Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Canadians Promoting Genocide

By Yves Engler | Dissident Voice | April 29, 2024

In the name of protecting Canadian Jews many are promoting the cultural and physical erasure of a faraway people.

Recently there’s been a push to suppress a traditional Palestinian garment. To the delight of many, the speaker of the Ontario legislature banned kaffiyehs from the provincial assembly. In a sign of support for this racist policy, prominent ‘progressive’ doctor and Ottawa-Carleton District School Board trustee, Nili Kaplan-Myrth, recently bemoaned a fellow trustee who “put on a keffiyeh”, making it “not safe for Jews”. Similarly, author Dahlia Kurtz posted about a friend who panicked when a worker at her child’s daycare had on a kaffiyeh and a similar thing happened when the president of a Canadian Union of Public Employees local wore the garment while addressing members. In a particularly odious expression of this thinking, right-wing X account Love My 7 Wood quote tweeted a picture of a member of the Alberta legislature wearing a kaffiyeh noting, “She and her NDP colleagues wear that for one reason and one reason only. To intimidate Jews.” (To which I replied “All Palestinian culture exists for one reason and one reason only. To intimidate Jews.”)

Others have sought to erase Palestinian poetry. B’nai Brith recently gloated that they got a Toronto library branch to remove prominent poet Refaat Alareer’s “If I Must Die” from a display. Four months ago Alareer and five family members were wiped out by the Israeli military and on Friday they killed his daugher, her husband and their infant child.

Not content with suppressing Palestinian poetry and garments, many express their ethnicity/religion by seeking to suppress Palestinian history. Recently, there was a push to stop the Peel District School Board from marking the Palestinian catastrophe, which saw over 700,000 ethnically cleansed from their homeland in 1947/48. To the chagrin of some, the suburban Toronto school board adopted Nakba Remembrance Day’ as one of over 20 similar historic or cultural days. A Canadian Jewish News headline explained “Peel school board’s move to add ‘Nakba Remembrance Day’ to its calendar spurs objections from Jewish parents—and the Ontario education ministry”. The story reported that the Jewish Educators and Family Association of Canada “launched an online campaign from within the Jewish community, encouraging people to write to [education minister Stephen] Lecce protesting the addition of Naqba (or Nakba) Remembrance Day.”

A similar campaign was instigated after the British Columbia Teachers Federation called for education on the Nakba last month. The founder of Nonviolent Opposition Against Hate, Masha Kleiner, instigated a petition to oppose it.

Alongside the push to erase Palestinian history and art, there’s a bid to starve Palestinians. The advocacy agent of Canada’s Jewish Federations, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), is boasting that they filed suit against Ottawa for funding the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. They want the Federal Court to order the government to block assistance to refugees in Gaza even though the International Court of Justice has twice ruled that humanitarian assistance must be delivered to Gaza.

The federations, CIJA, B’nai Brith, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Honest Reporting Canada and other organizations have supported the slaughter of 40,000 Palestinians over the past six months. CIJA’s director in Israel David M. Weinberg calls Palestinians in Gaza “the enemy population” and pushed “to reduce Gaza neighborhoods from which Hamas operated to rubble (as a matter of principle and not just for military advantage – and no, this is not a war crime).” In December the mayor of Hampstead, who boasts about leading “one of the most concentrated Jewish populations outside of Israel”, expressed his support for wiping out all Palestinian children. Jeremy Levi told me he would continue supporting Israel even if they killed 100,000 or more Palestinian kids since “good needs to prevail over evil”.

Many within the Jewish community are, of course, appalled by this supremacist, genocidal thinking. Jews Say No to Genocide has become an important organizing force in Toronto and in Montreal a contingent of Hasidic Jews have participated in many anti-genocide demonstrations in recent months. Independent Jewish Voices has also organized a slew of events against genocide.

Still, it’s remarkable how many Canadians’ religious/ethnic identity is expressed by seeking to erase a people 8,000 kilometers away. As I’ve detailed, the political forces at play are multifaceted, but part of it is a network of Jewish Zionist organizations that actively promote this type of thinking. There are numerous private schools, summer camps, community centres, synagogues and other organizations that push people into worshiping a violent faraway state that oppresses millions.

This elaborate genocidal network is rarely scrutinized. But, for those of us who believe in human rights for all it’s necessary to disrupt the institutions seeking to erase Palestinians.


Yves Engler is the author of 12 books. His latest book is Stand on Guard for Whom?: A People’s History of the Canadian Military .

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 2 Comments

The Interlocking of Strategic Paradigms

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 29, 2024

Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT, has provided a forensic analysis of the videos and evidence emerging from Iran’s 13th April swarm drone and missile ‘demonstation’ attack into Israel: A ‘message’, rather than an ‘assault’.

The leading Israeli daily, Yediot Ahoronot, has estimated the cost of attempting to down this Iranian flotilla at between $2-3 billion dollars. The implications of this single number are substantial.

Professor Postol writes:

“This indicates that the cost of defending against waves of attacks of this type is very likely to be unsustainable against an adequately armed and determined adversary”.
“The videos show an extremely important fact: All of the targets, whether drones or not, are shot down by air-to-air missiles”, [fired from mostly U.S. aircraft. Some 154 aircraft reportedly were aloft at the time] likely firing AIM-9x Sidewinder air to air missiles. The cost of a single Sidewinder air-to-air missile is about $500,000”.

Furthermore:

“The fact that a very large number of unengaged ballistic missiles could be seen glowing as they reenter the atmosphere to lower altitudes [an indication of hyper-speed], indicates that whatever the effects of [Israel’s] David’s Sling and the Arrow missile defenses, they were not especially effective. Thus, the evidence at this point shows that essentially all or most of the arriving long-range ballistic missiles were not intercepted by any of the Israeli air and missile-defense systems”.

Postel adds, “I have analyzed the situation, and have concluded that commercially available optical and computational technology is more than capable of being adapted to a cruise missile guidance system to give it very high precision homing capability … it is my conclusion that the Iranians have already developed precision guided cruise missiles and drones”.

“The implications of this are clear. The cost of shooting down cruise missiles and drones will be very high and might well be unsustainable unless extremely inexpensive and effective anti-air systems can be implemented. At this time, no one has demonstrated a cost-effective defense system that can intercept ballistic missiles with any reliability”.

Just to be clear, Postol is saying that neither the U.S. nor Israel has more than a partial defence to a potential attack of this nature – especially as Iran has dispersed and buried its ballistic missile silos across the entire terrain of Iran under the control of autonomous units which are capable of continuing a war, even were central command and communications to be completely lost.

This amounts to paradigm change – clearly for Israel, for one. The huge physical expenditure on air defence ordinance – 2-3 billion dollars worth – will not be repeated willy-nilly by the U.S. Netanyahu will not easily persuade the U.S. to engage with Israel in any joint venture against Iran, given these unsustainable air-defence costs.

But also, as a second important implication, these Air Defence assets are not just expensive in dollar terms, they simply are not there: i.e. the store cupboard is near empty! And the U.S. lacks the manufacturing capacity to replace these not particularly effective, high cost platforms speedily.

‘Yes, Ukraine’ … the Middle East paradigm interlinks directly with the Ukraine paradigm where Russia has succeeded in destroying so much of the western supplied, air-defence capabilities in Ukraine, giving Russia near complete air dominance over the skies.

Positioning scarce air defence ‘to save Israel’ therefore, exposes Ukraine (and slows the U.S. pivot to China, too). And given the recent passage of the funding Bill for Ukraine in Congress, clearly air defence assets are a priority for sending to Kiev – where the West looks increasingly trapped and rummaging for a way out that does not lead to humiliation.

But before leaving the Middle East paradigm shift, the implications for Netanyahu are already evident: He must therefore focus back to the ‘near enemy’ – the Palestinian sphere or to Lebanon – to provide Israel with the ‘Great Victory’ that his government craves.

In short, the ‘cost’ for Biden of saving Israel from the Iranian flotilla which had been pre-announced by Iran to be demonstrative and not destructive nor lethal is that the White House must put-up with the corollary – an attack on Rafah. But this implies a different form of cost – an electoral erosion through exacerbating domestic tensions arising from the on-going blatant slaughter of Palestinians.

It is not just Israel that bears the weight of the Iranian paradigm shift. Consider the Sunni Arab States that have been working in various forms of collaboration (normalisation) with Israel.

In the event of wider conflict embracing Iran, clearly Israel cannot protect them – as Professor Postol so clearly shows. And can they count on the U.S.? The U.S. faces competing demands for its scarce Air Defences and (for now) Ukraine, and the pivot to China, are higher on the White House priority ladder.

In September 2019, the Saudi Abqaiq oil facility was hit by cruise missiles, which Postol notes, “had an effective accuracy of perhaps a few feet, much more precise than could be achieved with GPS guidance (suggesting an optical and computational guidance system, giving a very precise homing capability)”.

So, after the Iranian active deterrence paradigm shift, and the subsequent Air Defence depletion paradigm shock, the putative coming western paradigm shift (the Third Paradigm) is similarly interlinked with Ukraine.

For the western proxy war with Russia centred on Ukraine has made one thing abundantly clear: this is that the West’s off-shoring of its manufacturing base has left it uncompetitive, both in simple trade terms, and secondly, in limiting western defence manufacturing capacity. It finds (post-13 April) that it does not have the Air Defence assets to go round: ‘saving Israel’; ‘saving Ukraine’ and preparing for war with China.

The western maximalisation of shareholder returns model has not adapted readily to the logistical needs of the present ‘limited’ Ukraine/Russia war, let alone provided positioning for future wars – with Iran and China.

Put plainly, this ‘late stage’ global imperialism has been living a ‘false dawn’: With the economy shifting from manufacturing ‘things’, to the more lucrative sphere of imagining new financial products (such as derivatives) that make a lot of money quickly, but which destabilise society (through increasing disparities of wealth); and which ultimately, de-stabilise the global system itself (as the World Majority states recoil from the loss of sovereignty and autonomy that financialism entails).

More broadly, the global system is close to massive structural change. As the Financial Times warns,

“the U.S. and EU cannot embrace national-security “infant industry” arguments, seize key value chains to narrow inequality, and break the fiscal and monetary ‘rules’, while also using the IMF and World Bank – and the economics profession– to preach free-market best practice to EM ex-China. And China can’t expect others not to copy what it does”. As the FT concludes, “the shift to a new economic paradigm has begun. Where it will end is very much up for grabs.”

‘Up for grabs’: Well, for the FT the answer may be opaque, but for the Global Majority is plain enough – “We’re going back to basics”: A simpler, largely national economy, protected from foreign competition by customs barriers. Call it ‘old- fashioned’ (the concepts have been written about for the last 200 years); yet it is nothing extreme. The notions simply reflect the flip side of the coin to Adam Smith’s doctrines, and that which Friedrich List advanced in his critique of the laissez-faire individualist approach of the Anglo-Americans.

‘European leaders’, however, see the economic paradigm solution differently:

“The ECB’s Panetta gave a speech echoing Mario Draghi’s call for “radical change”: He stated for the EU to thrive it needs a de facto national-security focused POLITICAL economy centered around: reducing dependence on foreign demand; enhancing energy security (green protectionism); advancing production of technology (industrial policy); rethinking participation in global value chains (tariffs/subsidies); governing migration flows (so higher labour costs); enhancing external security (huge funds for defence); and joint investments in European public goods (via Eurobonds … to be bought by ECB QE)”.

The ‘false dawn’ boom in U.S. financial services began as its industrial base was rotting away, and as new wars began to be promoted.

It is easy to see that the U.S. economy now needs structural change. Its real economy has become globally uncompetitive – hence Yellen’s call on China to curb its over-capacity which is hurting western economies.

But is it realistic to think that Europe can manage a relaunch as a ‘defence and national security-led political economy’, as Draghi and Panetta advocate as a continuation of war with Russia? Launched from near ground zero?

Is it realistic to think that the American Security State will allow Europe to do this, having deliberately reduced Europe to economic vassalage through causing it to abandon its prior business model based on cheap energy and selling high-end engineering products to China?

This Draghi-ECB plan represents a huge structural change; one that would take a decade or two to implement and would cost trillions. It would occur too, at a time of inevitable European fiscal austerity. Is there evidence that ordinary Europeans support such radical structural change?

Why then is Europe pursuing a path that embraces huge risks – one that potentially could drag Europe into a whirlpool of tensions ending in war with Russia?

For one main reason: The EU leadership held hubristic ambitions to turn the EU into a ‘geo-political’ empire – a global actor with the heft to join the U.S. at Top Table. To this end, the EU unreservedly offered itself as the auxiliary of the White House Team for their Ukraine project, and acquiesced to the entry price of emptying their armouries and sanctioning the cheap energy on which the economy depended.

It was this decision that has been de-industrialising Europe; that has made what remains of a real economy uncompetitive and triggered the inflation that is undermining living standards. Falling into line with Washington’s failing Ukraine project has released a cascade of disastrous decisions by the EU.

Were this policy line to change, Europe could revert to what it was: a trading association formed of diverse sovereign states. Many Europeans would settle for that: Placing the focus on making Europe competitive again; making Europe a diplomatic actor, rather than as a military actor.

Do Europeans even want to be at the American ‘top table’?

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US military’s pier in Gaza to cost $320m

MEMO | April 29, 2024

The US military’s cost estimate to build a pier off Gaza to deliver humanitarian aid has risen to $320 million, a US defence official and a source familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The figure illustrates the massive scale of a construction effort that the Pentagon has said involves about 1,000 US service members, mostly from the Army and Navy.

Still, the cost has roughly doubled from initial estimates earlier this year, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“The cost has not just risen. It has exploded,” Senator Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Democratic-led Senate Armed Services Committee, told Reuters.

“This dangerous effort with marginal benefit will now cost the American taxpayers at least $320 million to operate the pier for only 90 days.”

Democratic President Joe Biden announced the pier in March as aid officials implored Israel to ease access for relief supplies into Gaza over land routes. Biden opted for a sea route for the delivery of aid rather than press Israel to open land borders with Gaza and allow aid into the Strip which is experiencing a “man-made famine”.

Wicker and some other lawmakers have questioned whether the pier is a worthwhile endeavour, particularly given the risk that US military personnel could face if they were targeted during the war.

“For every day this mission continues, the price tag goes up and so does the level of risk for the 1,000 deployed troops within range of Hamas’ rockets,” Wicker said.

Biden has ordered US forces to not step foot on the Gaza shore.

The pier will initially handle 90 trucks a day, but that number could go up to 150 trucks daily when it is fully operational. The United Nations said last week that the daily average number of trucks entering Gaza during April was 200. They have also repeatedly warned that there can be no alternative to a land route for the delivery of aid, adding that though aid being delivered by sea may help Palestinians in Gaza, the amount arriving will be insufficient to stop the spread of famine.

A senior Biden administration official said last week that humanitarian aid coming off the pier will need to pass through Israeli checkpoints on land.

That is despite the aid having already been inspected by Israel in Cyprus before being shipped to Gaza.

The prospect of checkpoints raises questions about possible delays even after aid reaches shore. The United Nations has long complained of obstacles to getting aid in and distributing it throughout Gaza.

Israel stands accused of genocide at the Internatinal Court of Justice (ICJ), which in an interim ruling in January, called on the occupation state to ensure no genocidal acts are carried out by its officials or army and to allow for the unhindered delivery of aid to civilians in Gaza.

Palestinians fear the US pier will be used to forcibly displaced civilians from Gaza or to commandeer the occupied territory’s offshore natural resources.

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Tracing the origins of Zionist lobby’s malign influence on American academia

By Ivan Kesic | Press TV | April 29, 2024

The ruthless police crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests in universities across the United States is a continuation of years of silent repression and malign Zionist influence on American academia.

More than 20 universities in the US are protesting against the genocidal Israeli war on Gaza, where nearly 34,500 people have been killed since October last year, mostly women and children.

According to reports, more than 900 people have been arrested on US campuses since April 18 when a pro-Palestinian encampment at Columbia University in New York was forcefully removed by police.

The police were called by university president Nemat Minouche Shafik to dismantle the tent encampment set up on campus, which triggered a massive outcry from students and faculty members.

The unwarranted police action against students at Columbia University led to the expansion of protests to other university campuses including Yale University in Connecticut, City University in New York, Northeastern University in Boston, Arizona State University in Phoenix, Indiana University in Bloomington, Washington University in St Louis, University of Texas in Texas and University of California in Los Angeles among others.

Like Columbia, the University of Texas president Jay Hartzell also faced a strong backlash from students and faculty members on Friday after he called in police to break up the pro-Palestinian demonstration.

Hundreds of Texas University faculty members signed a letter expressing no confidence in Hartzell for “needlessly putting students, staff and faculty in danger” after riot police moved against protesters.

The protesting students and professors are calling for universities to divest and disassociate themselves from companies that are aiding the occupying regime’s no-holds-barred aggression on Gaza.

The US police, known for its notoriety, has responded with brute violence, drawing anger and outrage.

According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’, a major monograph on the influence of the Israel lobby in the US, the Zionist influence on academia has faced more problems than politics, media and think tanks.

The origins of Zionist influence on US academia

The origins of the Israeli lobby’s influence can be traced to the late 1970s when the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) monitored campus activities and trained young advocates for Israel.

AIPAC, along with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), also recruited students to help them identify professors and campus organizations with anti-Israel positions, which they would document in dossiers and then systematically slander in their publications.

Toward the end of the 20th century, these lobby groups did not pay much attention to shaping the discussion at universities because the Oslo peace process was underway, with little violence in the occupied territories, and consequently with less criticism of the Israeli regime’s policies.

However, at the beginning of the new century when peace negotiations failed, the extremists led by Ariel Sharon took the helm of the Israeli regime and the Second Intifada ensued, the criticism at higher education institutions in the United States became much stronger and more intense.

The Israeli lobby, exerting considerable influence, responded with an aggressive attempt to “take back the campuses,” and the most important organization in that campaign was once again AIPAC, which more than tripled its spending on pro-Israel college programs.

According to AIPAC leadership at the time, these funds were intended to significantly expand the number of students involved in activities in favor of the Israeli regime on campuses, their competence, and their involvement in the national pro-Israel effort.

Hundreds of students were sent to AIPAC all-expenses-paid courses in Washington DC where they received intensive advocacy training, and they were instructed to concentrate on networking with campus leaders of all kinds and winning them over to promote the regime’s cause.

The multi-year campaign resulted in annual AIPAC Policy Conferences being attended by over 1,200 students from 400 colleges and universities across the US, including 150 student body presidents.

Simultaneously, this campaign to cultivate students has been accompanied by efforts to influence university faculty and hiring practices.

Israel lobby groups involved in US academia

In addition to AIPAC, other pro-Israel lobby groups have also been involved in pro-Israel campaigns at American universities, notably the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), an umbrella organization for the coordination of 26 different Zionist groups in US universities.

Although the ICC is not registered under the required Foreign Agent Registration Act, its leadership admitted that they have close ties and coordinate actions with Israel’s ministry of strategic affairs.

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) likewise initiated a series of advocacy training sessions for college students with the aim of defending the Israeli regime on their campuses.

A similar role was played by the David Project (TDP), which partnered with Christians United for Israel (CUFI), organizing training programs for students to agitate for Zionism.

The founder of the David Project was an Islamophobe who advocated banning the construction of mosques on American soil and co-founder of CAMERA, another Zionist group involved in smearing pro-Palestinian students on campuses.

New groups also emerged, such as the Caravan for Democracy (CFD), which brought Israeli settlers to speak at American universities, promoting the farce of Israel as “the only democracy in the region.”

The website Campus Watch, an affiliate of the Middle East Forum (MEF), was also established, whose dossiers continued AIPAC’s tradition of publicly defaming all campus critics of Israeli politics.

Press TV website in July 2023 published an investigation on how the Middle East Forum has shaped into a hardline Zionist and anti-Muslim think tank, founded by Daniel Pipes in 1990.

Its website stated that its mission is to “promote American interests in the Middle East (West Asia) and protect Western values from Middle Eastern threats”, secretly serving the Zionist agenda.

Rodney Martin, a former Congressional staffer, says the AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups in the US have successfully placed a chokehold on the US government.

American-Israeli agendas at work

The ICC and the TDP were actively engaged in pressuring American universities to reject multimillion-dollar donations from Muslim governments to Islamic studies programs, characterizing them as “anti-American.”

On the other hand, under the guise of expanding cultural cooperation and with the true goal of whitewashing the regime, Zionist megadonors launched a series of so-called “Israel studies” programs at American universities.

Fred Lafer and Sheldon Adelson, donors to such programs at New York University and Georgetown University, respectively, admitted that their motivation was to counter the Arab viewpoint at those institutions, referring to the pro-Palestine position.

After the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) spread across American colleges and universities, Adelson raised an additional 50 million in a secret summit in 2015 to fight the movement.

According to him, the funds raised were to go to operations on US campuses to fight the BDS movement and to “researchers” who would supply information about groups on campuses critical of Israel and recommend possible legal avenues to block their activities.

The precise amount of donations to American universities is difficult to determine because dozens of donors and Zionist charities regularly pay millions and some are given anonymously.

In the case of the University of Pennsylvania alone, pro-Israel lobbyists Marc Rowan and Ross Stevens are known to have donated 50 million and 100 million respectively.

AIPAC, the group that enjoys maximum influence on American academia, received about 12 million monthly donations before the start of the war in Gaza, and the receipts have multiplied since then.

Last month, prominent progressive organizations in the US formed a coalition to defend lawmakers targeted by the powerful AIPAC and counter its sway in US Congress.

Pertinently, one of the key but underreported factors of the unwavering US support for the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza is the overwhelming presence of Zionist Jews in the Biden administration.

The Zionist Jewishness of Biden’s cabinet was pointed out recently by The Forward, a progressive media for a Jewish American audience, as well as the Israeli right-wing newspaper Times of Israel.

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Malala slammed for collaboration with Clinton, cheerleader of Gaza genocide

By Humaira Ahad | Press TV | April 29, 2024

Dressed in traditional Shalwar Kameez, with her hair loosely covered, the youngest Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai recently shared the stage with former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the release of a musical about women’s suffrage in the US.

Born in the Swat district of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Malala rose to international fame after she was shot in the head by masked militants while she boarded her school bus in October 2012.

She then left her home country and settled in the UK, where she has been living in Birmingham.

Malala is known for lending her voice to campaigns related to children and education. However, her silence over the killing of children in Gaza and the bombing of schools has enraged her followers.

Her decision to collaborate with Clinton, the self-proclaimed votary of the Israeli regime whose country and party have been deeply complicit in the genocide unfolding in Gaza, came under fire.

The duo made their Broadway production debut this month with the “Suffs”, a Broadway musical about the early 20th-century suffragette movement in the US, which sparked outrage as people accused Malala of blatant double standards.

Many questioned her silence over the killing of more than 34,400 Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip, including more than 15,000 children, while sharing the stage with cheerleaders of the genocide.

Branded as a ‘sell-out’ on social media, netizens described Malala as a factotum for partnering with the former US Secretary of State on the music project.

Importantly, the United States has been supplying lethal weapons worth billions of dollars to the Israeli regime, which are used to slaughter Palestinians in Gaza.

President Joe Biden, who, like Malala, is a member of the Democratic Party, has gone out of his way to defend the Benjamin Netanyahu regime’s genocidal onslaught on Gaza, including the murder of civilians and the bombing of hospitals and schools.

After coming under blistering fire for sharing the stage with the former US presidential candidate while maintaining silence over the Israeli-American war on Gaza, Malala swung into damage control mode.

The 26-year-old took to social media to condemn Israel’s aggression on Palestine.

“I wanted to speak today because I want there to be no confusion about my support for the people of Gaza. We have all watched the relentless atrocities against Palestinian people for more than six months now with anger and despair. This week’s news of mass graves discovered at Gaza’s Nasser and al-Shifa hospitals is yet another reminder of the horrors Palestinians are facing,” she wrote on X.

“It is hard enough to watch from afar – l don’t know how Palestinians bear it in their bones. We do not need to see more dead bodies, bombed schools and starving children to understand that a ceasefire is urgent and necessary. I have and will continue to condemn the Israeli government for its violations of international law and war crimes, and I applaud efforts by those determined to hold them to account. Publicly and privately, I will keep calling on world leaders to push for a ceasefire and to ensure the delivery of urgent humanitarian aid,” she added.

The statement, according to critics, was an attempt to appease her legions of supporters scattered across the world who have in recent days and weeks been critical of her silence over Gaza.

Malala’s public appearance with Clinton only added fuel to the already raging fire of anger and outrage as people around the world, including her supporters, lashed out at her.

Clinton, who is co-producing the musical with the Pakistan-born education activist, has been quite outspoken about her support for the occupying regime in Tel Aviv.

Last November, she wrote an op-ed for The Atlantic arguing against a complete ceasefire in Gaza. She said that a ceasefire would “perpetuate the cycle of violence” in the war-torn region.

“A full cease-fire that leaves Hamas in power would be a mistake,” she wrote at the time.

The former first lady of the US also labeled criticism against the Zionist regime as “antisemitic”

In a 2005 speech to “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee” (AIPAC), Clinton defended Israel’s move to build a barrier wall inside the occupied West Bank.

The move was deemed illegal even by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004. The ICJ had said that Israel should dismantle the wall and should pay reparation to those individuals who had suffered as a consequence of the construction of the wall.

In 2006, when the regime was bombing Lebanon and Gaza, Clinton praised the bombardment at a pro-Israel rally in New York.

During her presidential campaign in 2008, Clinton’s staunch support for Israel was clearly evident.

In a letter in July 2015, she vowed to combat the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) movement, urging the need to “make countering BDS a priority” and“fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel.”

“I am very concerned by attempts to compare Israel to South African apartheid. Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival,” she wrote in that letter.

In August 2015, Clinton again bragged about her staunch support for the illegitimate regime in an op-ed published in a Jewish newspaper. I “stood with Israel my entire career,” she said.

Besides her unwavering support for Israel, the top diplomat in the Obama administration oversaw a campaign of deadly American drone strikes targeting tribal areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

These drone strikes killed hundreds of civilians in Malala’s home region of Swat, propelling online criticism against the youngest Nobel Laureate’s partnership with Clinton.

Since its inception, the Nobel Prize has been a farce as the award was born out of a blunder.

A French daily in 1888 carried a story of Alfred Nobel’s death, after whom the award is named.

The newspaper wrote, “Dr Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday.” Petrified by the thought that he would be remembered as a “death trader”, Nobel set up the foundation for the Nobel Prize, an activity to rebrand himself.

On his TV show ‘Have it Out With Galloway’, George Galloway, a British parliamentarian while responding to a panelist on whether Iran or Houthis should get Nobel Peace Prize this year, said: “Neither will get the prize as you have to be a warmonger for the empire to get that prize.”

The selection process for the Nobel Peace prize has been shady, reducing the whole process to a farce. The people who get the prize are either war criminals or stooges of the imperialist empire.

In 1973, one of history’s most vicious war criminals Henry Kissinger, was a co-recipient of the prize with Vietnamese Le DucTho for the “peace agreement” that did not achieve peace and the Vietnam war continued.

Tho, however, turned down the controversial award. While negotiating the “peace agreement”, Kissinger was also carpet-bombing Cambodia.

Former US President Barack Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. In Obama’s tenure as the president of the US, there were at least ten times more air strikes in the so-called “war on terror” than under his predecessor, George Bush.

A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Hundreds of people were killed in these strikes.

Another farcical Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Shimon Peres in 1994, who shared that with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. Peres, one of the founding fathers of the apartheid regime, systematically helped the regime to bolster its nuclear capabilities.

Peres launched two full-scale wars against the Gaza Strip, killing more than 3,700 Palestinians.

Under him, Israel shelled a United Nations compound near Qana, a village in southern Lebanon. The raid killed 106 people and injured around 116 others.

Bushra Shaikh, a London-based political commentator and analyst, in a post on X, said Malala’s case as someone with brown skin used as an operative is an old practice employed by the West:

“Malala Yousafzai working as an agent for the West isn’t new. Her selective activism for women and girls fails to extend to ALL. A personal struggle soon engineered into a Brown face actor for dollar bills. We’ve seen this happen time and time again.”

Zaman from India questioned the Nobel Laureates’ meeting with Clinton, a staunch supporter of Israel’s genocide in Gaza:

“It’s disheartening to see Malala Yousafzai cozying up to war criminals. Meeting with Hillary raises serious questions about her commitment to justice & human rights. She should be using her platform to hold accountable those responsible for violence and oppression, not rubbing shoulders with them.”

Based in California, US, Maryam regarded Malala as a performer activist whose activities bring forth her reality:

“Never forget I was bullied on every platform for weeks for calling Malala Yousafzai a performative activist 3 years ago. And she keeps proving me right without me doing ANYTHING… truth will always come out.”

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

China rejects US election interference claims

RT | April 29, 2024

China’s foreign ministry has shot down allegations by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that it interferes in American elections, accusing Blinken of “paranoia and shadow-chasing.”

Upon returning from a visit to China on Friday, Blinken told CNN that the US government had seen attempts by Beijing to manipulate US elections. “We have seen, generally speaking, evidence of attempts to influence and arguably interfere. And we want to make sure that’s cut off as quickly as possible,” he told host Kylie Atwood.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian rejected these allegations at a press conference on Monday. “Non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs is a basic principle for China’s diplomacy,” Lin told reporters.

“The US presidential election is the US’ internal affair,” he continued. “We have never had any interest and will not interfere in any way in the election. Nevertheless, we staunchly reject anyone making an issue of China and damaging China’s interests for election purposes.”

“The US needs to stop the paranoia and shadow-chasing, stop slinging mud at China to divert attention and deflect the blame, and contribute to a stable China-US relationship and the wellbeing of our two peoples,” Lin concluded.

American politicians often accuse foreign nations of interfering in US elections, with the now-debunked claim that Russia intervened to help Donald Trump clinch the presidency in 2016 spiralling into an espionage operation against Trump’s campaign and a years-long probe by the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller.

Trump and President Joe Biden have both accused China of similar meddling attempts, with Biden pressing Chinese President Xi Jinping on the issue during a meeting in San Francisco in November. According to CNN, Xi promised Biden that China would not interfere in this year’s presidential election.

US spies insist that Xi’s promise was a hollow one. In a threat assessment published in February, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claimed that Chinese operatives aim “to sow doubts about US leadership, undermine democracy, and extend Beijing’s influence” through information operations and possible election meddling.

“Even if Beijing sets limits on these activities, individuals not under its direct supervision may attempt election influence activities they perceive are in line with Beijing’s goals,” the document stated.

According to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, such accusations are rooted in American insecurity over China’s rising economic and military might. Pointing to Washington’s espionage allegations, sanctions, and trade restrictions, Wang said in March that its “methods of suppressing China are constantly being renewed.”

“The challenge for the United States comes from itself, not from China. If the United States is obsessed with suppressing China, it will eventually harm itself,” Wang told reporters in Beijing.

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , | 1 Comment

“Disinformation Czar” Jankowicz Returns as Head of New Project Before Election

By Jonathan Turley | April 29, 2024

Nina Jankowicz  is back . . . with a vengeance. The former head of the infamous “Disinformation Governance Board” within the Department of Homeland Security is now heading a private disinformation group called the American Sunlight Project. With a close election looming in November, Jankowicz has found funding to “to expose and oppose efforts to weaponize disinformation in the United States.” The establishment of the group is only the latest example of how many in politics and media are doubling down on efforts to paint opposing views as dangerous for democracy as the nation readies for a historic election.

Jankowicz promises that “Once researchers are free to conduct their essential work, the American people will gain a better understanding of the nature and severity of the disinformation threats we face,” she said. “Disinformation knows no political party. Its ultimate victim is our democracy.”

It is not clear who has funded the new project in an election year. However, the co-founder  is Carlos Álvarez-Aranyos, who is best known for his association with Protect Democracy, a group viewed by many as an anti-Trump and highly political outfit. Protect Democracy sued the Trump campaign based on the debunked Russian collusion claims that “the Trump Campaign conspired with Russian agents and Wikileaks to strategically disseminate the information Russia had hacked and that, in exchange, the Campaign would help Russia advance its foreign policy goals.”

The lawsuit was dismissed.

Many would call that lawsuit and the Russian collusion claims to be “disinformation,” but there is a clear bias in what is given this designation by groups pushing blacklists and censorship.

For example, according to an investigation by the Washington Examiner, the federal government helped to fund the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which discourages advertisers from supporting sites accused of promoting disinformation.

All 10 of the sites that GDI claimed were the riskiest are popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. GDI warned advertisers that they were accepting “reputational and brand risk” by “financially supporting disinformation online.”

The “risky” sites included Reason, a libertarian-oriented source of news and commentary about the government. Conversely, HuffPost, a far left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation. (GDI included USA TODAY in this group.)

I have been a long critic of Jankowicz, who became an instant Internet sensation due to a musical number in which she sang “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation” in a TikTok parody of the song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” She later moved to join a European group as a foreign agent to continue her work to block views that she considers disinformation.

Jankowicz portrays herself as a defender of free speech who opposed efforts to censor viewpoints. As one of her critics, I strongly contest that self-portrayal.

When she was appointed the executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board in April 2022, she was tasked with combating “disinformation” on subjects ranging from the U.S. southern border to other forms of disinformation.

While Jankowicz objects to the “overly personalized, false, and incendiary coverage of me,” it is only the false part that is actionable. Coverage is allowed to be “personalized” and even “incendiary” so long as it is true or protected opinion.

She was previously criticized for allegedly spreading disinformation and advocating censorship.

Jankowicz previously argued that Congress should create new laws to block mockery of women online by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and including “provisions against online gender-based harassment.”

Jankowicz testified before the British House of Parliament about “gender misinformation” being a “national security concern” and a threat to democracy requiring government censorship.

She demanded that both tech companies and government should work together using “creativity and technological prowess to make a pariah of online misogyny.”

On the Hunter Biden laptop, Jankowicz pushed the false narrative that it was a false story and that “we should view it as a Trump campaign product.” She continued to spread that disinformation, including tweeting a link to a news article that she said cast “yet more doubt on the provenance of the NY Post’s Hunter Biden story.” In another tweet, she added “not to mention that the emails don’t need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. Voters deserve that context, not a [fairy] tale about a laptop repair shop.”

She even cited the author of the infamous Steele Dossier as a guide for how to deal with disinformation. In August 2020, Jankowicz tweeted “Listened to this last night – Chris Steele (yes THAT Chris Steele) provides some great historical context about the evolution of disinfo. Worth a listen.” The Steele Dossier was viewed by American intelligence as relying on a suspected Russian agent as a source. These officials warned that it was itself used as a possible Russian disinformation vehicle.

She also joined the panic over the Musk threat to reintroduce free speech values to Twitter. In an interview on NPR, she stated “I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities.”

In addition to her co-founder’s past advocacy, Jankowicz assembled a board that has been challenged as showing past bias. Two of the four members have close ties to Brookings Institution that was deeply involved in the Russian collusion hoax.

The new project is expected to follow the same transparently biased judgments over what is “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation” (MDM) from the Biden Administration. The government has used this rationale to coordinate censorship in what it has called the “MDM space.”

For example, within DHS, Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” I testified earlier on this effort.

Jankowicz famously sang how “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation.” Once again, when it comes to the use of disinformation to effectively silence others, Nina Jankowicz remains “practically perfect in every way.”

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

TikTok Hypocrisy

By Ron Paul | April 29, 2024

President Biden’s campaign will continue using the popular social media site TikTok even though the president supported a provision in the military aid bill he recently signed forcing TikTok’s parent company ByteDance to sell TikTok within 270 days. If ByteDance does not sell TikTok within the required time, TikTok will be banned in the USA. Biden’s continued use of TikTok to reach the approximately 150 million American TikTok users, is not the only example of hypocrisy from politicians who support the TikTok ban.

The TikTok ban was driven by claims that, because ByteDance is a Chinese company, TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government and, thus. is helping the Chinese government collect data on American citizens. However, the only tie ByteDance has to the Chinese government is via a Chinese government controlled company that owns a small amount of stock in a separate ByteDance operation. Furthermore, ByteDance stores its data in an American facility not accessible by the Chinese government.

Just days before passing the TikTok ban, the same Senate that is so concerned about TikTok’s alleged violations of Americans’ privacy passed the FISA reauthorization bill. This bill not only extended existing authorities for warrantless wiretapping and surveillance, it made it easier for government agencies to spy on American citizens. It did this by requiring anyone with access to a targeted individual’s electronic device to cooperate with intelligence agencies.

Supporters of banning TikTok also cited concerns over the site’s “content moderation” policies. These policies reportedly forbid postings embarrassing to the Chinese government such as some related to the 1989 Tiananmen Square confrontation or the Free Tibet movement.

TikTok, like most social media platforms, engages in content moderation. The TikTok ban was supported by Democrats, including President Biden, who have a history of “encouraging” social media companies to censor Americans from using social media to spread “fake news.”

Fake news is defined as anything that contradicts the Democrat or “woke” agenda, including the truth about covid origins, dangers, and treatments; whether democracy was really threatened on January 6; and the full story of Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

One major reason behind strong bipartisan support for the TikTok ban is the wish to engage in a cold war with China. ByteDance’s Chinese connection makes it a convenient target to help foster anti-Chinese sentiment. Sadly, the anti-Chinese hysteria is a bipartisan phenomenon and has even infected some politicians who take sensible positions on US intervention in Ukraine.

Another major reason banning TikTok has strong bipartisan support is that the site is being used by many young people to share information on the Israeli government’s action in Gaza. The head of the Anti-Defamation League was actually caught on tape complaining about the “TikTok problem.” This use of TikTok made TikTok a target for the many politicians who think the First Amendment makes an exception for speech critical of Israel.

The silver lining in the TikTok ban is it is waking up more Americans, especially young Americans, to the threat the out-of-control welfare-warfare-surveillance state poses to their liberty and prosperity. This provides a great opportunity to spread the ideas of liberty and grow the liberty movement.

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine Continues Assault on Human Rights as Western Sponsors Turn a Blind Eye

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 29.04.2024

President Joe Biden has touted the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine as a “battle between democracy and autocracy,” overlooking Kiev’s backsliding on elections (which have been canceled), and political, speech, and religious rights and freedoms (which have been curtailed). Now, observers fear that an even more severe clampdown may be on the horizon.

The Ukrainian government has updated its European colleagues on the terms of its partial suspension of Ukraine’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In a “Notification of Partial Withdrawal of Derogation” notice dated April 4, 2024 and published on the Council of Europe’s website, Ukraine’s permanent representation to the Council of Europe informed its colleagues about “the derogation measures” (i.e. exemptions) from its international commitments on human, civil, political, religious, and labor rights in connection with the martial law measures enforced across the country.

The notice reviewed Ukrainian authorities’ February 2022 decision to partially or fully suspend a number of rights under the country’s constitution, including:

  • guarantees on the inviolability of the home, the rights to privacy in communications, non-interference in personal and family life, freedom of movement, freedom of choice of place of residence;
  • the right to freely leave and enter Ukraine, freedom of thought and speech, the right to free expression, the right to collect, store, use, and disseminate information, the right to participate in the management of public affairs and referendums, to freely elect and be elected to state and local bodies, to receive equal access to public services;
  • the right to hold meetings, rallies, marches, and demonstrations, the right to strike, the right to own, use, and dispose of property, the right to entrepreneurship and work, and the right to education.

In connection with the introduction of martial law, the state granted itself the right:

  • “to compulsorily alienate privately or communally owned property for the needs of the state”;
  • “to introduce curfew (a ban on staying on the streets and in other public places during certain periods of time without specially issued passes and certificates)”;
  • “to establish a special regime of entry and exit in accordance with a certain procedure, to restrict the freedom of movement of citizens, foreigners and stateless persons, as well as the movement of vehicles”;
  • “to inspect the belongings, vehicles, baggage and cargo, office premises and homes of citizens”;
  • “to prohibit peaceful assemblies, rallies, marches, demonstrations and other mass events”;
  • “to establish in accordance with a certain procedure, a ban or restriction on the choice of place of stay or place of residence in the territory where martial law is in force”;
  • “to prohibit citizens registered with the military or special registry to change their place of residence (place of stay) without proper permission”;
  • and other measures.

The notification to the Council of Europe was accompanied by an extract from “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” legislation of May 12, 2015 (one year into the conflict in Donbass), which established the “temporary restrictions on constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen” outlined above, as well as additional measures, including:

  • forcible “labor duty for able-bodied persons not involved in defense and critical infrastructure protection and not reserved for enterprises, institutions and organizations for the period of martial law in order to perform defense-related work and to eliminate the consequences of emergencies that occurred during the period of martial law”;
  • the right of the state “to use the capacities and labor resources of enterprises, institutions and organizations of all forms of ownership for defense purposes, change their working hours, and make other changes to production activities and working conditions in accordance with labor legislation”;
  • the power “to compulsorily alienate privately or municipally owned property, seize property of state-owned enterprises and state economic associations for the needs of the state under martial law”;
  • the authority “to raise the issue of banning the activities of political parties and public associations in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, if they are aimed at eliminating the independence of Ukraine”;
  • the right of authorities “to set restrictions on electronic communications, print media, publishing houses, broadcasters, and other cultural and media institutions, and enable their use “for military needs and for conducting explanatory work among the military and the population”;
  • the power “to establish a special regime in the field of the production and sale of medicinal products containing narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors, other potent substances, the list of which is determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”;
  • the right of the state to “intern (forcibly settle) citizens of a foreign state that threaten to attack or carries out aggression against Ukraine”;
  • and other measures.

In practice, the extensive suspension of civil, political, religious, property, and other rights means that the Ukrainian government has granted itself virtually unlimited authority to seize property, listen in on private conversations with loved ones, restrict freedom of movement (particularly for males aged 18-60), detain people indefinitely without charge, and interfere with people’s rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and even worship.

Kiev submitted its initial derogation to European and international human, civil, and political rights conventions in March of 2022 – about a month after the escalation of the crisis in Donbass into a full-fledged NATO-Russia proxy war across the whole of Ukraine.

The update submitted in April formally repeals the derogation on articles related to forced labor, arbitrary detention, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and the freedom of peaceful assembly, but the others remain in place.

Russian and international observers, human rights organizations, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have pointed to an alarming uptick in human, civil, and political rights violations in Ukraine over the past two years – from the banning of political parties deemed disloyal to the Zelensky regime, to the cancellation of elections, the persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, torture, and other abuses.

In March, a US State Department report outlined “significant human rights issues involving Ukrainian government officials,” ranging from “enforced disappearance, torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, arbitrary arrest or detention,” and more.

The report highlighted “serious problems with the independence of [Ukraine’s] judiciary, restrictions on freedom of expression, including for members of the media, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship, serious restrictions on internet freedom, substantial interference with the freedoms of peaceful assembly and associated, restrictions on freedom of movement, serious government corruption, extensive gender-based violence, systematic restrictions on workers’ freedom of associated, and the existence of the worst forms of child labor.”

“Some of these human rights issues stemmed from martial law,” the State Department report indicated, adding that “the government often did not take adequate steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed abuses.”

Threat to Itself and Neighbors

“Gross violation of human rights” are being committed at the hands of Ukraine’s authorities and its military affecting not only the country itself, but its neighbors as well, says Vladimir Yevseyev, a Russian military analyst from the Moscow-based Institute of Commonwealth of Independent States.

“The latest vivid example of this is the murder of civilians in Avdeyevka. During demining operations, the bodies of civilians were found with their hands tied behind their backs with tape. They were all killed. This example shows the true state of the observance of human rights in Ukraine, their military’s crimes. Therefore, there isn’t even anything to discuss here,” Yevseyev told Sputnik.

More interesting than the violations themselves is the reaction of Kiev’s Western curators, the observer argues.

Pointing to the State Department report on “significant human rights issues involving Ukrainian government officials,” Yevseyev suggested that it may indicate “some kind of internal political struggle” within the Washington establishment “against the backdrop of the election campaign,” and perhaps part of a general “internal political interdepartmental struggle” as the extent of Kiev’s violations becomes increasingly difficult to conceal.

Accordingly, Yevseyev doesn’t rule out that Kiev may have decided to update its exemptions from European and international human, civil, and political rights conventions to counter this criticism, citing the excuse of the ongoing war effort.

In any case, the observer has no doubt that the Ukrainian state and military will continue to do what they have been doing, and that Kiev’s sponsors “will continue to turn a blind eye to all the violations that took place, at least before the presidential election” in the US, which will play the decisive role.

The decision to update the list of derogation measures is also likely connected to the extensive factual basis presented to international organizations on the violations taking place in Ukraine.

“Everyone knows,” for example, “how many people are in prison on politically motivated charges,” Yevseyev noted, saying this is “getting harder and hider to hide.” Accordingly, the partial derogation allows Ukraine to avoid legal reproach.

As for the implications of Kiev’s moves, and whether they will lead to a further deterioration of human, civil and political rights in Kiev, Yevseyev believes it will make little difference so long as Ukraine’s European and American sponsors continue to cover for them, and continue to prop up the Zelensky regime.

“The situation can be radically changed only through a change of regime. [The Zelensky] regime is totalitarian. Violations of human rights are the norm of behavior, rather than something provocative. The West, naturally, cannot admit that the regime is totalitarian. Therefore, they are forced to turn a blind eye to the massive violations of human rights that are taking place,” Yevseyev said.

The observer expects the situation to continue to deteriorate along with the deterioration of the socio-economic situation in Ukraine, and doesn’t rule out growing violence as ordinary Ukrainians fight back against the state – for example by killing officials from recruitment offices after the expansion of forcible mobilization measures.

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Alleged Chinese spy working for AfD MEP Krah was an informant for German intelligence for years

‘Remarkable turn of events!’

By John Cody | Remix News | April 29, 2024

The news about Alternative for Germany (AfD) MEP Maximilian Krah’s assistant and his arrest for suspected espionage on behalf of China continues to make national headlines, but as more information comes out, the more German intelligence and the political establishment continue to look worse and worse.

Now, news reports have revealed that Krah’s employee, Chinese-German national Jian G., worked for the German domestic intelligence service for years before joining the AfD politician.

Krah has since commented on the new bombshell information, writing on X: “Remarkable turn of events!”

Much is at stake, as Krah is the top candidate for the AfD in the run-up to the EU parliamentary elections in June. The latest report shows that the powerful Office for the Protection of Constitution (BfV) not only recruited Jian G. as a spy, but also dropped him as an informant because there were concerns he was a double agent for China.

However, despite these suspicions, Jian G. gained German citizenship, became a member of the Social Democrats (SPD), and even passed the EU parliament’s security clearance.

Former minister Mathias Brodkorb questioned the story on X, writing:

They are really funny. Let’s assume the story is true:

1. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution is working with the man.

2. Then, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution ends the collaboration because the man could be a double agent.

3. Then the German state naturalizes this agent.

Intermediate question: Where was the Office for the Protection of the Constitution at that time?

4. Then, Krah wants to hire the man as an employee of the EU parliament. That cannot be done without a security check. So the EU parliament should actually have asked the German security authorities whether there was anything against the man. But apparently they didn’t. Otherwise, the man would not have been cleared and could not have been hired.

Intermediate question: Where was the Office for the Protection of the Constitution at that time? And you are now seriously asking what the problem is? Seriously?

One of the main questions is why the Office for the Protection of the Constitution never informed Krah or the AfD about their suspicions, which is standard operating procedure, and one designed to protect the country’s parties from foreign infiltration. Notably, allowing Jian G. to work for Krah created a favorable political scenario for the establishment to later arrest him in order to smear the AfD. Notably, Jian G. was arrested right before EU parliamentary elections.

The question now is whether the BfV purposefully kept the AfD in the dark for years about the information it knew in order to damage the party.

Working for the BfV all the way back in 2007

According to Bild newspaper, Jian G. was an informant for the Saxon Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) since 2007 at the earliest. Previously, he had unsuccessfully offered to work for the federal branch of the BfV, but he was rejected, and referred back to the Saxon branch of the BfV.

Jian G. reportedly worked with the intelligence service on his own initiative, including supplying information that dealt with Chinese state actors taking action against Chinese exiles in Germany. Eight years after joining the Saxon BfV as an informant, the Saxon branch was informed by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution that G. could be a double spy.

In 2015 and 2016, G. was then directly observed by the counterintelligence department of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Officers also questioned him about their suspicions but were unable to prove that he was a spy for China. He was therefore listed as a “suspected case” during that period.

In 2018, G. was finally removed as an informant by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

However, by that time, Jian G. had already made contact with Krah and then went on to work as his employee in the EU parliament beginning in 2019. He was then intensively monitored by the domestic intelligence service from 2020 and finally arrested in April 2024.

As noted above, despite the suspicion of espionage, the Chinese national was granted a German passport, was also a member of the SPD for a time, and was able to pass the security check for the EU parliament.

In addition, the BfV under Thomas Haldenwang (CDU), who is notoriously anti-AfD and publicly working against the party, failed to inform Krah or the AfD about the suspicion of espionage against Jian G.

As Remix News has documented, Haldenwang has made numerous remarks against the AfD, including on state-funded television, all in violation of neutrality. Haldenwang belongs to the CDU party.

Notably, this is standard procedure in such cases, which means the Office for the Protection of the Constitution withheld this information from the AfD in violation of past precedent and procedure.

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | | Leave a comment

Western media sees spies and saboteurs everywhere

By Patrick Poppel | April 29, 2024

An article entitled “Spies and Saboteurs” was published in the NZZ (Neue Züricher Zeitung). This choice of words reminds us very much of the time of the Second World War. A Russian agent is now suspected behind every corner in Europe. There were even reports of planned attacks by the Russian secret service on German soil. But most of the allegations concern disinformation and cyberattacks that are intended to destabilize Germany from Russia.

This article in the so-called “quality medium” is not an isolated case in the media world of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Just a few days ago there was a scandal in Austria because an employee of the secret service was accused of working as a spy for Russia. Whether this is true or not, this person was immediately shown to be close to the opposition FPÖ party. In many Austrian media, bizarre connections to other political figures were described, without being able to prove this. The target of this report was clearly not this “agent” but the opposition party.

This anti-Russian opinion formation now flanks the anti-democratic and totalitarian developments, as there is already discussion in Germany about banning a party (AFD) that does not correspond to the mainstream.

The role of the systemic media in manipulating the political landscape must be questioned more closely in the future. Especially because they are financed by public structures. These media create an atmosphere in society, which is used as a basis for discussions in parliament and even changes in laws.

But it’s not just the media that is working against the opposition. There are now also demonstrations against the opposition in Germany, which are massively supported by the state media. These “protests against the right” must be analyzed as an artificially created movement. State-funded media, cultural associations and artists are gathering people here to take to the streets against the opposition.

The AFD in Germany and the FPÖ in Austria are repeatedly described as pro-Russian and individuals there have often been asked to explicitly distance themselves from Russia. Apart from that, these political forces cannot be described as pro-Russian, as they include many transatlantic politicians.

We have to ask ourselves why such a major campaign is now being organized against the opposition. The answer is that the system can no longer explain its own incompetence and work against the state’s sovereign interests. Only when you point your finger at someone do three fingers point back at you.

Fear of Russian espionage and sabotage is currently at a peak in Europe. It is expected that this situation will not change soon. This fear has existed in Eastern Europe for years, but now the West is also mired in this paranoia.

It is important to the media in the West to create threats and enemy images. Russia is currently the target of this propaganda. But in the future it could also become a different state. Just as people are afraid of Russia’s spies today, tomorrow they might be afraid of China’s economy or Africa waking up.

Europe is in a difficult situation due to geopolitical changes. And systems that get into trouble often tend to act irrationally. These are difficult times for the political opposition and happy journalists in Europe. Anyone who doesn’t follow the mainstream is excluded and attacked in the media.

However, these political and media instruments could also be just the beginning of further development. The first arrests have already been made and the investigation is continuing. The search for “enemies of the state” will not stop. In this context, one should just think about who the enemies of democracy are here.

Such a division in society never existed in Western Europe, even during the Cold War. Since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict in 2014, the mass migration in 2015 and the ongoing climate hysteria, society in the West has been divided into two groups. These two groups have no common points of contact with each other.

This is a very dangerous domestic political development. And the current media propaganda is not helping to ease the mood between the government and the opposition. It will only achieve the opposite and divide society even further.

The defamation of the opposition through these espionage scandals is a new stage in the political struggle and allows us to see exactly how cooperation between Western secret services, lobbyists, governments and the media works.

Patrick Poppel is an expert at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade.

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Flashback: U.S. agencies investigate Israeli “art students”

By Christopher Ketcham | Salon | May 7, 2002

In January 2001, the security branch of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency began to receive a number of peculiar reports from DEA field offices across the country. According to the reports, young Israelis claiming to be art students and offering artwork for sale had been attempting to penetrate DEA offices for over a year. The Israelis had also attempted to penetrate the offices of other law enforcement and Department of Defense agencies. Strangest of all, the “students” had visited the homes of numerous DEA officers and other senior federal officials.

As a pattern slowly emerged, the DEA appeared to have been targeted in what it called an “organized intelligence gathering activity.” But to what end, and for whom, no one knew.

Reports of the mysterious Israelis with an inexplicable interest in peddling art to G-men came in from more than 40 U.S. cities and continued throughout the first six months of 2001. Agents of the DEA, ATF, Air Force, Secret Service, FBI, and U.S. Marshals Service documented some 130 separate incidents of “art student” encounters. Some of the Israelis were observed diagramming the inside of federal buildings. Some were found carrying photographs they had taken of federal agents. One was discovered with a computer printout in his luggage that referred to “DEA groups.”

In some cases, the Israelis visited locations not known to the public — areas without street addresses, for example, or DEA offices not identified as such — leading authorities to suspect that information had been gathered from prior surveillance or perhaps electronically, from credit cards and other sources. One Israeli was discovered holding banking receipts for substantial sums of money, close to $180,000 in withdrawals and deposits over a two-month period. A number of the Israelis resided for a period of time in Hollywood, Fla. — the small city where Mohammed Atta and three terrorist comrades lived for a time before Sept. 11.

NCIX Alert: “suspicious visitors to federal facilities”

In March 2001, the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (NCIX), a branch of the CIA, issued a heads-up to federal employees about “suspicious visitors to federal facilities.” The warning noted that “employees have observed both males and females attempting to bypass facility security and enter federal buildings.” Federal agents, the warning stated, had “arrested two of these individuals for trespassing and discovered that the suspects possessed counterfeit work visas and green cards.” [see this]

In the wake of the NCIX bulletin, federal officials raised several other red flags, including an Air Force alert, a Federal Protective Services alert, an Office of National Drug Control Policy security alert and a request that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigate a specific case. Officials began dealing more aggressively with the “art students.” According to one account, some 140 Israeli nationals were detained or arrested between March 2001 and Sept. 11, 2001. Many of them were deported. According to the INS, the deportations resulted from violations of student visas that forbade the Israelis from working in the United States. (In fact, Salon has established that none of the Israelis were enrolled in the art school most of them claimed to be attending; the other college they claimed to be enrolled in does not exist.) After the Sept. 11 attacks, many more young Israelis — 60, according to one AP dispatch and other reports — were detained and deported.

The “art students” followed a predictable modus operandi. They generally worked in teams, typically consisting of a driver, who was the team leader, and three or four subordinates. The driver would drop the “salespeople” off at a given location and return to pick them up some hours later. The “salespeople” entered offices or approached agents in their offices or homes. Sometimes they pitched their artwork — landscapes, abstract works, homemade pins and other items they carried about in portfolios. At other times, they simply attempted to engage agents in conversation. If asked about their studies, they generally said they were from the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem or the University of Jerusalem (which does not exist). They were described as “aggressive” in their sales pitch and “evasive” when questioned by wary agents. The females among them were invariably described as “very attractive” — “blondes in tight shorts or jeans, real lookers,” as one DEA agent put it to Salon. “They were flirty, flipping the hair, looking at you, smiling. ‘Hey, how are you? Let me show you this.’ Everything a woman would do if she wanted to get something out of you.” Some agents noted that the “students” made repeated attempts to avoid facility security personnel by trying to enter federal buildings through back doors and side entrances. On several occasions, suspicious agents who had been visited at home observed the Israelis after the “students” departed and noted that they did not approach any of the neighbors.

The document detailing most of this information was an internal DEA memo: a 60-page report drawn up in June 2001 by the DEA’s Office of Security Programs. The document was meant only for the eyes of senior officials at the Justice Department (of which the DEA is adjunct), but it was leaked to the press as early as December 2001 and by mid-March had been made widely available to the public. [pdf here, un-redacted version here.]

On the face of it, this was a blockbuster tale, albeit a bizarre and cryptic one, full of indeterminate leads and fascinating implications and ambiguous answers: “Like a good Clancy novel,” as one observer put it. Was it espionage? Drug dealing? An intelligence game? The world’s wackiest door-to-door hustle? Yet the mainstream media has almost entirely ignored the allegations or accepted official “explanations” that explain nothing. Even before the DEA memo was leaked, however, some reporters had begun sniffing around the remarkable story.

Anna Werner, KHOU-TV Houston – scoop of a lifetime?

On Oct. 1 of last year, Texas newswoman Anna Werner, of KHOU-TV in Houston, told viewers about a “curious pattern of behavior” by people with “Middle Eastern looks” claiming to be Israeli art students. “Government guards have found those so-called students,” reported Werner, “trying to get into [secure federal facilities in Houston] in ways they’re not supposed to — through back doors and parking garages.” Federal agents, she said, were extremely “concerned.” The “students” had showed up at the DEA’s Houston headquarters, at the Leland Federal Building in Houston, and even the federal prosecutor’s office; they had also appeared to be monitoring the buildings. Guards at the Earle Cabell Federal Building in Dallas found one “student” wandering the halls with a floor plan of the site. Sources told Werner that similar incidents had occurred at sites in New York, Florida, and six other states, “and even more worrisome, at 36 sensitive Department of Defense sites.”

“One defense site you can explain,” a former Defense Department analyst told Werner. “Thirty-six? That’s a pattern.” Ominously, the analyst concluded that such activity suggested a terrorist organization “scouting out potential targets and … looking for targets that would be vulnerable.”

Post-9/11, this should have been the opening thrust in an orgy of coverage, and the scoop of a lifetime for Werner: Here she’d gotten a glimpse into a possible espionage ring of massive proportions, possibly of terrorists scouting new targets for jihad — and those terrorists were possibly posing as Israelis. KHOU’s conclusions were wrong — these weren’t Arab terrorists — but at the time no one knew better. And yet the story died on the vine. No one followed up.

Carl Cameron, Fox News

Just about the same time that KHOU was stabbing in the dark, reporter Carl Cameron of the Fox News Channel was beginning an investigation into the mystery of the art students that would ultimately light the way into altogether different terrain. In a four-part series on Fox’s “Special Report With Brit Hume” that aired in mid-December, Cameron reported that federal agents were investigating the “art student” phenomenon as a possible arm of Israeli espionage operations tracking al-Qaida operatives in the United States. Yes, you read that right: a spy ring that may have been trailing al-Qaida members in the weeks and months before Sept. 11 — a spy ring that according to Cameron’s sources may have known about the preparations for the Sept. 11 attacks but failed to share this knowledge with U.S. intelligence. One investigator told Cameron that “evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” [see video below]

According to Cameron, some 60 Israeli nationals had been detained in the anti-terrorism/immigrant sweeps in the weeks after Sept. 11, and at least 140 Israelis identified as “art students” had been detained or arrested in the prior months. Most of the 60 detained after Sept. 11 had been deported, Cameron said. “Some of the detainees,” reported Cameron, “failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.” Some of them were on active military duty. (Military service is compulsory for all young Israelis.) Cameron was careful to note that there was “no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks” and that while his reporting had dug up “explosive information,” none of it was necessarily conclusive. Cameron was simply airing the wide-ranging speculations in an ongoing investigation.

Incendiary as it was, that story died on the vine, too, and the scuttlebutt in major newsrooms was that Cameron’s sources — all anonymous — were promulgating a fantasy. Reporters at the New York Times and the Washington Post hit up their go-to people inside Justice and FBI and CIA, but no one could seem to confirm the story, and indeed numerous officials laughed it off. Fox got it wrong, the newspapers of record concluded. And nothing more was heard on the topic in mainstream quarters.

But inside the DEA, the Fox piece reverberated. An internal DEA communiqué obtained by Salon indicates that the DEA made careful note of Cameron’s reports; the communiqué even mentions Fox News by name. Dated Dec. 18, four days after the final installment in the Fox series, the document warns of security breaches in DEA telecommunications by unauthorized “foreign nationals” — and cites an Israeli-owned firm with which the DEA contracted for wiretap equipment — breaches that could have accounted for the access that the “art students” apparently had to the home addresses of agents.

News reports in France

It wasn’t until nearly three months after the Fox reports that the “art student” enigma resurfaced in newsrooms, this time in Europe. On Feb. 28, the respected Paris-based espionage newsletter Intelligence Online reported in detail on what turned out to have been one of Cameron’s key source documents: the 60-page DEA memo. The memo itself, which Salon obtained in mid-March, went no further than to speculate in the most general terms that the “nature of the individuals’ conduct” suggested some sort of “organized intelligence gathering activity.” The memo also pointed out that there was some evidence connecting the art students to a drug ring. “DEA Orlando has developed the first drug nexus to this group,” the memo read. “Telephone numbers obtained from an Israeli Art Student encountered at the Orlando D.O. [District Office] have been linked to several ongoing DEA MDMA (Ecstasy) investigations in Florida, California, Texas and New York.”

However, Intelligence Online and then France’s newspaper of record, Le Monde, came to a much more definite — and explosive — conclusion. This was the jackpot, they concluded, a proven spy ring run by the Mossad or the Israeli government. Thus you had Intelligence Online leading its Feb. 28 piece with the statement that “a huge Israeli spy ring operating in the United States was rolled up,” and you had Le Monde trumpeting on March 5 that a “vast Israeli spy network” had been dismantled in the “largest case of Israeli spying” since 1985, when mole Jonathan Pollard was busted selling Pentagon secrets to the Mossad. Reuters that same day went with the headline “U.S. Busts Big Israeli Spy Ring,” sourcing Le Monde’s story.

The two French journals came to conclusions that the memo itself clearly did not. And yet they had unearthed some intriguing material. Six of the “students” were apparently carrying cell phones purchased by a former Israeli vice consul to the United States. According to Le Monde, two of the “students” had traveled from Hamburg to Miami to visit an FBI agent in his home, then boarded a flight to Chicago and visited the home of a Justice Dept. agent, then hopped a direct flight to Toronto — all in one day. According to Intelligence Online, more than one-third of the students, who were spread out in 42 cities, lived in Florida, several in Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale, Fla. — one-time home to at least 10 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers. In at least one case, the students lived just a stone’s throw from homes and apartments where the Sept. 11 terrorists resided: In Hollywood, several students lived at 4220 Sheridan St., just down the block from the 3389 Sheridan St. apartment where terrorist mastermind Mohammed Atta holed up with three other Sept. 11 plotters. Many of the students, the DEA report noted, had backgrounds in Israeli military intelligence and/or electronics surveillance; one was the son of a two-star Israeli general, and another had served as a bodyguard to the head of the Israeli army.

The DEA report on which the French journals based their investigations contained a wealth of remarkable tales. To take just a few samples:

  • On March 1, 2001, a DEA special agent in the Tampa division offices “responded to a knock at one of the fifth floor offices. At the door was a young female who immediately identified herself as an Israeli art student who had beautiful art to sell. She was carrying a crudely made portfolio of unframed pictures.” Aware of the “art student” alert, the agent invited the girl to an interview room, where he was joined by a colleague to listen to the girl’s presentation. “She had approximately 15 paintings of different styles, some copies of famous works, and others similar in style to famous artists. When asked her name, she identified herself as Bella Pollcson, and pointed out one of the paintings was signed by that name.” Then things got interesting: In the middle of her presentation, she changed her story and claimed that the paintings were not for sale, but “that she was there to promote an art show in Sarasota, Fla., and asked for the agents’ business cards so that information regarding the show could be mailed to them.” Well, where’s the show? asked the agents. When’s it going up? Pollcson couldn’t say: didn’t know when or where — or even who was running it. Later it was determined that she had lied about her name as well.
  • On Oct. 20, 2000, in the Houston offices of the DEA, a “male Israeli art student was observed by the Security Officers [entering] an elevator from a secure area. [The officers] were able to apprehend the art student before he could enter a secure area on the second floor.” Three months later, in January 2001, a “male Israeli” was apprehended attempting to enter the same building from a back door in a “secured parking lot area.” He claimed “he wanted to gain access to the building to sell artwork.”
  • On April 30, 2001, an Air Force alert was issued from Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City concerning “possible intelligence collection being conducted by Israeli Art Students.” Tinker AFB houses AWACS surveillance craft and Stealth bombers. The report does not elaborate on what kind of intelligence was being sought.
  • On May 19, 2001, two Israeli nationals “requested permission to visit a museum” at Volk Field Air National Guard Base in Camp Douglas, Wis. “Approximately ten minutes after being allowed on the base, the two were seen on an active runway, taking photographs.” The men, charged with misdemeanor trespass, were identified as 26-year-old Gal Kantor and 22-year-old Tsvi Watermann, and were released after paying a $210 fine. According to the Air Force security officer on duty, “Both were asked if they were involved in the selling of art while in the U.S. Kantor became very upset over this, and questioned why they were being asked about that … Kantor’s whole demeanor changed, and he then became uncooperative.”

‘Art students’ throughout U.S.

So it went week after week, month after month, for more than a year and a half. In addition to the locations mentioned above, there were “art student” encounters in Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Miami, Orlando, New Orleans, Phoenix, San Diego, Little Rock, Seattle, Washington, D.C., Arlington, Texas, Albuquerque, and dozens of other small cities and towns.

“Their stories,” the DEA report states, “were remarkable only in their consistency. At first, they will state that they are art students, either from the University of Jerusalem or the Bezalel Academy of Arts in Jerusalem. Other times they will purport to be promoting a new art studio in the area. When pressed for details as to the location of the art studio or why they are selling the paintings, they become evasive.”

Indeed, they had reason to be nervous, because they were lying. Salon contacted Bezalel Academy’s Varda Harel, head of the Academic Students’ Administration, with a list of every “student” named in the DEA report, including their dates of birth, passport numbers, and in some cases military registration numbers. Not a single name was identified in the Bezalel database, either as a current student or as a graduate of the past 10 years (nor had any of the “students” tried to apply to Bezalel in the last ten years). As for the University of Jerusalem, there is no such entity. There is the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but Heidi Gleit, the school’s foreign press liaison, told me that Israelis commonly refer to the school as Hebrew University, not the University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew University, she said, does not release student records to the public.)

Washington Post ‘debunks’ reports using anonymous officials

Still, the U.S. press was uninterested. Just one day after the Le Monde report, the Washington Post ran a story on March 6 that seemed to put the whole thing to rest. Headlined “Reports of Israeli Spy Ring Dismissed,” the piece, by John Mintz and Dan Eggen, opened with official denials from a “wide array of U.S. officials” and quoted Justice Department spokeswoman Susan Dryden as saying, “This seems to be an urban myth that has been circulating for months. The department has no information at this time to substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage.”

The Post quoted anonymous officials who said they thought the allegations had been “circulated by a single employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration who is angry that his theories have not gained currency … [T]wo law enforcement officials said the disgruntled DEA agent, who disagreed with the conclusion of FBI and CIA intelligence experts that no spying was taking place, appears to be leaking a memo that he himself wrote.”

An INS spokesman acknowledged to the Post that several dozen Israelis had been deported, but said it was the result of “routine visa violations.” At the same time, DEA spokesman Thomas Hinojosa told the Post that “multiple reports of suspicious activity on the part of young Israelis had come into the agency’s Washington headquarters from agents in the field. The reports were summarized in a draft memo last year, but Hinojosa said he did not have a copy and could not vouch for the accuracy of media reports describing its contents.”

The Post’s apparent debunking was far from convincing, even to the casual reader. Of course there was no proof that the art students were part of a spy ring: Intelligence Online and Le Monde had jumped the gun. However, the real possibility that they were part of a spy ring could not be dismissed — any more than could any other theory one might advance to explain their unusual behavior. With that in mind, Justice spokeswoman Dryden’s assertion that reports of an Israeli spy ring were an “urban myth” was an oddly overplayed denial. A response that fit the facts would have been something like “There have been numerous reports of suspicious behavior by Israelis claiming to be art students. We are looking into the allegations.” Instead, Dryden appeared to be trying to forestall any discussion of just what the facts of the case were. Given the political sensitivities and the potentially embarrassing nature of the case, that was not surprising,

If the whole thing was an “urban myth,” like the sewer reptiles of Manhattan, and if it all led back to one deskbound nut job in the DEA, then what were those “reports of suspicious activity” that had come in from agents in the field? Hinojosa’s statement about the DEA memo was suspiciously evasive: If the “media reports describing its content” (that is, the articles in Le Monde and Intelligence Online) were in fact based on the DEA memo whose existence Hinojosa acknowledged, then the “lone nut” explanation offered by anonymous U.S. officials was at best irrelevant and at worst a rather obvious piece of disinformation, an attempt to shove the story under the rug. (In fact, the French articles were based on the actual DEA memo — a fact any news organization could have quickly verified, since the leaked DEA document had been floating around on various Web venues, such as Cryptome.org, as early as March 21).

To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn’t bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole “art student” tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers.

Agents confirm reports

Of course, the agent (or agents) who wrote the memo could also have fabricated or embellished the field reports. That does not seem to have been the case. Salon contacted more than a half-dozen agents identified in the memo. One agent said she had been visited six times at her home by “art students.” None of the agents wished to be named, and very few were willing to speak at length, but all confirmed the veracity of the information.

Despite such obvious holes in the official story, neither the Post nor any other mainstream media organization ran follow-up articles. The New York Times has not yet deemed it worth covering – in fact, the paper of record has not written about the art student mystery even once, not even to pooh-pooh it. One or two minor media players did some braying – Israel had been caught spying, etc. – and the bonko conspiracy fringe had a field day, but the rest of the media, taking a cue from the big boys, decided it was a nonstarter: the Post’s “debunking” and the Times’ silence had effectively killed the story.

So complete was the silence that by mid-March, Jane’s Information Group, the respected British intelligence and military analysis service, noted: “It is rather strange that the U.S. media seems to be ignoring what may well be the most explosive story since the 11 September attacks — the alleged break-up of a major Israeli espionage operation in the USA.” [Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 3/13/02]

The only major American media outlet aside from Fox to seriously present the “art student” allegations was Insight on the News, the investigative magazine published weekly by the conservative Washington Times. In a March 11 article, Insight quoted a senior Justice Department official as saying, “We think there is something quite sinister here but are unable at this time to put our finger on it” — essentially echoing what the DEA report concluded.

Managing editor Paul M. Rodriguez, who wrote the Insight story and had quietly tracked the art student phenomenon for weeks before Intelligence Online scooped him, took an agnostic stance toward the mystery. “There is zero information at this time to suggest that these students were being run by the Mossad,” he told me. “Nothing we’ve come across would suggest this. We have seen nothing that says this is a spy ring run by the Israeli government directly or with a wink and a nod or some other form of sub rosa control. Based on what we’ve been told, seen and obtained I just don’t see the so-called spy ring as a certain fact. Does that make it not so? I don’t know.”

Rodriguez added, “I think the investigators’ take is this: What were these ‘students’ doing going around accessing buildings without authorization, tracking undercover cops to their homes — if not for some sort of intel mission? It’s sort of a mind-fuck scenario, if one were to believe this was a conspiracy by a foreign intel source and/or a bunch of nutty ‘kids’ fucking around just to see how far they could push the envelope — which they seem to have pushed pretty damn far, given the page after page after page of intrusions and snooping alleged.”

The Israeli embassy denies the charges of a spy ring. “We are saying what we’ve been saying for months,” spokesman Mark Reguev [usually spelled Regev] told Salon, referring to the Fox series in December. “No American official or intelligence agency has complained to us about this. The story is nonsense. Israel does not spy on the United States.”

Whether or not the “art students” are Israeli spies, Reguev’s blanket disavowal is untrue: Israel does spy on the United States. This should come as no surprise: Allies frequently spy on each other, and Israeli intelligence is renowned as among the best and most aggressive in the world. Israel has been at war off and on since its birth as a nation in 1948 and is hungry for information it deems essential to its survival. And America’s relationship to Israel and support for it is essential to the survival of the Jewish state. Add these things up, and espionage against the United States becomes understandable, if not justifiable.

The U.S. government officially denies this, of course, but it knows that such spying goes on. In 1996, the U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report indicating that “Country A,” later identified as Israel, “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally.” A year earlier, the Defense Investigative Service circulated a memo warning U.S. military contractors that “Israel aggressively collects [U.S.] military and industrial technology” and “possesses the resources and technical capability to successfully achieve its collection objectives.” The memo explained that “the Israelis are motivated by strong survival instincts which dictate every facet of their political and economic policies.”

Jonathan Pollard & Israeli spying

In the history of Israeli espionage in and against the United States, the case of Jonathan Pollard was certainly the most heinous. Pollard, a civilian U.S. naval intelligence analyst, provided Israeli intelligence with an estimated 800,000 pages of classified U.S. intelligence information. The information eventually ended up in Soviet hands, compromising American agents in the field — several of whom were allegedly captured and killed as a result. Israel at first denied, and then admitted, Pollard’s connections to the Mossad after he was arrested in 1985 and imprisoned for life. The case severely strained American-Israeli relations, and continues to rankle many American Jews, who believe that since Pollard was spying for Israel, his sentence was unduly harsh. (Other American Jews feel equally strongly that Pollard and the Israelis betrayed them.)

Any attempt to understand the official U.S. response to the Israeli art student mystery — and to some degree, the media response — must take into account both the smoke screen that states blow over incidents that could jeopardize their strategic alliances, and America’s unique and complex relationship with Israel. The Jewish state is a close if problematic ally with whom the United States enjoys a “special relationship” unlike that maintained with any other nation in the world. But U.S. and Israeli interests do not always coincide, and spying has always been deemed to cross a line, to represent a fundamental violation of trust. According to intelligence sources, the United States might perhaps secretly tolerate some Israeli spying on U.S. soil if the government decided that it was in our interest (although it could never be acknowledged), but certain types of spying will simply not be accepted by the United States, whether the spying is carried out by Israel or anyone else.

If England or France spied on the United States, American officials would likely conceal it. In the case of Israel, there are far stronger reasons to hide any unseemly cracks in the special relationship. The powerful pro-Israel political constituencies in Congress; pro-Israel lobbies; the Bush administration’s strong support for Israel, and its strategic and political interest in maintaining close ties with the Jewish state as a partner in the “war against terror”; the devastating consequences for U.S.-Israeli relations if it was suspected that Israeli agents might have known about the Sept. 11 attack — all these factors explain why the U.S. government might publicly downplay the art student story and conceal any investigation that produces unpalatable results.

Pro-Israel lobby is a vast and powerful force

The pro-Israel lobby is a vast and powerful force in American politics; the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, is the No. 1 foreign-policy lobby and the fourth most powerful lobby in Washington, according to Fortune Magazine. Michael Lind, a senior fellow of the New America Foundation and a former executive editor of the National Interest, calls the Israel lobby “an ethnic donor machine” that “distorts U.S. foreign policy” in the Middle East. Among foreign service officers, law enforcement and the military, there is an impression, says Lind, that you can’t mess with Israel without suffering direct and indirect smears, such as being labeled an Arabist. Lind, who himself has been virulently attacked as an anti-Semite for his forthrightness on the subject, acknowledges that the Israel lobby is no different from any other — just more effective. “This is what all lobbies do,” Lind observes. “If you criticize the AARP, you hate old people and you want them to starve to death. The Israel lobby is just one part of the lobby problem.”

Considering the volatility of the issue, it is not surprising that almost no one in officialdom wants to go on the record for a story like the art students. “In government circles,” as Insight’s Rodriguez put it, “anything that has to do with Israel is always a hot topic, a third rail — deadly. No one wants to touch it.” Fox News’ Cameron quoted intelligence officers saying that to publicly air suspicions of Israeli wrongdoing was tantamount to “career suicide.” And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in one of its bloodiest and most polarizing phases, has only exacerbated sensitivities.

Some of the same pressures that keep government officials from criticizing Israel may also explain why the media has failed to pursue the art student enigma. Media outlets that run stories even mildly critical of Israel often find themselves targeted by organized campaigns, including form-letter e-mails, the cancellation of subscriptions, and denunciations of the organization and its reporters and editors as anti-Semites. Cameron, for example, was excoriated by various pro-Israel lobbying groups for his exposé. Representatives of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) argued that the Fox report cited only unnamed sources, provided no direct evidence, and moreover had been publicly denied by spokesmen for the FBI and others (the last, of course, is not really an argument).

“Jewish/Israeli groups” attack Fox, Cameron

In a December interview with Salon, CAMERA’s associate director, Alex Safian, said that several “Jewish/Israeli groups” were having “conversations” with representatives of Fox News regarding Cameron’s piece. Safian said he questioned Cameron’s motives in running the story. “I think Fox has always been fair to Israel in its reporting,” said Safian. “I think it’s just Cameron who has something, personally, about Israel. He was brought up in the Middle East. Maybe that has something to do with it. Maybe he’s very sympathetic to the Arab side. One could ask.” The implicit suggestion was that Cameron is a bigot; in conversation, Safian would later make the same allegation about the entire editorial helm at Le Monde, which he called an anti-Semitic newspaper.

Told of Safian’s comments, Cameron said, “I’m speechless. I spent several years in Iran growing up because my father was an archaeologist there. That makes me anti-Israel?” The chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, Cameron had never before been attacked for biased coverage of Israel or Israeli-related affairs — or for biased coverage of Arabs, for that matter. Cameron defends his December reporting, saying he had never received any heat whatsoever from his superiors, nor had he ever been contacted by any dissenting voices in government.

All traces of Cameron’s broadcast are removed from Fox

Oddly, four days after the Cameron investigation ran, all traces of his report — transcripts, Web links, headlines — disappeared from the Foxnews.com archives. (Normally, Fox leaves a story up for two to three weeks before consigning it to the pay archive.) When Le Monde contacted Fox in March for a copy of the original tapes, Fox News spokesmen said the request posed a problem but would not elaborate. (Fox News now says Le Monde never called.) Asked why the Cameron piece disappeared, spokesman Robert Zimmerman said it was “up there on our Web site for about two or three weeks and then it was taken down because we had to replace it with more breaking news. As you know, in a Web site you’ve got x amount of bandwidth — you know, x amount of stuff you can put stuff up on [sic]. So it was replaced. Normal course of business, my friend.” (In fact, a text-based story on a Web site takes up a negligible amount of bandwidth.)

When informed that Cameron’s story was gone from the archives, not simply from the headline pages (when you entered the old URL, a Fox screen appeared with the message “This story no longer exists”), Zimmerman replied, “I don’t know where it is.”

‘A lot of patriots would like to remain alive’

The extreme sensitivity of the Israeli art student story in government circles was made clear to this reporter when, in the midst of my inquiries at DEA and elsewhere, I was told by a source that some unknown party had checked my records and background. He proved it by mentioning a job I had briefly held many years ago that virtually no one outside my family knew about. Shortly after this, I received a call from an individual who identified himself only by the code name Stability. Stability said he was referred to me from “someone in Washington.” That someone turned out to be a veteran D.C. correspondent who has close sources in the CIA and the FBI and who verified that Stability was a high-level intelligence agent who had been following the art student matter from the inside.

Stability was guarded in his initial conversation with me. He said that people in the intelligence community were suspicious about my bona fides and raised the possibility that someone was “using” me. “Your name is known and has been known for quite a while,” Stability said. “The problem is that you’re going into a hornet’s nest with this. It’s a very difficult time in this particular area. This is a scenario where a lot of people are living a bunker mentality.” He added, “There are a lot of people under a lot of pressure right now because there’s a great effort to discredit the story, discredit the connections, prevent people from going any further [in investigating the matter]. There are some very, very smart people who have taken a lot of heat on this — have gone to what I would consider extraordinary risks to reach out. Quite frankly, there are a lot of patriots out there who’d like to remain alive. Typically, patriots are dead.”

In a subsequent conversation, Stability said that the DEA’s Office of Professional Responsibility is currently undertaking an aggressive investigation targeting agents suspected of leaking the June 2001 memo. The OPR inquiry was initiated as a result of Intelligence Online’s exposé of the DEA document in late February. According to Stability, at least 14 agents — including some in agencies other than DEA — are now under intense scrutiny and interrogation. Half a dozen agents have been polygraphed several times over, computers have been seized, desks have been searched.

A DEA spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the allegation. “Anything that has to do with internal security, which would include OPR, is not anything we’re able to discuss,” the spokesman said.

As for the DEA document itself, Stability said that all information gathering for it ceased around June 2001. He also noted that “there are multiple variations of that document” floating around DEA and elsewhere.

“It was a living, breathing document,” Stability said, “that grew on a week-by-week basis, that was being added to as people forwarded information. To say this was a coordinated effort would be a stretch; it was ad hoc. But that document [the DEA memo] didn’t just happen. That document was the result of literally dozens of people providing input, working together. These events were going on, people were looking at them, but could not understand them.”

“It wasn’t until the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001 that field agents ran across a series of visits that occurred within a very close period of time,” Stability said. Agents from across the country began talking to each other, comparing notes. “There was an embryonic understanding that there was something here, something was happening. People kept running across it. And agents being who they are, gut feelings being what they are, they would catch a thread. They’d start to pull a thread, and next thing, they’d end up with the arm of the jacket and the back was coming off, and then you’d end up with reports like you saw. The information, in its scattered form, is one thing. The information compiled, documented, timelined, indexed, is a horrific event for some of these people. Because it is indisputable.”

Going to agents’ homes

“Agents started to realize that people were coming to their homes,” he continued. “If you are part of an organization like this, you tend to be careful about your security. When something disturbs that sense of security, it’s unnerving. One thing that was understood fairly early on was that the students would go to some areas that didn’t have street signs, and in fact they would already have directions to these areas. That indicated that someone had been there prior to them or had electronically figured where the agents were located — using credit card records, things of that nature. This sat in the back of people’s minds as to the resources necessary to do that.”

“I will tell you that there is still great debate over what [the art students] specific purposes were and are,” Stability went on. “When you take an individual who picks up a group of individuals from an airport, individuals who supposedly have no idea what they’re doing in-country, who fly on over from a foreign land, whose airline tickets could in some instances total a value greater than $15,000 — and who get picked up at the airport and drive specifically to one individual’s home, which they know the exact directions to: Yeah, you could say there’s a problem here. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that. The overarching item is that a lot of work went into going to people’s houses to sell them junk from China in plastic frames.”

Why? Organized crime & drugs?

But to what end? What was the value? What was to be gained? “Unknown, unknown,” Stability said. “You could be anywhere from D.C. to daylight on that one. Even on our side, you have to take all the stuff and draw it all out and clean out all the chaff. I will tell you that from those who are working ground zero [of this case], it is a difficult puzzle to put together, and it is not complete by any means.” Even the spooks are baffled; they have no answers.

So let’s draw out the chaff ourselves and see if we can at least speculate. In intel circles, there are a number of working theories, according to Stability. “Profiling of federal agents is one,” said Stability. “Keeping tabs on other people, other foreign nationals, is another. A third is that they were working for organized crime — that’s an easy one, and it almost sounds more like a cover than a reality. The predominant thought is that it was a profiling endeavour, and from a profiling aspect, also one of intimidation.”

You mean this whole vast scheme was a mind fuck, to use Paul Rodriguez’s elegant phrasing? A psy-ops endeavor to spook the spooks? Perhaps. As Stability put it, “Almost nothing is wrong in this particular instance, Mr. Ketcham. In this particular situation, right is wrong, left is right, up is down, day is night.”

Yet for the most part the targeted agents weren’t spooks in the strictest sense: They were DEA — cops who bust drug dealers. And that leads us into Theory No. 1, also known as the Art Student/Drug Dealer Conspiracy. This theory has a piece of evidence to support it: the link, mentioned in the leaked DEA memo, between an Ecstasy investigation and the telephone numbers provided by an Israeli detained in Orlando. There are “problems” with Israeli nationals involved in the Ecstasy business, according to Israeli Embassy spokesman Reguev. “Israeli authorities and the DEA are working together on that issue,” he said. In a statement before Congress in 2000, officials with the U.S. Customs Service, which intercepted some 7 million Ecstasy tablets last year, noted that “Israeli organized-crime elements appear to be in control” of the multibillion-dollar U.S. Ecstasy trade, “from production through the international smuggling phase. Couriers associated with Israeli organized crime have been arrested around the world, including … locations in the U.S. such as Florida, New Jersey, New York and California.”

Miami was cited as one of the main entry points of Ecstasy into the United States and was specified as one of the central “headquarters for the criminal organizations that smuggle Ecstasy”; Houston was also cited for large Ecstasy seizures — an interesting nexus, given the large number of “art students” who congregated both in the Miami and Ft. Lauderdale area and in Houston. “Israeli nationals in the Ecstasy trade have been very sophisticated in their operations,” says a U.S. Customs officer who has investigated the groups. “Some of these individuals have been skilled at counterintelligence and in concealing their communications and movements from law enforcement.”

It would thus seem that Israeli organized crime has at least the capacity to pull off a widespread surveillance and intelligence operation. The drug connection would also explain the sizable reserves of cash one Tampa student was handling.

One DEA agent named in the “art student” report told Salon that the best possible explanation for the affair – and he admitted to being utterly baffled by it – was that drug dealers were involved.

“Why us if not because of the DEA’s mission?” the agent asked. “I mean, what would Israeli intel want with us? Here’s another avenue of inquiry to take: Israeli organized crime is the now the biggest dealer of Ecstasy in the United States. These students? It was Israeli organized crime judging our strength, getting a survey of our operations. What if I wanted to burglarize your building and go through your files? I’d do a reconnoiter. Get a sense of the floor plan and security, where the guards are stationed, how many doors, what kind of locks, alarm systems, backup alarm systems.”

The trouble with this theory is the obvious one: In the annals of crime chutzpah, for drug dealers to brazenly approach drug agents in their homes and offices may represent the all-time world record. And what conceivable useful intelligence could they gather that would be worth the risk? Were the tee-heeing tight-sweatered Israeli babes pulling some kind of Mata Hari stunt, seducing paunchy middle-aged DEA boys and beguiling them into loose-lipped info sharing?

Espionage?

Theory No. 2 is that they were all engaged in espionage. This scenario has the virtue of simplicity — if it smells like a spy, walks like a spy, and talks like a spy, it probably is a spy — but doesn’t make much sense, either. Why would the Mossad — or any spy outfit with a lick of good sense — use kids without papers as spies? And, just as our incredulous DEA agent noted, what intelligence useful to Israel could be gathered from DEA offices, anyway?

I suggested to Stability that the operation, if it was that, was purposely conspicuous — almost oafish. “Yes, it was,” he replied. “It was a noisy operation. Did you ever see ‘Victor/Victoria’? It was about a woman playing a man playing a woman. Perhaps you should think about this from that aspect and ask yourself if you wanted to have something that was in your face, that didn’t make sense, that couldn’t possibly be them.” He added, “Think of it this way: How could the experts think this could actually be something of any value? Wouldn’t they dismiss what they were seeing?”

That’s where you enter truly dark territory: Theory No. 3, the Art Student as Agent as Art Student Smoke Screen. It has major problems, but let’s roll with it for a moment. This theory contends that the art student ring was a smoke screen intended to create confusion and allow actual spies — who were also posing as art students — to be lumped together with the rest and escape detection. In other words, the operation is an elaborate double fake-out, a hiding-in-plain-sight scam. Whoever dreamed it up thought ahead to the endgame and knew that the DEA-stakeout aspect was so bizarre that it would throw off American intelligence. According to this theory — Stability’s “Victor/Victoria” scenario — Israeli agents wanted, let’s say, to monitor al-Qaida members in Florida and other states. But they feared detection. So to provide cover, and also to create a dizzyingly Byzantine story that would confuse the situation, Israeli intel flooded areas of real operations with these bumbling “art students” — who were told to deliberately stake out DEA agents.

Perhaps. Why not? Up is down, left is right. I nudged Stability on the obvious implication of the “Victor/Victoria” scenario: If this was a ruse, a decoy to conceal another operation, what was that other operation? “Unknown,” Stability said.

Then of course there’s Theory No. 4: that they really were art students. Either they were recruited in Israel as part of an art-selling racket or they simply hit upon the idea themselves. This theory is basically the de facto position held by the U.S. and Israeli governments, which insist that the only wrong committed by the “students” was to sell art without the proper papers. There are almost too many problems with this to list, but it’s worth mentioning a few: Why in the world would people try to sell cheap market art to DEA officials? Why would they almost all use the same bogus Bezalel Academy of Arts cover story? Why would anyone running such a racket to make money use foreign nationals without green cards, knowing that they would quickly be snagged for visa violations? And why did so many of these itinerant peddlers, wandering the United States on their strange mission of hawking cheap Chinese knockoff paintings, have “black information” about federal facilities?

There are other theories. One is that these were spies in training, newly minted Mossad graduates on test runs to see how they would operate in field conditions. I asked Stability how hotly the matter was now being pursued in intel and law enforcement. “Depends on who you speak to,” he told me. “Some people say that it’s a dead issue, a fantasy. Most of the investigations are happening at an ad hoc level. There are people out there that you couldn’t sway off some of the cases, because that’s how dedicated they are.”

Apparently, at least some agents in the FBI remain quite concerned about the art student problem. According to several intelligence sources, including Stability, on Dec. 3, 2001, six separate FBI field offices simultaneously forwarded communiqués to FBI headquarters inquiring into the status of the investigation. The FBI agents wanted to have a “clarification” as to what was going on.

The subject may not be officially dead yet. The art student matter may be taken up by the congressional committees investigating intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, according to another source.

What about the crucial Washington Post article, in which anonymous federal agents alleged the DEA memo was the work of a disgruntled employee?

“The Washington Post article was a plant — that’s obvious. The story was killed,” Stability told me. Who planted the story? Stability claimed the FBI was behind it. “Every organization is running scared,” Stability added, “because they’re afraid of the next shoe to drop. There are many smoking guns out there, many. So consequently every one is at a level of heightened anxiety, and when they’re anxious they make mistakes.”

Yes, but what are they afraid of? What will the smoking guns prove? Questions, questions, labyrinthine questions, and the more you ask in this matter, the fewer get answered. When I called the CIA to inquire about the agency’s March 2001 alert — an alert that evinced deep disquiet over the affair — an official who was aware of the inquiry told me, “I’ll make a recommendation to you: Don’t write a story. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. As far as we’re concerned, we reported it, yes, but subsequently it’s nothing of interest to us. And we’ve just closed the book on it. And I really recommend you do the same. Let it go. There’s nothing here.”

Not everyone else in law enforcement is so sure. “There’s a lot of concern among the agents,” said the DEA source. “We’re investigators. We’re not satisfied when we don’t have answers. This is a mystery that has an answer and it has to be resolved.”

April 29, 2024 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment