Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
Congress blocks Massie-Khanna effort to kill US-Israel integration | Responsible Statecraft
Congress blocks Massie-Khanna effort to kill US-Israel integration | Responsible Statecraft
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/massie-israel-integration/
Israel Has Become a Borderless State of Settlers - Opinion
Israel Has Become a Borderless State of Settlers - Opinion
"The old is dying and the new cannot be born," diagnosed the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci. In the meantime, he warned, monstrous developments take shape.
Israel Has Become a Borderless State of Settlers - Opinion
Tuesday, June 30, 2026
What Lebanon actually signed away in its deal with 'Israel' | Al Mayadeen English - Guest Post
What Lebanon actually signed away in its deal with 'Israel' | Al Mayadeen English
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/what-lebanon-actually-signed-away-in-its-deal-with--israel
6/28/26
What Lebanon actually signed away in its deal with 'Israel'
What's worse than signing away sixty southern Lebanese villages to the Israeli occupation in exchange for nothing? Doing it when a far better alternative was sitting on the table. And what's worse than that? Doing it in the name of "sovereignty."
Lebanese and Israeli officials are both calling Friday's trilateral framework, signed in Washington under US sponsorship, "historic." In a narrow sense, they are right. The Lebanese state has legitimized the continued occupation of the South, handed "Israel" an outcome it could never have secured through war, and thrown a lifeline to a Netanyahu government that badly needed one.
Yet, calling Friday's framework "trilateral" is somewhat misleading. The word suggests three sides walked into the room, when in essence, there was one. The Lebanese delegation arrived with its friends and enemies already settled, just as the US and Israeli delegations did.
Lebanon's friends, by this framework's own logic, are Washington and the occupation. Its enemies, based on the March 2 governmental decree to criminalize the Resistance, are Hezbollah and, behind it, Iran.
The Resistance is now the enemy
The text states plainly that "Israel's" military actions in Lebanon are "solely a consequence" of the threat posed by "non-state armed groups," and that ending this threat through their disarmament will "eliminate any future need" for Israeli military action in Lebanon.
In other words, the Lebanese authority has signed onto the idea that "Israel," an enemy state under Lebanon's own law, is no longer the aggressor; Hezbollah is. Contrary to what a chronically online vocal minority might want you to believe, the Israeli regime is not an enemy state in Lebanese law only; roughly 87% of the Lebanese population views "Israel" as an enemy.
The Lebanese state goes on to commit, in its own words, to rejecting "the claims of any state or non-state actor to use force on its behalf without its explicit authorization," and to treating any such claim as "illegal" and "contrary to Lebanese national interests." Resistance to occupation, something international law has never required a government's permission to exercise, becomes a domestic crime the moment a government decides to call it one.
This matters because of who exactly the Lebanese state has just declared a threat to itself, as Hezbollah's constituency is not a fringe. Beyond being the largest political party in the country, recent polling puts opposition to disarmament at somewhere between 92 and 96 percent among Lebanon's Shia community. A government cannot describe more than a third of its own population as a security threat and call that an act of sovereignty.
Redeployment is not withdrawal
Search the entire text of the framework for the word withdrawal, and you will not find it. "Israel" commits only to "progressively redeploy," a phrase that appears nowhere in international law and exists only for to avoid the obligations that come with acknowledging an occupation.
Aaron David Miller, who spent twenty-four years at the US State Department negotiating Arab-Israeli normalization deals, pointed it out. "Israel had pretty good lawyers," he wrote. "The word withdrawal doesn't appear, redeployment does."
Netanyahu and his war minister have also removed any ambiguity about what redeployment actually means. "Israel will not withdraw from Lebanon," war minister Israel Katz said after the signing, "and will maintain the security zone in the south, and will preserve the army's freedom of action." Netanyahu described the same outcome as "a major achievement" that the occupation "will maintain as long as Hezbollah has not disarmed and as long as there is a threat to the State of Israel," a condition that "Israel" alone gets to assess.
Even the two pilot zones offered as evidence of Israeli concessions are not what they appear to be. One sits south of the Litani River, outside the "security zone" that the Israeli occupation already controls. The other, Netanyahu explained, is "a small part of the expanded security zone we gained over the past two weeks, which the Israeli army does not need, and it says so in the clearest possible terms."
However, to no one's surprise, Netanyahu is lying. The occupation never actually established control over those areas to begin with, so Netanyahu is offering up land he only ever claimed to have taken.
Lebanon is being asked to celebrate the return of land the Israeli military says has no value to it, or even putting territories that were never occupied under the so-called pilot zone model, while the original security zone, including the area occupied specifically to allegedly "push back the Radwan Force," stays put regardless of what happens with disarmament.
Still no ceasefire
For all the talk of de-escalation, the framework does not contain a ceasefire either.
"Israel" is not named anywhere in relation to halting its own attacks. The document conditions calm not on "Israel" ending its aggression, withdrawing from occupied territory, releasing prisoners, or allowing the displaced to return, but on Hezbollah ceasing fire and withdrawing.
What is being sold as a cessation of hostilities is structured, in practice, as the removal of Lebanese citizens from their own land, not the removal of an occupying army from it.
No court, no compensation, no answers on the prisoners
Ironically, the Lebanese government, headed by the former President of the International Court of Justice, signed away its own legal recourse.
The text commits both sides to "the cessation of all hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora," language that independent lawmaker Halima El Kaakour challenged directly to the president and prime minister. "Does this mean not pursuing the enemy for its war crimes and crimes against humanity?" she asked, warning that the clause "deprives Lebanon of the possibility of substantial financial compensation" and amounts to enshrining impunity rather than building peace.
Under this clause, Lebanon gives up any path to the ICC, any formal complaint at the UN Security Council, any pursuit of accountability for the Black Wednesday massacre, the pager attacks, or any of the killings carried out over the past three years.
The same passage leaves Lebanese prisoners and the forcibly disappeared in legal limbo. There is no commitment from "Israel" to disclose their fate, allow Red Cross visits, or guarantee their release, the obligations international humanitarian law already requires.
The fine print
Almost everything written into this framework imposes a hard, specific obligation on Lebanon while leaving "Israel" and the United States with language soft enough to mean whatever they need it to mean later.
Lebanon's commitment to disarm "all non-state armed groups" across the entire country is unconditional and described as irreversible. The Israeli regime's "redeployment," by contrast, depends on a "Security Annex" that has not been published, verified by criteria the US will set, with Washington cast as a neutral arbiter despite being "Israel's" principal sponsor and arms supplier.
Reconstruction is structured the same way. Funds are barred from reaching any "individual" affiliated with a non-state armed group, not just organizations. Given how much of the South's population has some connection to the Resistance, this clause functions less like counterterrorism financing and more like a blanket ban on rebuilding most of the destroyed villages in the South.
Even the word "communities" appears only once in the entire text, and it refers to Israeli communities. South Lebanon, where the actual destruction happened, is treated as a depopulated piece of land, empty of a "community" in need of protection.
April 8: The original sin
To understand just how little weight Lebanon's own diplomacy carried in any of this, and how easily its government let itself be used by the same regime bombing it, it helps to go back to how these talks actually started.
President Joseph Aoun signaled willingness for direct talks with the occupation regime back in early March, only for "Israel" to publicly humiliate the offer. Sources told Reuters that Lebanon had "nothing tangible to offer at a negotiating table." Foreign Minister Gideon Saar was asked whether talks with Lebanon were planned and answered, "No." For roughly four weeks, the same government that insisted only it had the standing to negotiate a ceasefire could not get "Israel" to even sit down, while the bombing continued.
The turning point came on April 8, when Pakistan's prime minister announced a ceasefire across all fronts, including Lebanon, as part of the Islamabad track Iran had insisted on. Within hours, the 'Israeli' regime made clear it was not committing to any ceasefire in Lebanon specifically. Simultaneously, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam declared that securing a ceasefire was a "sovereign matter" only the Lebanese government could negotiate, rejecting any truce that arrived through Iran.
In doing so, Salam handed legitimacy to the massacre that followed within hours, on what has since become known as Black Wednesday, when Israeli attacks murdered more than 350 people across Lebanon in ten minutes.
The killings drew international condemnation, the kind that under any government with a spine would have hardened Beirut's position rather than softened it. Instead, the Lebanese state kept pursuing the same direct, bilateral channel, the first of its kind in decades, with the same regime that had just massacred hundreds of its people in minutes.
Then, just as suddenly, Netanyahu reversed course entirely. He framed it as responding to Lebanon's "repeated requests" for talks, the same requests his government had spent a month publicly mocking. "Israel" was not responding to an improvement in Lebanese diplomacy. It was responding to Iran, which had just made an end to hostilities in Lebanon a non-negotiable piece of any wider de-escalation.
Netanyahu was not about to let Tehran dictate the terms of Israeli activity in Lebanon, so he made sure Beirut delivered those terms to him directly instead.
What Pakistan got that Washington didn't
The contrast with what Iran actually negotiated for Lebanon in the Islamabad track versus what Lebanon's own government did in Washington is immense.
The Islamabad memorandum called for an immediate ceasefire on the Lebanon front, full Israeli withdrawal from the South and all Lebanese territory within two months, extension of Lebanese state authority over the entire country, and a Hezbollah weapons question handled through an internal national security strategy rather than as a precondition for anything. Both sides retained the right to self-defense if attacked, and the threshold for declaring the danger over was never left to "Israel" alone to decide.
The Washington framework inverts every one of those terms. There is no immediate ceasefire. There is no timeline at all. The Lebanese state's authority expands only gradually, based on Israeli judgment, through pilot zones, after weapons are removed, not before.
"Israel" keeps the so-called "freedom of military action" throughout the South whenever it perceives a threat, while Lebanon's army is confined to specific zones it must first earn through performance. And withdrawal, such as it is, depends entirely on "Israel's" own assessment of whether the threat has ended.
The Iran-US memorandum required full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a condition of any comprehensive deal. Lebanon's government had that outcome sitting in front of it, unconditional and on a clock, without having to give up anything in return. It chose this framework instead.
A sovereign decision, as long as 'Israel' signs off first
What makes this hardest to defend is the gap between what Lebanese officials are telling the public and what "Israel's" own officials are saying about the exact same document.
President Aoun's office described Friday's signing as the first step toward restoring "the sovereignty of the Lebanese state over all its territory, without the loss of a single inch," and promised the Lebanese people they would return to a fully liberated land, with "no more occupation, no prisoners, no dependency, and no tutelage." Prime Minister Salam went further, saying the framework "aims to secure an Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory" and restore full state sovereignty.
War minister Katz called the same agreement "a historic event and an important political and security achievement for Israel." Asked what that achievement actually was, he proclaimed that "Israel will not withdraw from Lebanon," adding that it "will maintain the security zone in the south, and will preserve the army's freedom of action."
Netanyahu opened his address on Saturday the same way. "I want to tell you about a major achievement for the State of Israel," he said, before explaining that the achievement was that "Israel" "remains, first and foremost, in the security zone in southern Lebanon," a presence he said it "will maintain as long as Hezbollah has not disarmed."
Both governments are describing the same piece of paper. One says it secures full withdrawal and total sovereignty. The other says, in plain language, on the record, on the same day, that nobody is withdrawing and that staying put is the achievement. Either Lebanon's government did not read the document it signed, or it is telling its own people something it knows is not true.
A recipe for civil war
Israeli settlers received a far clearer picture of the agreement from their national broadcasters than the Lebanese population. Channel 13 host Rafi Droker said plainly that "the Israeli plan in Lebanon is to divide the country and plunge it into a civil war to force the Lebanese government to confront Hezbollah militarily," and military correspondent Alon Ben-David confirmed it was "the Israeli goal from the beginning."
It is not hard to see how that would actually play out. The framework asks the Lebanese army, a national institution built on cross-sectarian consensus, to enter the South and dismantle Hezbollah's positions under Israeli and US supervision.
Hezbollah is not going to disarm voluntarily, and the army has no mandate, no appetite, and no realistic capacity to force the issue without turning its own ranks, and the country around them, against each other.
A force meant to hold Lebanon together would become the instrument that tears it apart, fighting a domestic enemy on behalf of the same regime still occupying its land.
Lebanon already tried this in 1983
This is not the first time a Lebanese government has signed an agreement with "Israel" under US sponsorship that promised peace and delivered occupation.
In 1983, the Gemayel government signed the May 17 Agreement after the 1982 invasion, with a written, named Israeli commitment to withdraw all forces within eight to twelve weeks. It collapsed within a year, rejected by the political forces strong enough to block it, and canceled by the Lebanese parliament in March 1984.
The 2026 framework does not even reach the bar that the May 17 Agreement set.
The earlier document at least named Israeli withdrawal as an obligation, however, conditional in practice. This one does not contain the word at all. And unlike 1983, when Israeli troops occupied Beirut, and the Lebanese state was negotiating, effectively with a gun to its head, today's government has no such excuse. There is no foreign army in the capital, and Hezbollah's military capacity is reconstituting rather than collapsing, with its drone and anti-tank tactics already producing real losses on the IOF. Iran is negotiating with Washington from a position of regional strength, not weakness, and made a Lebanon ceasefire a centerpiece of those talks. Lebanon had diplomatic leverage in 2026 that it simply did not have in 1983, and chose not to use it.
It is worth letting Hezbollah have the last word here, since this is the side the entire framework was built to silence. Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah addressed Netanyahu directly on the day the agreement was signed. "You have reached an agreement with one who possesses nothing," he said. "The state of hostility toward Israel will remain, and whoever shakes hands with the enemy is complicit in its crimes."
What will be the fate of the SSPX? - Guest Post by Anna Kurian for Aleteia
An exclusive service for Aleteia readers
Schism, excommunication, and the SSPX ordinations
As the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X prepares to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026, we explain the consequences and implications, guided by a canon lawyer.
By Anna Kurian
Why are the upcoming episcopal consecrations announced by the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) for Wednesday, July 1, 2026, problematic? What will happen to the individuals involved? Furthermore, what will become of the priests and faithful associated with this movement?
The SSPX has lacked official canonical status since its break with Rome in 1988. Now, relying on canon law and the expertise of canonist Pierre Chaffard-Luçon, we break down the implications of these upcoming ordinations.
Why are these consecrations controversial?
In the Catholic Church, any episcopal consecration requires a papal mandate. Selecting a new bishop follows a strict procedure overseen by the papal nuncio — the pope’s ambassador — and the Dicastery for Bishops.
They present three candidates — known as a terna — to the Pontiff. He then makes the final choice, though he is free to select someone outside that list. Proceeding with consecrations without a proper papal mandate constitutes an offense under current ecclesiastical law (Canon 1013).
True or false bishops: What will be the status of the subjects of these consecrations?
There is an important difference between a consecration’s validity and its liceity. According to canon law, the Wednesday, July 1 celebration will be valid because a consecrating bishop will perform the rite. However, the consecration will be illicit since it lacks a papal mandate. From the Church’s perspective, the newly ordained men will be true and full bishops, but they will essentially operate as “outlaws.”
What is a “schism”?
Individuals who commit a deliberate act of disobedience against the Pontiff’s authority enter into a state of schism. Canon 751 defines schism as the refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the members of the Church.
This is primarily a disciplinary issue. It shouldn’t be confused with heresy, which is the obstinate denial of doctrinal truth, or apostasy, the total repudiation of the Christian faith. All three of these offenses incur excommunication.
What exactly is excommunication?
Excommunication severs a person’s communion with the Church and serves as the penalty for a schismatic act. If the SSPX follows through on its plan to consecrate four bishops, the excommunication will be latae sententiae. This means the penalty is automatic, triggered immediately by the gravity and public nature of the act. Rome may simply issue a public declaration recognizing a situation that already exists, much like it did in 1988 with the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei.
Unlike “expiatory” punishments, excommunication is a “medicinal” penalty. Its purpose is to help the offender realize their fault and regularize their situation.
In other circumstances, canon law provides for ferandae sententiae excommunication. When this applies, the penalty is formally declared at the conclusion of a judicial trial.
Does excommunication mean damnation?
No. According to Catholic theology, breaking communion has serious consequences for earthly life, primarily because “excommunicated” individuals can no longer receive the Sacraments. However, the Church doesn’t pass judgment on the sanctioned person’s ultimate salvation. That judgment belongs to God alone.
Who will incur excommunication on Wednesday, July 1?
The bishops conferring the consecration and the men receiving it will be personally excommunicated the moment the offense occurs. Yet, this act also carries institutional weight since the SSPX is carrying out the consecrations as an organization. Father Davide Pagliarani, the society’s superior, announced the decision and stated they would proceed without a papal mandate.
Consequently, all registered members of the organization—including clerics and religious—as well as laypeople who support the action, will find themselves in a schismatic situation in the eyes of the Church. They all potentially face excommunication.
It’s worth noting that during the initial illegal consecrations over which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre presided in 1988, Rome only declared excommunications for the celebrating and consecrated bishops, rather than the entire SSPX membership.
What steps are needed to return to the Church's communion?
Lifting an excommunication is a personal matter. Rome makes the decision after the excommunicated person fulfills a period of repentance. A pontiff can also initiate the process to foster dialogue.
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI issued a decree lifting the 1988 excommunications, describing it as “a discreet gesture of mercy” designed to “invite the four Bishops once more to return” to the Church’s fold. Returning involves an “admission to full communion.” This requires a specific liturgy where the person recites the Creed before representatives of the Catholic community.
What is the current status of SSPX priests?
SSPX priests are validly ordained, but they remain “suspended.” Because illegitimate bishops who are in direct conflict with Rome ordained them, they incur a suspensio a divinis. This penalty prohibits them from administering the Sacraments. Unlike excommunicated individuals, however, they are still allowed to receive them.
Are the Sacraments they celebrate valid?
An SSPX priest’s ordination is illegitimate yet valid. The Sacraments he celebrates share this exact status: illicit but valid. The Church teaches that the “grace of God” remains present and active in these sacraments.
During the 2015 Year of Mercy, Pope Francis even allowed SSPX priests to validly and licitly hear confessions. He later indefinitely extended this provision. Additionally, in March 2017, the pontiff granted them the ability to celebrate licit Catholic marriages on a case-by-case basis, provided they have the local bishop’s authorization. It remains unclear whether these pastoral provisions will endure under Pope Leo XIV if the Wednesday, July 1 episcopal consecrations take place.
Are there exceptions where their Sacraments are valid and licit?
Church law makes an exception for a Catholic who is at the point of death (in articulo mortis) and urgently needs a sacrament. In those dire moments, any priest or bishop—even one under severe ecclesiastical penalties—regains the faculties to hear confessions validly and licitly, specifically for the person in need. This rule isn’t meant as a favor to the suspended or excommunicated priest. Instead, it prioritizes the soul of the dying person and their eternal salvation.
No sign of turning back
On June 30, Leo XIV sent a final message inviting the SSPX to suspend the episcopal consecrations and engage in dialogue with the Vatican. However, Father Davide Pagliarani replied to the Pope in the afternoon of the same day. He published an open letter on the website of the Society of Saint Pius X denying the request for the annulment of the episcopal consecrations. The superior of the Society of Saint Pius X nevertheless thanked the Pope for his "paternal solicitude" expressed in his letter, while regretting not having been able to meet with him.
The Lefebvrist superior explains that the two bishops tasked by the Holy See with engaging in dialogue with the SSPX —Bishop Vitus Huonder, then Bishop of Chur, now deceased, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana— "recognized the profoundly Catholic spirit of the Society." He says he does not want to "separate from the Roman Catholic Church."
"One day, all the difficulties between the Holy See and the Society will be resolved," Father Pagliarani writes, urging the Pope to make "a gesture of understanding."
Monday, June 29, 2026
U.S. resumes limited strikes in Iran; Board of Peace may get legal immunity; Breathtaking new Trump corruption
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/us-strikes-iran-board-peace-gaza-immunity-trump-corruption-deals?r=1y80w
Sunday, June 28, 2026
Who has profited most from the war on Iran? | US-Israel war on Iran News | Al Jazeera
Who has profited most from the war on Iran? | US-Israel war on Iran News | Al Jazeera
EXPLAINER
News
|
US-Israel war on Iran
Who has profited most from the war on Iran?
Defence contractors, energy companies and investment banks saw profits soar as war and uncertainty upended markets.
[Salon] The book the West refuses to read -
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/2069979487354405281
user avatar
Arnaud Bertrand
@RnaudBertrand
This is genuinely shocking, and says so much about our approach to China.
I decided to check for independent reviews of the English version Xi Jinping's latest book, published a year ago, to see what people had to say about it since I hadn't read it myself.
To my surprise, I couldn't find any: not a single thoughtful review about the book out there! Even on Amazon, check it for yourself (amazon.com/XI-JINPING-GOV…): the book has only 3 ratings, that's it.
No matter where you stand on China, you’ve got to admit that’s pretty crazy: the sitting president of the world's rising superpower publishes a 700-page book explaining exactly what he's doing and why, and we don’t even care to look.
If there ever was a fact that illustrates just how willfully ignorant we are about China, this is it.
All the more because we then go spew the usual clichés around how secretive and impenetrable the Chinese system is: the book is on Amazon for $21 for crying out loud!
Anyhow, this felt so wrong that I figured I'd fix it. I bought the book, read it attentively and wrote what I hope you'll agree is a thoughtful review of it.
The book contains genuinely surprising passages, such as Xi writing that oversight of the Communist Party by "the judiciary, the public, and the media" was not just something the Party must “readily accept,” but something that he framed as historically decisive - an essential component to "escaping the historical cycle of rise and fall" that has doomed every dynasty in China's history.
Other passage that I'm sure would surprise many: a common narrative out there is that China blames the West for the century of humiliation and is driven by revenge. Well, Xi explains that's not true at all: the century of humiliation was China's own mistake, originated in the Ming Dynasty's disastrous "policy of national seclusion" that "resulted in China missing out on the opportunities presented by the Industrial Revolution" and "led to China’s decline."
All in all, the book is remarkably self-reflective and thoughtful. For instance Xi recognizes that his drive for “full and rigorous internal governance” - including to rid the Party of corruption - risked "instill[ing] fear and apprehension, or intimidate members into inaction.” He emphasizes the need for pragmatism in this regard, codified in a framework called the “Three Distinctions” that separates honest mistakes - made while experimenting, reforming, or operating without precedent - from deliberate violations committed for personal gain.
And many other surprises still. I found it a genuinely fascinating read for anyone interested in how the Chinese system works and how Xi thinks - or anyone interested in governance, period, as so much of what he writes is pretty universally applicable.
This is the link to my review of the book, an article I titled "The Book the West Refuses to Read": open.substack.com/pub/arnaudbert…
Saturday, June 27, 2026
[Salon] Beyond the Nazi Comparison: Calling out Zionism - Arab Digest.org Guest Post
Beyond the Nazi Comparison: Calling out Zionism
Summary: while the Nazi genocide was larger in scale, the Israeli state’s actions are distinct because its leaders openly boast about war crimes and ethnic cleansing in a way no Nazi official ever did.
On 14 June, Israel’s former Defence Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, compared Israeli settlers to Nazis and accused authorities of failing to investigate Israelis responsible for killing Palestinian civilians in the Occupied West Bank.
In an interview with Ynet, Ya’alon stated that factions within the religious Zionist movement hold a “Jewish supremacy ideology.” “What is Jewish supremacy? Eighty years after the Holocaust, it’s Mein Kampf in reverse. The superior race is us,” said Ya’alon, who served as Defence Minister under Benjamin Netanyahu from 2013 to 2016.
Such comments raise eyebrows in the West, where comparing Israel to the Nazis is still taboo. However, among Israelis, this comparison is not new. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father, regularly likened Menachem Begin and Ze’ev Jabotinsky to Hitler. In the 1980s, Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a respected Orthodox intellectual, warned that nationalist shifts in Israeli society were fostering a “Judeo-Nazi” mentality. More recently, in early 2026, former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo stated that settler violence reminded him of historical persecution against Jews: “My mother was a Holocaust survivor, and what I saw reminded me of the events that happened against Jews in the last century.”
It is an irony worth noting that these comparisons contravene the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s exceptionally broad definition of anti-Semitism adopted by over 1,200 entities worldwide. Indeed one could argue that the current actions of the Israeli state exceed even Nazi atrocities, albeit not in scale. With support from the US, UK and Europe, Israel continues to exterminate Palestinians. People in Gaza are denied elementary healthcare, education, water, and sanitation. Settlers rampage unchecked in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Although official figures place the death toll in Gaza at over 69,000 - 75% of them women and children - some scholars estimate the actual death toll at 680,000, including 380,000 infants under five. Average life expectancy has dropped from 75 to 35 years. Since the October ceasefire announcement, UNICEF reports one child killed daily. There are hundreds of videos showing Israeli forces destroying schools. In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Dr Nick Maynard of Oxford University described how many Palestinian boys suffered gunshot wounds to their testicles, and at least 114 children were killed with single gunshot wounds to the head or chest. A recently published United Nations report states that Israel is not only indiscriminately killing children but is "deliberately" targeting them.
The targeting of journalists is unprecedented. More journalists have been killed in Gaza than in the US Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Yugoslav wars and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan combined. An average of 13 are killed every month.
Last month, the United Nations added Israel to its blacklist for sexual violence in conflict zones, citing systematic, large-scale rape of Palestinian women, men, and children. While Klaus Barbie raped prisoners with dogs, the Nazis did not operate with the same systematic, state-enabled organisation as the IDF. Soldiers caught raping a Palestinian prisoner on camera were acquitted and became celebrities in Israeli media.
Israel’s Prime Minister and former Defence Minister are wanted by the ICC for war crimes including starvation, murder, and persecution. Never before has a state boasted so openly about committing war crimes. Settlers call for ethnic cleansing; IDF members celebrate burning Palestinians alive. Rabbi Eyal Karim, now the chief rabbi of the IDF, stated in 2014 that soldiers are allowed to rape non-Jewish women in wartime. Other military rabbis have called for the return of slavery and the killing of gentile babies.
Government rhetoric is equally explicit. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared Gaza would be “totally destroyed.” Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu suggested nuking Gaza. Minister May Golan said, “I am personally proud of the holocaust of Gaza” and “I am proud to be racist.” MK Moshe Sa’ada’s catchphrase is “vanquishment, annihilation, emigration.”
Defence Minister Israel Katz outlined plans for permanent occupation and ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon, stating residents would never see their homes again. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, convicted of eight offences including incitement to racism, oversees the prison service described by B’Tselem as a “network of torture camps.” He stated, “For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep,” echoing Nazi General Wilhelm Keitel’s “Hostage Order,” for which Keitel was executed in 1946.
Even Naftali Bennett, former PM and head of the ‘Liberal Zionist’ camp, proposed a “full siege” on Gaza, suggesting upcoming elections will focus on methods of genocide rather than its cessation. As US Senator Richard Black noted, not even the Nazis felt emboldened enough to openly announce their genocide.
In Gaza, occupation forces hunt hungry Palestinians with bullets. Snipers shoot unarmed people at aid centres and brag about it. The IDF left premature babies to die in incubators at Nasser Medical Complex. When Netanyahu characterised the mass slaughter of 22 civilians at Nasser Hospital as a mishap, Channel 14 reported that the Golani Brigade demanded an apology. Channel 14 has a history of praising civilian killings; one journalist giggled on air, “I am for the war crimes... I want to see more houses destroyed.”
For months, Israeli forces murdered dozens of Palestinians daily at GHF “aid” sites. Haaretz interviewed IDF soldiers who admitted they were ordered to shoot unarmed Palestinians collecting food. The moral difference between gassing people after promising a shower and shooting them after promising food is only technological: Zyklon B as opposed to corporate entities such as Palantir, Google, and Amazon.
Unlike the Nazi regime which did not use the ploy of assassinating enemy negotiators, Israel and the US have targeted Hamas negotiators multiple times with Israel reportedly pressing the US to kill Iran’s current negotiators.
While the German public’s relationship to the Holocaust was mixed, Israelis overwhelmingly support the genocide. Polls show 76% of the Jewish public believe there are no innocent people in Gaza.
But Israel does not represent the Jewish people, and Zionism is not Judaism. Authentic Jewish tradition stands for justice (Tzedek) and the belief that every human is created in the image of God (Tzelem Elohim).
As former PM Ehud Olmert wrote in Haaretz, Israel is committing ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. And as Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi stated the genocidal regime in Tel Aviv threatens us all.
The taboo of calling what Israel is doing Nazism is broken but the scorched earth tactic that starves and slaughters women and children, blows up hospitals, rapes and tortures prisoners in custody, murders journalists - that tactic is driven by the ideology of Zionism.
Friday, June 26, 2026
President Trump has quitely and without any news reporting renewed Executive Order 13303, which puts all Iraqi oil revenues under his control.
https://x.com/HusseinAskary/status/2070073615005954546
President Trump has quitely and without any news reporting renewed Executive Order 13303, which puts all Iraqi oil revenues under his control. There has not been a single news item or White House press release since Trump signed the renewal in early May, 2026.
When Iraq sells oil to foreign companies, including the largest buyers, the Chinese, they deposit the money in a bank account in the New York Federal Reserve branch, not in an Iraqi bank. That account is controlled by the U.S. President and U.S. Treasury. EO 13303 was first signed by President George W. Bush in May 2003 after the illegal invasion of Iraq. All American presidents have since then ritually renewed it in May of every year under the guise of "national security emergency". The details of how this was done and why it is not legal have been explained by myself in different media. The Iraqi government has not dared to challenge this political and economic crime to the extent that Trump in March this year said that he did not want Nouri Al-Maliki (winner of elections last October) to become the new prime minister of Iraq. And the Iraqis obeyed. I explain some of the details in this previous interview: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5s96Cp_OVKA
Here is the document on the signing of the renewal on May 4, 2026: https://govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202600313/pdf/DCPD-202600313.pdf
--
[Salon] Washington agreement 'will not pass': MP Fadlallah to Al Mayadeen - Guest Post
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/washington-agreement--will-not-pass---mp-fadlallah-to-al-may
6/26/26
Washington agreement 'will not pass': MP Fadlallah to Al Mayadeen
The current Lebanese government lacks both constitutional and consensual legitimacy and is in no position to impose its will on the country, a senior Hezbollah parliamentarian said on Thursday, rejecting the framework agreement signed in Washington and dismissed its enforceability on the ground.
In a phone interview with Al Mayadeen following the signing of a framework agreement between Lebanese authorities and "Israel", Fadlallah called on the Lebanese authorities to "withdraw from the direct negotiation path" and to rescind "all decisions taken against the Lebanese people" in that context.
He dismissed as "baseless" reports suggesting that Lebanon's position had been formulated in meetings between himself, Major General Hassan Choucair, and Brigadier General André Rahal. He added that what had been circulated "contradicted what was communicated to relevant officials in the Lebanese state" regarding Hezbollah's rejection of direct talks.
'Do not rush to deliver good news to your people': Fadlallah to Netanyahu
Fadlallah addressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly, telling him: "Do not rush to deliver good news to your people."
He stated that Netanyahu was effectively "negotiating with himself," describing the current Lebanese government as "constitutionally and consensually illegitimate" and "incapable of imposing dictates."
"This administration will not be able to enforce the agreement signed in Washington unless it resorts, with US support, to a civil war," Fadlallah said.
He characterized the Washington deal as "an attempt to derail the Islamabad track" and insisted that "without the resistance, nothing will pass," vowing that Hezbollah "will not allow the authorities to destroy Lebanon" nor "surrender the country's fate" to them.
"The important factor is the battlefield, and we own the battlefield; we are the people of the land," he said.
Iran will not sign any agreement before full Israeli withdrawal
On Iran, Fadlallah stated that Tehran's position "is clear" and that it "will not sign any agreement before an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon," asserting the Lebanese government has given a "gift" to "Israel" that "will have no effect on the ground."
The lawmaker warned that Hezbollah would "confront any government measure" and would "cling more" to its resistance and its weapons. He affirmed that the group's opposition is "serious" and would not allow the authorities to "implement their commitments on the ground."
Addressing Hezbollah's continued participation in the cabinet, Fadlallah said: "The presence of our ministers in the government has its own calculations, and our presence in it does not mean we approve of its decisions."
He argued that direct talks with "Israel" violate Article 52 of the constitution, adding: "No individual has the right to cancel the state of hostility toward Israel."
Fadlallah also stressed that Hezbollah seeks no confrontation with the national army, saying: "We do not want any clash with our national army, which is carrying out its duties to the fullest, and the army will remain, the resistance will remain, and the people will remain."
He concluded with a direct message to Netanyahu: "You have reached an agreement with one who possesses nothing. The state of hostility toward Israel will remain, and whoever shakes hands with the enemy is complicit in its crimes."
Thursday, June 25, 2026
[Salon] How Much is Already Too Much - Guest Post by Robert Pearson
How Much is Already Too Much
By Robert Pearson - June 24, 2026
Thinking about the collapse of moral and legal integrity under the Trump administration, I was reminded of Dante’s 14th century masterpiece, the Divine Comedy, in which Dante addressed humankind’s failures. In today’s secular world Dante’s work reminds us of the moral and legal framework for a good society and the dark places of loss and degradation. For Dante, the deepest layer of Hell was reserved for those who betray the people who trusted them - the worst of moral sins. Today, we are witnessing that betrayal and the unravelling of what Americans can be and could be.
All of Donald Trump’s behavior - lies and deception, pretense of being right when totally wrong, and deep offense when caught out without fact or reason, demonstrate that betrayal. We - and the world - know who he is: a convicted felon, twice impeached. He told Americans disappointed in their lives that he would remake America to give them wealth and jobs. The jobs would come from imposing tariffs on Europe and China. Tariffs are illegal and have caused great damage. He seduced the less fortunate with promises of tax relief and then ripped the floor from under their health and medical care. He has betrayed a promise of 250 years that immigrants would build our country and join our prosperity. Instead we see hateful attacks on millions of people of color who are working hard, paying taxes and supporting our economy while trying to pursue the privilege to be American citizens.
His racism is obvious and abhorrent. He called African states “sh.t hole” countries, has cut off immigration from many non-white countries and refused visa privileges for many others. He stands by as his defense secretary blocks promotions and fires from key positions African-Americans and women Black and white. He wants a white man’s country.
His betrayal of the Constitution keeps eating away at the body of American democracy like an uncontrolled cancer. He wants a voting act that will prevent millions of women from voting and make new voters prove citizenship first. He has shut down American government institutions in open violation of Congressional power. He has ignored standing federal legislation repeatedly. He has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution multiple times, benefitting himself, his family and his friends. He wants to deny birthright citizenship in an effort to exclude non-whites as much as possible. He has gone to war without notifying the Congress or the American people.
The corruption under his regime has blossomed. On January 20, 2026, a report by Robert Garcia, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said Trump and family had generated $2.25 billion in risk-free profits from foreign payments, corrupt businessmen and others and as much as $9.72 billion when including unrealized paper wealth. Another report lists 25 different times that Trump, his family, high ranking members of the Executive Branch, and allies have used their power and offices to benefit personally. One more study by the American Economic Liberties Project lists a number of examples of USG favors to corporations here and overseas that benefit Trump or his donors. Trump’s own retail enterprises generated about $600 million last year, with products that feature his name and image.
The American Bar Association Human Rights magazine of March 2026 addresses unauthorized actions dealing with Federal agencies, violations of statutory limits on Executive power, illegal termination of legislated federal grants, including funding grants for universities. He has used threats to cut off funds to extort university concessions to favor administration racial and cultural demands, and used presidential power to pursue retribution against political enemies. Multiple reputable groups and legal experts identify potential violations across spending laws, ethics rules, agency-structure statutes and constitutional constraints.
Immunity has been granted to Trump and family from IRS audits of pass actions. The Anti-Interference Act (26 U.S.C. section 7217) makes it a crime for the president or executive office to request that the IRS terminate or halt an ongoing audit of any taxpayer. Forbes magazine reported on May 21 that “Trump’s Tax Immunity Could Save Him More Than $600 Million.”
Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund is drawing clear GOP Congressional opposition. Former GOP Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell said this about the $1.8 billion slush fund, “So the nation’s top law enforcement officer is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong.” Current Senate Majority Leader Thune said “he was “not a big fan” and did not see “a purpose” for the fund.
The administration is converting July 4 into a celebration for Trump, not our country’s history. Trump formed an organization - Freedom 250 - to compete with the Congressionally funded America250 - in order to promote his own political preferences. Some taxpayer funds were transferred from the Congressional legislation to Trump’s own organization. His organization allows people to make tax-deductible donations to gain access to, and seek favor with him. His organization - Freedom 250 - is now free to use the July 4 date to concentrate only what Trump sees as his own accomplishments.
The Supreme Court has expanded or confirmed Trump’s presidential power on a number of occasions. The Court has issued decisions often without explanation through the Shadow Docket and has a habit of ruling as though the issues were merely technical but which in fact will have substantial effect on America’s legal framework and society. The Trump vs United States decision of 2024 is a perfect example. Of course a president should have immunity for actions taken under his authority. However, the administration has taken the ruling’s reach far beyond this principle. To the Trump clique, the decision was a carte blanche for the unitary theory of executive action. The decisions on the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and 2026 are cast as simple truths but have eviscerated the voting power of Black Americans in the South.
Trump’s economic decisions have weakened the US economy. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the 2025 economy was weaker than in 2024 and the past decade. The tariff and immigration policies were mainly responsible. Extra tariff costs through October were a 9-fold increase over 2024 with a result of an extra $1.2 trillion in costs to companies. Uncertain and incoherent implementation of tariffs keep companies guessing and hedging.
Prices are rising. For May 2026 the inflation rate was 4/2% - the highest in three years. Defense funding will face a challenge. At roughly $1.5 trillion, the FY 2027 defense request would be the largest military budget in American history and the largest year-over-year increase in defense spending since the Korean War. Trump has spent probably $100 billion already on the Iran War and more will come.
Trump’s immigration crackdown has cost the U.S. economy 668,000 jobs. New evidence suggests that those crackdowns are not only decreasing employment opportunities for both U.S. and foreign-born workers, but also preventing entrepreneurs from launching new businesses. A 2022 report states that fully 55 percent of billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. And when you include companies in which immigrants were co-founders alongside native-born Americans, the total climbs to nearly two-thirds.
New data reveals mass deportations and strict visa crackdowns are shrinking the labor pool—hitting both foreign-born and American workers. Agriculture lost 155,000 jobs between March 25 and July 25, 2025. The comparable period in 2024 saw a gain of 49,000. American farmers have suffered badly from tariffs under Trump. China has turned more often to Brazil for soybeans. New soybean purchases by China this year are below the norm. Farm bankruptcies were up 46% in 2025, with major filings in the Midwest and Southeast regions. Growing dependence on off-farm income makes some farms ineligible for filing bankruptcies and may force them to close completely. Rural America is declining while Trump praises inflation and denies the affordability issue.
Trump’s budget for 2027 calls for $73 billion deep cuts to health, housing, and other assistance for low and moderate Income families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, shortly after signing massive tax cuts that largely benefit those at the top of the economic ladder, Trump is cutting basic assistance that millions of struggling families need to help pay the rent, put food on the table, and get health care. The cuts will affect a broad range of low- and moderate-income people, including parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Taken together, the cuts are far deeper than any ever enacted and would deepen poverty and hardship and swell the ranks of the uninsured.
Serious questions remain about the release of the Epstein files. The DOJ on January 30, 2026, issued what it called its last major release, making public 3.5 million pages of documents, 180,000 images, and 2,000 videos. DOJ claims an additional 3 million or so pages should not be released because of ongoing cases and to protect sources. Critics claim the explanation is a cover-up for material that should be made public. Internal White House leaks revealed that President Trump fought bitterly with top aides behind the scenes, resisting pressure to allow a full, un-redacted release of the files. Millions doubt that all the information has been disclosed, and the MAGA base has weakened.
Ego projects: Trump is pushing for taxpayer dollars to pay for additions to his ballroom project, his arc of triumph, and other ego projects. At the moment, Trump is adding security-linked ideas like drone ports and a hospital to the ballroom project to try to justify public spending. The National Endowment for the Arts says it will offer $15 million towards the arc of triumph. The reflecting pool upgrade estimated cost was $1.5 million and is now at $16 million with more repairs required.
Polls register declining support for Trump. A Pew Research poll on April 30 compared percentages in November 2024 to those in April 2026 and showed the following; (1) stands up for what he believes in - fall from 68 to 64, (2) mentally sharp - fall from 55 to 44, (3) keeps his promises - fall from 51 to 38, (4) honest - fall from 42 to 34, and (5) a good role model - fall from 34 to 26. A poll from the American Research Group, out Monday June 22, found that approval for Trump stands at 30%, the lowest figure recorded across both of his terms.
Americans are in a tug of war between incomes and expenses, growing increasingly tired of the chaos of our society and world. Trump wants people to support him because he’s president. But he is not earning that support. He has ignored the rising costs of living, he has praised inflation, he talks about his favorite pet projects more than he does about people’s concerns. His behavior is at the least downright puzzling and at most quite bizarre from time to time. Often with his offhand remarks and vulgar descriptions he does harm to his own interests.
Trump focuses on himself and his vanity projects in the face of a losing war, a highly expensive domestic market, and deep cuts in social support programs. His refusal to admit the truth mark him as bound to his own biases and of declining value to common American citizens trying to keep their lives in order and their finances secure. Trump has betrayed the American citizens who trusted him and made clear to those opposed to him the moral emptiness of his character and his failure to actually work for the benefit of all Americans.
Next week, I will cover US foreign relations. Thank you for reading.
Healthcare — Supreme Court deals blow to RFK Jr'.s MAHA - Guest Post by Haven Daley, AP
The Big Story
MAHA loses in key Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a serious blow to the Make America Healthy Again movement by restricting Americans’ ability to sue pesticide makers over alleged health harms stemming from their products.
© Haven Daley, The Associated Press
The case was brought on the claim of cancer patient John Durnell, who sued Monsanto, saying the company did not give an adequate warning of cancer risk related to its popular Roundup weedkiller.
In a 7-2 ruling led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled in favor of Bayer, which owns Monsanto. The court ruled that under current law, states can’t require more information on a pesticide label than what the federal government requires.
The MAHA movement has united around the idea that pesticide companies should not be shielded from liability, and MAHA supporters helped push Congress to eliminate language in the farm bill that would have given pesticide makers liability protections.
The issue has become a pain point between MAHA and many of its Republicans allies, including in the Trump administration, which backed Monsanto’s Supreme Court bid.
Many activists in the MAHA base are furious with the Trump administration over its backing of not only glyphosate but also pesticides more broadly.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s defense of those moves has deepened the sense of disillusionment among his followers who helped deliver President Trump to the White House.
MAHA activists slammed the ruling.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of foreign chemical companies, which essentially allows them immunity from lawsuits, is a travesty against the American Constitution and federal and state laws ... it allows chemical companies to continue to poison the American people and our soils with impunity,” said Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America.
“For decades, Republicans have preached about the importance of states’ rights and ‘pro-life values,’ but today’s ruling in favor of Bayer-Monsanto’s right to shield themselves from cancer lawsuits is more proof that this is just empty rhetoric from a morally bankrupt party and a Supreme Court that continues to put corporate profits over the health of Americans,” said David Murphy, founder of United We Eat and former finance director for Kennedy’s presidential campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)