them?

In addition to the slaughter, some indication of the aftermath is provided by Al Jazeera.  “The wounded were taken to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir el-Balah, an already overwhelmed facility.”  Medics are found to be in utter despair.

The scale of killing on this score also raises troubling issues with Israel’s closest ally.  Despite some political grumbling in the ranks, the Biden administration remains steadfast in support.  The deaths in Rafah were still excusable because, in the words of US State Department spokesperson, Matthew Miller, Israel had not engaged in “a military operation on the scale of those previous operations [in Khan Younis and in Gaza City].”

The hefty death toll of Palestinian civilians in the Nuseirat operation was of lesser concern to President Joe Biden than the welfare of Israeli hostages.  Speaking in Paris, Biden welcomed “the safe rescue of four hostages that were returned to their families in Israel. We won’t stop working until all the hostages come home and a ceasefire is reached.”

The sanguinary episode at Nuseirat is hard to stomach, even by Biden’s rubbery standards.  It stands to reason.  The entire operation had the buttressing of what the New York Times reported to be “intelligence and other logistical support” from the United States.   Two Israeli intelligence officials also confirmed that “American military officials in Israel provided some of the intelligence about the hostages rescued Saturday.”  And let us not forget murderous military hardware, readily supplied from US defence companies.  It follows that the lives of Israeli hostages, dubbed “diamonds” by their rescuers, are invaluable, the precious stones of Israeli-US policy.  The Palestinians, on the other hand, are mere coal dust.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.

13 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Marwan Asmar

Hezbollah fired 215 missiles and rockets into northern Israel, Wednesday, according to different news sources including the Times of Israel.

[https://twitter.com/SuppressedNws/status/1800943105350287722]

The news of the missiles, trending on the social media, is the biggest ever launch in one day, a Wednesday, since 7 October, when Israel began its war on Gaza.

The rockets were launched in areas that included settlements and a military base. Experts believe this launch will lead to escalation on Israel’s northern front and lead to the raising of regional tensions and where both Lebanon and Israel would be dragged into war.

[https://twitter.com/amekabusignals/status/1800973909619101705]

The firing of the missiles came a day after Israel killed a senior Hezbollah commander named as Taleb Sami Abdullah.

He was killed Tuesday night, following multiple Israeli strikes on a residential building in Jawya, southern Lebanon. Abdullah was a top commander in Hezbollah, it is pointed out.

[https://twitter.com/Antiwarcom/status/1800979024925364448]

His name is also trending on the social media and may have led to a new escalation that was already brewing between Hezbollah and Israel since early June when Hezbollah missiles carried through drones set the northern part of Israel on fire.

[https://twitter.com/ferozwala/status/1800978152912716197]

Like last time, the latest missiles have set fires in at least three locations in Israel with fire crews scurrying to the scenes.  These locations included the Avivim settlement near the border with Lebanon after it was targeted with an anti-tank missile.

Military analysts are watching this northern front very carefully. Some say it could lead to another war while others point out the escalation is still within the agreed confines.

It is pointed out the United States doesn’t want another war escalation and is, maybe, pressuring Israel not to widen the conflict and go out for a fully-fledged war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Dr Asmar is a writer based in Jordan and covers Middle East affairs

13 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Marwan Asmar

“The reality on the ground is more difficult than the image” says Anas Al Sharif.

Starvation is hitting north Gaza in a new and vicious manner, he points out as he films starving children and women.

“Three-year-old  Amjad Al Qanouh suffers from acute malnutrition because of Israeli occupation army has banned the humanitarian aid from entering north Gaza”

Truth be told, the ban has always been enforced, ever since Israel waged war on the enclave after 7 October, 2023.

[https://twitter.com/AnasAlSharif0/status/1800864412519252193]

Our bodies are collapsing under the weight of hunger and thirst while our minds tire by wounds that do not end while the sun beats down on us with mercy with disease festering like fire spreading among us with missiles, bombs, rockets rain down on us for the last 250 days of aggression.We ask God only for patience and speedy relief, writes Al Sharif.

Gaza is being intentionally punished with its people starved and the worst is in the north of the enclave. Although the situation is bad everywhere.

This is a war against children UNICEF spokesman Michael Elder says. What is needed is a ceasefire to stop the killing, starvation and devastation of Gaza.

“…so much suffering has been inflicted on Gaza. The intentions must surely be clear, the absolute devastation of Gaza – indeed, it’s already happened, homes, hospitals, schools, universities, agriculture, the economy, devastated. And still the bombs fall. But the many, many thousands of killed children is ample evidence of what UNIICEF deemed months ago, to be a “war on children”. There is and there only has been one solution to this, to end this suffering and that is a ceasefire…”

[https://twitter.com/AnasAlSharif0/status/1801141839648420289]

More children have been killed in Gaza in six months than all of the other war zones around the world in three years multiplied by four says Dr Norman Finkelstein, an academic, specializing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[https://twitter.com/LetsStopC9/status/1792883340275527794]

More than 20,000 children have been killed in the last eight months of Israeli slaughter. This while the number of women killed since that time is registered at 15000.

The total number of civilians that have been killed stands at 37,000 with over 87,00 injured.

[https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1800973641930174734]

Israel will not stop in its genocide of Gaza. The children, women, men and old people shouldn’t be forgotten. Their names should be imprinted on every wall and website as a reminder of the heinous Israeli war crimes egged on by their Western supporter states on top of which is the USA.

Dr Marwan Asmar is an Amman-based writer and covers Middle East affairs and blogs at https://crossfirearabia.com.

13 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Andre Damon

The Israeli government and military have committed systematic “crimes against humanity,” including “extermination,” during their eight-month-long assault on Gaza, a key United Nations commission found in a report published Wednesday.

The report is the first in-depth investigation by the United Nations into the events that have happened since October 7 and is based on detailed interviews with victims and witnesses. The three-person commission is led by Navi Pillay, a former United Nations human rights chief.

The commission concluded that the Israeli military and government “committed the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare; murder or willful killing; intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects; forcible transfer; sexual violence; outrages upon personal dignity; and [sexual and gender-based violence] amounting to torture or inhuman and cruel treatment.”

It found that Israel was responsible for the crimes against humanity. According to the report “extermination; murder; gender persecution targeting Palestinian men and boys; forcible transfer; and torture and inhuman and cruel treatment were committed.”

This report lends further weight to the charges by Karim Khan, the lead prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

While the 2023-24 Gaza genocide shares elements of previous Israeli assaults on Gaza, it is of a totally different magnitude and intensity. The report asserted that “Israel’s military operation and attack in Gaza has been the longest, largest and bloodiest since 1948. It has caused immense damage and loss of life.”

It noted that “hostilities between 2005 and 2023 resulted in less than a tenth of the fatalities since October 7. The Commission has also observed an increasing trend in the number of fatalities of women and children compared with previous hostilities.”

The massive civilian death toll is due to the fact that, in the words of the commission, the “Israeli government has given [the Israeli military] blanket authorization to target civilian locations widely and indiscriminately in the Gaza Strip.”

The systematic mass bombing of Palestinian civilians is accompanied by a deliberate effort to starve the population of Gaza into submission in a form of collective punishment.

The report concludes that “Israel has used starvation as a method of war, affecting the entire population of the Gaza Strip for decades to come, with particularly negative consequences for children.” This is a war crime.

The report concludes, “At the time of writing this report, children have already died due to acute malnutrition and dehydration. Through the siege it imposed, Israel has weaponized the withholding of life-sustaining necessities, cutting off supplies of water, food, electricity, fuel, and other essential supplies, including humanitarian assistance. This constitutes collective punishment and reprisal against the civilian population, both of which are clear violations of [international humanitarian law].”

The report documented the systematic blocking of food, water and electricity from entering the Gaza Strip, which was justified by the proclamation by Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant of “a complete siege… no electricity, no water, no food, no fuel. We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly.”

The commission noted statements by Israeli authorities intending “to hold the population of the Gaza Strip hostage to achieve political and military objectives,” actions that aim to carry out “the collective punishment of the entire population for the actions of a few, a clear violation of international humanitarian law.”

While the US and Israeli media have repeatedly asserted that Hamas forces that took part in the October 7 attack on Israel committed mass rapes, the report concluded that the commission “has not been able to independently verify such allegations,” and that it “found some specific allegations to be false, inaccurate, or contradictory with other evidence or statements and discounted these from its assessment.”

Critically, the report also documented the Israeli military’s stand-down during October 7 and the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians by the Israeli military that day.

The commission found that the Israeli military’s response to the October 7 attack was “significantly delayed and, in many places, totally inadequate.” This was despite the fact that the Israeli military was in possession of Hamas’s detailed battle plans for the attack. On the day of the attack, Israeli forces were deliberately withdrawn from the border.

Once Israeli forces arrived, they began attacking Israeli hostages and other civilians. “The Commission documented one statement by an ISF tank crew, confirming that the crew had applied the Hannibal Directive by shooting at a vehicle which they suspected was transporting abducted ISF [Israeli security forces] soldiers.”

The Hannibal Directive aims to prevent the capture of Israelis by enemy forces, even at the cost of their lives, and implies that the IDF should kill Israelis rather than allow them to fall into the hands of Hamas.

The report continued, “The Commission also verified information indicating that, in at least two other cases, ISF had likely applied the Hannibal Directive, resulting in the killing of up to 14 Israeli civilians. One woman was killed by ISF helicopter fire while being abducted from Nir Oz to Gaza by militants. In another case, the Commission found that Israeli tank fire killed some or all of the 13 civilian hostages held in a house in Be’eri.”

The commission concluded, “Israeli authorities failed to protect civilians in southern Israel on almost every front. This included failing to swiftly deploy sufficient security forces to protect civilians and evacuate them from civilian locations on 7 October. In several locations, ISF applied the so-called ‘Hannibal Directive’ and killed at least 14 Israeli civilians.”

The report noted, “Statements made by Israeli officials reflected policy and practice of inflicting widespread destruction, killing large numbers of civilians, and forcible transfer.”

This report makes clear that despite a systematic slander campaign by the entire US political establishment and media, led by the Biden White House, ongoing mass demonstrations against the Gaza genocide are motivated not by antisemitism but by opposition to a massive violation of international law.

The perpetrators of this massive war crime are not merely in Israel, they are in Washington. The Biden administration has systematically funded, armed and politically supported the genocide. It has provided over 100 separate arms shipments to Israel and defended every one of Israel’s deliberate massacres of civilians, including last weekend’s Nuseirat Massacre that killed 274 people.

13 June 2024

Source: countercurrents.org

By Michel Chossudovsky

Author’s Update

On June 15-16, delegates from 90 countries will be meeting at the Bürgenstock resort near Lucerne, in the context of a Peace Conference organized by the Swiss government to which Russia was not invited.

This article addresses the history of the Ukraine war and more specifically WHO started this war.

The Smoking Gun is Who Started the War. Was it Russia or US-NATO?

The Answer comes from the Horse’s Mouth. 

But the Horse’s Mouth concept  does not seem to be on the agenda of this Conference.

Of utmost significance:  On September 7, 2023, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg  in a presentation to the European Parliament, formally acknowledged that:

“the war didn’t start in February last year [2022]. It started in 2014.”

This far-reaching declaration confirms his earlier statement in May 2023 to the effect that the Ukraine War

“didn’t start in 2022”, “The war started in 2014”.

Stoltenberg’s Interview with the Washington Post: (emphasis added, complete text of Washington Post Interview in Annex)

Speaking on behalf of NATO, what this statement implies is that US-NATO was already at war in 2014. It also tacitly acknowledges that Russia did not “initiate the war” on Ukraine in February 2022. 

In a twisted irony, in his presentation to the European Parliament, Stoltenberg portrays “the purpose” of the Ukraine war,  which has resulted in more than 300,000 casualties as a means “to prevent war”. 

Video

NATO chief debates with Parliament about European security

“Therefore, we have already increased our presence in eastern part of the Alliance, to send a very clear message to Moscow. To remove any room for misunderstanding, miscalculation. That NATO is there to defend every inch of NATO territory, one for all for one. [“NATO Territory”]

At the NATO summit, we agreed new plans for the defence of the whole Alliance. We also agreed to establish and identify more high readiness troops, 300,000 troops on different levels of high readiness, and also have more air and naval capabilities, ready to quickly reinforce if needed. 

The purpose of this is to prevent war. The purpose of this is to ensure that NATO continues to be the most successful Alliance in history because we have prevented any military attack on any NATO Allies. And when there’s a full-fledged war going on in Europe, then it becomes even more important that we have credible deterrence and by strengthening our deterrence and defence, we are preventing war, preserving peace for NATO Allies, because there’s no room for miscalculation.

And the third thing was that NATO Allies have really now demonstrated that they are delivering on the commitment we made in 2014, because the war didn’t start in February last year. It started in 2014. The full-fledged invasion happened last year, but the war, the illegal annexation of Crimea, Russia went into eastern Donbas in 2014. (emphasis added)

What Stoltenberg fails to acknowledge is US-NATO’s role in triggering the 2014 EuroMaidan massacre which was conducive “in the name of Western democracy” to a “regime change”: namely the instatement of a Neo-Nazi puppet regime in Kiev.

US-NATO is firmly embedded in the Kiev regime’s Neo-Nazi project the objective of which is to destroy Ukraine as well wage war on Russia. 

Ironically the head of State of this neo-Nazi government –hand-picked by US intel– is of Russian-Jewish descent, who prior to entering politics did not speak a word of Ukrainian:

Zelensky is Jewish. He supports the Nazi Azov Battalion, the two Nazi parties, which have committed countless atrocities against the Jewish community in Ukraine.  And now this Jewish-Russian proxy president wants to “ban everything Russian”, including the Russian language (his mother tongue), …

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, , June 12, 2024

NATO Says “War Started in 2014”.

“Fake Pretext” to Wage War against Russia?

To Invoke Article 5 of Atlantic Treaty?

by Michel Chossudovsky

August 27, 2023

Introduction

This article addresses the implications of a controversial statement by NATO to the effect that the Ukraine War “didn’t start in 2022”,“The war started in 2014”

It’s a Bombshell: NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed (speaking on behalf of NATO) that the “war didn’t start in 2022”. 

In an interview with The Washington Post (May 9, 2023), Jens Stoltenberg unequivocally confirmed that “the war started in 2014″. 

Jens Stoltenberg’s bold statement (which has barely been the object of media coverage) has opened up a Pandora’s Box, or best described “A Can of Worms” on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance.

What he bears out is that the beginning of the Ukraine war coincided with a U.S. sponsored Coup d’état, confirmed by Victoria’s Nuland‘s “F**k the EU telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador Pyatt  in February 2014. (see below)

Part I of this article examines the legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statement on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance.

Of crucial significance: Having stated that “the war started in 2014”, NATO can no longer claim that Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) of February 24, 2022 constitutes, from a legal standpoint, “an invasion”. 

Part I also addresses the issue of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). 

Parti II focuses on Stoltenberg’s twisted statement that Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty could be invoked as means to declare war against Russia.

“Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty – its collective defence clause” declaring that an attack on one member state is “to be an attack against all NATO members.” Article 5 is NATO’s doctrine of Collective Self-Defense.

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”.

In regards to the invocation of Article V in relation to Russia, a justification or fake “pretext” was mentioned by Stoltenberg in his interview with the Washington Post.

Were Article V to be invoked, this would inevitably precipitate the World into a WWIII scenario, consisting of a war whereby all 30 member states of the Atlantic Alliance, most of which are members of the European Union would be involved.

Part I 

Legal Implications

The legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statements are far-reaching. Speaking on behalf of NATO, he has acknowledged that Russia did not declare war on Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

“The war started in 2014“, which intimates that the war was launched in 2014, with US-NATO directly involved from the very outset:

Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: How has the war led NATO to recalibrate its defense posture and doctrine?

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed NATO, but then you have to remember the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014. And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.

Stoltenberg also confirmed that US-NATO’s intent from the outset in 2014 was to integrate the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime as a full member of NATO.

Inasmuch as the war had commenced and has been ongoing since 2014 as confirmed by Stoltenberg, Russia’s Special Military Operation cannot be categorized as an “illegal invasion” (under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter). The latter states that  members of the UN shall refrain:  “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” …

Inasmuch as the war started in 2014, Art 2(4) applies to both the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime and well as US-NATO which was  behind the February 2014 illegal Coup D’état.

What this implies is that from a legal standpoint, US-NATO on behalf and in coordination with the US sponsored Neo-Nazi  Kiev regime had initiated a de facto undeclared war against Luhansk and Donesk.

From a legal standpoint, this was not “An Act of War against Russia”. Led by US-NATO, this was an “Act of War against Ukraine and the People of Ukraine”. 

Putin’s February 24, 2022 Statement

As we recall President Putin had defined a Special Military Operation (SMO) in support of the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. The stated objective was  to “demilitarise” and “denazify” Ukraine.

Article 51 of the UN Charter which was referred to by President Putin in his February 24, 2022 speech confirms the following:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, …

Russia’s SMO complies with the exercise of self defense. Putin in his speech (February 24, 2022) referred to:

“the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year.

I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.”

.

2. “NeoCons Endorse NeoNazis”: U.S. Sponsored 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’état. An Illegal and Criminal Act Supported by US-NATO

What Stoltenberg intimated in his interview with the WP (no doubt unwittingly) is that the Ukraine War was a US-NATO Initiative, carried out in the immediate wake of the illegal US Supported February 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat which was then conducive to the instatement of a Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.

The New York Times described the EuroMaidan as “a  flowering of democracy, a blow to authoritarianism and kleptocracy in the former Soviet space.” ( After Initial Triumph, Ukraine’s Leaders Face Battle for Credibility,  NYTimes.com, March 1, 2014, emphasis added)

The grim realities were otherwise. The forbidden truth was that US-NATO had engineered –through a carefully staged covert operation– the formation of a US-NATO proxy regime integrated by Neo-Nazis, which was conducive to the removal and brutal demise of the elected president Viktor Yanukovych. 

The staged EuroMaidan Protest Movement initiated in November 2013 was led by the two Nazi parties, with Dmytro Yarosh, of the Right Sector (Pravy Sector) playing a key role as leader of  the Brown Shirt Neo-Nazi paramilitary. He had called for disbanding the Party of the regions and the Communist Party.

The shootings of protesters by snipers were coordinated by Yarosh’s Brown Shirts and Andriy Parubiy leader of the Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party. 

Of significance there was a  leaked telephone conversation (February 2014) between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union Commissioner Catherine Ashton, which confirmed that “the snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were  hired by Ukrainian opposition leaders [NeoNazis]”.

Video: Leaked Conversation: Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton

(Starts at 1′.50″)

Breaking: Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton discuss Ukraine over the phone

Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet tells Catherine Ashton the following (excerpts):

“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition [Parubiy  and Yarosh].”

“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides.”

“[Dr. Olga Bogomolets] then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new [Neo-Nazi] coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” (quoted by Mahdi Nazemoroaya, Global Research, March 18, 2014, emphasis added)

Foreign Minister’s Urmas Paet’s statements (above) are corroborated by A Kiev Post (March 13, 2014) report:

Selected excerpts below, click here to access full Kiev Post report (March 13, 2014):

“Former State Security Head of Ukraine Oleksandr Yakimenko blames Ukraine’s current government [Neo-Nazi Kiev regime] for hiring snipers on Feb. 20, when dozens of people were killed and hundreds more wounded. The victims were mainly EuroMaidan Revolution demonstrations, but some police officers were also killed. This was the deadliest day during the EuroMaidan Revolution, a three-month uprising that claimed 100 lives.

Yakimenko also blamed the United States for organizing and financing the revolution by bringing illegal cash in using diplomatic mail.

Yankimenko says that Parubiy [leader of the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party], as well as a number of other organizers of EuroMaidan, received direct orders from the U.S. government. …

“These are the forces that were doing everything they were told by the leaders and representatives of the United States,” he says. “They, in essence lived in the U.S. embassy. There wasn’t a day when they did not visit the embassy.”…

“From the beginning of Maidan we as a special service noticed a significant increase of diplomatic cargo to various embassies, western embassies located in Ukraine,” says Yakimenko. “It was tens of times greater than usual diplomatic cargo supplies.” He says that right after such shipments crisp, new U.S. dollar bills were spotted on Maidan. (emphasis added)

On a personal note, I lived through two of the most deadly U.S. military coups in Latin America: as Visiting Professor in Chile in 1973 (Gen. Augusto Pinochet) and then in Argentina in 1976 (Gen. Jorge Videla and “La Guerra Sucia”).

In comparison, the criminal acts and atrocities (Neo-Nazi sniper killings) committed by the US sponsored EuroMaidan are beyond description.

The Central Role of  the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party

As outlined above, Andriy Parubiy played a key role in the EuroMaidan massacre. Andriy Parubiy (image right) is the co-founder together with Oleh Tyahnybok of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda). Parubiy was first appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU) by the Kiev regime. (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence.

He subsequently (2015-2019) became Vice-Chair and Chair of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament) shifting into the realm of international diplomacy on behalf of the Neo-Nazi regime.

In the course of his career, Parubiy developed numerous contacts in North America and Europe, with members of the European Parliament. He was invited to Washington on several occasions, meeting up (already in 2015) with Sen. John McCain (chair) of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was also invited to Ottawa, meeting up with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Parliament Hill in 2016.

The Role of Victoria Nuland

Victoria Nuland, acting on behalf of the US State Department was directly involved in “suggesting” key appointments.

While the Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a cabinet position, members of the two neo-Nazi parties (namely Svoboda (Freedom Party) and The Right Sector (Pravy Sektor) were granted key positions in the areas of Defense, National Security and Law Enforcement.

The Neo Nazis also controlled the judicial process with the appointment of  Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda Party (on February 22, 2014) to the position of prosecutor-general. What kind of justice would prevail with a renowned Neo-Nazi in charge of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine?

Video: F**k the EU. Nuland-Pyatt Leaked Phone Conversation

The controversial conversations between Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Pyatt are recorded below. (See video and transcript below, YouTube version  (below).

(Leaked Online on February 4, 2014, Exact Date of Conversation Unconfirmed, Three weeks prior to the demise of President Yanukovych on February 21-22, 2014)

Nuland-Pyatt leaked phone conversation _COMPLETE with SUBTITLES

Transcript of Conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, on YouTube