Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Madikonda Dumping Yard Crisis 🚨 This site is violating pollution and environmental regulations, emitting harmful gases like methane. 10 lakh tons of garbage accumulated, releasing toxic smoke. 1000+ children in nearby(in 1km) residential schools. 2,000+ workers in IT SEZ, textile park, and granite industries. 6 villages facing severe health... show more
38,460 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 9
Residents of Madikonda deserve better than a toxic dumping yard! #MadikondaDumpingYard #WarangalClean #StopDumpingMadikonda #SaveMadikonda - Time for action!
What crime did they do? Lots of kids are falling sick with dumping smoke! Do they don't have right to breathe fresh air??
@Bhatti_Mallu @revanth_anumula @TelanganaCMO @Murali_IASretd @iamkondasurekha @seethakkaMLA Requesting to Telangana Government Please Save madikonda(Warangal )people from the effect dumping yard by shifting dumping yard to another location. Thanking you
Nuclear power is no longer the future; it’s the present. Get exposure to cutting-edge nuclear companies poised to lead the charge in safe, efficient, and low-carbon energy production. Consider $NUKZ for your gateway to sustainable energy investments.
All these innocent kids are inhaling dumping smoke , where AQI is above 150!!
School is just beside dumping yard, kids are inhaling poisonous gases!!
Tagging media & activists: @ndtv @timesofindia @the_hindu @indiatoday @CNNnews18 @scroll_in @BBCIndia @htTweets @MirrorNow @ABPNews @TV9Telugu @NewsMeter_In @LicypriyaK @GretaThunberg @iamrana @RichaChadha @mehartweets @OpIndia_com @savesoil @SadhguruJV @jksmith34
@CPCB_OFFICIAL @TelanganaPCB @NGTribunal @moefcc @TelanganaCMO @revanth_anumula @PMOIndia @PollutionCont15 @GAHP_Global @EPTRI_India @TelanganaSIG
Madikonda Dumping Yard: 10L tons of waste, toxic smoke threaten 6 villages, 1000+ kids, 2000+ workers. Urgent action needed! @GWMC_Official @TelanganaCMO #MadikondaCrisis #PublicHealth
![EU gave €225 million to projects in #Gaza between 2021-2023, a place that was under the full control of #Hamas since 2006. How much of the EU money given to projects in Gaza ended up in the hands and pockets of this terrorist organisation? I asked Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi this and other questions in the Budgetary Control committee on October 26, 2023. Watch and share this video along with the transcript. MEP Cristian Terheș: "Thank you so much. Before I go into my questions I just want to make a note that this committee has on paper 55, 54 MEPs, and we are in this room, right now, only five [MEPs] and two over there. I think it is outrageous that, for an important topic like this, that is discussing about how the Commission is spending or wasting people's money, apparently the Left is not interested in see[ing] what exactly and how exactly people's money was spent. Going back to the questions, I have six specific questions. The first one is related to the books printed under the supervision or under the authority of the Palestinian Authority. And I saw, I carefully read the answer from the European Commission, which pretty much acknowledged that there was a problem, and I restate that, that there was, in the past, a problem with these books. And the answer says that "EU has stepped up its engagement with the Palestinian Authority to ensure that further curriculum reform addresses problematic issues identified in the shortest possible timeframe". So the "further curriculum" will address this issue. Well, here's an example of a book. This is a literature book for the fifth grade that is used in the UNRWA schools. In this book, this is what the Arab kids are learning. If you're not aware of who this person is, her name is Dalal Mughrabi. On March the 11th, 1978, along with other terrorists, [she] hijacked two busses. And when the Israeli authorities tried to free those people, they blew themselves up and killed 38 Israelis, including 13 children, and over 70 people were wounded. So how is it possible that now, in 2023, and I'm not talking about past books… This is 2023. These kids are still learning that this is a role model for them. And now, out of the blue, we are surprised that people are blowing themselves up and killing innocent people. I'm not interested what are you going to do in the future. I hope that you will do something and we will make sure that you will do something. But what have you done so far to make sure that these Arab kids, these Palestinian kids are not indoctrinated with this kind of evil figures? The second question is about the "Pay for Slay". #PayForSlay According to the Palestinian law if a Palestinian person is killing a Jew, his or her family is getting a pension. So we are rewarding terrorist activities. And this was done for years. A few years ago, when Trump was president, a U.S. military guy was killed in one of these terror attacks. And U.S. Congress passed a law called "Taylor Force Act", which is conditioning any U.S. money for the Palestinian Authority to make sure that these families of the terrorists are not getting reimbursed for life after these terror activities. Why aren’t we imposing exactly the same rules? Because, according to the answer from the Commission, we are paying pension and pensions to these people. Third question, the issue of Gaza. According to your official answer, you're stating, and I quote: "Between 2021 and [20]23, EU funded €681 million for the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA. A third of this money went to Gaza." A third means €225 million from 2021 to 2023. But we know for a fact that in 2005, when Israel withdrew from Gaza, after 2006 or [200]7, Gaza is under the control of Hamas. You said here that you will run a survey or whatever, an analysis to see how the money was spent. What have you done already? Hamas was called, and recognized and acknowledged as a terrorist organisation. How was it possible to pour €225 million in a place that is fully controlled by a terrorist organisation and nobody did anything or said anything? It is absolutely absurd! Forth question. Following reports about stealing of pipelines for rocket production and fuel for hospitals, to what extent can the European Commission or the Court of Auditors verify or assess the damage caused to EU and European funded projects in Gaza? Fifth question. Following news that Hamas is directing money for social allowances to members of this terrorist organisation, how do you verify that such money gets to those really in need? Nevertheless, following reports about control of Hamas of the teacher unions and UNRWA workers union, what are the steps you are taking to verify that EU money for UNRWA is not used to serve Hamas agenda? Thank you." Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi: "Madam Chair. I want to assure all the participating members of this committee that I very much appreciate their presence and their engagement with us. And I think that this is very important that we have this discussion, no matter how many members of the committee are here. Now, first of all, on the Gaza project. Let me make it very clear what has been done in Gaza since 2006 when the IDF and Israel has left the Gaza Strip. I fully agree with you. The control and the governance of that strip has been de facto exercised by the Hamas. Unfortunately! And it was for that reason that all institution financing activity has been stopped and it is for that reason that only projects of public interest have been continued in the Gaza Strip. Now, with the emergence of the horror that we have seen instigated by Hamas, the review also has a very clear message to those projects that we have tried for many, many years to create for the benefit of the people in Gaza, like the Gas for Gaza project or the desalination plant creating fresh water for the people in the Gaza Strip or building a new hospital in the Gaza Strip, that are on hold. And it is not possible even physically to continue on those projects. And we will have to wait until the end of this war to see what engagement would still be considered in the in the Gaza area, if feasible. Now, in relation to the broader question of the review, what is the timeline? The timeline is that we are already doing it. We have a methodology established and our review is carried out by the whole House, mainly the DG Near, but also other parts of the Commission, DG Budget and also the other external family members of the Commission. The result of the review is going to be presented to the College [of Commissioners]. So the College is going to take the conclusions of these findings and they will be, I very much hope, endorsed by the College. In terms of its cost, we do not foresee any additional cost for this, and we want to act rapidly because, as I said, given the very fragile security situation, we have to act immediately to filter out all those who have, even indirectly, participated or contributed to the violence that we have seen emerge. Now, when it comes to the textbooks, to be honest with you, it's very difficult to answer your question because this is the question I have been putting since the very beginning of my mandate. How is it possible to embed hatred and nurture hatred in textbooks? How is it possible to teach kids to hate? How is it possible? And we have been sitting down several times with the Palestinian Authority. We have run a study that came to the same conclusion as you have. And we have had difficult discussions also in this House. But now I see that there is a change in the position of this House, which is, I think, very important. And it is not only very important, but we took very, very careful note of a request from the Parliament, because there is also a request adopted by the plenary, to look into this issue. And this is what we are going to do and this issue will have to be addressed. The result that we have achieved was that we have raised the issue with the Palestinian Authority, and I don't think there's disagreement between us and them that this is an issue. Second, we are working very closely with our partners in UNRWA. I'm very sad to see that this is a training material or education material that you have shown today, which is used by UNRWA, because UNRWA was the one who not only was able to talk about this problem, but undertook commitments with us to eradicate any material, any views expressed, including on social media or in the territories of the schools of this kind, glorification of terrorists, glorification of hatred, anti-Semitism. And this is why we have concluded a three year financing contract with UNRWA. This was a very important element for us that UNRWA started to cooperate and we have seen results coming in. But, of course, I agree with you. We cannot rest until the very last of these materials disappear. And I'm fully committed to deliver on that, including in the discussions for next year. On the "Pay for Slay". We have a list to check that direct beneficiaries do not appear on any of the terrorist list. But, if there is one, I wouldn't like to draw any conclusions of the review, but, if there is one issue to look at is, of course, that we do not create the possibility of indirect benefit for those who are involved in terrorist activities or for those who have been even convicted for such acts. And this is what we are addressing also in our review. Now, on the on the damage to our projects in Gaza, I cannot tell you now. What we see is that there is clearly devastation in the northern part, serious level of damage in the south, but it will be only after that the war will stop that we can go back and take a look at that. Now, on the humanitarian aspect and how to guarantee that our humanitarian aid is not going to be misused. If you look back at the statement the European Council has adopted just last weekend, you see also a very clear call for them to make sure. And this is why our decision has been to channel our humanitarian aid through our own institutions; DG Echo is delivering on the ground and in-kind. So we are providing help, in-kind, not providing financing. We're not providing other items that could be used for other purposes. And we are coordinating our work with international organisations only, so to ensure that it doesn't get to the wrong hands. So there was one more question about the breakdown of the €103 million, and I think I can confirm what you said that we have composed the €103 million by €50 million that were allocated in support of payments of salaries and pensions. These are going directly as direct budget support into the budget of the Palestinian Authority. However, we want to check the final beneficiaries and we have a list. And now we're looking at indirect beneficiaries as well as part of the review. The 40 million… The other element is the €40 million support for the most vulnerable families. Again, this is this is paid in the form of direct budgetary contribution. And the third and lastly, the €13 million, this is the remaining part of 103 [million], is financing the East Jerusalem hospitals that we have paid already in April 2023 to keep the health care system running in East Jerusalem. I hope with this I have answered all the questions that have been raised. Thank you."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1717824785722245152/amplify_video_thumb/1717823597983457280/img/aF2fHefkQMWxdyFW.jpg)
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)
![The Economics of Europe’s Descent into Warmongering – and our duty now! My speech at the European Parliament on the theme of “The Economic Conditions of Peace”, Tuesday 10th June 2025 [INTRODUCTION] A year ago, I would have started this speech with a lament about the hitherto unimaginable conversion of the European Union from a Peace to a War Project. Not so today. Over the past year, warmongering has seeped into the very fabric of the Union, it has trickled into every policy, it has soaked every one of the thinktanks that generate Europe’s dominant narratives and creeds. Today, therefore, it makes no sense to lament what is now a fact: The EU is now a fully-fledged War Project – a project that will either land us in permanent war, or it will bankrupt us further, or probably both! Europe’s military Keynesianism, I shall be arguing, is guaranteed to make Europe less safe, more unequal, weaker. Only two interesting questions remain: Why has Europe taken this road? And, now that Europe is on this war path, what is ourduty to our people, to Europeans, to Peace? Let me begin at the very beginning. [THE EU WAS DESIGNED TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO THE UNITED STATES] At the risk of irking Europeanists who believe in their own creation myth, let me be clear: The European Union (from its beginnings as the European Communities of Coal & Steel) was an American Construction – a part of a US Global Plan that also comprised the Bretton Woods System, the Truman Doctrine and, of course, NATO. Yes, most Europeans hankered for no more war and no more totalitarianism. But the EU was designed in Washington DC. And it was designed specifically not as a competitive market but as a Big Business Cartel run by a democracy-free bureaucracy (also known as the European Commission) not coincidentally located a stone’s throw from NATO’s headquarters. From 1950 on, the EU was nurtured by and in tune with the interests of the United States – an inconvenient fact both for Europe’s self-important rulers and for Donald Trump. Looking back, a common thread runs through the entire history of the EU: its total economic dependence on the United States. Initially, the EU was deeply dependent on being part of the Dollar Zone. Then, from 1971 onwards, it was deeply dependent on the American trade deficit. So, one way or another, Europe’s deep dependence on the US was ingrained into its architecture. It will thus take much more than mere pronouncements - or a few hundred billion borrowed euros spent on weaponry - to shed Europe’s in-built dependence on the United States. The fact that the EU was, from the beginning, fashioned as a Big Business Cartel is the reason why the EU needed fixed exchange rates: Currency fluctuations destabilise any cartel, making it hard to maintain the necessary levels of collusion between its participating producers. From 1950 to 1971, the US took care of this problem on Europe’s behalf. As long as it was running a trade deficit with the United States, Europe’s cartel was embedded in the dollar zone – its currencies tied to the dollar But, when around 1969 Europe (and Japan) started running a trade surplus with the United States, it was game over. On 15th August 1971, the Donald Trump of that era, President Richard Nixon, jettisoned Europe from the dollar zone, his Treasury Secretary cynically telling the dumbfounded Europeans: “From today the dollar is our currency but it is your problem!” Two things happened next. First, to save their Big Business Cartel the Europeans scrambled to create their own fixed exchange rate regime. They tried everything: The Snake. The European Monetary System. The European Exchange Rate Mechanism. They all proved flimsy designs that speculators had no trouble crushing. So, in desperation, they created the most noxious currency the human spirit could fashion - the euro. The second development was that, as America expanded its budget and trade deficits, the Eurozone morphed into a German-led net exporting machine whose aggregate demand was subcontracted to the United States. In effect, America’s twin deficits operated like a huge vacuum cleaner that sucked into America Europe’s net exports as well as the European exporters’ profits which were thus invested in US Treasuries, US shares and US real estate. That’s how, once it was expelled from the dollar zone, Europe became addicted to the US deficits. That was what the Nixon Shock did: It converted Europe’s utter reliance on living within the dollar zone into an even greater dependence on the US deficits. [NEVER MISSING A CHANCE TO MISS AN OPPORTUNITY] Here in Brussels they love the expression that Europe progresses from crisis to crisis. That’s another delusion. The crisis of 2008 was our greatest opportunity to render the European Union viable, and to end its deep dependence on the United States. · The French and German banks went bankrupt. · The Eurozone’s impossible rules were in tatters. · A domino effect, beginning with Greece, was bankrupting our governments. It was the perfect opportunity to transform the EU from a Big Business Cartel, inherently reliant on the US for its aggregate demand, into a functional, internally balanced federation. Instead, Europe’s radical centre (both the centre right and the centre left) decided that they would change everything so as to ensure that nothingchanges. In this vein, they did their worst: Universal austerity for the many. And frantic money printing for the financiers and Big Business. What happens when you crush the incomes of the many and hand over trillions to the very few? Since the many are too poor to buy high value added goods, business stops investing in productive capital –– while the rich use the free cash to push through the roof house prices, share prices, Bitcoin prices, art, asset prices in general. The natural result is soul-crushing levels of inequality and deep popular discontent. The people got desperate. They even voted for radical progressives like me to enter the Eurogroup! Then, in horror, Brussels and Frankfurt overthrew us, or made Mr Tsipras overthrow his own government, using not the tanks, as they did in Greece in 1967, but the banks – not that much of a difference really! A coup d’ état is a coup d’ état. [TWO SYMBIOTIC AUTHORITARIANISMS] Guess what happened next: Just as in the mid-war period, xenophobic ultra-rightists rose up from the woodwork. They proved a godsent for the shockingly unpopular radical centre whose politicians could now say to voters: It is us or them! But it was equally a godsent for the ultra-right who needed the radical centre to impose the austerity policies which created the discontent which fuelled the anger that delivered the ultra-right votes. To put it differently, if Macron and Le Pen had any sense, they would each keep a framed picture of the other on their bedside tables, saying a little prayer in their hated opponent’s name every night before going to sleep. [SMOKE AND MIRRORS] Liberal Totalitarianism and Ultra-Right-Xenophobic Totalitarianism are accomplices, they feed off each other. Meanwhile, austerity for the many and money printing for the few depletes Europe’s productive foundations, its social fabric, its sense of purpose. That’s how the European Union lost any legitimacy it had in the eyes of the public. Sensing this, the Liberal Totalitarians in charge came up with one failed Grand Initiative after another. Who can forget the eminently forgettable Juncker investment plan, the Banking Union, the Green Deal, or the Draghi Report that has now joined them in History’s Dustbin? Impressive numbers were announced that, alas, dependably failed to materialise. It was inevitable. As long as our rulers said NO to the political union that could sustain a proper, macroeconomically significant, eurobond, the money to fund the necessary investment could never materialise. Even when they – finally – during the pandemic – did issue common debt, they ended up with common liabilities but no common purpose. Every Grand Initiative ever announced was a dance with failure, smoke and mirrors by which they disguised Europe’s nakedness. The result? After fifteen years of ZERO NET PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENT, · Germany is deindustrialising fast, and along with it Eastern and Central Europe, Austria, Northern Italy · Political paralysis grows on the back of fiscal pressures · Neofascism and xenophobia are rising up everywhere · Europe’s dependence on the United States grows stronger at the time Donald Trump is cutting Europe loose · The Rest of the World looks at Europe as a sad case of what could have been, an irritating irrelevance. In this sad context, our great and good leaders had another woeful idea for a Grand Initiative: Now that the Green Deal is dead-in-the-water and the Recovery Fund is spent, why not try Military Keynesianism? [THE FOLLY OF MILITARY KEYNESIANISM] Ladies and Gentlemen, Military Keynesianism works in the United States because America has the federal institutions, the monetary sovereignty, the fiscal power, the technostructure, and the common procurement process that are essential in implementing Military Keynesianism. Europe has none of that, nor does it have leaders interested in acquiring any of that. This is why Military Keynesianism cannot work in Europe. Thank goodness it can’t work, I say! For if it could work, Europe would have to emulate the United States in starting a war every year so that the stocks of ammunition, missiles et al could be depleted sufficiently to justify the new colossal orders necessary to maintain Military Keynesianism. Nevertheless, while Europe’s Military Keynesianism cannot and should not work, it serves a purpose – it is a kind of a solution for, say, Volkswagen: Now that Volkswagen can no longer sell its cars, it hands over whole production lines to Rheinmetall to produce Leopard tanks which von der Leyen makes Greece and Italy buy even though we neither want nor need them. Yes, Military Keynesianism will fail Europe badly, but not before it further bankrupts our states and throws more fuel onto the fire burning down lives and dreams in Ukraine’s killing fields. So, let me be frank: · No really-existing enemy of Europe shakes in his boots watching a stagnating, heavily indebted Europe, invest billions in weaponry. Quite the opposite! · Military Keynesianism will end up as Europe’s New Austerity for the many and a new money spinner for the few. · It will make Europe weaker while prolonging the Ukraine War in a manner that is detrimental to the stated aim of supporting Ukraine. [EUROPE’S SURRENDER TO NATO, ITS ROLE IN UKRAINE] It is at this point that angry yelps will rise up from the press gallery. Can’t you hear them ask: "“Is Russia not ante portas?” “Is Europe not in danger?” “Should Europe remain defenceless, especially now that Trump is abandoning Europe?” My answer is clear: Weakening ourselves economically through a Military Keynesianism that constitutes the New Austerity which will, with mathematical precision, diminish Europe further is no way to make Europe stronger! And lest we forget, Europe already has 1.5m men and women in uniform while, over the past decade, we spent €2.7 trillion on defence – a period during which our net productive investment was zero! Now, NATO demands that we spend three times as much - which is totally insane, given how wastefully that €2.7 trillion was spent. In this light, surrendering our foreign and defence policies to NATO, and sinking further in unsustainable debt just to satisfy President Trump’s demands for more military spending, is the surest way of making Europe more dependent, less secure, uglier and sadder. In this context, the powers-that-be here in Brussels are anxiously trying to keep their jobs and boost their budgets by spreading the lie that NATO had to expand in order to deter Russian aggression – when it is exactly the other way round: Like the Mafia, NATO expanded to create insecurity in order to sell us protection! Does this mean that Putin was right to invade the Ukraine? Of course not. What it means is that NATO and Putin are accomplices – that they needed one another in their joint bid for a confrontation that strengthened both – at Europe’s expense. It also means that anyone truly interested in Europe’s security and prosperity 1. must dispel the lie that Russia is about to invade us – it can’t even if it wants to 2. must work tirelessly to kill Europe’s Military Keynesianism, and 3. must work toward a European Peace Process which uses Russia’s confiscated monies not as a piggybank for more useless Leopard tanks and Leonardo missiles but as a bargaining chip to end the Ukraine War in the context of a comprehensive EU-Russia Peace Treaty. As for the politicians in this town who will not rest until they see Russia on its knees, I have this to say to them: If you really wanted to weaken Russia, to bring Russia to its knees, you should have worked hard to admit Russia into the… Eurozone. In one fell swoop the euro would have wrecked Russia’s productive basis, it would have indebted its people and its state, it would have made its leaders rush to Brussels and to Frankfurt with begging bowl in hand! You think I am joking. But there is too much truth in this joke for comfort! To sum up my argument so far, Europe’s economic stagnation was the product of its total dependence on the American deficits. This dependence yielded Europe’s complicity with the decade-long American project of inciting a war in Ukraine. And now that the US is decoupling, our rulers – resembling decapitated chickens – are running around without their heads screwed on, struggling to find ways of continuing to impede Peace in Ukraine so as to use military funds to prop up Europe’s faltering Big Business Cartel. [WHAT’S BEHIND EUROPE’S ETHICAL DECAY: GAZA, TOTALITARIANISM] Ladies and Gentlemen, as we speak here today, Europe is falling headlong into another ethical void: complicity in the Palestinian genocide. It is not just the embarrassment, also known as Mrs Ursula von der Leyen, posing like a cheerleader of Israel’s genocidal army in front of its tanks hours before they stormed Gaza. No, the European Union is not merely complicit due to our subservience to the United States. No, the European Union is also enabling, it is in fact funding, the war criminals of its own accord. Directly. Cynically. With no compunction. · BNP PARIBAS and ALLIANZ underwrite the issues of the Israeli government bonds that fund the Israeli meatgrinder in the Palestinian Occupied Territories · MAERSK is the prime transporter of the military machine at work in Gaza · Since 2007, the European Union has channelled €2 billion of research funding to Israeli entities producing the means by which Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, targeted, murdered and maimed. But there is something even scarier going on: Some of our top institutions depend financially on backing Israel’s genocide. If Europe were to do its duty and sanction Israel, the Technical University of Munich stands to lose €195.4 million from the EU’s HORIZON program which funds the University to carry out joint research with Israeli institutions. Ladies and Gentlemen, Europe carries an enormous guilt. The pogroms against the Jews started here, in Europe. Europeans carried out genocides across Africa, in the Americas, in Australia. By forming the EU as a Peace Project, we claimed a chance to make amends for Europe’s past genocides. However, our dependence on the US and our ruling class’s penchant to profit from imperialism have made this impossible – and so Europe’s hands are, again, covered in the blood of innocents, in Gaza, in Ukraine, in the Sudan, in Libya, in Yemen, in Syria. It has also brought totalitarianism back into our midst, here in Europe. When the German authorities banned me from entering Germany for the crime of co-organising with German Jews a conference on the theme of ‘A Just Peace in the Middle East’, they were making a point: To them, letting the rivers of Palestinian blood flow unimpeded represented their chance of washing off their hands the guilt over the Holocaust, over the other German genocide in Namibia, of Belgium’s crimes against humanity in the Congo… It is, therefore, a clear warning to us: Economic stagnation begets warmongering which begets a revived European white settler mentality. This Europe has fallen so far into a moral crevice that it cannot easily climb out of it. Europe’s Liberal Totalitarianism, which we in Greece experienced in all its horror ten years ago, is now everywhere – and it is throwing wide open the gates through which Xenophobic Ultra-Right Totalitarianism arrives to darken our doorstep. The time to rise up against both forms of totalitarianism is now. On behalf of the peoples of Europe. [WHAT MUST WE DO?] So, what must we do? Let us begin by grasping that: · The economic condition for Peace is to de-couple Europe's economy from America's wars! · But for that we must end, once and for all, Europe’s dependence on the United States. · This entails ending Europe’s dependence on net exports to America. · Which means rebalancing Europe’s internal economy through o new productive green investments, o an end to structural austerity o an end to the madness of cartel-infested electricity ‘markets’ o a new monetary commons by which to end the bankers’ monopoly over payments and to institute a personal dividend for all o a new EU-China deal that liberates us from America’s agenda of intensifying a pointless New Cold War at our expense. Only by transforming Europe’s political economy can we end the never-ending fragmentation which breeds war, totalitarianism and the embarrassment of being led by cheerleaders of genocide and permanent war with Russia, like Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. How can we accomplish that? In two ways. First, we need a Credible Plan for a Europe worth fighting for. Second, we must organise a campaign of civil and governmental disobedience in our countries and, potentially, in the European Council until our Plan for Europe gets a chance. We, DiEM25, have worked for a decade on this Plan – our Green New Deal for Europe – and are happy to share it with you, so that you can refine, revise, adapt it. You, the 5S Movement and other parties eager to partake across Europe, have the organisation that we lack so that, together with our MERA25 transnational parties, we can together help organise the campaign of civil and governmental disobedience without which nothing will change, nothing will impede Europe’s, Italy’s, Greece’s, indeed Germany’s secular decline. [CONCLUSION] So, to conclude, seventy-five years of this European Union teach us that we face a stark choice. A choice between a Dependent-on-the-United States, Warmongering, Stagnating Europe. Or an Independent, Non-Aligned, Prosperous, Green Europe. A choice between a von der Leyen-type Commission that greenlights genocide, impedes Peace, illegally deletes her Pfizer chat history, lobbies for Lockheed Martin, and borrows money we can’t repay to buy weaponry we do not need - while condemning People and Planet to impecunity. Or European Institutions optimised against raw power and in favour of common prosperity. A choice between being at the beck and call of the boardrooms of Rheinmetall, Leonardo and Pfizer, blind to the tax havens where war profits and tax fraud hide, while our coastguards turn refugees into corpses. Or a Europe of rational, that is a radical, humanism. To even have this choice, our immediate task must be to end war, to end genocide and to terminate before it is too late the New Austerity going by the name of Military Keynesianism.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1933459747866316884/amplify_video_thumb/1933456380167364608/img/Up__hbhEoJPhHmsi.jpg)
![THE TRUTH ABOUT OCTOBER 7TH: Reports confirm that Netanyahu, the Mossad and the IDF deliberately allowed the October 7th attack by Hamas to take place. They knew one year in advance of the attack and did nothing to stop it. They deliberately stood down during the attack allowing many more innocent Israelis to be slaughtered in order to get domestic and international support for war in Gaza and Iran. HOW DID OCTOBER 7TH HAPPEN? On October 7th, Hamas was able to carry out its shocking terror attack against Israel, despite Israel’s intelligence, military and security apparatus commonly considered the best in the world. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself tweeted and quickly deleted a statement denying any foreknowledge of the October 7th attack. “Under no circumstances and at no stage was Prime Minister Netanyahu warned of war intentions on the part of Hamas" the tweet said, before it was promptly deleted. Why did Netanyahu’s team delete that tweet? Because in fact he did have intelligence that there would be an attack by Hamas and tried to hide this from the world. Foreign security services, Israeli security services and the Israeli public all knew that Hamas was planning a violent, cross-border incursion where they would attempt to over-run and attack the kibbutz communities in southern Israel and take prisoners back to Gaza. And they also knew when. But it happened anyway. Why? Ten days before the attack, and then again three days before the attack, Egypt intelligence officials passed “repeated warnings” to the highest levels of Israel’s government. In one of these warnings, Egypts premiere intelligence minister General Abbas Kamel personally called Netanyahu and warned that Hamas was about to do “something unusual, a terrible operation.” Unnamed Egyptian officials told YNET News that they were shocked by Netanyahu’s “indifference to the news.” But Israel didn’t have to trust or believe Egypt, because actually, most of the warnings of the October 7th attack came from Israeli civilians and the Israeli military itself. The civilians and soldiers who brought these emergency warnings to the military were ignored and in some cases, strangely enough, threatened with legal action. In 2022, the IDF, through confidential sources, or spies, in Gaza, actually obtained the detailed Hamas Al Aqsa Flood attack plans. Codenamed “Jericho Wall” by Israel, the excursion plan called for a barrage of rockets to begin the attack and for gunmen to pour into Israel en masse via para-gliders, on motorcycles and on foot and take hostages back into Gaza, all of which happened on October 7th. Hamas followed the blueprint that Israel already had with shocking precision. So Israel had the attack blueprints, but were they taken seriously by the IDF? Yes, the plans were diligently studied. A presentation on the planned attack was given to senior officers in the IDF’S Gaza division. The presentation concluded with this sentence: “This invasion constitutes the gravest threat that IDF forces are facing in the defense of Israel” So in response to this, did Israel’s security establishment beef up and enhance their surveillance of Hamas militants on the other side of the border? No, stunningly, they actually did the exact opposite. They decided to entirely stop monitoring Hamas’s handheld radio traffic. Because they saw it “as a waste of effort” even though during that same time in 2022, Israelis living in the kibbutz communities near the Gaza border, most of whom have some type of military training due to Israel’s mandatory IDF service laws, were, according to Israeli media, picking up clear evidence that Hamas was “practicing the breaching of the fence and conquering kibbutzim and seizing hostages and destroying everything in their path.” Then, In April 2023, 6 months before the attack, again according to Israeli media, the IDF “restricted the ability” of Israelis living near the border “to monitor Hamas’ wireless traffic.” In September 2023, less than a month before the attack, the head of the IDF’s “Devil’s Advocate” intelligence unit, which challenges prevailing narratives within Israel’s military, twice alerted senior decision-makers in both the army and political spheres about Hamas’ plans for a large-scale cross-border military operation. He reiterated these warnings in person at Intelligence Branch strategic assessment sessions on September 26th and 27th. Just days before the attack. So it was clear to everyone that Hamas wasn’t only planning to do something horrible, but it was also clear what that horrible and evil thing was. According to a female IDF soldier who spoke to Israel’s channel 12 news program, she was constantly trying to warn her superiors about the gravity of Hamas training exercises. She was threatened with legal action. “We were told that if we continue to harass on this issue, you will stand trial.” So, Egypt knew, the Israeli military knew, and the Israeli civilians knew. Yet, two days before October 7th, the Israeli military took two entire commando brigades, or around 100 soldiers, away from the the soon to be breached locations of the Gaza border and sent them to the other side of the country, to the West Bank village of Huwara despite no Hamas presence being in Huwara and despite there being giant Israeli dance parties taking place right along the same border fence where violent, escalating and obvious Hamas drills of breaching and kidnapping were taking place. According to Israeli media reports, Lt. Col. Sahar Fogel, an operations officer at the IDF’s Gaza Division, opposed the approval of the Nova Party based on the last minute nature of its event application and the intensifying Hamas drills at the border and because if something were to happen, more soldiers were on holiday. It was the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. The Lt. Col. explained his opposition to the party’s approval to his superiors. He was instructed to allow the event. Israeli Newspaper Haaretz reported that other Gaza division officers privately “told of irregular conduct and pressure surrounding the approval of the party.” In February 2024, Elkana Federman, the head of security for the Nova festival gave an interview to Israel’s Channel 14 where he made a statement that hasn’t been reported on by any American media. “I had a guard at the festival who had served in the Re’im Division [near Gaza border], and a week before the festival he sent me a voice message, basically warning me, saying, ‘Elkana, something is going to happen over Sukkot. I just wanted to let you know, there are a lot of warnings, I passed the voice message on to local IDF officials and they told me everything was all right.” The Hamas attacks were violent and brutal. They have been likened to tragic events such as September 11th and the Holocaust, so it comes as a surprise that Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his Likud party have at times described the attacks as somewhat of a political gift. Nissim Vaturi, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party in the Knesset, referred to the attack as sort of gift from God because they are being used to justify the current ongoing war, stating: “We were meant to fight this war against Hamas, as is happening now, and luckily for us it came from the heavens.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that Israel didn’t have domestic or international support to invade or destroy Gaza. He said the October 7th Hamas attack solved both of those problems for him, stating “We couldn’t get the domestic consensus to make a definitive solution to the problem of Hamas. That is, no one would agree across the Israeli public to go in and basically destroy Hamas, go throughout Gaza and destroy Hamas. We didn’t have the international consensus either; nobody would understand why we are doing it. Both conditions were created because of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th.” Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this ghastly attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza? The evidence proves, yes. WHERE WAS THE IDF? During the October 7th attacks what did the Israeli military do? For hours they did nothing, it was a deliberate military stand down order. It's important to remember that Israel is just slightly bigger than the size of the state of New Jersey. But for some reason, once the Hamas attacks began, the time it took the Israeli army and rescue teams to arrive, fight and rescue Israelis at the different kibbutz communities and sites being attacked took anywhere from 4 hours to more than 20 hours. The New York Times has reported: “Thousands of soldiers were less than 40 minutes from the towns that were under attack.” A video that Israeli media obtained from an army helicopter, corroborated by Israeli survivors, prove that there were more than 500 Israeli soldiers directly outside of the Kibbutz entrance, fully armed, with Humvees and tanks but it took 10 hours for those soldiers to show up. Avital, a survivor of the Be’eri attack, described to Haaretz: “500 soldiers stood outside, with equipment and vehicles. I remember yelling at them, ‘We’re being slaughtered, come in, save us and no one said anything.” So why did it take so long for help to arrive? Haaretz reported: “At 7 A.M., the party organizers called Lt. Col. Elad Zandani, the man tasked with approving the festival and told him that terrorists were shooting the partygoers. He suggested that they fend for themselves. The first IDF forces arrived at the party scene at 3 P.M., that’s an 8 hour response time for one of the most efficient, capable and well militarized security forces in the world operating in a country the size of New Jersey with their Gaza division only a few miles away. And what makes this even more strange? Around 4 hours into the Hamas assault, at 10:46AM, Israel was already launching operations and bombing targets inside of Gaza. So, if Israel could begin an offensive attack into Gaza within 4 hours, why did it take more than 6 hours and in most cases more than 10 hours and even 20 hours in some cases to mobilize inside of their own country to stop the ongoing attack and to defend the lives of their own people? The New York Times quoted Ben Zion, an Israeli military reservist who spoke to Israeli media. He said his unit voluntarily left central Israel in a convoy at 1:30PM, they got together and left for the south on their own. He expected to see the roads packed with soldiers and equipment and armored vehicles heading south. “The roads were empty!” he recalled in an interview. Roughly seven hours into the fighting, he turned to the reservist next to him and asked: “Where’s the IDF?” The brutal and deadly Hamas terrorist attack of October 7th is so central to justifying Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza that Israel is actually outlawing questioning the October 7th government narrative. Israelis who spread information counter to the October 7th government narrative, which the Israeli Knesset calls “falsehoods and propaganda” could face up to 5 years in prison. Between the abundance of concrete evidence that suggests Israeli military allowed October 7th to happen by ignoring dozens of reliable and specific warnings, threatening soldiers with legal actions who tried to warn their military superiors and taking troops away from the area of the Gaza border that was attacked and now evidence that suggests there was some type of military stand down order in place on October 7th, it is important to ask, what was October 7th and what kind of war is the United States supporting? WHAT IS THE HANNIBAL DIRECTIVE? Images and videos of burnt cars, blacked and charred bodies and incinerated homes in southern Israel were plastered on every phone screen and television after the October 7th Hamas attack. The images and videos were used by the Israeli government to justify the military’s heavy handed tactics in their ongoing war against Hamas, But were all the images and videos actually the result of the Hamas attack? Innocent Israeli civilians were brutally killed by Hamas on October 7th, but there is evidence that proves the IDF killed their own Israeli citizens in what is known as the Hannibal Directive. To understand what the Israeli military did to their own civilians on October 7th, you have to understand the political aspirations of Hamas and what the goal of taking hostages is, it is political leverage. There are over 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. 3,000 of whom haven’t been to trial or charged with a crime. When militant groups manage to capture Israeli civilians or soldiers it gives them leverage to force a prisoner swap and get some of their people out of Israeli prison. For example, in 1986, Hamas managed to kidnap 3 Israeli soldiers and bring them to Gaza. They demanded 1,150 Palestinian prisoners in return for these soldiers. After this, the military drafted a secret field order to prevent future kidnappings. It was called the "Hannibal Directive." The directive gets its name from the Carthaginian general who chose to poison himself rather than allow himself to be captured alive by the romans. In 2003, strangely enough on October 7th 2003, three Israeli soldiers were taken hostage and brought into Lebanon. Following the activation of the Hannibal Directive, IDF attack helicopters fired indiscriminately on 26 vehicles thus ensuring the death of their own soldiers and therefore robbing Lebanese militants of the ability to demand Israel make concessions. The Last known application of the Hannibal Directive was in 2014. In Rafah. Hamas fighters managed to capture an Israeli soldier, Lt. Hadar Goldin. Instead of allowing the lieutenant to be used as leverage by Hamas, the military killed him. Dropping bombs, missiles and shells on the area he was being held, killing the soldier and also over 100 Palestinian civilians. The scale of the Hannibal Directive on October 7th was entirely different from those of the past. A retired Israeli air force general, Nof Erez, described it during a podcast with Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper saying “The Hannibal Directive was apparently applied at a certain stage, because at the moment they understand there is a kidnapping, they immediately say, ‘Guys, this is Hannibal.’ But the Hannibal we trained for all of the last twenty years, is for a vehicle we know at what point of the fence it enters, on what side it drives, and maybe even on which road it drives. This was a Mass Hannibal.” We know the Hannibal Directive means to kill your own, so what does “mass Hannibal” mean? A large mainstream Israeli media outlet reported: “In the week after Black Shabbat, October 7th, soldiers of elite units, at the initiative of the Southern Command, checked about 70 vehicles that remained in the area between the Otaf settlements and the Gaza Strip. These are vehicles that did not reach Gaza, because on the way they were shot by a combat helicopter, an anti-tank missile or a tank, and at least in some cases everyone in the vehicle was killed.” 70 vehicles and in some cases, everyone in the vehicle was killed. These are Israelis killed by Israel. Again, only reported on in the Israeli media. Tuval Escapa, is a member of the security team for Kibbutz Be’eri. He set up a hotline so kibbutz residents could communicate with the Israeli army. He told Haaretz that “the commanders in the field made difficult decisions, including shelling houses on their occupants” in order to eliminate would-be hostages as well the terrorists. They shelled entire houses. Do we hear this in the American mainstream media? That the Israeli military targeted and destroyed over 70 cars with hellfire missiles that were filled with Israelis and that they decimated entire Israeli homes with tank shells? A report in Haaretz on October 20th notes that the Israeli military also carried out an airstrike on their own military base, the Erez crossing. That base was filled with Israeli Civil Administration officers and soldiers at the time. An Israeli woman named Yasmin Porat gave an interview with Israel Radio that the military “undoubtedly” killed numerous Israeli hostages during gun battles with Hamas militants. IDF General Barak Hiram, prevented hundreds of troops from entering Kibbutz Be’eri for hours on October 7th, when he finally allowed the IDF to go in, he ordered tanks to fire on multiple homes. The tank shells killed at least 12 Israeli hostages and 3 children. Recently the UN published an investigation confirming several of these facts, namely, that the IDF had in fact activated the Hannibal Directive on October 7th stating “The Commission is aware of allegations that Israeli Special Forces used the “Hannibal Directive” to prevent the capture of Israeli civilians and their transfer to Gaza, even at the cost of killing them" The Commission documented one statement by an ISF tank crew, confirming that the crew had applied the Hannibal Directive. The Israeli military, Israeli civilians and the United Nations all admit to the IDF purposely killing their own on October 7th. How many? It’s hard to know the exact number, but the imagery of charred bodies and incinerated cars and homes are still being used to this day to manufacture consent and support for Israel’s ongoing assault of the Gaza Strip, where more than 47,000 Palestinians have been killed including 15,000 innocent children. ISRAEL'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR HAMAS: Israel and Netanyahu helped funnel over $1 Billion dollars to Hamas in order to keep Palestine from being recognized as a State. It was Netanyahu and Israel who helped create Hamas thinking that they could control them and would be able to use Hamas as an excuse for their continued military operations and occupation in Gaza. ISRAEL'S SECRET NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The front lines of the war between Israel and Hamas are expanding and moving beyond Gaza. Yemen’s Houthis intensified their involvement, going from simply attacking Israeli bound cargo ships to now navigating an armed drone over 1,200 miles, evading Israel’s Iron Dome defense system and managed to strike inside Tel Aviv causing a massive explosions. In addition to their ongoing war in Gaza, Israel has attacked or been attacked by Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to promise Israel unconditional and limitless support. But has anyone even asked if this support is LEGAL? According to the 1976 Symington and Glenn Amendments of the Armed Foreign Assistance Act, which is now a part of the Arms Export Control Act, the United States cannot give foreign aid, whether that’s economic or military, to any nuclear armed state that is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, but the United States gives billions of dollars every year to Israel and according to all international arms organizations, Israel has anywhere from 90 to 400 nuclear warheads and Israel has not signed the NPT. So how does this legally happen? The United States and Israel simply pretend Israel does not have nuclear weapons, literally, that’s what’s done. It is called “Nuclear Ambiguity.” This nuclear ambiguity, which allows Israel to continue to receive billions from the U.S. and also operate and maintain their nuclear arsenal with absolutely no international oversight and zero regulation, is maintained and preserved through the threat of force. Due to a previously Top Secret gag order, all U.S. government agency employees and contractors are forbidden from discussing Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Even insinuating or mentioning information that’s already in the public domain is forbidden for all federal employees and contractors. It sounds hard to believe but let’s give an example: James Doyle used to work at Los Alamos National Laboratory as a nuclear security specialist. He violated this gag order. Doyle wrote an academic article arguing that Nuclear weapons do not do a good job at deterring countries from attacking one another, he wrote: “Nuclear weapons did not deter Egypt and Syria from attacking Israel in 1973, Argentina from attacking British territory in 1982 or Iraq from attacking Israel during the 1991 Gulf War.” A clear reference to Israel’s nuclear weapons. Doyle’s security clearance was promptly withdrawn, his home was raided, his computers were seized and he was fired from the Department of Energy. So apparently that’s how it works. In 2018, The New Yorker published a stunning report in which they discuss another way Israel’s nuclear ambiguity is enforced: secret presidential letters. According to former U.S. officials and former Israeli officials, every recent US administration since Clinton in 1993 has performed the same ritual as it came into office. They all agreed to undermine U.S. law by signing secret letters, brought to them by hand by their Israeli counterparts stipulating that they’ll never acknowledge what everyone knows: that Israel indeed has nuclear weapons. The National Archives is currently refusing to release the letters, arguing that even confirming their existence would violate the secrecy pact. So there’s a gag order that stops all federal employees and contractors from simply acknowledging Israel’s nuclear weapons and U.S. presidents sign secret letters promising not to acknowledge or pressure Israel to do anything relating to their proliferation status. That means asking questions like these are entirely off limits enforced by the threat of government violence or law fare. But all of this information leads to a series of questions: Where does Israel dispose of the toxic waste its program generates? Are Israel’s nuclear weapons ever used to coerce the U.S. into making adverse policy decisions? How about our allies? Besides apartheid South Africa, has Israel offered any of its nuclear weapons for sale to other foreign countries? To U.S. adversaries? Has Israel mounted nuclear weapons onto its German supplied Dolphin class submarines? Or their American supplied F-35 jets? No questions are allowed and what is the cost, the dollar amount, for Americans, of this “nuclear ambiguity” policy? To be exact, almost $240 billion dollars of military and economic aid has gone from the U.S. taxpayer since the passing of the Symington and Glenn Amendments. That’s far more than the United States spent rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan. And none of that quarter of a trillion dollars should have been allowed under U.S. law. That’s the price of keeping Israel’s secret. A quarter trillion and yet where is the International Atomic Energy Agency and international nuclear inspectors? The same ones who monitor every other nuclear armed country in the world? DOES ISRAEL PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS? Before the war, Israel’s Christian minority were already being targeted with dispossession and violence. In Jerusalem’s Old City, narrow streets line the ancient neighborhood and Jewish Israeli civilians spitting on and attacking Christian clergy members is commonplace in Israel. Evidence of this shows a video from a few days before October 7th of Christians in the Old City of Jerusalem carrying a cross while a group of Orthodox Jewish Israelis many of them children walk by and spit at the Christians. It’s become mainstream to believe Christians don’t belong in Israel and only Jewish people do. A few years ago, the mission, the Virgin Mary’s place of death, was attacked and vandalized by Israelis. The graffiti on the ancient walls read “Death to heretical Christians, the enemies of Israel,” and “May his name and memory be obliterated,” in reference to Jesus. According to Haaretz, at a Jewish school, the leader of an anti-assimilation group Bentzi Gopstien told students that it’s quote “mitzvah” or a “good deed” to burn and destroy Christian churches. Should Americans, especially Christian Americans be allowing billions of their tax dollars to be used to ethnically cleanse, attack and bomb Holy sites and Christian civilians? What has happened since Israel has launched its war against Hamas? Israel has displaced 2.4 million Palestinians in Gaza, 80% of the buildings and homes have been reduced to rubble, at least 45,000 Palestinians have been killed with 50% being women and children. In America, we’re told we should prioritize sending billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Israel over dealing with our own issues here at home because Israel needs to be able defend itself. Well, it seems like what initially appeared as a defensive war, is appearing more like an offensive war with the expansionist goal of the permanent military occupation of the Gaza Strip. Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this terrible attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza, a genocide justified by an attack that Israel could have stopped had they wanted to.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1941665181420904891/amplify_video_thumb/1941627551786385409/img/gp24yzSPk-cDYjh4.jpg)
![The Enemy Within: An American Muslim Claims - The U.S. is the Enemy of Islam By: Ofer Binshtok Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose many followers rely on his vast and profound knowledge of Islam, positions the United States—his birthplace and country of citizenship—as an enemy of Muslims. He asserts that the West, led by the U.S., fundamentally opposes Sharia and Tawhid, listing it alongside Israel and Russia as part of a hostile coalition against Islam’s victory. To him, Islam views the U.S. as an enemy, and every believing Muslim must recognize this. "The army of the Jews is a stone’s throw away with tanks and planes, waging war alongside the U.S.," he says, yet emphasizes: "They achieve a stunning, lightning-speed victory"—a clear allusion to the conquest of Damascus and the fall of Assad through Jihad. He declares Jihad as "the central pillar" of Islam, rejecting any permanent treaty with disbelievers like the U.S., who "will never accept Sharia," as it negates the struggle to impose Allah’s laws. Citing verses such as "And fight them until there is no more fitnah" (Al-Anfal 8:39), he permits only temporary truces. Jibril sees the victory over Assad as a step in the Jihad to establish Sharia, paving the way to defeat the U.S. and Israel—Islam’s primary enemies. Details of His Criminal Acts: In 2004, Jibril was convicted in Detroit, alongside his father, on 42 serious charges: conspiracy, bank fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and possession of firearms and ammunition as a felon. The prosecution uncovered a sophisticated scheme involving the destruction of his properties to collect insurance money, resulting in losses of about $400,000. A mail carrier identified mail sent to over 80 aliases, and fake voter registration cards under fictitious names were found at his sister’s home. Sentenced to 6.5 years in a maximum-security prison in Terre Haute, Indiana ("Guantanamo North"), he was released in 2012 and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. These crimes reveal a pattern of criminal behavior that aligns with his views. Background: Sheikh Ahmad Musa Jibril is an Islamic-American preacher, a graduate of the University of Medina in Sharia, and holder of a law degree from Michigan. He gained prominence through his lectures on Tawhid and Jihad, attracting numerous followers who admire his deep knowledge, though he sparked controversy after his 2004 conviction. His words are seen as influential among Jihad supporters via social media. Part Two: Implications for the U.S. and the Historical Dimension Muslims in the U.S. who adopt Jibril’s worldview pose a cunning and dangerous internal threat lurking within American society. With his profound knowledge, he makes it clear this is a religious duty for every believer, backed by commands like "And fight them until there is no more fitnah (non-Muslims)" (Al-Anfal 8:39) and "Slay the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them" (Al-Tawbah 9:5), perfectly aligning with Jihad’s practical actions. They live in the U.S. but are loyal to a vision aiming to topple it from within—part of a 1,400-year Islamic colonialist campaign that began with Muhammad’s sword, conquering Persia, Byzantium, and Spain, replacing entire cultures with Sharia. For them, the U.S. is a future battlefield, continuing a patient tradition that waited centuries to seize "infidel" lands. America’s internal security faces a severe threat—not immediate, but as part of a long, calculated historical process that Jibril and his followers represent. They exploit democratic freedoms to grow stronger and plan, just as Islam waited before Constantinople fell in 1453. The victory over Assad proves their plan is in motion, and the U.S. is a future target that could take decades or centuries—a strategy that reshaped the world over 1,400 years and, in their view, will succeed again. Chapter on Additional Supporting References: As stated in Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)” As stated in Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." As stated in Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." - The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran ); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amana publications-Beltsville. Maryland U.S.A. Page 599-601. [CERTIFICATION OF AL-AZHAR] IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy. General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. Mr, Nuh Ha Mim Keller. Amman, Jordan. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. To commence: In response to the request you have submitted concerning the examination of the English translation of the book 'Umdat al-salik wa 'uddat alnasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib in the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence, together with appendices by Islamic scholars on matters of Islamic law, tenets of faith, and personal ethics and character: we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'a). There is no objection to printing it and circulating it. The stamping of the pages of the above-mentioned work with the seal of the department has been completed. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Composed on 26 Rajab 1411 A.H.l11 February 1991 A.D. General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar [signed] Muhammad 'Umar Muhammad 'Umar [signed] Seal of al-Azhar [stamped] General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation. - Can Islam live in true peace with the infidels? No. By: Ofer Binshtok Only Hudna (truces), a temporary ceasefire, is made because Islam is in a weak position against the infidels. Hudna buys Islam time until its power overcomes the infidels, and then it will exterminate them, in accordance with Allah’s commands from the Quran and Muhammad. *According to Muhammad, Bukhari 1765, the earth belongs to Allah and his messenger, to Islam: Bukhari 1765: "…The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: I want this... - He said to them (the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle…" * According to Allah, from Qur'an 47.35, Allah commands the believers, do not seek peace when your hand is uppermost: Qur'an 47.35: "…So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior…" * When Islam is in a position of weakness against the infidels, they have a holy command from Allah from the Quran and Muhammad to lie to the infidels to buy time: Muhammad in Bukhari hadith 3029: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) called,: "War is deceit". Muhammad in Hadith Sahih, in Tirmidhi 1939: “Lying in time of war”. The message from Quran 3.28: Permission to lie to disbelievers as a defense, when Islam is in a state of weakness. Taqiyya. The message from Quran 16.106: "...Whoever disbelieves in [i.e., denies] Allāh after his belief...except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith..." * Indeed, Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels: “Islam is in an eternal state of war against heresy and disbelievers”. Quran 9.29 begins with: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah...” The message is also from Quran 8.39 Fight the disbelievers until only Islam will exists in the world. Quran 9.123 begins with: "O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near you..." The message is also from Hadith Bukhari 25: "Fight the disbelievers until they all convert to Islam and only then will their lives and property be protected…" * In 628 AD, Muhammad moved towards Mecca with an army of 1,400 warriors, a force that was not strong enough to face the mechanical army of the Quraysh tribe. This is why he signed the Hudna Treaty of Hudaybiya, a temporary 10-year ceasefire with the Quraish tribe. An agreement that was considered humiliating for him since he was forbidden to sign it while mentioning his status as a prophet and messenger of Allah. But Muhammad saw this agreement as a victory that gave him time to break the Quraysh's defense agreements with third parties (Bukhari 2731-2732). Which indeed allowed him a year later, in 629, to also attack the Jews of Khaibar. * According to Sharia law, hudna is a temporary ceasefire agreement for ten years; this is the only agreement that Muslims are allowed to sign with the infidels: * TRUCES (Hudna) 09.16 (O: As for truces, the author does not mention them. In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period, whether for payment or something else. The scriptural basis for them includes such Koranic verses as: (1) "An acquittal from Allah and His messenger..." (Koran 9:1); (2) "If they incline towards peace, then incline towards it also" (Koran 8:61); as well as the truce which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made with Quraysh in the year of Hudaybiya, as related by Bukhari and Muslim. Truces are permissible, not obligatory. The only one who may effect a truce is the Muslim ruler of a region (or his representative) with a segment of the non-Muslims of the region, or the caliph (o25) (or his representative). When made with other than a portion of the non-Muslims, or when made with all of them, or with all in a particular region such as India or Asia Minor, then only the caliph (or his representative) may effect it, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best left to the caliph under any circumstances, or to someone he delegates to see to the interests of the various regions. There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High says, "So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Koran ) Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce in the year Mecca was liberated with Safwan ibn Umayya for four months in hope that he would become Muslim, and he entered Islam before its time was up. If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) made a truce with Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud. It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years. The rulings of such a truce are inferable from those of the non-Muslim poll tax (def: 011); namely, that when a valid truce has been effected, no harm may be done to non-Muslims until it expires. * In 630 AD, Muhammad's power increased; he broke the agreement with Quraish and moved towards Mecca with about 10 thousand warriors and conquered it. The Quraish tribe converted to Islam, and Muhammad abolished the religious tolerance that existed in Mecca. With his own hands, he began to destroy the 360 holy sites for the different religions that lived there in mutual tolerance and harmony. He abolished this tolerance and left only the Islamic holy site. * Quran 8.58, in fact, allows Muslims to cancel any contract for "fear” that the other party will break it. Not because the other party violated the agreement, but only out of fear. So signing an agreement with Islam is basically meaningless. Quran 8.58: "If you are afraid of the treachery of some of your allies, you may disregard your treaty with them. God does not love the treacherous ones." In conclusion: As a religious command, from Allah, from the Quran, from Muhammad, and from Sharia law: * Islam is in a constant state of war against the infidels, until it destroys them. * When Islam is weak, the believers are commanded to obtain a hudna (temporary ceasefire) so that they can gain strength that will surpass the strength of the infidels. * There is no meaning in signing an agreement with Islam since they are allowed to violate it at any moment. * When the power of the believers exceeds the power of the infidels, the believers are ordered to abandon the Hudna agreement and destroy the infidels. - A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be established—that is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." - Islamic Conquests Throughout History](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1893989034554253679/ext_tw_video_thumb/1893986101515149312/pu/img/su5JR-omZK5TyU5m.jpg)