U.S. President Biden Now Authorizes Ukraine to Start WW3

by Eric Zuesse / May 31st, 2024

On May 31st, Politico headlined “Biden secretly gave Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia with US weapons: It’s a major reversal that will help Ukraine to better defend its second-largest city.” It reported:

The Biden administration has quietly given Ukraine permission to strike inside Russia — solely near the area of Kharkiv — using U.S.-provided weapons, three U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the move said Thursday, a major reversal that will help Ukraine to better defend its second-largest city.

“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,” one of the U.S. officials said, adding that the policy of not allowing long-range strikes inside Russia “has not changed.”

Ukraine asked the U.S. to make this policy change only after Russia’s offensive on Kharkiv began this month, the official added. All the people were granted anonymity to discuss internal decisions that haven’t been announced. …

In effect, Ukraine can now use American-provided weapons, such as rockets and rocket launchers, to shoot down launched Russian missiles heading toward Kharkiv, at troops massing just over the Russian border near the city, or Russian bombers launching bombs toward Ukrainian territory. But the official said Ukraine cannot use those weapons to hit civilian infrastructure or launch long-range missiles, such as the Army Tactical Missile System, to hit military targets deep inside Russia.

It’s a stunning shift the administration initially said would escalate the war by more directly involving the U.S. in the fight. But worsening conditions for Ukraine on the battlefield –– namely Russia’s advances and improved position in Kharkiv –– led the president to change his mind. …

What this means is that if Volodmyr Zelensky (whose legal term of office as Ukraine’s President ended on May 20) decides that Ukraine should use American weapons and bombs to hit “military targets” that are in Russia and “near the area of Kharkiv,” then the U.S. Government will not object. The article does not say how the phrase “military targets” there is being defined, nor how “near the area of Kharkiv” is being defined.

The U.S. Government has been, to a large extent if not fully, operating or in control over the operation of those U.S.-made weapons; and, therefore, one may reasonably presume that any decision as to whether to use those weapons and bombs in any given instance will have the prior approval of both the Ukrainian and the American Governments.

One also may reasonably assume that if ever Ukraine would violate Biden’s order in this regard, then Biden would condemn Ukraine for having done so. Whether or not Russia’s Government would take that as being sincerely an expression that only Ukraine was to blame for that U.S.-and-Ukraine attack against Russia is impossible reasonably to predict in advance. Consequently, if the limitations upon what Ukraine’s government can do with America’s weapons and bombs are not yet already over the limits of what will precipitate a nuclear attack by Russia against the United States and its colonies (‘allies’), as having “crossed over Russia’s red lines” of what Russia considers to constitute an acceptable violation of Russia’s national security, then how Russia will respond in any case if Ukraine will violate Biden’s command and Biden will condemn Ukraine for that, is likewise impossible reasonably to predict in advance. However, if Russia will in such an instance unleash its estimated 5,580 nuclear weapons against the U.S. and its colonies, then there will be a debate among the immediate survivors of WW3 regarding whether the villain here was Biden or instead Putin, or both.

If WW3 will happen before America’s November 5 elections, then if such elections will be held, either Donald Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will be the President starting in 2025. If WW3 will happen after such elections, then America’s voters today should know that on May 28, the Washington Post, headlined “Trump makes sweeping promises to donors on audacious fundraising tour”, and reported that at one fundraising event for billionaires and centi-millionaires (not for mere voters), “he suggested that he would have bombed Moscow and Beijing if Russia invaded Ukraine or China invaded Taiwan.” In other words: to him, regarding the current war in Ukraine, and regarding the long-sought-by-the-U.S.-Government war in Taiwan, those two wars and to-become wars, are not merely “other people’s wars,” but these are our wars — meaning those American billionaires’ and centi-millionaires’ wars — to which he, as the U.S. President, would respond immediately by bombing, respectively, Russia and China.

Though the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia (which blacklists [blocks from linking to] sites that aren’t CIA-approved) says nothing about the former President of Ukraine Volodmyr Zelenskyy being no longer legally after 20 May 2024 Ukraine’s President, and he did announce that the 20 May 2024 elections would be cancelled, he still does serve as-if he is Ukraine’s President, and is not questioned about that in U.S.-and-allied media. No polling has been done regarding whom Ukrainians would vote for if they were allowed to vote. However, on 15 February 2024, Yahoo News headlined “New poll shows Zelenskyy’s approval dips 5 points in Ukraine after departure of General Zaluzhnyi” and buried in its news-report that the poll showed that as-of February 24, the level of “trust” in leading political figures by the Ukrainian public were: Valerii Zaluzhnyi – 94%; Kyrylo Budanov – 66%; Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 64%; Serhiy Prytula – 61%; and Oleksandr Syrskyi – 40%. Zaluzhnyi was appointed Ukraine’s Ambassador to UK on 7 March 2024, after having been fired by Zelenskyy as Ukraine’s top General. Zelenskyy replaced him with Oleksandr Syrskyi.

In any case, Ukraine has been ruled by America’s President ever since February 2014, and Russians have long known that this is so.

Eric Zuesse is an investigative historian. His new book, America's Empire of Evil: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. Read other articles by Eric.

WORKERS CAPITAL

Europe’s biggest pension fund sells €10 billion in fossil fuels
Bloomberg News | May 28, 2024 | 3:50 pm Energy Europe Coal Oil & Gas

Coal-fired power plant. (Reference image by Greg Williams, Flickr).

Europe’s biggest pension fund, Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP, has exited all liquid assets in oil, gas and coal worth about €10 billion ($10.8 billion), in an effort to be greener.


The last shares and bonds owned by the fund were sold in the first quarter of this year, Harmen van Wijnen, chairman of ABP’s board of trustees, said in an interview at the fund’s headquarters in Amsterdam. ABP, which had pledged to sell down a majority of the investments by early last year, no longer holds any “liquid assets” in fossil energy producers, he said.

In its latest disclosure since the 2021 commitment to cut €15 billion exposure to fossil fuels, the Dutch fund has gradually divested all stocks, bonds and investments in oil and gas futures contracts linked to fossil fuels, Van Wijnen said.

The fund has said the step is necessary after efforts to engage with fossil-fuel producers and get them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions proved ineffective.

Still, about €4.8 billion of investments linked to oil and gas remain in the fund’s portfolio as of the end of March. These include holdings in unlisted companies, private equity or hedge funds.

“There are some more infrastructure-related investments that we are still in,” Van Wijnen said.

ABP needs longer to exit these assets as they are bound by long-term contracts. The fund estimates it would take a few years before these investments are fully phased out.

ABP’s actions are part of the finance industry’s response to stricter environmental, social and governance norms, with Europe leading the way globally in creating a regulatory framework to target emissions reductions.

The Dutch fund sees a risk in investing in companies that don’t adapt to the transition toward a low-carbon economy. Firms whose activities are bad for the climate or biodiversity are “no longer suitable” for its investment strategy, the fund said in March.

“We only want to invest in companies that also have a vision and are on a pathway in the transition to a sustainable economy and companies that don’t harm climate or biodiversity,” Van Wijnen said.

With about €520 billion in assets under management, the fund manages the pensions of three million government and education sector employees in the Netherlands. ABP says returns from the sale of fossil-fuel assets have been “easy to replace.”

“Anyone who looks back about 10 years will see that investments in oil and gas producers did not perform exceptionally during that period,” ABP said in a statement.

(By Sarah Jacob and Cagan Koc)

 

Goodbye Oil and Gas: Hello Thermal Bricks

by Robert Hunziker / May 31st, 2024

The world of energy struggles with the nearly impossible task of getting off fossil fuels. This requires thinking outside of the box, something revolutionary bustling with energy that bails us out of sluggish fossil fuels that emit too much CO2 into the atmosphere and rapidly overheats the planet. The CO2/global warming relationship, joined at the hip, must come to an end, or it’ll self-destruct everything in sight.

In the face of ultra-rapid technological developments, oil and gas production is old and dirty and slow and captures unbelievable sums of money for few people by removing the remains of dead organisms found deep underground; i.e., oil. In a strange, twisted manner, this is biological money stolen from Earth. but that’s too deep of a subject for now.

Instead, what if thermal bricks with zero CO2 content could convert electricity to 1,800°C (3,275°F) powerful enough to melt steel, no fossil fuels needed? And not only create heat for heavy industry but also store heat for days when the sun doesn’t shine. Sounds too good to be true. It’s a case that breaks that rule.

Abracadabra! Meet Electrified Thermal Solutions (“ETS”) an MIT spinoff that has designed Joule Hive, a thermal battery the size of an elevator that’s featured in a write-up in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “Can Electrically Conductive Bricks Replace Fossil Fuels?“, d/d May 27, 2024, (originally from Inside Climate News).

Even more miraculous yet, ETS has perfected the technologically marvelous brick and contracted with a major industrial brick manufacturer, using ETS’s proprietary formula, to bring to market orders ranging from two tons of bricks to 2,000 tons of bricks, or more. In fact, ETS recently received its first multi-ton order for thermal bricks, no CO2 included.

A Brick that Creates Industrial-Scale Heat

ETS’s brick is a brilliant answer for the energy transition to convert electricity to high temperature heat that today is done by coal and natural gas to power heavy industry. Bring the bricks, remove the coal, turn off the natural gas. Brick technology is here to eliminate global warming’s biggest advocates; i.e., oil and gas and coal.

Significantly, and this is big: With the Joule Hive Thermal Battery, for the first-time electricity can be used to drive a gas turbine. Interpretation: The world’s 1.8 Terawatts of existing natural gas power plants could be converted to grid-scale batteries to balance intermittent renewable generation. ETS intends to transform natural gas power plants into decarbonized batteries to enable a zero-carbon grid of the future. Here’s the bottom line: One trillion watts (one Terawatt) equals all the electricity from all US power plants, now targeted by thermal bricks that will boot CO2 out of the front gate of the industrial plant.

The origin of thermal bricks came from Dan Stack and Joey Kabel, when Dan Stack, as a grad student at MIT, wondered out loud whether fire bricks like those commonly used in residential fireplaces could be used to store heat as well as create heat. Thereafter, altering the metal oxides within brick creation, wonderful things happen: (1) conduct electricity (2) generate heat (3) store heat. It’s remarkable and marketable and should become a hot new product, assuming success in the commercial market with a couple of high-profile adventurous first-time customers.

According to Stack, “There’s no exotic metals in here, there’s nothing that’ll burn out.”

Thanks to the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act -IRA-, the US Energy Department awarded ETS a $5 million grant to help build the first commercial-scale demo at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio: “The project will demonstrate how the thermal battery could provide high temperature heat for a number of industrial processes including cement manufacturing, which currently relies primarily on burning coal for heat.” (Bulletin)

Massimo Toso, president and chief executive of Buzzi Unicem USA, one of the largest cement producers in the United States and an industrial partner with ETS on the Energy Department grant, praised the company’s thermal battery: “ETS’s Joule Hive Thermal Battery is the first industrial heat decarbonization solution we have identified that could potentially enable us to cost effectively and eliminate the use of fossil fuels in our heating processes.” (Ibid.)

This is a big step for decarbonization of heavy industry, which accounts for approximately one-fourth (1/4th) of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. It’s believed thermal batteries (bricks) powered-up by renewable energy could reduce one-half of industry emissions. That’s a huge step in the right direction and groundbreaking for more rapid decarbonization of the economy. Indeed, if as successful as it appears, this is a giant leap forward towards getting off fossil fuels.

Another astute placement by the Biden administration was a $35 million grant to Ashland, a specialty chemical manufacturer in Wilmington, Delaware, a matching grant from the Energy Department for commercial deployment of ETS’s thermal batteries to be installed at Ashland’s ISP Chemicals Plant in Calvert City, Kentucky where large volumes of high temperature steam are needed to run its operations.

“The project would replace natural gas-fired boilers at the Calvert City plant with ETS’s thermal batteries. Air blown through the Joule Hive batteries would transfer flame-temperature heat to the boilers to generate steam. The project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with steam generation at the plant by nearly 70 percent, according to the Energy Department.” (Ibid.)  Ashland is currently evaluating the proposal.

This brings to the forefront the significance and key role of policymakers that focus on mitigation of global warming; it’s never been more important. Global warming is not a tongue-in-cheek make-fun-of issue. It’s already killing people and decimating life-sourcing ecosystems, rising ocean levels, and turning the global weather system inside out and upside down with unprecedented levels of ferociousness never witnessed, world’s biggest, fiercest wildfires, meanwhile, scorching heat now blankets the planet like never before: When it is hot, it’s never been so hot!

A fair question is whether Electrified Thermal Solutions would have been funded under the description of the following proposal for a new 2025 federal administration: Project 2025 is the Heritage Foundation’s roadmap for MAGA Republicans going forward: “The plan’s proposals include eviscerating existing climate programs and increasing reliance on fossil fuels. It emphatically repudiates efforts to decarbonize the economy and is a wholesale reversal of the progress made on climate policy over recent years.” (Source: ” Project 2025 Tells us What a Second Trump Term Could Mean for Climate Policy. It Isn’t Pretty“, WBUR nonprofit news org, March 27, 2024.

The light at the end of the tunnel just flickered.

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He can be contacted at: rlhunziker@gmail.com. Read other articles by Robert.

 

The Imperialists Will Tolerate a Two-State But Not a One-State Solution in Palestine-Israel

by Roger Copple / May 31st, 2024

A two-state solution (that is, having two independent separate nations) in Palestine-Israel would definitely be an improvement. However, it would not challenge and threaten the forces of imperialism because Zionist Israel and Hamas would still be allowed to exist if there are two separate nations. Furthermore, land disputes between the two nations would continue. The forces of imperialism include the imperial nations such as the United States, the military-industrial complex, and NATO.

Jerusalem in Palestine-Israel is a holy city for Christians, Muslims, and Jews. If we can solve the problems in this region of the world, everything else will be a piece of cake. What happens in Palestine-Israel has repercussions throughout the world, which is why it is so important to learn more about Zionism, imperialism, and the Middle East crisis, especially now considering the catastrophic situation in Rafah, Gaza.

According to Kuna.net, 36,224 Palestinians have been killed, and 81,777 have been injured in Gaza as of May 30, 2024, since October 7, 2023 when the Israel-Hamas War began. The Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 killed 1,139 Israeli citizens (revised from 1,400).

The United Nations Partition Plan  was adopted on November 29, 1947. Part I of the plan stipulated that the British Mandate (that lasted from 1922 to 1948) would be terminated as soon as possible.  The Arab Palestinians considered the UN partition plan to be pro-Zionist with 56% of the land allocated to the Jewish state, while the Arab Palestinian population was twice the Jewish population at that time. “In 1920 the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian population was Arab, mostly Sunni Muslim,” according to  British Palestine Police.org.UK.

The British mandate ended on May 15, 1948. The day before in the afternoon of May 14, 1948, the Zionist State of Israel was declared in Tel-Aviv.

After the United Nations adopted its partition plan on November 29, 1947 for Palestine, it caused the 1947-1948 civil war  between Arabs and Jews.  Then after the  British Mandate  ended and the State of Israel was declared, the very next day the surrounding Arab nations declared war on Israel, and that war is referred to as the  1948 Arab-Israeli War.  The Arab-Israeli War resulted in the  Nakba, which was the catastrophe in which 80% of the population (more than 700,000 Palestinians) were expelled or fled from their homes.

Middle East Eye.net : The Nakba: All you need to know explained in five maps and charts–May 15, 2024

Even the fairest two-state partition plan will not eliminate the bitterness and hatred between Arabs and Jews that developed  increasingly when Jewish Zionists started immigrating into the Arab land of Palestine.  When Jews started immigrating into Palestine, they did not just integrate with the Arab Palestinians.  Instead, the Jewish immigrants remained separate. Zionism is anchored in the belief that Jews, through their nationality and religion, deserve and have a right to reclaim their ancestral homeland, Israel. Eventually the Zionist Jews developed a plan (Plan Dalet, or Plan D for short) for the systematic removal of Palestinians, also referred to as the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

The rivalry between Jews and Arabs has its roots in the ancient biblical account of Isaac and Ishmael. However, Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Palestine had gotten along just fine under the Ottoman Empire, which was dissolved at the end of World War I.

The imperial forces and nations can tolerate a two-state solution because Zionist Israel would still be allowed to exist as one of the two states. But the imperial forces will absolutely not tolerate having one democratic nation for all Palestinians, Jews, and Christians. That would threaten to end the conflict between Zionists and Hamas advocates, which the imperialists need.  Zionist Israel gives the imperial nations a base and an ally to keep the Middle-East under its control.

Currently the Zionist Israeli Jews have much control over the Palestinian territories, which is exactly how they and the imperialists want it to be. Creating two independent nations would definitely be an improvement, but it has some serious shortcomings. With even the best partition plan for Israel and Palestine as two separate nations, Zionism in Israel would still be allowed to exist, and the land disputes between Israel and Palestine would continue. So a two-state solution would be tolerable (but not preferable) to the imperialists.  However, if all the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian residents of Palestine-Israel could have an equal vote in a national government, this would be totally unacceptable to the imperialists because they need Zionist Israel as a base and ally for their operations.

The war profiteers need the regional instability created by the Zionist State of Israel to increase their profits and increase their control of the region. As conflicts increase, more weapons of war must be produced, and this is profitable for those who are invested in the weapons industry.  Zionists and imperialists need each other.

If Zionism is democratically removed from the State of Israel, and Hamas is democratically removed from Gaza, peace and harmony in the Middle East could actually become a reality. But creating peace would be an enormous threat to the military-industrial complex that makes money from endless wars, that makes money from conflicts that are deliberately created. In 2009 Ron Paul explained in this 1-minute video that Israel encouraged and helped start Hamas!

The imperial nations do not want peace in Palestine-Israel unless it is on their terms. They don’t want to give Muslims and Christians the same rights and privileges as the Zionist Israeli Jews have. To maintain the status quo and accomplish their long-term objectives, the imperial nations create division and discord in the Middle East. They use a strategy of divide and conquer.

Imperialists want to keep controlling the world as they have since ancient times, but they do not yet have total control, which is what they want. Imperialists love to infiltrate, destabilize, and even create the collapse of a nation because then they can create changes in that nation that allow them to further their interests and achieve their long-term goals.  The imperial forces are sinister and evil, if not satanic.

The integration of Jews, Muslims, and Christians into a secular one-state nation would be a win-win situation for everyone except the war profiteers of the military-industrial complex.

Having two independent nations (the two-state solution) would help the Palestinians the most because Israel currently has much control over the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza.  But a two-state solution is not the best solution. Integrating Jews, Muslims, and Christians into a secular one-state nation would be the best solution and the highest achievement. Considering the current tensions and hostilities between Arab Palestinians and Jewish Israelis, a secular one-state solution could create a safe homeland for Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

If all the Jews, Muslims, and Christians have equal rights in a national government, the beliefs and practices of Zionism and Hamas will not be implemented by popular vote. Ideally the citizens of Palestine-Israel could have a unicameral legislature and equally-empower the 7 largest political parties and give those political parties proportionate control of the mainstream media. Maximizing democracy could be a model for other nations as well.

How can we create healing, forgiveness, and reconciliation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews?

We must work to promote a secular national government for all Jews, Muslims, and Christians that live in Palestine-Israel.  This would remove the imperialist base in Zionist Israel, and it would ideally eliminate the influences of Zionism and of Hamas.

In an article entitled “Christians, Muslims, and Jews for a Secular One-State Solution in Palestine-Israel,” I discuss other dimensions of this subject.

The imperial nations deeply invested in the Middle East crisis dearly love the current situation in which Zionist Israel has much control over the Palestinian territories. For Muslims, Jews, and Christians living in Palestine-Israel, a two-state solution would be better, but a one-state solution would be best.

Roger Copple retired in 2010 at the age of 60. As a high school special education teacher, he taught algebra, English, and history. As a general education teacher he taught mostly 3rd grade. His website www.WorldWithoutEmpire.com was created the same year he retired with his son’s help. Roger renewed his Christian faith on September 17, 2023 in an evangelical church after being enamored with yoga philosophy and Buddhism for many years. However, for the last 3 months, he has identified as a mainline Presbyterian, no longer claiming to be an evangelical. Roger lives in Gulfport, Florida. Read other articles by Roger.

The Unfinished Journey of Palestinian Statehood

BY DANIEL WARNER

 MAY 31, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

On May 22, Palestine was recognized as a state by Norway, Ireland, and Spain, bringing the number of countries recognizing Palestine as a state to over 140 of the 193 members of the United Nations. Yet, Palestine is still not a legal state. Moreover, the current political consensus is that the best solution to the Israel/Hamas conflict is a two-state solution. Already in 2016, the U.N. Security Council reaffirmed support for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. But in order to have a two-state solution, there must be two states.

Why hasn’t full Palestinian recognition happened?

The United States accepts the theoretical two-state solution but at this point rejects Palestinian statehood.  Following the recent recognition of Palestinian statehood by the three countries, “a U.S. official familiar with the discussions stressed that Washington had made clear to the three … that recognizing a Palestinian state would not be useful,” Politico reported.

Several European countries, including major powers like France, have been hesitant to recognize Palestine as well, arguing that important conditions have not yet been met. “This decision [by Spain, Ireland, and Norway] must be useful, that is to say allow a decisive step forward on the political level,” French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné said in a statement. “France does not consider that the conditions have been met to date for this decision to have a real impact on this process,” she added.

Recognizing Palestine is not “useful”? Will not “have a real impact”? The Spanish prime minister disagreed. “Recognition of the state of Palestine is not only a matter of historic justice…it is also an essential requirement if we are all to achieve peace,” Pedro Sanchez explained.

States formally exist through decisions by other states. If you are as others see you, who are the “others” who will determine Palestine’s statehood? There is no formal legal process by which statehood is established. While political entities may announce their statehood through declarations, a form of self-determination, the recognition of statehood depends on others. Self-declarations are necessary, but not sufficient for statehood.

For example, in February 2008, the Kosovo Assembly declared Kosovo’s independence as the Republic of Kosovo. That status is recognized by seventy-four members of the United Nations. Yet, the Republic of Kosovo is not a universally recognized legal state. In fact, several countries have said they will never recognize Kosovo as a state, including Serbia, Russia, Argentina, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and Libya.

State recognition is a political decision. Although an entity may have what is necessary to be considered a state – people, territory, government and sovereignty – it is the political decision of other states that allows a state to be officially recognized.

The most obvious avenue to formal recognition is through the United Nations. Following a 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence which was recognized by more than seventy countries, Palestine applied for U.N. membership in 2011. The U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) voted to upgrade Palestine’s status from “observer” to a “non-member Permanent Observer State” in 2012, like the Holy See, but no more.

(Interestingly, the upgrading happened on the same day, according to UN News, “that the UN observed the annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Established in 1977, the Day marks the date in 1947 when the Assembly adopted a resolution partitioning then-mandated Palestine into two States, one Jewish and one Arab.”)

Recent attempts to grant Palestine full U.N. membership and legal status have accelerated as a result of Israel’s overwhelming reaction to the October 7 Hamas attack. The UNGA adopted a resolution in early May declaring that Palestine qualifies for full-member status at the United Nations by a vote of 143 to 9 with twenty-five abstaining. “The vast majority of countries in this hall are fully aware of the legitimacy of the Palestinian bid and the justness of their cause,” declared the U.A.E. Ambassador Mohamed Abushahab at the time.

But full membership in the United Nations goes beyond a General Assembly decision; it needs approval by the Security Council, with its five permanent members having veto power. As it has done in the past on issues involving Israel and Palestine, the United States vetoed a Security Council vote to have Palestine recognized as a full member of the U.N. The vote was twelve in favor and one — the United States — opposed, with abstentions from Britain and Switzerland.

Why the U.S. veto? U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan presented President Biden’s position on Palestinian statehood following the three countries’ latest recognition: “He [Biden] has been equally emphatic on the record that the two-state solution should be brought about through direct negotiations through the parties, not through unilateral recognition, that’s a principled position that we have held on a consistent basis.” he said.

According to the United States, therefore, it will only recognize Palestinian statehood after direct negotiations between the parties. Negotiations between which parties? Sullivan did not elaborate who will directly negotiate and under whose authority Palestinian statehood will happen.

“You are as others see you” is a general phrase that lacks a definition of the others. The recognition of statehood is based on politics, privilege, and positions of power. The United States alone can block Palestinian U.N. full membership and statehood recognition. This is neither democratic nor objective. Will the new dynamic favoring Palestine in light of Israel’s horrific aggression overcome the United States’ position? Despite that dynamic, as the former Swiss Ambassador to Israel Jean-Daniel Ruch perceptively observed: “a Two-States solution remains desirable and is technically feasible…the political will to make the brave and risky investments to open a genuine peace perspective is nowhere as massive as it should be.”

Daniel Warner is the author of An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations. (Lynne Rienner). He lives in Geneva.

 

The Stuffing of Crime: Israel’s Rafah Strike

by Binoy Kampmark / May 31st, 2024

It was much like witnessing a boy killing flies, with a slight afterthought of apology.  The spokesman for the Israeli Defense Forces, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, did little to acquit himself, or the cause, as to why more Palestinian civilians had been indulgently killed in yet another Israeli air strike. “Despite our efforts to minimize civilian casualties during the strike, the fire that broke out was unexpected and unintended … Our investigation seeks to determine what may have caused such a large fire to ignite.”

The release commences with the usual garnish.  The strike, despite resulting in deaths in a camp of displaced Palestinians in Tal al-Sultan, was soberly designated and professionally targeted.  It was successful.  Two Hamas terrorists had been procedurally “eliminated” (in the social media release, the IDF proudly places the word upon the heads of Yassin Rabia and Khaled Nagar).  “The strike was based on precise intelligence,” Hagari tells us.  Those killed had, in turn, killed Israelis.  They were having a meeting.  “Their deaths saved lives.”

Away from the glove handling reflections of Hagari, the returns of the May 26 strike showed that Palestinian civilians were also seen as miscellaneous detritus, fundamentally dispensable.  The butchery is now a matter of record: 46 dead civilians, including 23 women, children and the elderly.  All on a sliver of territory fast becoming the most famous real estate of death on the planet.  It’s a particularly bloody ratio for killing two alleged terrorists.

In a statement on May 29 from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, various rapporteurs, including such figures as Francesca Albanese, responsible for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, to Ben Saul, charged with the task of promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, expressed their dismay.  “Harrowing images of destruction, displacement and death have emerged from Rafah, including infants torn apart and people burnt alive.”  Such reports indicated “that the strikes were indiscriminate and disproportionate, with people trapped inside burning plastic tents, leading to a horrific casualty toll.”

The Israelis have been told by a number of international bodies, entities, and sympathisers, with repeated urgency, that its current murderous efforts are simply not worth it.  The Rafah front presents further calamitous risks.  The toll, notably in striking camps of civilians displaced by prior bombings and military engagements, would be too great.  The reputational toll, likewise.  The slaughter that pads out and packs morgues; the bodies of women and children that seem to multiply with pestilential cruelty; the incidents of pure callousness dressed in a décor of euphemism: We target, and we target well; the rest is accidental or unavoidable.

The International Court of Justice, in yet another ruling on Israel’s campaign in Gaza, recently concluded that the military offensive in Rafah, along with “any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” be “immediately” halted.  It also ordered Israel to open the Rafah crossing and permit UN officials to enter Gaza and report back to the court within a month to verify compliance.

The ICJ also noted the concerns of UN officials about the risks arising from any military assault on Rafah, one that would put “hundreds of thousands of people … at imminent risk of death”.  Such risks had already “started to materialize and will intensify even further if the operation continues”.

Israel’s politicians and military personnel – at least those lacking candour – always hit upon the same formula in such instances.  It is one noted by such unflagging scribes as the late Robert Fisk: the justification of violence with seemingly sound process, decency with the stuffing of crime.  A trained pupil in such efforts is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  “Despite our utmost efforts not to harm innocent civilians, last night, there was a tragic mistake.”  When compared with his previous statements equating all Palestinians to actors behind a terrorist cause, one that would, in turn, give birth to a terrorist state, the element of mistake is less relevant than the desire to conclude the task at hand.

The next instalment of the performance involves the mandatory investigation that yields no culprits, no charges, and no prosecutions.  “The details of the incident are still under investigation, which we are committed to conducting to the fullest extent,” gabbled Major-General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi at a news conference, noting that the IDF “regrets any harm to non-combatants during the war.”

Such a method is also approved by Israel’s staunchest ally.  “You cannot reach a conclusion about the results of these investigations in the middle of a conflict,” reasoned White House spokesman John Kirby.  Why, it should be asked, bother?

The Israeli response to attacks on its citizens on October 7 last year, increasingly enfeebled by reality, long ago moved into the realm of farce.  But farce and advertising tend to be part of the same show, and the advertising about the ongoing campaign in Gaza by the Israeli forces continues to rattle the swill bucket.Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

Stop Killer AI

by Visualizing Palestine / June 1st, 2024

Most people take around 10 minutes to decide what show to stream and around 3 minutes to decide what to order off of a restaurant menu. An Israeli intelligence officer said he took about 20 seconds to decide whether to add a human being to a kill list based on suggestions generated by “Lavender,” an artificial intelligence system powered by data Israel has collected from its surveillance of Palestinian communities. Then, the Israeli military uses another AI system, sadistically named “Where’s Daddy?”, to strike targets at home with their families. Learn more about Lavender, Where’s Daddy?, and the violence made possible by digital dehumanization in our new interactive visual, Stop Killer AI.

Visualizing Palestine is grateful to an anonymous friend who worked with us to create this interactive visual, building on our previous story Automating Genocide.

“When we consider the impact of such [artificial intelligence] systems on human rights, we need to look at the consequences, first, if they malfunction and second, if they work as intended. In both situations, reducing human beings to statistical data points has grave and irreversible consequences for people’s dignity, safety, and lives.”–Marwa Fatafta and Daniel Lefeur, “Artificial Genocidal Intelligence: how Israel is automating human rights abuses and war crimes,” Access Now.

Explore how Israel uses artificial intelligence to produce targets for its bombing campaign faster than humanly possible.

“Nothing happens by accident,” said another source. “When a 3-year-old girl is killed in a home in Gaza, it’s because someone in the army decided it wasn’t a big deal for her to be killed […] These are not random rockets. Everything is intentional. We know exactly how much collateral damage there is in every home.” —Yuval Abraham, “A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza“, +972 Magazine.

Human rights advocates are calling for a ban of AI target-generation systems in warfare, biometric mass surveillance, so-called “social scoring” algorithms, and other technologies that are fundamentally incompatible with human rights.FacebooTwitter

Visualizing Palestine is the intersection of communication, social sciences, technology, design and urban studies for social justice. Visualizing Palestine uses creative visuals to describe a factual rights-based narrative of Palestine/Israel. Read other articles by Visualizing Palestine, or visit Visualizing Palestine's website.